Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 9.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.00]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is unusual, but I understand not unique, for a similar bill was introduced during the Wran era. It is a bill to provide for a specific person to be admitted to the bar. This bill is necessary because of a failure in the process to ensure fairness and impartiality in dealing with an application for admission to the bar. An applicant must be qualified to apply, as is the case of Ms Wentworth, to the Barristers Admission Board, now known as the Legal Practitioners Admission Board. The admission board requires legal qualification, and statements as to the good fame and character of the applicant. If the applicant succeeds at that stage, a certificate of entitlement is forwarded to the Chief Justice and on a day set down by the Supreme Court the person can be admitted to practice at the bar.

In the case of Ms Wentworth the Bar Association notified the Barristers Admission Board and the court of its opposition to her admission, claiming that she was not of good fame and character. By summons to the court Ms Wentworth applied for admission. The Bar Association sought to be joined in that action, was granted standing in the court and supplied particulars at the hearing set down before His Honour Mr Justice Campbell. Ms Kate Wentworth lost her application to be admitted to the bar. There was no finding as to fame, but there was a finding that she was not of good character and thus not suitable for admission. Ms Wentworth appealed that decision to the Supreme Court sitting as a court of appeal, which found against her admission generally on two grounds. The first ground is set out on page 32 of the judgment, which I quote only in part:

For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that his Honour's conclusion that the appellant had not been shown to be a person suitable for admission as a barrister was correct, and that accordingly the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore not necessary for us to consider the question which is not without difficulty, whether any of the material supporting the conclusion that the appellant has not been shown to be a person suitable for admission should also lead to a finding adverse to her under Section 9 of the Legal Profession Act . . .

I shall come to the reasons referred to in that judgment later. The second ground was expressed at page 23 of the judgment, of which I quote only a small part:

The instances of allegations of judicial misconduct to which we have referred provide a sufficient foundation for a decision on this aspect of the appeal, and it is unnecessary for present purposes to deal with the numerous other disclosed in the evidence.

In other words, Ms Wentworth had made unfounded allegations against judges. It should be noted in dealing with this second matter, first, that the "numerous other [matters]" disclosed in the evidence referred to the fact that Ms Wentworth had taken a series of actions against people, including members of the legal profession. In this regard the Court of Appeal found, at page 13:

. . . that she had reasonable grounds to believe that some evidence given by some witnesses in the criminal trial and the common law proceedings was false.

As to whether she had made unfounded allegations against the judges, two points need to be made and to be emphasised. In a perusal of transcripts and pleadings Ms Wentworth challenges anyone to show a specific allegation or allegations of conspiracy made against judges. However, the fact is that His Honour Mr Justice Campbell, and later the Court of Appeal, found that she had. The complaints made by Ms Wentworth were made to the Judicial Commission. The Court of Appeal found that Ms Wentworth was not entitled to annex these complaints to her court affidavit and that the allegations were unfounded. If, in fact, any reliance was placed by either of the courts on the complaint made to the Judicial Commission, it appears extraordinary to me, as a member of Parliament, that a person cannot exercise his or her rights in making a complaint to the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission. After all, that is the reason for the existence of the body concerned, to receive complaints without prejudice and to evaluate those complaints.

The key factor, however, is that the allegations that have been made against Ms Wentworth in the case of the second ground raised by the Court of Appeal took place in 1986. Ms Wentworth did not commence her studies to become a barrister until 1988. She completed her barristers admission law course in 1991, graduating with a diploma in law. Ms Wentworth was punished for her actions as a lay person prior to her having undertaken legal studies. In 1986 she was before the court as a lay person, a person who was untrained at that time. I must emphasise that the vast majority of matters on which the Court of Appeal based its judgment were events that were supposed to have happened in 1986 or earlier, two years before Ms Wentworth commenced her study of law. Exceptions are referred to on pages 31 and 32 of the Court of Appeal judgment, which I will address later.

It is important to address the public perception of Ms Wentworth. That view is based on a case that she brought against her former husband, Gordon Rogers, at the time that the proceedings were abroad, in which
Page 3953
she alleged that she had been raped and buggered by her husband. This naturally led to sensational reporting. The committal proceedings went to the High Court and Rogers went to trial in 1985 before His Honour Judge Ward of the District Court and a jury. The jury acquitted Rogers. It was during that trial that sensational phrases were used by Alex Shand QC, counsel for Rogers, that she, Ms Wentworth, regarded herself as "mentally balanced". It was put to her that she was "a morally degraded person" both in her relationships with men and with her own children. It was also put that she was "a foul-mouthed woman" and that she "had the morals of an alley cat". In April this year in a retrial of a civil claim for damages, His Honour Mr Justice Sully described those phrases at page 10 of his judgment in the following way:

The effect of these lines of cross-examination was, as I think, to put the applicant on trial, and that in a manner calculated to insinuate about her into the minds of the jury, prejudice, indeed contempt and revulsion.

In my view that was disgraceful behaviour by Alex Shand QC. Women in general, and Ms Wentworth in particular, are entitled to feel outrage at the tactics and language used by Alex Shand QC. Page 11 of the judgment to which I refer stated:

The point is now taken, and I think with some force, that these lines of cross-examination were impermissible in principle, and that it is reasonably to be supposed that they played a real part in the ultimate acquittal of the respondent.

After referring to various other matters, His Honour said at page 14:

In my opinion, there is force in the submission put for the applicant, that the combined effect of the foregoing matters must be to raise as a real and a responsible question whether the trial of the respondent did not miscarry. If it be a reasonable possibility that the trial did indeed miscarry, then there is apparent force in the proposition that it would be unjust to permit, in effect, a tainted verdict of acquittal, to be used by the respondent not only as a sword against further prosecution upon the same charges, but also, so to speak, as a weapon to be turned positively against the applicant in proceedings for malicious prosecution.

I add to that "and to be turned against Ms Wentworth as a sword to prevent her from being admitted to the bar". With the exception of an admission matter before the Banco Court, all the evidence against Ms Wentworth comes from "the tainted verdict" in the Rogers litigation. Miss Wentworth says that she has now been vindicated by the determination of this case in her favour in front of Mr Justice Sully on 26 June 1994. I emphasise the force of that paragraph, that in fact this is a matter of a tainted verdict of acquittal of Rogers, and that this could be seen as the beginning of most, if not almost all, of Ms Wentworth's problems concerning whether she is a person of good fame and character. A woman who defends herself in such a highly emotionally charged atmosphere - we are talking about allegations of misconduct against fearful allegations made by Shand QC in cross-examination - must certainly be subject to ridicule in the public eye because of public reporting of the case.

I feel that this is a key matter of perception by people at the bar and on the bench as to what type of person Ms Wentworth is. Many women would identify with the trauma, stress and injustice of people coming to unreasonable conclusions in such a horrendous case. It is to be noted that initially Rogers was awarded $571,000 in damages against Ms Wentworth, but on retrial before a jury in front of Mr Justice Sully the jury unanimously found liability against Rogers and awarded damages to Ms Wentworth. Ms Wentworth was the victim. That should have put this aspect of the matter to rest.

I shall now address the other findings of the Court of Appeal. Without going into the complexity of the matters, they can be distilled as follows. The first finding was that in 1986, in three notices of motions, Ms Wentworth had abused the process of the court. That was the allegation. However, 1986 was two years before she commenced her legal training. The court addresses this by simply saying that when asked in 1992 - that is, after she had undertaken her law degree - whether it was an abuse of process, she had responded, "No". The point here surely is that a person does not have to agree with the reasons in a judgment. Ms Wentworth maintains that she had no intention of abusing the processes of the court. In 1992 the High Court found in Williams v Spautz that an abuse of process cannot be held to have taken place if there was in fact no intent on the part of the person to abuse the court process. It is quite clear that the facts complained of in this case occurred before Ms Wentworth commenced her legal training. Three other matters were referred to at pages 31 and 32 of the Court of Appeal judgment. At page 31 the judgment stated:

Campbell J. also found that on three separate matters the appellant had given evidence in cross-examination before him which he did not believe to be true. These matters related to

a) her belief as to the effect of a document issued to her by the Barristers Admission Board;

b) her belief as to the effect of certain particulars supplied by the Bar Association; and

c) her belief as to whether she had a fair hearing on a particular occasion before the Court of Appeal.

Each of these matters is discussed in detail by Campbell J.

The Court of Appeal went on to find:

We do not discern any error in His Honour's consideration of these matters or any legitimate basis for challenging His Honour's conclusion that the appellant was deliberately untruthful in the instances given, or His Honour's failure to be satisfied that a court could have confidence in the truth of what the appellant said, on the basis of there being a real risk of a court being deliberately misled by the appellant. This again is sufficient reason to find that the appellant has not been shown to be a person suitable for admission as a barrister.

As to whether their Honours had come to a reasonable conclusion, I am not qualified to comment, except to say that in each of the three matters referred to it is the belief of the judge as to the belief of the applicant. As a layman, I find that extraordinary. I repeat: it is the belief of the judge as to the belief of the applicant. This is the subject of an appeal to the High Court. It would appear illogical that one could come to a conclusion of deliberate untruthfulness based on a
Page 3954
belief of a judge or judges that it was or was not the belief of the person concerned. Surely the charge of being deliberately untruthful cannot be based, especially before a court, simply on the demeanour of the person in the absence of stand-alone evidence or conflict of evidence in testimony and on the impression that the judge forms of the person giving evidence.

If it is a simple matter that Ms Wentworth is not of good fame and character, why is it that the following distinguished persons were prepared under oath to swear as to her good fame and character? They include Judge Rummery; Judge Dent; Roger Gyles QC; George Masterman QC; Desmond Anderson QC; Christopher Gee QC; Joan Locke, barrister; Judy Le Keu, nursing sister; Anne Wilkins, Opera House manager; Carol Eyre, businesswoman; Dr Jocelyn Scutt, professor of law; Superintendent Bruce Huggett, former Australian Federal Police and NCA Commander; Ray Phillips, Australian Federal Police Intelligence, eastern region; Judith Morgan, citizen; Anne Deveson, journalist and Human Rights Commissioner; Anne Mitchell, citizen; Robert Goot, barrister; Philip Biber, solicitor; David Parker, businessman; Kerry Leotta, barrister; and myself, member for South Coast.

One would have to agree that this is an extraordinarily broad base of support by people willing to swear that Ms Wentworth is a person of good fame and character. The bar is split on the issue. There is a broad base of support for Ms Wentworth within the bar. Have they all got it wrong? I think not. Parliament must address this wrong, based as it is on the most subjective of judgments, relying as it does on opinion and conduct of matters in court by behaviour. The applicant was a lay person without legal training at the time of the matters complained of. She has now undertaken the formal legal training necessary for admission to the bar as a barrister. In my view this refusal to admit Ms Wentworth to the bar is a clear case of prejudice and injustice. This Parliament is established for the express purpose of redressing such matters.

I now deal briefly with the clauses of the bill. Clause 1 specifies the short title. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act. It will commence either one month after the bill is assented to by the Governor or when certain amendments made by the Legal Profession Reform Act 1993 commence, whichever is the later. Clause 3 stipulates that words and expressions used in the bill will have the same meaning as in the Legal Profession Act 1987. This clause also identifies Ms Wentworth as a party in certain litigation. Clause 4 provides that the Supreme Court is taken to have admitted Ms Wentworth as a legal practitioner. Clause 5 provides that the Bar Council must issue Ms Wentworth with a practising certificate as a barrister. Clause 6 states that the Legal Profession Act 1987 is otherwise applicable to Ms Wentworth. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Downy.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [9.19]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to retain Canterbury Hospital and to preserve all services provided at and through the hospital. Its purpose is to prevent the Government from closing down Canterbury Hospital, which the Government intends to do when the new inner west hospital is operating at Croydon. I and my colleagues on the Opposition side feel that we ought not to have reached the stage where it is necessary to keep the public eye open by way of a private member's bill. However, in view of the Government's stand on this issue, in which it has ignored all community appeals and professional advice to retain Canterbury Hospital, the bill is considered a necessary and responsible approach in the interests of preserving a public health facility.

In speaking to this bill, I shall point out some of the numerous objections to the hospital's closure that have been ignored by the Government. Over the past six months petitions signed by approximately 20,000 persons opposing the closure and calling on the Government to retain the service have been tabled in this House. That is one of the largest groups of petitioners I have witnessed in my eight years as a member. It is indicative of the groundswell of community support for Canterbury Hospital. In fact, the community has come out of the woodwork over the issue. I have received more than 600 letters calling for the retention of all public health services in Canterbury Hospital's catchment area. On 9 July the auditorium of the Belmore RSL Club was packed by more than 500 people at a public meeting. Amongst other things, the meeting resolved that "The people of the city of Canterbury demand that the Minister for Health reverse his decision to close Canterbury Hospital".

Unlike the more affluent middle-class regions of this State, most people in my electorate are non-reactionary. It usually takes something major to motivate them and, judging by their overwhelming response, the threat of losing their local hospital is most definitely considered by them to be something major. It is little wonder that the people of Canterbury feel this way. In 1910 the local community conducted fundraising functions to build a district hospital. That was 19 years prior to the hospital opening. I mention this to emphasise that the community's feeling towards Canterbury Hospital is both strong and tribal. It refuses to sit back and watch the Fahey Government close this facility when it has no mandate to do so.

The Minister for Health claims that he consulted the community prior to deciding to close the hospital. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Minister consulted a small group of residents residing
Page 3955
in one pocket of the hospital's catchment area, who represent no more than 1 per cent of the hospital's feeder population. The Minister did not consult on the closure of Canterbury Hospital at all, as the closure was inevitable under the Government's plan. In fact, we were hit with a fait accompli with respect to the closures of Canterbury Hospital and Western Suburbs Hospital.

In addition to disregarding the local community, the Government continues to ignore all professional advice presented to it by its own bureaucrats and advisers. The consultative committee that was appointed by the Minister recommended that if a new public hospital were to be built to replace Canterbury Hospital and Western Suburbs Hospital, it should be within Canterbury Hospital's feeder region, which is the Canterbury local government area. This recommendation was based on socioeconomic and geographic grounds. What followed was a blatant political manoeuvre. Initially, the Minister accepted his consultative committee's advice but, within two weeks, he succumbed to pressure from the honourable member for Strathfield and the local minority and decided to build a new hospital outside the Canterbury catchment area.

When the new hospital opens he plans to close Canterbury Hospital, thus denying approximately 140,000 people the services of a public hospital. Since that decision was made a report that was commissioned by the Government has come to light. The report was a review of clinical and emergency services within the region. This report called upon the Government to reconsider its decision to close Canterbury Hospital. Again, the Government continued to ignore its own advisers. Nowhere in the inner west of Sydney is there a greater need to retain a public hospital than in Canterbury, yet this Government plans to build a new inner west hospital at Canterbury's expense.

The Government proposes to spend approximately $62 million on a new hospital at Croydon, which will largely serve the Burwood and Strathfield areas, and Canterbury Hospital will close, leaving impoverished areas such as Lakemba and Riverwood nowhere within cooee of a public hospital. Though public hospitals are needed everywhere, they are vital to an area such as Canterbury. The suburb of Campsie, where the hospital is located, was this year recorded as having the lowest average income in Sydney. Those in Campsie fortunate enough to be employed earn an average of just $22,422 per annum. In fact, 70 per cent of Canterbury's income earners earn less than $25,000 with 40 per cent actually earning less than $12,000 per annum. To emphasise the poverty in the area, it should be understood that the average individual income in Canterbury Hospital's catchment is 10 per cent lower than the national average.

Canterbury has the highest number of aged pensioners in metropolitan Sydney; 43 per cent of its residents are from non-English speaking backgrounds, many in lowly paid jobs or unemployed. Canterbury has the second highest number of invalid pensioners and the highest number of youth recipients on handicapped children's allowances in New South Wales. All this points to a great need for public health services because the majority of residents cannot afford to take out private health insurance. Basic Medicare holders in the Canterbury region are estimated to comprise 90 per cent of the population. The Government plans to deny a service to that 90 per cent, leaving them with no alternative health care options. As at June of last year, total admissions at Canterbury increased by 7 per cent over the preceding year, and operations increased by 25 per cent to 4,182 per annum. In that same period the accident and emergency unit dealt with over 21,000 cases. That is an average of 60 per day.

The maximal use of the hospital has caused an exodus of potential patients to other hospitals. It is estimated that 40 per cent of obstetric patients in Canterbury's catchment go to other hospitals. These statistics emphasise that instead of closure Canterbury requires upgrading to approximately 400 beds to fill the gap in services and to conform with the State average, as its bed ratio is currently only one per 1,000 head of population. I shall deal with some specific provisions of the bill. Clauses 2 and 4 refer to the Act having commenced on 1 September 1994. This has been inserted to ensure that if the bill is approved by Parliament the Government cannot, prior to its proclamation, close the hospital or reduce any services that existed from 1 September of this year. This move was felt necessary because of the Government's stubborn record of opposing those who get in its way of dealing with Canterbury Hospital. The Government has ignored a resolution of this House which condemned it for its plan to close the hospital. The retrospective date from 1 September is therefore considered to be an essential element of the bill.

Clause 7 of the bill provides for the expiry of the proposed Act on 31 March 1999. This date coincides roughly with the commencement of the full term of the next government. I emphasise that clause 7 is not designed to allow future governments to close Canterbury Hospital; rather it will enable changes to services that were in place at September 1994 but may have become less relevant to the area or need substantial upgrading by 1999. In my opening remarks I pointed out that this bill has been proposed because the Government has ignored all community appeals and professional advice to retain public hospital services in Canterbury. As the Government appears adamant in its opposition to Canterbury Hospital this bill, if carried, will provide for the force of law to preserve the hospital. The Canterbury Hospital has served as a district hospital for the past 65 years. There is every good medical and social reason to suggest that it should continue to play its role within the public health system of this State. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Downy.

Page 3956

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.29]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It being 9.30 a.m., pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted.


Debate resumed from 22 September.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [9.30]: I oppose this bill, which is another attempt by the honourable member for Heffron to yet again alter and cloud the process of recovering from an ignominious part of our history - the HomeFund saga. The HomeFund saga continues as the honourable member for Heffron, through this bill, tries to seek further remedies and avenues for remedy for certain classes of HomeFund borrowers. Honourable members are very much aware of the concern that the honourable member for Heffron has expressed over a number of years on the HomeFund issue and of her assistance to borrowers.

As I have acknowledged in this House before, having served on the HomeFund committee of this Parliament with the honourable member, I understand her concerns about borrowers to be genuinely based, at least in part. Honourable members are aware also, of course, of the political overlay to all of this. They know that the honourable member has pursued this matter for years as a campaign which I am sure she saw as an opportunity to embarrass the Government. For whatever other reasons she conducted her campaign, and I have acknowledged her genuine desire to help HomeFund borrowers, there has always been a strong political overlay to this campaign and this debate cannot be divorced from that political overlay today.

In short, it is perfectly obvious that the political motives of the Opposition are best served if the HomeFund saga continues for as long as possible. I am sure that the strategists and the power brokers of the Australian Labor Party would consider it worth their while to ensure that HomeFund continues to be an issue in the politics of New South Wales for months and years to come. To that end, I have concerns about the HomeFund Mortgages (Reviews and Appeals) Bill introduced by the honourable member last week. Firstly, it runs counter to the process set in train by this Parliament last year to provide relief and justice for as many HomeFund borrowers as possible. Secondly, the bill will extend the misery of those borrowers who are involved with HomeFund. I acknowledge that for many of them, being involved with HomeFund has been one of the most miserable periods of their lives.

Against that, the late 1980s and early 1990s have been miserable for many people with home mortgages, or, indeed, finance of any kind, because of the recession, falling property prices and the overturning of what had been the conventional wisdom in the minds of many Australians, particularly those seeking home ownership for the first time, that home prices would always go up, that they would never go down. In this case home prices did go down as interest rates fell. People who were locked into fixed interest mortgages were losing equity in their homes and many of them went backwards. They ended up in the situation where the equity they had in their homes did not match the amount that they owed on their loans. That was not exclusive to HomeFund borrowers and that is a point that has been made in this House before and needs to be made every time we debate this issue.

It was acknowledged in the report of the select committee into HomeFund that the problems experienced by HomeFund borrowers were in part due to the recession that struck all of Australia, not just HomeFund borrowers, in the late 1980s. The bill seeks to open up another avenue of recourse for certain classes of HomeFund borrowers which would make their future course of action less certain than it is now. To that extent it would extend the misery of those people who are still suffering as a result of their involvement in HomeFund. One of the provisions of the bill is to permit borrowers whose rights to legal remedies were not extinguished by the HomeFund Restructuring Act 1993 to seek relief through the Commercial Tribunal for three years from the date the legislation commences or from the date of the HomeFund mortgage, whichever is the later.

Now that is quite different from the provision that already exists for those borrowers under a package agreed to by Parliament and set up by the Government last year as a result of quite extensive negotiation and discussion involving all of the power blocks in the New South Wales Parliament. Honourable members will recall that late last year the restructuring legislation, which had the support of the entire Parliament, was passed. The honourable member for Heffron wants to keep this issue open like some kind of wound - if you keep picking off the scab it will not heal. This bill does that for these HomeFund people. The Commercial Tribunal would be opened up as an avenue for certain classes of HomeFund borrowers, which would have a ballooning effect. The bill would make it possible for certain people to appeal to the Commercial Tribunal, which would have full powers of the Supreme Court to set aside mortgages, to make orders and alter contracts, as well as the power to go over the work that has already been done by the HomeFund commissioner. The Government does not view that as desirable in any sense.

The present process is quite certain. Each class of borrowers knows what its remedy can be. It is prescribed by the HomeFund Restructuring Act and by the Parliament and the Government in other areas. That action should continue so that as quickly as
Page 3957
possible, and in the most efficient and equitable manner, those people grouped into classes of borrowers can each receive an equitable recourse to the problems that they are experiencing under their HomeFund mortgage. To allow certain HomeFund borrowers to go to the Commercial Tribunal and to reopen the whole matter and start again - to have mortgages varied or things set aside, to appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law, which is their appeal right at the moment, and also to appeal on the whole matter - introduces uncertainty. Certain borrowers would be getting one remedy while others would not. It is not equitable from that point of view. It introduces further delay for those borrowers, and even the borrowers whom the honourable member seeks to help would find themselves locked into lengthy, complicated and extremely expensive legal action through this process.

I caution them to think carefully about whether they would want to go down that track, having been through everything else. The honourable member has said many times that she wants justice for HomeFund borrowers, but one of the important principles of justice is that it is available to people and that it is swift. If this bill becomes law, I would counsel borrowers to think about the extra delay, the extra difficulty and the prolongation of the agony that would be involved for those who might be tempted to go to the Commercial Tribunal. Is that what they really want?

Taking cases to the Commercial Tribunal would also involve enormous cost. The HomeFund Commission has already been established. As I understand it, by December 1995 about 8,300 complaints will have been dealt with, at a cost of about $10 million. The other night one of my colleagues calculated that the HomeFund committee sat for about 600 hours. That was the commitment of each of the members who served on the committee. I would think that the staff of the Parliament working with the committee - it did a good job - would have put in easily three or four times as much time. We all understand the complexity of dealing with the 8,300 complaints. Members of the HomeFund committee did not examine individual cases, only policy questions and matters of history. Dealing with the individual cases is an enormous task which the HomeFund Commissioner has been charged by the Government with doing.

Dealing with the complaints equitably, fairly and efficiently must involve the process that the Parliament has established. People will be grouped into classes of borrowers and dealt with by the commissioner accordingly. He has spent an enormous amount of time analysing and understanding the nature of the problem so that each person can be dealt with fairly, efficiently and cheaply. This is inexpensive justice, which is important to HomeFund borrowers. The last thing they need is to have another option tossed at them, for the honourable member for Heffron to confuse them further with a false hope that they will get better justice by going somewhere else. Opening up the whole process again will involve expense not only for the people involved but also for New South Wales taxpayers.

It is impossible to get a total estimate of how much it would cost to allow all the appeals to go through to the Commercial Tribunal, which is to be re-established by the bill with the powers of the Supreme Court and so on. Let us say that there would be about 4,000 cases. The costs could be in the order of perhaps $30 million, $40 million or $50 million. I counsel honourable members to think carefully about the additional cost that would be imposed on the taxpayers of New South Wales. If the HomeFund committee, which did not look at individual cases, took 600 hours of the time of each of its members, plus the time of staff of the Parliament - we calculated that the cost to the Parliament of running the committee would be upwards of $200,000 and probably a lot more - we can imagine the enormous, probably open-ended, cost to the people of New South Wales just in establishing the staff of the Commercial Tribunal to deal with this matter.

Why would we do this when the Parliament has already established the position of HomeFund Commissioner, with his office and his expertise, and the staff that have been working on the problem for a long time? They probably have at least as much expertise as, if not a little more than, the honourable member for Heffron, I would venture to add. Why would we set up another mechanism to dangle another carrot of false hope at the end of a very long stick? What the HomeFund borrowers need most is certainty about their future. One of the greatest tragedies of HomeFund is that people have had no certainty, almost from the day they took out their mortgage. The economy turned around, the basis on which they took out their loans changed, and a political campaign was waged by the honourable member for Heffron and others.

I am happy to acknowledge that it was based on genuine concerns but there was also a desire to extend the politics of HomeFund. At one time the Opposition saw HomeFund as its way of getting back into government. It certainly has not turned out to be that, because the Government has shown compassion, fairness and equity in dealing with all the concerns raised by HomeFund borrowers. It has set up a process which will give them the justice that they need with certainty and fairness and without an open-ended liability for the people of New South Wales in regard to the cost of running the Commercial Tribunal envisaged in the bill and the orders of payment which may be made by the tribunal. I urge all honourable members to think very carefully about the bill and to vote against it, as I certainly will.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.45]: Here we go again. As the honourable member for Ku-ring-Gai has stated, a parliamentary committee looked into HomeFund for about 600 hours. Deirdre sat and said very little of substance but there was a lot of emotion. As the honourable member for Ku-Ring-Gai has said -

Page 3958

Mrs Grusovin: On a point of order: I believe that the honourable member would do well to be a little more formal while speaking in this Chamber. I would prefer that we kept to the strict formalities. He should address me as the honourable member for Heffron and not be rather too familiar by using my Christian name.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour well knows the procedures of this Chamber.

Mr FRASER: I take the point. I was just testing to see whether the honourable member for Heffron was awake today; she normally sleeps in the House. After 600 hours of committee deliberation we came up with a solution that was fair and equitable and agreed to by all members of the House - to deal with the problems experienced by people in a home lending scheme devised by the previous Labor Government. As we all know now, that scheme had inherent flaws which placed undue hardship on borrowers. People in the cooperative housing area gave poor advice in some cases to prospective borrowers. I would guess that the majority of people left in the scheme who are having problems today are in that situation because of the advice given to them by the cooperatives. The leader of the cooperative group was Mr Peter O'Keeffe, who I believe is now giving advice to the honourable member for Heffron to bring in more legislation and to confuse the issue further for the poor people who accepted poor advice in the first place.

They are now being given more poor advice by the honourable member for Heffron and her advisers. They are being given false hope that they may get something that they are not entitled to. The honourable member's proposal would just give the lawyers another chance to drag something out maybe to make a few bob. It would give the honourable member for Heffron the opportunity to make what she thinks are a few more political points. When she organised the rally that was supposed to have thousands of borrowers out the front of Parliament House in Macquarie Street only a handful, 52, turned up. Who went to see them? The Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women, and the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing talked to them and listened to their concerns. But because there was not a large crowd the honourable member for Heffron saw that there was not a front page in it, there was not a story, so she did not bother to speak to those people. She did not say, "I have got you here under false pretences. We thought we would get more people". This is yet another example of the politics of the situation.

The honourable member for Ku-ring-Gai said that he understood the concern of the honourable member for Heffron for the borrowers. I do not think there is a concern. Originally I thought that the honourable member had a concern but when one sits back today and looks at what occurred one sees that every step of the way all the honourable member has done is play politics with the lives of people who were given contracts under a scheme set up by her Government that was structured so that increasing repayments would be covered against inflation. The economic guru of this country, who is now the Prime Minister, altered conditions in Australia and sent the country into a massive -

Mrs Grusovin: On a point of order: the honourable member for Coffs Harbour should come back to the substance of the bill. We are now hearing a rehash of the workings of the HomeFund committee. That has little relevance to the bill.

Ms Machin: On the point of order: it is quite in order for the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to canvass a number of issues, by way of background, concerning the HomeFund scheme. The bill goes to the nub of the question, that is, the mortgages involved in the scheme and how they have affected borrowers. The honourable member for Heffron, in her second reading speech, talked about the complaints system in the past and HomeFund generally. There were two paragraphs at the end of her speech, made on 22 September, which actually dealt with the matters contained in the bill. Considerable latitude was extended to the honourable member for Heffron, and she delivered her second reading speech without interruption. I would have thought that the remarks of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would have been within the scope of the bill, given the nature of its subject matter.

Mrs Grusovin: Further to the point of order: in my second reading speech I certainly did not canvass the workings of the HomeFund committee. I supplied information in order to explain why we should deal urgently with this matter, which relates to accountability. I ask that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour be requested to return to the substance of the bill.

Mr FRASER: On the point of order: honourable members need to know the history of this legislation. They should be made aware of how the scheme evolved, why people are in the situation they are today and why this legislation is before the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The bill deals specifically with the Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales and its relationship to certain HomeFund matters. The debate, which is complex, has occupied a lot of the time of this House. However, that does not mean that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is free to reopen every aspect applying generally to the HomeFund debate. His remarks must be pertinent to the substance of the bill before the House.

Mr FRASER: It is not correct to assume that inflation put these people where they are at the moment. The honourable member for Heffron, through the introduction of this legislation, is hoping to give these people an opportunity to obtain benefits or to resolve their problems. However, these problems are already being attended to by the HomeFund Commissioner. This legislation will do nothing more than prolong the agony that those people
Page 3959
are suffering. It will give them false hope. I do not know how many Opposition members believe that they can still make an issue out of HomeFund. As I said earlier, this matter was dealt with by this House late last year. The honourable member for Heffron, by introducing this legislation, is attempting to make it an election issue for March 1995. Very few people on the north coast - I can think of only one - have experienced problems since the introduction of this Government's legislative package. They have accepted the Government's restructured package and are now seeking to finalise their situation.

The legislation introduced by the honourable member for Heffron will not benefit my constituent. In the past people in Sydney, when taking out loans, were given false information and false hope. Now another carrot is being dangled in front of them. The poor advice that they were given in the first place has resulted in poor legislation that will give them an opportunity to sit back and believe that they will get something to which they are not entitled. This legislation will not resolve their problems. It is nothing more than an attempt to cloud the issue. Opposition members are playing with people's lives. HomeFund borrowers have had it hard for too long. As I have said, when HomeFund borrowers first took out loans they were given poor advice by people such as Mr Peter O'Keeffe, the adviser to the honourable member for Heffron. He gave false information and false hope to people when they first took out the loans. The honourable member for Heffron is not able to establish that the HomeFund Commissioner has not been successful and that the legislation that is now in place is not working. People are happy with what is being done for them. They are pleased that the HomeFund scheme, which was ruined by inflation and by the Federal Government - a scheme that was poorly set up by Labor Government in the first place - is no longer functioning.

Mrs Grusovin: No wonder you have problems in your electorate!

Mr FRASER: The only problem I have in my electorate is the fact that the honourable member for Heffron does not visit often enough.

Ms Machin: At least you do not get challenged for preselection.

Mr FRASER: That is right. The honourable member for Heffron should help her brother in Canberra to sort out the Civil Aviation Authority rather than attempt to interfere in the HomeFund scheme. The honourable member for Heffron is defending those who gave HomeFund borrowers poor advice in the first place; she is hiding them in her office; she is not letting them take full responsibility for that poor advice. This legislation is pure politics. It will not help HomeFund borrowers to resolve their problems.

Mrs Grusovin: This will not read very well.

Mr FRASER: It may not, but the speeches of the honourable member for Heffron never do either. This legislation will not assist those HomeFund borrowers that Opposition members purport to be helping. The honourable member for Heffron left HomeFund borrowers stranded in the Domain; she did not even bother to go and talk to them. At least Government members had the decency to talk to them to try to resolve problems that have been in existence for a long time. The HomeFund scheme, which was established by the former Labor Government, was of poor design. It was a plank of the Labor Government to give people housing but it had all the wrong ingredients. It built in inflation. Repayments could not be made because the Federal Government ruined the economy of this country. This legislation is another public attempt to play with the lives of HomeFund borrowers. Opposition members are saying to HomeFund borrowers, "We will promise you something", but all that they promise is further delay, additional costs and further agony. This is poor legislation, politically motivated, and not in the interests of the minority of HomeFund borrowers who are having problems. It should be rejected out of hand.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [9.59]: I do not support the HomeFund Mortgages (Reviews and Appeals) Bill. The honourable member for Heffron has, on three occasions, attempted to obtain approval for her legislation. Perhaps it is three times lucky! It should not be forgotten that the 30,000 HomeFund borrowers who benefited immensely from the HomeFund scheme exited it long before any concerns were raised by the honourable member for Heffron. The purpose of the bill, which was introduced by the honourable member for Heffron on 22 September, is to give the Commercial Tribunal the same powers as the Supreme Court has. I have some reservations about that, given that the powers under the Contracts Review Act 1980 are very wide, and include a wide ranging power to rewrite contract law.

Furthermore, it would enable some of the determinations of the HomeFund Commissioner to be dealt with by the same tribunal, again allowing for wide variations in some of the terms of the contracts that were originally entered into. All honourable members of this Chamber will remember the special sitting late last year when the House sat ungodly hours debating some of the merits of the bill. No-one could criticise or deny the fact that the Government has given an enormous amount of time, consideration and money to those people who are affected by the HomeFund scheme. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour referred to the fact that the Select Committee upon the Operations of HomeFund and FANMAC sat for more than 600 hours in deliberations and hearings. It could not be said that insufficient consideration has been given to the rights of HomeFund borrowers.

One of the terms of reference of the committee was to inquire into the problems of the HomeFund scheme and to arrive at a solution that would prevent similar problems from arising in future, in terms of checks and balances and accountability, and would provide an easier remedy and form of protection for the interests and rights of borrowers in the future. Borrowers were given some certainty about remedies.
Page 3960
Having been involved in the legal system for some time, I do not think any of those borrowers would have wanted to spend further time before the courts or quasi-legal tribunals such as the Commercial Tribunal, which takes a lot of time and effort and can be quite harrowing emotionally.

I thought the honourable member for Heffron would have given consideration to accepting the proposals of the Government in relation to the amount of time and financial counselling that has been provided to borrowers, and the substantial amount of money that has been provided by the HomeFund Commissioner; for example, compensation to the extent of $30,000. The HomeFund Restructuring Act categorised borrowers and gave each category certain rights of action. Some borrowers are entitled only to complain to the HomeFund Commissioner about mishandling of loans. Others are also entitled to seek remedies through the courts. The bill before the House would give borrowers in the last category access to relief under the Contracts Review Act and would totally rewrite that law. That access does not extend to borrowers with mortgages described as a State partnership loan, a rent-buy loan or an aged persons update loan, so they would also have access to the tribunal.

It appears that borrowers whose mortgages have been varied since the commencement of this Act are not affected by it and would also have access to the Commercial Tribunal. That lovely term double-dipping comes to mind. The Federal Government knows all about double-dipping in relation to superannuation. Government members submit that time and money should not be spent trying to determine the rights of these people. We should not prolong the agony by categorising the relief, whether claims are pursued through this avenue or taken outside as has happened to date. Last year a similar bill to this, which conferred on the tribunal the powers of the Supreme Court under the Contracts Review Act, was not proceeded with after the honourable member for Heffron agreed to the Government appointing a HomeFund commissioner. However, we are now getting a third bite of the cherry.

Rather than have to face the expense, delays and uncertainty of pursuing a legal remedy through the courts for this quasi-judicial tribunal, borrowers will be given one of the successful tenets to the legal system, and that is, a speedy and specialist dispute resolution mechanism. This Government has addressed many complaints about the legal profession. One of those complaints has been the long delays that have occurred in resolving disputes. The Government has provided a classic example of removing those delays. There will now be more certainty in relation to reviews and appeals, because borrowers will be able to pursue what the Government has offered financially through this scheme. The Contracts Review Act gives the Supreme Court wide powers in relation to unjust consumer contracts, including provisions for home mortgages. The tribunal would be given the same powers under this bill.

If variations of mortgages can be dealt with, there is the possibility that a borrower who has accepted a restructure under the scheme could bring a claim for relief and seek to have the tribunal consider the terms surrounding the original mortgage. When this matter was raised in the HomeFund committee hearings, concerns were voiced again about the parties to the original scheme. There were solicitors, borrowers and people advising them, financiers, and representatives of cooperatives. Preserving the right to review these contracts, with all the potential for parties to be involved, will prolong disputes indefinitely. The Government has tried to do the right thing to bring the matter to a head quickly by providing a number of tangible and rewarding options - dare I use the term "stunning options", as was used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!

The tribunal has the potential to undermine this carefully planned restructuring scheme. The first HomeFund Commissioner, the Hon. Andrew Rogers, concluded that borrowers would be better off if they were offered the certainty of a restructure rather than the uncertainty and delays involved in achieving any legal remedy. That needs to be considered carefully. People often start out in litigation assuming they will win something at the end of the day. Bearing in mind the costs that have been incurred in pursuing those proceedings, borrowers could end up with less than they started with, not to mention the fact that emotional trauma, uncertainty and frustration cannot be quantified and are not costed. Taking that into account, why would anyone not regard the offer by the Government as providing, as acknowledged by the commission, certainty and availability of sufficient redress in the scheme? Indeed, when considering the bill Parliament agreed that should occur. The bill offers no comfort to borrowers who might be tempted to withdraw and pursue a remedy before the tribunal in the distant future. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Under the HomeFund Commissioner Act an appeal from a determination can be made to the Supreme Court but only on a question of law and only with leave of the court. There is no appeal against a decision of the commissioner with respect to conducting, discontinuing or investigating a complaint. The bill will allow an appeal to the tribunal against both a decision and a determination, not confined to a question of law. The Commercial Tribunal - with attendant parties, though only three or four - in effect would be invited to conduct a fresh examination, thus duplicating all the work by the parliamentary committee set up by this House and the enormous amount of work by Commissioner Rogers. Against all tenets of certainty and expeditious dispute resolution, new evidence will be heard. Questions about what borrowers believe caused their problems will be reopened, bringing forward a whole new range of scenarios about the scheme. That process will go on and on.

Today I have senior students from Pymble Ladies College visiting this House. I will ask them how they would view their teacher giving them an essay extension, then a second extension and a third
Page 3961
extension. The possibility that extensions may be sought willy-nilly makes a mockery of the original intent of the honourable member's bill. Borrowers would be far better off accepting the certainty originally offered in the Government's scheme than pursuing the unlikely prospect of successful legal redress to recover money. The entitlement to hear new evidence would enable complainants to reframe complaints to overcome initial weaknesses that the HomeFund Commissioner found in their original complaints. Whether or not that proposal borders on the fraudulent, it is quite a frightening prospect.

Frequently complainants who have heard the commissioner define the area where he thinks their cases are weak and fall down decide to rejig their complaints to take account of those criticisms. That is similar to the analogy I used of students being given essay extensions by their teacher. Suddenly a whole lot of complaints could arise bearing no resemblance whatever to the original cause of complaint. I have great doubt about the benefits of the bill. Complainants will be enabled not so much to reinvent the wheel as to design a totally new wheel - assisted by outside parties and the commissioner's advice - and thus to substantially change the nature of their complaints.

When the Government considered possible relevant remedies, the limitation period under relevant legislation was suspended between 10 May 1993 and two years from the date of the commissioner's determination. This means that borrowers can take advantage of the HomeFund Commissioner Act complaints process and not run out of time to take any other action still open to them. That is not only double-dipping but having your cake and eating it too. The bill will suspend the running of the limitation period for a similar time whilst the tribunal deals with appeals. That does not happen in any other system. The bill will totally rewrite cherished concepts. Suddenly an action can be run in one forum while time is stayed on an action in another forum. Complainants will be able to eat out of one trough and not worry about losing their stake in another. In any legal system based on the common law such a provision would be knocked out. It is an abuse of process to be able to keep one claim on foot whilst the substance of the issue is being considered before another tribunal. The bill makes a mockery of what our legal system has come to expect in relation to finality and certainty of dispute resolution and non-double-dipping, if I can use that expression.

I turn to the total estimated cost of operation for the HomeFund commissioner's office. My friend and colleague the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai mentioned a figure of about $400 million for the restructuring package. This scheme will add about $40 million in facilitating pursuit before the tribunal of a range of further alleged legal remedies. The total estimated cost of operation of the commissioner's office from its establishment to the completion of nearly 8,500 complaints by the end of this year is about $10 million. If half of those matters are contract review cases, which would not be determined in that forum, the estimated total cost of additional necessary support staff, premises and administrative overheads would be $42 million. I suggest that the Independents should think very carefully about the lack of certainty and finality that the bill will create. I suggest that the Independents consider the comfort so many borrowers would have enjoyed by being able to finish disputes happily with one of the options allowed under the borrowers' scheme, bringing disputes to a conclusion, thus allowing certainty to prevail so that they can put their lives in order for the future. [Time expired.]

Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [10.19]: I oppose the bill that has been introduced by the honourable member for Heffron. I do so for a number of reasons, which I shall elaborate on shortly. However, I oppose the legislation primarily because it is yet another example of the Australian Labor Party trampling on people by trying to drag out the HomeFund debate for its own political purposes. The Labor Party has demonstrated regularly in this House that it has no regard for other people and their feelings, and no regard whatever for the ordinary everyday person; it just uses them as cannon fodder. That occurred in the health debate when Labor Party members pulled people out of obscurity, put them on national television, used them for their own political purposes, and then dumped them; they are gone - finished. This also occurred last week in the matter of costs for Dr Ryan. The Labor Party summoned Dr Ryan, a sick man with Parkinson's disease, put him in the cannon and shot him down to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, for its own grubby -

Mrs Grusovin: On a point of order: Mr Acting-Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member has strayed from the legislation before the House and is making reference to other people. The ICAC has absolutely no relationship to this legislation and I ask that you draw him back to the bill.

Mr TURNER: On the point of order: I know that the honourable member for Heffron has difficulty with her memory; she has a very selective and short memory. However, if she reads her own speech she will find that she spoke about people who are aggrieved, ordinary everyday people. I am merely making a direct comparison with everyday people who have been aggrieved at other times and for other purposes and I will draw that comparison together very shortly.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! I am sure the honourable member for Myall Lakes understands the substance of the bill and I suggest that he does not stray too far from it.

Mr TURNER: The honourable member for Heffron and the Australian Labor Party are continually using people for cannon fodder, and this is yet another example. They seek to drag out the agony and misery of people so that they can gain political expediency and political capital. This bill will extend the agony of people seeking recourse, perhaps for three years. Meanwhile, the Australian
Page 3962
Labor Party has continued to hold the sword over their heads, saying, "Don't do anything yet. There is more political gain in this for us yet. We can get a lot more out of it for our own purposes. Don't worry about yourselves; you just do not have the ability to get on with your life. We want to milk this for what we can". This is another example of the grubby tactics of the Labor Party milking this matter. It was a scurrilous attack by the honourable member for Heffron on the HomeFund Commissioner. She ought to go outside the House and say it.

Mrs Grusovin: Tell me about his experience.

Mr TURNER: The HomeFund Commissioner is a legally qualified practitioner and the honourable member for Heffron has denigrated him. What are her qualifications and that of her adviser who initiated these loans and put most of the HomeFund borrowers in their present position. Yet the honourable member for Heffron is using this grubby little cannon fodder for her own political benefit. I am pleased that for a change the honourable member is awake; she is sitting forward. This attack on the HomeFund Commissioner is scurrilous and is another example of the shallowness of the honourable member for Heffron. She has not the capacity to put forward proper debate on this matter. Almost half of her contribution was an attack on a person who was trying to do a job to the best of his ability on behalf of the strugglers, unlike members of the Australian Labor Party, who do not care about the strugglers so long as they are being shot out as fodder as part of Labor Party tactics. One needs to look a fair way into the bill to find its substance, because there is little of it. The HomeFund Commissioner in his report said that he wanted to provide security to those people. I quote from the HomeFund Commissioner of New South Wales "Special report to the Minister for Consumer Affairs" as follows:

I have long maintained that it was essential that the Scheme should be restructured. I will address this topic shortly . . . I recognise that the principal function conferred on me by the Act is the resolution of complaints made to me. It is at the heart of restructuring that it will involve persons who have not made complaints as well as matters not the subject matter of complaints. The only reason why I am venturing into the field is because, as I will explain, it appears to me that the complaints which have been made in most instances, may only be equitably dealt with in the context of restructuring.

And the HomeFund Commissioner moved expeditiously to do that. He gave hope and certainty to those who had been affected.

Mrs Grusovin: Which commissioner are you talking about?

Mr TURNER: The honourable member shows an abysmal ignorance. I thought she had some knowledge of the report. The honourable member has been running this matter and she does not know which HomeFund Commissioner I am quoting from. She shows an abysmal ignorance, not only of the matter before the House but even of the shadow portfolio she is supposed to administer. For the record I am quoting from the special report to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, dated 3 December 1993, by the original HomeFund Commissioner. Perhaps the honourable member might acquaint herself with that report. It might help the debate if she at least had some knowledge of what the commissioner actually said.

Ms Machin: She sledged him too, though, when he was around.

Mr TURNER: She sledges everyone but she does not sledge those, for instance, who initiated these dodgy loans and assisted her in putting together this bill.

Mrs Grusovin: I never cast aspersions on Andrew Rogers.

Mr TURNER: The honourable member for Heffron interjects and says she has not cast aspersions on Andrew Rogers. What is the purpose of this bill? Through this bill the honourable member is saying that Andrew Rogers got it wrong. If Andrew Rogers got it right the honourable member would not have sought to introduce this bill.

Mrs Grusovin: He is not the HomeFund Commissioner.

Mr TURNER: We have established that at least the honourable member knows who is the current HomeFund Commissioner. She obviously did not know who it was on 3 December 1993 because she could not remember who wrote the report.

Mrs Grusovin: You think he is still there.

Mr TURNER: The honourable member should not show herself to be sillier than she has already demonstrated by way of interjection.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! The honourable member will address his comments through the Chair, and I ask the honourable member for Heffron to refrain from commenting.

Mr TURNER: I believe that somewhere on record the honourable member for Heffron has made disparaging comments about the amount of money that was paid to Andrew Rogers. I am sure that is on record, but often Labor Party members have selective memories on those sorts of things. The honourable member for Gordon referred to double-dipping, and that is basically what this is all about. The Labor Party is suggesting to people that they may be able to have a second bite of the cherry while the HomeFund Commissioner has given them hope, direction and certainty. If the bill is passed - and one hopes that it will not be - it will offer uncertainty for another three years. Also, the honourable member for Gordon, an honourable and brilliant lawyer, said that nowhere else would this occur; that it is double-dipping; it is running two actions at the same time. The legal system does not have the capacity to do it. But, of course, the honourable member for Heffron does not worry about such things as the legal system if she can use people for her own benefit and for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party.

Page 3963

As I said in my preamble, members of the Opposition are most adept at using innocent people in our community, and those who are perhaps less better off than members of this House are, for their own personal political gains. A short while ago the honourable member for Heffron made an interjection that cast aspersions on Mr Andrew Rogers QC. To highlight the selective memory of the honourable member for Heffron I draw the attention of the House to a speech she made on 3 March 1994. I suggest the honourable member familiarise herself with the content of that speech before asking for a bowl of water to wash her hands over the alleged criticism of the former HomeFund Commissioner. Andrew Rogers QC said in the letter to the Minister contained in the front of the commissioner's report:

. . . plans for restructuring the HomeFund scheme have a profound implication for the work I am required to carry out under the Act. It is accordingly desirable that I present my views to the Parliament on what I conceive to be necessary in both respects.

The former commissioner presented his report after doing a tremendous amount of work in a short period of time to address the issue. Yet at every turn the honourable member for Heffron has sought to undo and undermine the work of former Commissioner Rogers and of the present commissioner for her own grubby political purposes. Day in and day out she has put up roadblocks in an attempt to thwart the Government's intention in respect of this matter - intentions guided by former HomeFund Commissioner Rogers and the present HomeFund Commissioner McRae. At every turn the honourable member for Heffron has attempted to undermine the former commissioner and the present commissioner, their work and their reports, for her own political gain.

If the honourable member thinks she is scoring points in the community by bringing forward this bill, she is wrong. Those who come to see me about HomeFund related problems - and there are but a few in my electorate because the HomeFund scheme was a success there - ask me when the Labor Party will drop this matter and let them get on with their lives. They want to know when the Labor Party will stop using them for base political purposes. I make these suggestions to the honourable member. Go out into the community and talk to the people. Do not hide behind letters purportedly received. Ask people whether they want certainty in their lives or whether they are happy to be used as cannon fodder by the Labor Party. Inquire whether they are satisfied with being pawns in the political game that the Labor Party continues to play.

People with HomeFund loans were seeking certainty about their positions. They got it from Andrew Rogers. The honourable member has been undermining that certainty day in and day out by her statements in this House. I will not sit idly by while she makes such statements. At every opportunity I will highlight the insincerity of the Labor Party and its undermining of a system that can work and should be allowed to work. She will not allow that to happen. I not only oppose this legislation but I condemn it because the honourable member for Heffron uses it for her own grubby political purposes. I will not stand back and see the people of my electorate and of New South Wales generally used as pawns for the Labor Party's benefit.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [10.35]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

Question put.

The House divided.

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

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

Page 3964

Mr Fahey Mr Irwin

Resolved in the affirmative.

Debate adjourned.




Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [10.41]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [10.42]: For reasons that were given earlier in this debate, the Government sees this measure as completely unnecessary. Most of the elements included in the proposed bill are Government practice already. Therefore, we steadfastly oppose this proposal to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act and indicate that we will divide the House on the third reading.


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


The House 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 Carr Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Doyle Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Harrison Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Mr Hatton Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Thompson
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon
Mr Langton
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 Petch
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mrs Cohen Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Griffiths Mr Souris
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Irwin Mr Fahey

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.


Debate called on.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [10.52]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

Question put.

The House divided.

[In Division]

Mr Beckroge: As a result of an agreement between the Government and the Opposition, I seek leave to call off the division.

Leave granted.

Division called off.

Debate adjourned.


Debate resumed from 22 September.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [10.53]: I would like briefly to summarise the points that I made before debate on this bill was adjourned. I said that this bill
Page 3965
is a sham and a fraud. This bill was introduced by a member of Parliament who purports to represent the best interests of the people of New South Wales but, as I explained before, it is nothing more than an attempt to gain publicity. It is part of the re-election campaign of the honourable member for South Coast and, as such, it is woefully inadequate. I will refer quickly to some comments made by previous speakers in this debate. The honourable member for South Coast said, "Let the customers know what is going on with privatisation". The honourable member for Manly said, "It is all about public perception. Let us get the truth out". I agree with those sentiments. This bill is all about sensationalising a topic and gaining publicity but, as the honourable member for Manly said, "Let us get the truth out".

The Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts said that this bill is poorly drafted and conceived and it is actually just an expensive opinion poll. This bill attempts to put forward a proposition where there is no issue. Some sections of the community have expressed anxiety on this point. This bill seeks to sensationalise that topic and create further anxieties. The legislation would also not be binding on a future government. It is simply an expensive, sensational and fundamentally flawed opinion poll. What is the Government's record in relation to economic management over the last six years? The Government, during its first term, placed particular emphasis on a program of reform of government trading enterprises and the markets in which they operate. The Government spelt out the process by which commercialisation was to occur. The key principles underlying the reform program were sixfold: clear and non-conflicting objectives; management responsibilities; authority and autonomy; effective performance monitoring; effective rewards and sanctions related performance; and the achievement of competitive neutrality.

I stress, as I did before, that the Government does not have a formal policy on privatisation. That factor has also been referred to by the Treasurer. The Government follows a set of principles which see privatisation not as an end in itself but, under appropriate circumstances, as a means to an end - that end being proved economic performance and, hence, better living standards and higher employment for the people of New South Wales. Where privatisation is pursued it should be directed towards achieving the following: focusing the Government on its core social and regulatory policy and services responsibilities, leaving commercial activities to private enterprise which is best suited to doing it; improving productive efficiency; achieving allocative efficiency; providing financial benefits; the provision, where appropriate, of an effective regulatory framework to promote efficiency and protect consumer and community interests without any conflict with the Government's interests; and facilitation, where appropriate, of a broader capital market and wider share ownership.

These are the principles that the Government follows; it does not have an ideological bent on privatisation. The Treasurer referred to the fact that this bill is an extreme and heavy-handed reaction to the kinds of anxiety experienced by some members of the public when confronted with the notion of privatisation. In the absence of an understanding of the scope and purpose of privatisation as a device for the effective and efficient management and deployment of public resources, privatisation has become synonymous in the minds of some sectors of the community with a general withdrawal by government from the provision of public services. In fact, privatisation does not entail a diminished commitment to service but the substitution of one mode of ownership or service delivery for another. The privatisation issue is not placed in any context in the bill introduced by the honourable member for South Coast.

Under the provisions of this bill voters will be asked to express views on privatisation in the areas of public education, electricity, public hospitals and water without any explanation of the context in which such privatisation would proceed. For example, in the case of electricity quite different issues would be raised by the following approaches: the sale of the entire electricity sector; the separation of transmission as a public authority; and the creation of competing generating companies with one or more generating company sold and an independent regulator established to have oversight of the industry. The bill chooses four areas of public services - a somewhat arbitrary selection. In one area, that of electricity, we are seeing the nature of these industries change dramatically across Australia. I think there is general agreement between the Federal and State governments on industry changes that will benefit Australian society. A simplistic approach cannot be taken to this issue, especially in the area of electricity generation and transmission.

The bill seeks to create an issue where one does not exist. The Government has no commitment to privatisation as an objective in itself. The bill also demonstrates a failure to identify the role of government. The nature and delivery of essential services have changed considerably in recent years; and if this bill is seriously intended to promote debate in the community it would have to address those issues. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to gain publicity in the run-up to the general election in March. It will be nothing more than an expensive and ineffectual opinion poll. It attempts to sensationalise an issue and will do nothing more than gain a few headlines for the honourable member for South Coast; to add to the previous headlines which he has sought with regard to royal commissions. [Time expired.]

Mr ZAMMIT (Strathfield) [11.00]: I have read in Hansard all of the debate on this bill so far, and I should like to raise a matter that has not been mentioned previously. I have a difficulty with accepting that this bill does not follow a convention of the Westminster system. The Westminster system of government should not provide for a referendum that does not make a change to the Constitution. In other words, if there has to be a referendum, so be it, but it should deal only with matters that would effect changes to the Constitution. This referendum will not change the Constitution.

Page 3966

I am concerned that this referendum would cost the community a huge amount of money; and that community would be confused about words such as "privatisation" and "corporatisation". The cost of educating the public to ensure that everyone fully understands their meaning would be enormous. Even if the referendum were carried it would not be a legally binding obligation on the Government. I am not sure what the honourable member for South Coast intends. Governments are elected by the community to run the State as well as they possibly can. If they fail, the electors will judge our performance and take appropriate action.

When the Government came to office in 1988 the matters that the Greiner Government pursued were clearly formulated and clearly laid out for everyone to examine, so that the community could decide whether the Government was doing what the community wanted. Nothing was hidden. When the coalition came into office, government trading enterprises were paying dividends to the State in the paltry amount of a little over $100 million - maybe $115 million or $120 million. Today they are paying approximately $1.2 billion. And there has not been a reduction in services. The Opposition will not support this bill, because it also understands that it will prove to be costly and wasteful. It is not in the interests of the community to hold a referendum that lacks detailed information.

The other thing that concerns me is that important services to the community such as police, for instance, are not provided for in this bill. Does the honourable member for South Coast not believe that policing is a core service that is being provided? What is meant by core services? I can understand the feelings that were expressed by the honourable member for South Coast in his second reading speech but I do not think this bill will achieve anything. It is much more important for the Liberal Party-National Party, as a political body, to say what we stand for and what we want to achieve, and to set out the means by which we will try to achieve our objectives. No doubt the Labor Party will put forward its own proposals. It is up to the people on 25 March next year to make a judgment on what the Government wants to achieve and on what the Opposition wants to achieve in the best interests of the State. I do not think this bill is necessary and I do not think it has been clearly thought through.

I am sorry that the honourable member for South Coast introduced the bill because I do not think it will achieve what he is trying to achieve. It is much more important for him to be able to ask the Liberal Party-National Party and the Labor Party prior to the election what they stand for and how they will try to achieve their objectives, and then to make a judgment. I fully agree with the Treasurer and the views he has put forward. The Government is not anti-public service in any shape or form but it has to ensure that it is as efficient as possible. In the past two years under the present Treasurer there has been a substantial increase in productivity and a substantial increase in dividends to the State, and the Government should continue down that path.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [11.06], in reply: I thank honourable members who have contributed to this debate. The whole purpose of this legislation is clearly seen in the light of the opposition to the bill. The purpose of the bill is to give the people of New South Wales a say as to whether they want the core services as defined in the bill privatised, either in part - to the extent that it is privatisation by stealth - or wholly. In answer to the honourable member for Strathfield, the bill defines those core services as public education, electricity, public hospitals and water. It is true that police are a core service, and perhaps it could be argued that there are others. However, the definition of core services in this bill is limited.

Heaven forbid that we should see privatisation of parts of the Police Service, but if that is what the Government has in mind and it wants to include police, it can move an amendment in the upper House. I never thought in my wildest dreams that public hospitals would be privatised. That is why I included schools in the definition. My dreams of a fair and reasonable government were shattered. Let us examine the genesis of this legislation and consider how fair dinkum the Government is in its opposition to it. Tawdry excuses have been put forward: the bill is poorly drafted, it is too simplistic, it is not specific enough; and the Treasurer has said that the Government supports and will continue to support full parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal. That is clearly not true.

I introduced a public hospital privatisation bill that provided that before a public hospital could be privatised there must be a reference to the Public Accounts Committee, and if more than 25 per cent of the services of a public hospital are proposed to be privatised, the committee must provide a bipartisan report to the Parliament and both Houses of Parliament must approve the privatisation before it can be implemented. The Government voted against that legislation; it did not want the Parliament to retain the power on behalf of the people of New South Wales to decide on the privatisation of public hospitals. It wants the power to remain with the Executive, and the Executive to decide whether to sell off electricity generation or public hospitals, or to abandon responsibility for the delivery of water services and all the environmental issues that go with that.

Another test is what happened with the privatisation of Port Macquarie hospital. An extended Public Accounts Committee, of which I was a member, took evidence in Sydney and in Port Macquarie. We clearly heard from the people of Port Macquarie about their desperate need for a hospital. No-one wanted a privatised hospital - they wanted a hospital. The reaction of the Minister for Health and the Government to that was, "If you want a hospital within five years or even nine years, the only way you are going to get it is to privatise". Government members who have contributed to this debate - the honourable member for Barwon, the honourable member for Vaucluse and the Treasurer - said, "We
Page 3967
are not really interested in privatisation". But this bill flushes them out. Port Macquarie flushed them out. With Port Macquarie I made the specific point that the Public Accounts Committee should report back to Parliament and that both Houses of Parliament must agree to the privatisation before it could be proceeded with. But the Government did not want that. The Public Accounts Committee was treated disgracefully.

We were told that the design of the building, for heaven's sake, was commercial in confidence. That is the greatest trick that has ever been pulled by Labor or Liberal governments, State or Federal, to prevent scrutiny on what is done behind closed doors in the expenditure of millions of dollars on public contracts, the sale of public services and the provision of services to government. That even extended to the service contract, under which $4 million is being paid each year to what one could argue is in some ways a discredited transport company, Mayne Nickless. Real concerns were expressed by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Trade Practices Commission. We were not allowed, even as members of the Public Accounts Committee, to examine in detail the figures of the public service contract, and we still do not know for what exactly we are paying $4 million a year.

The Court of Audit I visited in Holland has a rule that commercial in confidence is recognised but that at least a month or two after a contract is let it becomes public information, because technology advances in such a way that public scrutiny cannot be prevented by saying that technology is going to be locked up for ever. That is nonsense. The Labor Party used commercial in confidence in exactly the same way with the Sydney Harbour tunnel and Darling Harbour. The real agenda of the Government is privatisation. This is what the bill flushes out. Give the people a say.

If Premier Greiner had gone to the polls in 1991 and said, "We are going to privatise public hospitals, or even only one or two" - not as Mr Hannaford, as Minister for Health Services, and Mr Phillips, Minister for Health, said to the Independents, "We are looking forward to privatising $1.5 billion to $2 billion worth of public hospitals in New South Wales during this term of Parliament" - they would have been history. But if they had said they were going to privatise even one public hospital they would have been history. If they had said to the people in the Liverpool area that the Catholic Church would be allowed to run a hospital in that area servicing 100,000 people - a population bigger than that of Adelaide - they would have been history.

They do not want to do that. They want to do it by stealth. They do not want a bill like this that gives the people of New South Wales a say. They want the Executive Government to be able to flog off revenue- earning government enterprises to private enterprise. They have certainly got water in their sights. I support corporatisation. I solidly oppose corporatisation as a step to privatisation. When we examined the corporatisation legislation for the Water Board we found significant omissions and clear signals that the next step was privatisation. When the bill on electricity came before the House, a flood of electricity authorities came to this place to talk to the Independents, the Opposition and the Government about their concerns. They could see clearly that not only were they going to be milked by government, but the next step was privatisation, initially of the generating industry and then later of distribution. For instance, a discrete area such as that of Prospect County Council could be privatised.

What about country water supplies? There is a discrete area in the Shoalhaven. That council provides the water supply. That could be sold off, and you could buy off the council by saying, "Okay, if that raises $10 million we will give you back $5 million and you can spend it on wonderful you-beaut local services". But what is the effect of privatisation? The Science Journal points out that in Great Britain chairmen's salaries went up, the number of bad debtors - those who could not pay their debts - increased by 50 per cent, and bills went up by 150 per cent. But what happened to the environment and accountability?

As Chairman of the HomeFund committee, unanimously supported by both sides of that committee, I brought to its attention that the problem with privatisation is that the path of public liability cannot be followed into the boardroom. In an interesting juxtaposition, former Premier Mr Greiner appeared as a witness before the committee, and I was the chairman. I asked him this question: "In fairness, in privatisation or in joint partnership arrangements have we solved the problem of how you follow public liability in the boardroom?" He said, in as many words, "No, we have not".

The big problem is that accountability for the environment is lost, opportunity for flexibility is lost, opportunity for contribution by those services to the budget is lost, as are democratic control, the right to speak, and accountability. The people of New South Wales, the general public, are not silly. When members talk about the simplicity of these questions, they do so knowing what privatisation is. They know that public hospital services can be privatised to such an extent that hospitals cease to be public hospitals. I went to a lot of trouble in three or four drafts of various bills - and have repeated that in this bill - before deciding on the figure of 25 per cent. Privatisation of some services within hospitals can be quite properly argued, but when privatisation takes over policy there are real problems.

Whether privatisation is done by Keating with airports, or even by the Thatcher Government - which would not have allowed the airports corporation to be privatised - or by this Government with hospitals, I as a private member and Independent in this House will oppose it. I believe many people in Australia oppose it. The debate at the annual conference of the ALP was rather hijacked, but many people in the ALP, and on the Liberal and National Party side of politics, do have real concerns. The honourable member for
Page 3968
Barwon said there could not be a private arrangement for irrigation. He knows that under the definitions of the bill that is nonsense. He obviously has not read the bill.

I supported the moves made by the Government, because there is a role for privatisation. But there is no role for privatisation in core services such as water, electricity, public hospitals and education for the people of New South Wales. Any person who thinks that a government cannot privatise education should think seriously again about it. There can be discrete units in education. There can be arrangements, as exist now, in universities - quite properly in my view - in which students can be contracted from overseas. Universities make a lot of money out of overseas students. There can also be specialist high schools, specialist courses and discrete units of courses in high schools. If it can be done in something as complex as a hospital, it can be done in education.

Greinerism is running strong in this Cabinet. As Independents, we are aware of that because we experience it time and again. However, the Independents hold the balance of power and have been able to slow this down. In an edict repeated on television recently, former Premier Greiner said, "I don't see any reason why the Government should own anything in theory. Sell the lot off". The Government will sell the lot off over my dead body. The people of New South Wales should be given a say and then the Treasurer, the honourable members for Barwon, Strathfield and Vaucluse, and others who wished to speak but are unable to because of time constraints, can trot out these powerful arguments.

If the Minister tried to trot out those privatisation arguments to the people of New South Wales, the Government would go down like a ton of bricks. That is why the Government seeks to defeat this bill on the tired, worn-out rhetoric that it is poorly drafted and ill-defined. If the Government were to put those questions to the people of New South Wales by referendum, they would know exactly what the words mean. The New South Wales Teachers Federation is also most concerned. John Hennessy, General Secretary, in a letter dated 3 May stated:

The Federation has just been made aware of your introduction to Parliament of a Bill which was read a second time on 17 March 1994 concerning the privatisation of core Government services. The Federation has a long-held concern about privatisation.

That organisation, a body of professional people, felt that part of the education system could be privatised. The letter further stated:

We have recently suffered the effects of a private cleaning service and the effects of the privatisation of the delivery of some courses in TAFE and the Adult Migrant Service.

The association sought to arrange an appropriate time for a discussion with me on this matter. The Bathurst Trades and Labor Council in a letter dated 13 April stated:

Our concern is that if the issues are split and the questions are asked for each public utility, this may provide an opportunity for backlash to occur, especially for electricity and water.

This council seeks to pose all the questions together, and not separately such as, "Are you in favour of electricity? Are you in favour of water?" and so on. The council is concerned that people may vote for one and not the other. I have also received a letter from the Blackwattle Australian Labor Party branch. The NSW Energy District, which represents the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Association of Australasia is concerned that my speech " . . . seems to emphasise schools and, particularly, hospitals, and puts less emphasis on electricity, and hardly any on water". These people are most concerned. I have close contact with my electorate - which it could be argued is a conservative electorate - and the message that comes through from the honourable member for Manly and the message conveyed to the Federal member for North Sydney, Mr Ted Mack, is loud and clear that the community has grave concerns about the possible privatisation of core services.

The community is aware of the mess that was caused in Great Britain. If the Government is so confident, it should support this initiative and if it is re-elected at the next election, with the support of the people the Government will be able to privatise these services. It knows that will not happen. The Government seeks to have executive power to privatise outright, or, more likely, to privatise piece by piece by stealth. The honourable member for Strathfield said that he was concerned that a referendum should not be held unless it involved a change to the Constitution. This is the Strathfield version of democracy.

The Government might say it is elected for four years and can do as it likes, no matter whether it announced during the election campaign that it would pursue a particular course. But that would allow it to destroy the infrastructure of the country without the people having a say, except at the election. However, the trick at the election is that the people are not told what will be done. If the Government had had an absolute majority, with a fixed four-year term in this Parliament - or a three-year term, because the Independents would not have held the balance of power to insist on the four-year term - at least a dozen hospitals would have been privatised, and water services and electricity generation services would have been privatised to a limited degree. That is beyond doubt from my direct contact with members of Cabinet and other members of the Government. The cost would be minimal if the referendum were held in conjunction with an election. That would allow the matter to be decided by the people at the polls at minimal cost, and it would be money well spent.

Any statement by the Government that it has no commitment to privatisation as an end in itself is clearly a lie. If it were not a lie, the Government would have supported the proposal that it must have the approval of both Houses of Parliament before a public hospital could be privatised; and it would
Page 3969
support this bill and give the people a say. The Government does not want to do that; it seeks either to privatise piece by piece, by stealth, or to allow the Executive Government to make decisions which would then be a fait accompli before people in the ensuing election woke up to what had happened - and it was too late to buy the services back. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House 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 Carr Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Doyle Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Harrison Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Mr Hatton Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Thompson
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon
Mr Langton
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 Petch
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mrs Cohen Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Griffiths Mr Souris
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Irwin Mr Fahey

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.


Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr J. J. Aquilina.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.40]: I move:

That for the remainder of the session, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 78 be amended by:

(i) inserting after the word "answer" where first occurring the words "limited to five minutes"; and

(ii) inserting the word "directly" before the word "relevant".

In accordance with Standing Order 179 I seek that the matters be dealt with seriatim. For some time honourable members have been suffering during question time because in many instances answers given by Ministers bear absolutely no relevance to the questions asked. This has to be seen in the light of the government of the day. An answer given in question time yesterday was a classic illustration of the problem. This is not meant to be a criticism of this Government alone; it is a problem of government. It is the method by which governments dispense information under privilege of the Parliament. Government members ask the proverbial dorothy dix question. While dorothy dixers afford the Government the opportunity of informing the House about government works, government programs, government policies and government good news stories, in my view the same can be achieved by Ministers answering questions directed to them within a five-minute time frame.

Perhaps one criticism of the proposal is that a Minister might not have sufficient time to answer the question asked. Should that happen a Minister has ample opportunity at a later stage - after question time - to give further information by way of a supplementary answer or ministerial statement. The Opposition does not seek to amend the standing orders relating to those procedures. A Minister may make a ministerial statement either before or after question time to provide additional information should that be necessary. The present provision clearly is not working. Ministers are able to range far and wide over many topics. For example, the Premier may be
Page 3970
asked a question about the State Bank, but after two or three short statements he may begin to talk about the Cabramatta by-election to try to denigrate the Australian Labor Party candidate for that electorate.

Mr Photios: That has been done for a hundred years.

Mr WHELAN: I know it has been done for a hundred years, but it should stop.

Mr Photios: Wait till after the elections.

Mr WHELAN: No, I do not intend to wait till after the elections. The Minister heard my statement that that practice should stop. The second part of my motion requires that a Minister's answer be directly relevant. That would not curb the opportunities that Ministers have in this House to raise or answer matters. For example, a Minister who wanted to criticise and attack the Australian Labor Party candidate for Cabramatta has ample opportunity to do so under the present forms of the House. The Minister could do so when speaking to bills or to notices of motions. The Leader of the Government may at any time stand in this House and defame anybody and do so to the fullest extent.

The motion seeks to ensure that Opposition members can ask pertinent questions. The questions that may be asked have restrictions placed upon them. There is a curb on the sorts of questions that may be asked, but there is no curb on the extent of answers. Standing Order 78 provides that an answer shall be relevant to the question. However, a series of rulings by former Speakers, certainly not those of Speaker Rozzoli, have eroded that requirement, so that today answers need not be relevant to the questions asked.

I see no disadvantage to the Government by requiring that answers be relevant to questions. Ministers, if they wish, have ample opportunity to raise matters concerning them or their constituents or to deal with matters under their ministry. They may do so by way of ministerial statement, by speaking to Government bills, or by way of right of private audience. Opposition members and Government backbenchers may raise matters only in private members' statements - if those members are lucky enough to raise matters by way of dorothy dix questions. Even dorothy dix questions are limited, but the answers are not.

I turn to the second, and probably the most important, arm of the motion. For the first time a limit has been placed on the number of questions. The purpose of that limitation was to restrict the number of questions that members of the Opposition could ask. Questions on notice have restrictions placed upon them. Now, all members of the Opposition and Independent members are restricted to asking five questions during question time.

Mr Photios: It is a minimum of five questions.

Mr WHELAN: Last year this House sat for 45 days and only 456 questions were answered. It was a matter of luck that 10 a day were asked and answered.

Mr Photios: It was more like three under the former Labor Government.

Mr WHELAN: The former Labor Government was in office a long seven years ago. Ministers of this Government are stale; they are tired. They think there is a hidden agenda in this motion. This part of the motion will become a standing order, an order unable to be changed by a ruling made in this House. That is what the motion seeks. I cannot understand an objection to the proposal that Ministers limit their answers to five minutes - bearing in mind that a Minister has ample opportunity after question time to deal with matters by way of supplementary answers, ministerial statements and so on. A Minister should keep remarks directly relevant to the question asked. I repeat for the benefit of those on the Government side that that requirement will become part of standing orders.

Standing Order 78 is to be amended by virtue of the motion that I hope this House will carry today. I ask honourable members to give serious consideration to this opportunity now presented to them. This proposal is not to be seen as politically opportunistic. It is not to be seen as other than a means by which members will be entitled to ask questions and receive relevant answers. If the Government does not agree with this proposal, the Opposition will have to consider alternative methods by which the number of questions that can be asked can be increased. At the moment the House is hearing only five questions from the Opposition and five from the Government. Fancy a democratic institution placing a limit on the number of questions that can be asked!

Government members should look at the statistics on the number of questions asked. Of course there have been occasions when the present procedure has been abused. The practice of ensuring that the number of questions asked each day is limited to five from the Opposition and five from the Government is an abuse of the parliamentary process. I repeat that this is the first opportunity that this House has had to address those problems. If the Government and the Independents do not agree with the proposal, the Opposition will have to put forward another proposition to enable additional questions to be asked.

My complaint is not so much that the number of questions is limited to 10; it is that 75 per cent of question time is taken up by Ministers answering questions asked by Government members. They relate to information known only to the Government. Consequently, only 25 per cent of question time is spent on answering Opposition questions, and that can be seriously eroded by the taking of points of order. Question time should be devoted to Ministers giving answers that are directly relevant to questions asked. [Time expired.]

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [11.50]: The honourable member for Ashfield, who privately in confidence would state the real purpose behind his motion, argues quite superficially that the proposed
Page 3971
approach to question time is designed to free up the processes of the Parliament. At first blush, his case is reasonable. However, the reality is quite different. By his motion the honourable member is seeking to restrict the freedom of speech of Ministers of this House in respect of answers to questions. The motion would place restrictions on the rights and privileges of members of Parliament by seeking to gag Ministers in a way that has not been done in any Parliament in this country, State or Federal, in a hundred years.

The motion is an assault, not a reform, on measures already introduced in this House in recent years. I will address those reforms shortly. The motion goes beyond a balanced reform and seeks to constrict, not just restrict, the rights of Ministers, under the freedom given by this House and in accordance with the due process of the standing orders, in responding to questions from Government and Opposition members. It is a fact that in the past, Ministers of the Crown, Liberal and Labor, have wasted the time of the House when answering questions without notice. That is a fact. So this Government, with the agreement of the House, changed the standing orders to ensure that a minimum number of questions could be asked and would be asked. Formerly, we had as few as three questions asked and answered. On occasions there may have been 45-minute responses to questions. Under this parliamentary regime and under this Speaker there are structural impediments to that time wasting process through a requirement that there be a minimum of 10 questions and answers. It is regularly the case that that number is exceeded.

In addition to that reform, the Speaker has been enforcing the standing order that requires Ministers' responses to be relevant to questions. That standing order had not been enforced by previous Speakers, not even Speaker Kelly. Only this week the Premier himself was asked to draw his answer to a conclusion on the basis of relevancy. Regularly this Speaker, unlike any other, applies the current standing order requiring Ministers' answers to be relevant.

To argue, as the honourable member for Ashfield does, that answers must be directly relevant to the question asked will turn question time into an argumentative legal process. Points of order will be taken continually, absorbing the five-minute minimum set aside for Ministers to answer questions. In effect, answers may become shortened to 60 seconds merely because honourable members will be encouraged to take points of order. Consequently Ministers will not be able to give even base answers of more than 60 seconds duration. On the one hand Ministers will be told for the first time in the history of any Australian Parliament that they will have to get their message across in five minutes, and on the other hand honourable members will be empowered to take point of order after point of order to consume the five-minute restrictive period.

In lieu of question time there will be a courtroom-type debate on procedure. This motion if agreed to will continue to give honourable members an opportunity to ask a question but it will also reduce a Minister's time in which to respond. The motion is a cruel political trick. It is a hoax both on the people of New South Wales and on the Parliament to restrict the rights and privileges of Ministers to respond fairly to questions asked. I shall dwell for a moment on a recent High Court decision which received publicity in today's press. The High Court was asked to rule on restrictions on freedom to discuss political issues in the public arena.

Appropriately, the High Court found that freedom of speech is an unassailable right of everyone in this democratic country. The High Court found that one may comparatively exercise one's political opinion, or raise relevant anecdotal or circumstantial evidence - it need not be directly relevant. The Opposition is trying to say that if a question is asked on a specific issue it must be responded to within narrow parameters. Questions will become couched in politically restrictive terms to limit the response of the Minister. To restrict a Minister to referring only to matters that are directly relevant is to fail to observe that which the High Court sought to protect in terms of the nation's best interests.

That may sound a little semantic, but that is the reality. At present the standing orders provide for an onus which lends itself to freedom of speech in the form of a requirement that a Minister answer with relevancy. This proposal will unleash a relentless daily legal debate in question time and will restrict Ministers to responding to questions in a way that is blatantly unfair. This concept has never been embraced by a Liberal or Labor government, Federal or State. It is a nonsense and a hoax. The honourable member has the hide to argue this matter with a straight face. He is a good actor, a good clown, but not much more.

What he wants is for this Parliament to hear countless questions but no answers in response. The Government rejects outright this proposal. This House has already, through the good graces of the current Speaker, applied fair and reasonable rules to question time. The Independents, who stand more in judgment on this issue than I do or the honourable member for Ashfield does, know that to be the case. The Speaker of this House - as competent as any Speaker before him - in a fair and just way applies the rules of this Chamber to each and every honourable member. He has even thrown Ministers out of the Chamber during question time. I have not been thrown out; I am a model of decorum in this place. Some of my colleagues, however, have met with harsh treatment.

This motion would restrict the freedom of speech of Ministers and honourable members. It seeks to limit the number of answers whilst increasing significantly the number of questions. It flies in the face of the High Court's decision of today which sought to restrict any assault on freedom of speech in relation to matters political. Amending the relevancy rule to mean directly relevant is too restrictive a course of action. In this Chamber we are surely the masters of our own destiny. Surely the Parliament, in
Page 3972
upholding the rights, privileges and aspirations of the men and women of this country, has every right to free debate with minimal restriction but with an umpire in the form of a Speaker to determine whether or not Ministers are speaking for too long or whether Ministers are being repetitious. The Speaker has applied informal restrictions on time that guarantee freedom of speech. Today the Opposition is seeking to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Speaker of this House. The Opposition wishes to second-guess the good graces of this Speaker who enjoys the confidence of both sides of this House, of the Independent members and of the general public in a way that no previous Speaker has. That assault is unforgivable.

Mr J. J. AQUILINA (Riverstone) [12.00]: It is a sad indictment of the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs that he has reduced this important debate on the pivotal part of the daily routine of this Parliament to a political charade. It is irrelevant to raise the issue of whether the Speaker is a fair and just man and whether this motion seeks to place a straitjacket on the Speaker.

Mr Photios: It does by definition.

Mr J. J. AQUILINA: The Minister has suggested that the Speaker is not competent to interpret the standing orders of this Parliament. We are saying that the Speaker is bound by the standing orders, but when those standing orders are loose in the way in which this particular standing order is loose, he has no choice but to allow a rambling answer by a Minister. We have seen this farce day after day in this Chamber. Yesterday, in answer to a question concerning the honourable member for St Marys, a Minister rambled on about the Labor candidate for Cabramatta - the only possible link being that both are ALP members. It is absurd that the word "relevant" in Standing Order 78 has absolutely no consequence upon the requirement for a Minister to keep his answer strictly relevant to the question asked. My colleague the honourable member for Ashfield has sought to add the word "directly" before the word "relevant" to give the Speaker greater guidance in terms of relevancy.

The other issue relates to the proposal to limit answers to five minutes. I would be the first to acknowledge that question time has been abused for many years by Ministers from both sides of politics. The Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs said that he is a model of decorum in the way he acts in this Chamber. I cannot make a similar claim. I recall in the days when I was a Minister giving a 43-minute answer to a question. That was the way things were done in those days.

Mr Photios: Things have changed now.

Mr J. J. AQUILINA: Things have changed, and they have changed for the better. I would like the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to acknowledge that the Government has not changed things; the Parliament has. The Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs is not a member of the parliamentary Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, which has put forward recommendations for change. The Minister is concerned that the time allocated to a Minister to answer a question will be taken up by spurious points of order and interruptions. Government backbenchers are used to taking spurious points of order. I wish to put the Minister's mind at ease by moving the following amendment to the motion:

That the motion be amended by inserting, after the words "five minutes", the words "exclusive of any interruption including points of order".

I hope that puts to rest the spurious arguments raised by the Minister. I hope the Minister and Government members see their way clear to vote for the important motion moved by the honourable member for Ashfield. Question time is pivotal to the daily routine of this Parliament; it is what the public sees. Members of the public rarely listen to a debate of this nature, but at question time the gallery is packed and the media are poised at attention. It is vital that question time reveal the full dynamics of this Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [12.05]: I could not let this opportunity pass without responding to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Ashfield and the honourable member for Riverstone. I do not know how they can claim that, under Standing Order 78, there is no fairness and equity in this Parliament. I well remember being in this Chamber when Barrie Unsworth was Premier and took 45 minutes to reply to a question. If Opposition members were given an opportunity to govern this State they would apply the same rules. This motion is a farce. We know what Opposition members are capable of. But we have had fairness and equity from this Government. This House is the House of the people. If the honourable member for Ashfield did his sums he would be aware that Government members can ask five questions and Opposition members can ask five questions. The Opposition is seeking to limit to five minutes the time for answers to questions. The records for this year will indicate that there is not much difference in the time taken for answers to questions asked by Government members or Opposition members. On average answers are delivered in 4½ minutes. The same consideration is given to all honourable members.

However, at times Ministers need more than five minutes in which to answer a question. A Minister might be asked a question concerning a serious subject, such as drought relief or law and order. There are many issues that are important to the people of New South Wales and to members of this House. If Ministers were to be restricted in the time taken to respond to a question, that would be a denial of democracy and justice. Under the standing orders Ministers can answer a question by saying yes or no, and that has happened. This motion is a kite flying exercise by the Opposition. As I said earlier, if the Labor Party were ever elected into office it would revert to its old rules. A leopard does not change its spots. If this motion is allowed, question time will be
Page 3973
taken up debating whether an answer is directly relevant to a question. The present system is working well - with a 158 per cent improvement on the old system and it is a great step forward.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [12.10]: That question time is for questions is an axiom, but question time in the Westminster parliamentary system is for a range of things. Honourable members would be well aware that often the last thing on the list is the seeking or giving of information at question time. I do not think we can curb human behaviour to that extent. Question time is an important form of the House and plays an important role in our Westminster system. In the Westminster parliaments of the world questions without notice have done more for democracy than any other parliamentary form. Leaders have either excelled or have been destroyed by their performance in question time. In that sense theatre is important to the parliamentary process. It enables us to judge the performance and disposition of leaders, and that is important. It is important also for us to establish their honesty, their strengths or their weaknesses and to determine whether they have a grasp of their portfolios.

I have heard on a number of occasions an apocryphal story concerning Premier Askin. He would often leak questions to the Opposition as a means of keeping his Ministers on the ball. I do not think that is a bad tactic. I have heard also an apocryphal story concerning the House of Commons. After a lively question time a young member of Parliament walked out of the Chamber with a senior government member and said, "We certainly gave the enemy hell today". The senior government member said, "My boy, the first thing you have to learn is that they are the Opposition. The enemy is behind me". In Great Britain some of the toughest questions come from behind the Minister. I would like to see that happen here.

Mr Jeffery: Michael Egan did that to Neville Wran once.

Mr HATTON: Sometimes it is unintentional. It keeps Ministers on their toes. Governments have been brought down on their performance. On most occasions question time is abused - that has been so from time immemorial. The Independents tried to address that issue. The Government has been very responsive and has limited the number of questions to 10. I think the system is working quite well. However, I am concerned about this proposal regarding complex answers. To be honest, I am in a bind whether or not to support the motion at this stage. The Government invites this sort of motion when the Premier totally ignores convention and continually addresses political matters that have nothing to do with the questions.

Members of the Labor Party, especially the honourable member for Ashfield, are the last people on the planet who should complain about that. Over the years their record has been abysmal. I have seen Leaders of the Opposition ignored by the Speaker, a Minister given the call, urgency moved, and question time concluded. Alternatively, Ministers have taken up to 45 minutes of question time to provide answers. I foreshadow that I will move that this matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration and report back to the House by Thursday next. [Time expired.]

Amendment negatived.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.15]: The honourable member for South Coast has foreshadowed an amendment. As his time for speaking has expired, I will be pleased to move that amendment on his behalf. I find the motion moved by the honourable member for Ashfield hypocritical. I have been in this place for 3½ years and question time appears to operate better in this Parliament than in most other parliaments under the Westminster system. That is largely because of the amendment which provided a guarantee of 10 questions. It is fundamental that the Opposition should have the opportunity to ask questions of the Government. It has that right already. It is also a fundamental right for the Government to be able to answer in a reasonable way those questions that are asked.

I know it is some years since the Opposition has been in government and it will probably be many years before it is back in government, but perhaps Opposition members have forgotten that some issues are complex. It cannot be looked at from the perspective taken by the Opposition, that is, the cheap shot, the attitude of having a go and seeing what headline can be gained. Some issues take many days, sometimes months, and certainly hours to resolve what may on the face of it appear to be a simple matter. For a Minister to provide an answer containing a level of complexity that reflects the importance of a question may take more than five minutes.

The honourable member for Riverstone recalled that when he was a Minister he took 43 minutes to answer a question on one occasion. I presume he felt at the time that he was applying his usual standard of integrity in offering that answer. Now that he is in Opposition, why does he believe it is fair and reasonable to limit the Government to one-eighth of the time he took to answer one question. All honourable members want answers to be relevant to the questions, but sometimes it is difficult to work out subjectively what is or is not relevant, particularly when the Opposition wastes time taking spurious points of order and making spurious interjections. The honourable member for Ashfield has been guilty of taking many points of order. On a batting average you would have to say he has just about got a duck on most of those points of order. Points of order can interfere with the flow of a Minister's answer and the thought processes involved in providing answers to the House.

If one acknowledges that the Opposition can take what are often spurious points of order, or make fruitless and silly interjections - a bit of a folly, an ego trip - one would have to say a Minister is entitled to to ensure that the Parliament is fully apprised of the
Page 3974
answer. I note that there have been some discussions between the honourable member for South Coast and the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs about this matter. On that basis, and on behalf of the honourable member for South Coast, I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word "That", the following words, "the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee consider and report by Wednesday, 24 October 1994, the proposition that".

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [12.20]: I listened with a great deal of interest to previous contributions to this debate. I do not think any member who contributed listened to me. With respect to the honourable member for South Coast and to the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, if a Minister is restricted to five minutes - and the effect of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Riverstone would have been to exclude the time taken to discuss points of order and other incidental matters - there will be no difficulty in a Minister being given five clear minutes to answer a question. It is the oldest trick in the book to reduce a Minister's time by taking points of order. However, that amendment was withdrawn and it is likely that it will be referred to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee.

A Minister is not restricted. A Minister has the opportunity to provide supplementary answers after question time, and that occurred yesterday. A Minister has the opportunity to make a ministerial statement before question time. Leaving aside supplementary answers, a Minister can also make a ministerial statement after question time. If he cannot answer a question in five minutes without interruptions during question time, he has an opportunity to do so by way of supplementary answers, ministerial statements and dorothy dixers - although far be it from me to tell the Government how to run things. The Opposition knows how keen the Government is about dorothy dixers. Yesterday's Hansard contains a very good question I asked about the senior executive service of the Police Service, at a meeting in August, putting the proposition, recorded in the minutes -

Mr Photios: Is this relevant?

Mr WHELAN: Of course it is.

Mr Photios: Directly relevant?

Mr WHELAN: Absolutely. Directly relevant, maybe not to the question but to the debate. Mention was made of dorothy dixers. These are not questions asked by backbenchers, but prepared by the New South Wales Police Service. The Opposition is concerned about the Government politicising the Police Service and the public service. This very serious allegation was contained in a document. How can the Government say that the passing of this motion would result in a restriction on Ministers? I have demonstrated that Ministers have adequate and ample opportunity to reply at any time.

Mr Hazzard: You changed that when you were in government.

Mr WHELAN: I covered that point but you were not listening. This is an amendment of the standing orders and will go into the standing orders and be part of the standing orders program for ever and ever. If the Government wants a commitment we will put it in statute form. Maybe that will have to be the move the Opposition makes ultimately in relation to the standing orders of this Parliament.

Mr Photios: You are saying that because you know you are going to lose the election.

Mr WHELAN: Not at all. I am prepared to take as much as you can offer, and give you odds and points start, if you want to have a bet about the election. We will have a talk about that after this debate.

Mr Photios: Which election? Which year?

Mr WHELAN: I am talking about the one scheduled for March 1995. The Government is sensitive about this issue because whenever the Opposition asks questions, the answers are all over in a minute, except for irrelevancies. Yesterday the honourable member for Campbelltown asked a question about the Carmel Niland report. Within a very short space of time the Premier switched straight over to a defamatory article that appeared in a Cabramatta newspaper. The Premier was just about to defame the Labor candidate for Parramatta. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai asked a question that was clearly in breach of the standing orders and in breach of an honourable member's rights and entitlements in this House. Government members cannot talk about abuses of the forms of this House. It is the Government that is abusing the Parliament and its principles.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order: the honourable member is referring to the wrong member. It was the honourable member for Davidson, not Ku-ring-gai.

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

[Time expired.]

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.


General Business Notice of Motion No. 10, standing in the name of the honourable member for Londonderry, called on and lapsed.


Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [12.25]: I move:

That this House calls on the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing to allocate additional and specific funds in order to provide the necessary early intervention services for developmentally disabled infants of Canterbury.

Page 3975

Although the motion refers to infants of Canterbury, I am referring to infants in the entire Canterbury local government area, not just in the Canterbury electorate. These infants fall within a feeder region of the Department of Community Services that includes the local government areas of Marrickville and Leichhardt. The motion basically refers to problems with services for intellectually disabled children within that region. This is not the first time I have spoken on this matter. I have mentioned it in private members' statements on a couple of occasions, and I referred to it in my contribution to the budget debate last night. But it is necessary to move a motion at this time in the hope that, when it is carried, the Government will be convinced by the argument to do something about providing additional urgent funding to relieve a severe problem in support for intellectually disabled infants.

There is a crisis in the Canterbury area. In the Canterbury local government region alone more than 20 children who are under school age require immediate intervention services such as physiotherapy and speech therapy. Taking in all regional centres, about 40 children need these services. I am referring to infants, that is, children under the age of five. When a child with intellectual disabilities goes to school, the Department of School Education usually provides those services, though I believe they are still funded by the Department of Community Services. The only hope families have of these children getting attention prior to attending school is through community services assistance at local centres, such as the one at Marrickville.

I know of three mothers in the Canterbury electorate area who have sent their children to Ashfield Primary School specifically to enable their children to receive speech therapy. Over the last six or eight months services at that school have been drastically reduced. Parents are losing out not only with preschool children but also with school age children because the Department of Community Services is not allocating sufficient funds. A good percentage of these infants are Down's syndrome kiddies. Some have disabilities more severe than others, but they all have either or both physical and speech deficiencies. The experts say it is vital that young children are treated at an early age. Some of these young children have to be taught how to eat, how to chew their food.

Some children with intellectual disabilities do not commence walking until two or three years of age because they have to be taught how to walk. Unfortunately, their brains do not connect with their reflexes, and for that reason it is most important they receive professional support and attention from an early age. If these children were shown basic skills at a young age, government would be saving millions of dollars in later years by not having to provide care services or group home accommodation because the problem would have been nipped in the bud. Support services for these children are supposed to be provided by the Department of Community Services, but very little is happening in the Canterbury area. The department's centre at Marrickville is just meeting the demand.

Last year the centre at Marrickville employed a full-time physiotherapist for three months, from June to September. It was not until February 1994 that the centre employed a locum, who left within a number of days. In the meantime about 40 children had to rely on the services of a part-time physiotherapist. The centre's speech therapist has to deal with about 50 clients. The parents of children who attend the centre have been told that funds have been overspent on the program. Since this Government came to office in 1988 the Department of Community Services has underspent its budget allocations over six years to the tune of approximately $150 million, yet the parents of these children are told that funds have been overspent on this program and there is nothing more available.

Mr Longley: Overspent?

Mr MOSS: Overspent on the program designed to look after those children. Because the Government has underspent on this allocation, there should be something in the kitty to provide for this needy service - and I am convinced there is. A part-time physiotherapist works only 24 hours a week and is not replaced when off sick or on vacation, as happened earlier this year. It is a little like the argument I put up last night in my contribution to the budget debate: when Concord Hospital has a shortage of staff, the accident and emergency unit has no replacements. Yet here we are talking about a process that should have plans in train to provide for emergencies. I maintain that accident and emergency units in hospitals and therapy services available through the Department of Community Services should have contingency plans to cope with staff shortages, but obviously that is not the case. Currently the best attention a child can hope to get at the Marrickville centre is a short session once a fortnight. However, some children are receiving physiotherapy once a month; and a further group of children are on the waiting list to receive treatment, but have not received any indication as to when that will occur.

A physiotherapist's position was advertised in March or April, but was not to be filled until July. The Minister says there is a shortage in the system. In correspondence to me he has pointed out that there is a lack of speech therapists and physiotherapists. As I said earlier, that is mainly because the Government does not duly recognise the professional qualifications of speech therapists and physiotherapists. The Minister has advised me that the Department of Community Services has written to the University of Sydney asking it to draw attention to employment opportunities for therapists in the inner west area and throughout the department generally. That is a move in the right direction but it does not go far enough. Simply asking universities to cooperate will not achieve anything unless the Minister properly recognises the qualifications of those professional people.

The Government does not appear to have any problem attracting doctors, lawyers, architects, or engineers to top government positions. It does so by recognising their qualifications, by providing
Page 3976
appropriate employment opportunities and by providing them with the means to progress through the public service into very senior levels. Obviously this is not the case with speech therapists and physiotherapists. Until the Government establishes some scheme to duly recognise the professional qualifications of these people by offering them good employment packages, there will always be a shortage of those staff. The parents of these children are beside themselves. Not only do they have the general stress of rearing and caring for a child with intellectual disabilities, they also have the added problem of obtaining government assistance. To their credit parents in my area have formed their own group and operate their own preschool program with the support of the local council, and I applaud them for that. However, I fear that their action will give the Government an opportunity to bow out and pull back further from its responsibilities. [Time expired.]

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater - Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing) [12.35]: The people of Canterbury are indeed fortunate that the coalition Government understands early intervention, because it is very clear that the honourable member for Canterbury has shown that he does not. Early intervention in the Canterbury area is provided by the Department of Community Services, the Department of School Education and the Department of Health. I am sure that the colleague of the honourable member for Canterbury, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, recognises that there are stunning options for early intervention in the Canterbury area.

Early intervention services in New South Wales target families with children who, from birth until they enter the school system, have a developmental delay or disability, or require specialised services without which it is likely that developmental milestones will not be achieved and/or a handicap may result. The Government is committed to early intervention services which are of high quality, systematically planned, culturally and linguistically appropriate and well coordinated. This is achieved through a structured early intervention service system with clear service components designed to meet the needs of families. These are health services, therapy, education, integration support in early childhood services, informal and formal family support, comprehensive and accessible information and support for transition to the school system.

In community services alone the Marrickville disability team, which services the Canterbury electorate, provides 1½ physiotherapy positions, including an additional eight hours of service recently made available. The Marrickville disability team offers a comprehensive service including family support and counselling, behaviour management, assessment and advice, and various therapy programs. There are 1½ speech therapy positions available and the recent addition of an occupational therapist has enhanced the team's capacity. An additional 20 hours of therapy has been directed to the zero to five-year-old age group as a direct response to the recognised need in the Canterbury area. Approximately $120,000 is spent every year by the Department of Community Services alone to provide early intervention services to the children of Canterbury.

Further services are provided by the Department of Health and the Department of School Education. Those two departments are currently involved with the Department of Community Services in enhancing coordination of services. In Canterbury and across the State the Government has been engaged in the early intervention coordination project. The project has the goal of working with families with infants and toddlers who have disabilities or developmental delay across the range of health, therapy, education and other support services. Implementation of this coordination framework will positively impact on the whole service system. The coordinated response will broaden the community's knowledge about children with special needs and will promote new, more flexible and more responsive ways of working with families.

This commitment is why the New South Wales Government in 1991 established a three-year pilot early intervention coordination project to place the family at the centre of the planning process. It is important to recognise that the family ought to be at the centre of this process when young children are involved. This project will more effectively target existing resources from all possible sources through improved coordination and accountability. It will make the existing service system more responsive to individual families and it will more effectively target specialised resources through an effective interface between generic and specialised services.

The project and its many achievements to date have recently been independently evaluated and an extensive process of community consultation undertaken on the proposed forward directions for early intervention services in New South Wales. Achievements in this project have already been significant. The proposed system and service coordination has been trialled in three pilot areas: southern Sydney, south-west Sydney, and the north coast. One of these projects has been piloted in the Canterbury local government area and will involve a community consultation process. In addition, evaluation of the implementation process in the pilot areas will ensure that the final recommendations to the Premier represent the best possible basis for the development of a coordinated service system.

The honourable member for Canterbury has raised the important issue of early intervention. I am pleased to advise that the Government is making very significant progress by providing early intervention to the children of New South Wales. That is another example of the Government's commitment to providing a range of options for children and families, especially children with disabilities. The honourable member for Canterbury referred to the difficulty in filling a number of positions earlier this year. The honourable member wrote to me about that, and has mentioned it in the House. On 23 May I responded
Page 3977
to him by letter in which I indicated that there was a difficulty in recruiting therapists. This difficulty is a phenomenon across both private and public sector organisations and, again, throughout New South Wales. The level of commitment that this Government has to this issue is evidenced quite clearly by the fact that it undertook three recruitment actions to try to find suitable applicants.

The Government did not let the matter rest. The department was very active in seeking out therapist positions, and those positions have been filled and enhanced. The honourable member's motion has been more than satisfied because those positions have been filled and enhanced, as I have indicated. But the Government has gone beyond that. There is an ongoing difficulty with finding suitable therapists to fill vacancies. The department is deserving of praise because it did not let the matter rest - it has taken a forward looking approach to this ongoing problem. The area manager, Mr Fear, deserves full credit for discussing this matter with the University of Sydney and the Cumberland College of Health Sciences. Mr Fear wrote to the executive officer of the university and the college and requested him to make the students aware of this employment opportunity.

The Government recognises that this is a difficult issue, and it will be dealt with in a more proactive sense. Rather than be criticised by the Labor Party, the department deserves its commendation for taking a proactive, forward looking approach and seeking out ways to deal with this issue on an ongoing and future oriented basis. The department has taken that action. The principal concerns of the honourable member have been satisfied and enhanced. It is quite clear that the Government is committed to providing the best possible services to people with disabilities, including the key area of early intervention. This Government has those great achievements to its credit.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [12.45]: The honourable member for Canterbury has called on the Government to allocate further resources to his electorate. He is perfectly entitled to do that, but he ought to know that the Government has allocated further resources, not only to his electorate but right across New South Wales, for people with disabilities. The honourable member ought in all honesty to acknowledge that that is so. Extra funding has been provided in his electorate and across New South Wales by a government which, as the Minister says, is firmly committed not only to early intervention but to the general area of disability services, childhood services, and the community services portfolio generally.

This Government has done a stunning job. In Canterbury, Marrickville, Ku-ring-gai and other places throughout New South Wales it has implemented stunning options not only in health but also in community services. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the phrase "stunning options", which will go down in the history of this place. Certainly honourable members will hear it again between now and March 1995. The honourable member for Canterbury has called on the Government to provide additional resources. The figures provided to me indicate that in 1993-94 funding for children's services in the electorate of Canterbury was $219,000, and in the financial year 1994-95 that figure has increased to $288,258 - clearly a substantial increase. The honourable member for Canterbury should know that and therefore should not have proceeded with this motion.

Disability services also continue to be strongly funded in the Canterbury electorate. The total budget for the Department of Community Services this year is $1 billion - for the first time ever in the history of New South Wales. That is a staggering figure, a staggering commitment by this Government to community services. Since coming to office in 1988 the Government has almost doubled spending on community services. The honourable member for Canterbury, who was a member of the previous Government until 1988, should know that his government underfunded and underspent in community services to dangerous levels.

It is the Opposition that stands condemned for putting at risk the lives of children in New South Wales, particularly in early intervention. The Minister said that the Government's early intervention program for children ranges beyond the Department of Community Services. It also involves health and education. As chairman of the advisory committee on education, training and tourism, I assure the honourable member for Canterbury that the Department of School Education is a very active participant in the early intervention coordination project, to which the Minister referred. It is a vital project that this Government commenced, and it will see it to fruition. The project will ensure that there will be intervention at every step of the way in whatever area children interface with these three departments - which they will do for almost the entirety of their lives: health, from the moment they are born and through childhood clinics; school, where they are tested before they commence and again when they attend; and community services.

The development of early learning profiles will ensure that if children have a learning disability that has not been picked up by the health or community services areas, when they enter the school system and are matched against early learning profiles that disability will become clear to the education department at the earliest opportunity. Of course all help will be provided. The Government should not be condemned, as this motion seeks; it should be congratulated on the stunning options that are available in early intervention and the significant contribution that the Minister and the Government have made to the health and wellbeing of the children of New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [12.50]: I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues on this matter. Like the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, I am somewhat bemused that the honourable member for Canterbury has proceeded with this
Page 3978
motion in the light of increased funding for this specific matter within the Canterbury electorate. I invite the attention of the House to the fact that none of his colleagues have supported him in this motion. The Minister has at least two members supporting his position. They believe the Minister is doing an exceptionally good job as Minister for Community Services. I had experience in my previous working life with coordination measures, an aspect of the issue to which I would draw attention.

Others have spoken about additional funds provided within the Canterbury electorate for early intervention, therapy, treatments and so on. I will spend a little more time talking about the early intervention coordination project, a really exciting aspect of this work. There always has been criticism across the board that issues are put in little pockets. In previous times, particularly in regard to young people with disabilities, physiotherapists were in one pocket and health practitioners were in another. They never seemed to speak to each other. So in my opinion coordination is a key to the success of this type of remediation treatment. I commend the Minister for setting up this early intervention pilot project.

The objectives of the pilot project are to more effectively target existing resources through all possible sources of funding, to improve not only coordination and accountability but to make existing services more effective - as the Minister said, to make them more responsive to the needs of individual families. Families must feel that they are part of the participation process and that they are involved with what happens to these young children. One of those pilot projects, located within the Canterbury local government area, involves the community consultation process. I am sure the honourable member for Canterbury will be referring those people who talked to him about these kinds of issues to that project. I hope that he will invite them to become involved in the community consultation process so that the issues with which they are concerned can become part of the evaluation and implementation process, to be taken into account in the final recommendation to the Premier on further development of the coordinated system.

There are three key elements of the early intervention system to which I would draw attention. The first relates to support and comprehensive information for the family. We often hear from families of young children with disabilities that they are not aware of services and facilities that are available to them. That provision of comprehensive information is a really important aspect. Another element is the interdisciplinary team assessment. That assessment process requires involvement of the family. Remember, the family is a key to the whole process. That assessment process includes diagnosis, investigation of underlying causes, identification of health therapy, educational needs and goals for the child, as well as identification of the family's needs, concerns and priorities. Another element is the individual family service plan and an individual program for each child.

These elements are the key to very successful services in the future. I hope that the honourable member for Canterbury is listening carefully, for I am sure he would commend the project as an integrated and coordinated way of addressing the needs of these children. I think it demonstrates the Government's total commitment to meeting the needs of not only very young children with disabilities but also of older members of the community who have disabilities, and their families. Those families take a lot of care for these people and are rightly concerned about their future. The operational framework for the planning, development, delivery and coordination of the project is well under way. It is based on the philosophy, as the Minister said, of a family centred approach. It will establish responsibilities for service providers and methods for defining those responsibilities. [Time expired.]

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [12.55], in reply: I am not convinced by the arguments advanced by the Minister or the two Government members who supported him on this motion. The Minister told us there are now 1½ physiotherapists and 1½ speech therapists in the service. Am I supposed to be grateful for that? As far as I am concerned, that is not good enough. Then the Minister told us that the department is spending $120,000 on children in this area. I mentioned earlier that some 40 children attending the Marrickville Centre are in need of physiotherapy, and some 50 children attending that centre need speech therapy. That means that a lousy $1,000 a year is being spent on each of these children. At the same time the Government sees fit to provide $7,500 per day on legal assistance for the Treasurer.

Mr Longley: On a point of order: the motion is quite specific. The honourable member's remarks are completely irrelevant and he is introducing extraneous material. He knows that Labor administrations spent nothing on this issue in his electorate. I ask that he be directed to return to addressing the motion.

Mr MOSS: On the point of order: my comments are relevant. I am drawing comparisons between this Government's expenditure on children with disabilities as compared with its expenditure on other matters. I seek to make those comparisons to show the unfairness of the Government's treatment of this issue.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Glachan): Order! The honourable member should make only brief reference to such comparisons and then return to the leave of the motion as quickly as possible.

Mr MOSS: I will be brief. I have already mentioned funding to be provided to the Treasurer and I will be brief in mentioning that $7,500 per day in legal assistance was granted to the former Minister for Police. Yet the Government provides only $1,000 per annum per child under school age with intellectual disabilities. The Minister spoke about a pilot program, and he spoke about coordinating services, including consultation. I invite the Minister to come
Page 3979
to my electorate and talk to the parents of children with intellectual disabilities. They will be specific when telling the Minister what their wants and needs are. The Minister can be assured that they will not want another pilot program or express concern about the coordination of services. They want to know what can be done for their children who are on waiting lists for attention but are not getting that attention.

If, as the Minister suggests, parents are satisfied with the service why do they keep knocking my door down to complain? Why are they banding together to do something about the problems for themselves to make up for the Government's inactivity on this matter? The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai tried to convince us that everything will be wonderful this year because the Government has allocated $1 billion in its budget for community services. I remain unconvinced because over the past three years the Minister and the Government have been under budget in spending. The Minister may say what he likes about allocations, but those allocations will not necessarily be spent.

Mr Longley: On a point of order: the honourable member is flouting the ruling of the Chair. This year's budget is overspent, not underspent. The honourable member clearly does not know what he is talking about.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Glachan): Order! I do not need to hear from the honourable for Canterbury on the point of order. The honourable member is not permitted to introduce new material. I ask him to confine his remarks to the motion.

Mr MOSS: The honourable member for North Shore also spoke about the importance of information and assessment. Her comments were similar to those of the Minister on the need for coordination and consultation. The disregard for welfare services within the Canterbury area is symptomatic. For example, the community services office in Campsie was closed by this Government in 1989, so the parents of children with disabilities cannot go to that office seeking assistance. So much for consultation! The Government continues to downgrade other essential community services in the Canterbury area, such as the Canterbury Community Aid Bureau. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [1.00]: I refer to the report I tabled on 22 September 1994 which points to some specific problem areas the committee is experiencing with the postponement provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act. Honourable members will be aware that under the Subordinate Legislation Act all regulations have a sunset clause which requires that the regulations expire at the end of five years. Old regulations are being systematically repealed by a process called the staged repeal program. We have now reached stage 4, and on 1 September 1994 regulations which were made prior to 1 September 1986 were repealed. In many cases, expiring regulations are replaced by new ones made in accordance with the regulatory impact statement requirements of the Act. Figures supplied by the Parliamentary Counsel show that, as at 1 September 1994, there had been a reduction from a total of 976 regulations on 1 July 1990, to 646 regulations on 1 September 1994, a reduction of 33.8 per cent.

The figures supplied also show a reduction in the number of pages in this period from 15,075 to 9,535, a reduction of 36.75 per cent - a not inconsiderable achievement. When the Act was proposed by my committee in its July 1989 report, it was considered there would be a need for postponement of the staged repeal of regulations where a major ongoing review of the legislation could not be completed within the required time frame. The committee particularly mentioned the local government ordinances which were due for repeal in September 1991 but which, in conjunction with the review of the Local Government Act, could not be expected to be reviewed by that time. The committee accordingly made provision for two postponements of a year each in duration which would enable such large reviews to be completed.

Last year the Subordinate Legislation Act was amended at the instigation of the Premier to enable a further three postponements of a year each. The justification for this was that a number of regulations, such as traffic regulations, were under review and had already received two postponements. I might add that the committee was not consulted on this amendment prior to its introduction into Parliament. The committee at that time saw the potential for abuse of such an extensive postponement power, and requested a modification of the amendment, and that was subsequently made to require the committee to be given one month's prior written notice of a third, fourth or fifth postponement. Since that time the committee has received notice of numerous requests for third and fourth postponements. A number of these are referred to in the report.

Overall, the cases put forward for postponement lack proper substantiation by the departments. In order to avoid cases of this kind in the future, the committee recommends that the schedule in this report be completed and sent to the committee with each notification of a proposed postponement. Among other things, the schedule requires reasons for the postponement, a statement of the progress made in the review, its approximate cost, amendments made during the course of any postponements and whether the review is being conducted in house by consultants or as part of a uniform review with other States or the Commonwealth.

The committee believes that this schedule will provide Ministers, the Parliament and the committee with comprehensive information on the review of delegated legislation when that review is postponed
Page 3980
beyond the staged repeal timetable in the Act. Only by such means will it be possible to safeguard the significant gains made to date in reducing the regulatory burden. I conclude by mentioning one significant matter which was previously raised by the committee in its twenty-fourth report to Parliament. The committee drew the Minister's attention to the disallowance by Parliament in 1990 of a regulation which had repealed the animal trades regulations. The committee advised the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that the current non-enforcement of these regulations was unsupported on legal grounds and was contrary to the intention of Parliament.

In December 1993 the committee reported to Parliament upon the matter, reiterating that the current ministerial policy and departmental practice was contrary to the specific intention of Parliament. In a letter dated 4 May 1994 the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries responded to the committee's letter of 17 February 1994. The Minister advised that the recently completed review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act recommended the retention of the animal trade regulations. However, the Minister argued that the existing regulations were outdated and ineffective and would be expensive to enforce.

These arguments were previously the basis for the repeal of the regulations in 1990 and were taken into account in the debate on disallowance. The Minister's letter is confusing as he is arguing for keeping the regulations on foot, that is, postponing their automatic repeal, but at the same time refusing to enforce them. Two issues need to be taken into account by Parliament. The first is that the stance taken by New South Wales Agriculture undermines Parliament's most important safeguard on the abuse of delegated legislation, that is, its power of disallowance.

The second issue is whether the stance by New South Wales Agriculture has adverse consequences in terms of the objects of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Honourable members have seen television programs on that subject, and similar questions would constantly arise in their minds as to whether there is any control over the many pet shops that exist in New South Wales. Positive action needs to be taken by the Government to resolve the continuing departure by New South Wales Agriculture from Parliament's clear intention. I commend the report.

Report noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rixon) left the chair at 1.07 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]



Mr CARR: Has the Premier received a Dear John letter from his schools renewals officer, Mr Brian Scott, resigning from education's External Council of Review? Did Mr Scott say that his relationship with the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs had deteriorated to a state where it was unworkable? What action did the Premier take on receiving the letter?

Mr FAHEY: Honourable members would be aware that, over a number of years, Brian Scott has been involved in developing a number of programs for the Government in respect of school education and technical and further education. The Government recognises and values the contribution of Mr Scott during that period. Mr Scott, who has an enormous amount of ability in and insight into educational matters, has been of great assistance to a number of Ministers for education. His term on the External Council of Review has come to an end. I was aware of the fact that he was no longer serving in that capacity. I took great delight in writing to Mr Scott and indicating to him that I appreciated the contribution he had made to the education debate in this State. He had a valuable input into programs that have been implemented. They have been of significant benefit to students undertaking school education and technical and further education. I wish Mr Scott well for the future.


Mr JEFFERY: Can the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development inform the House what measures are being taken to alleviate the hardship being faced by farmers and rural communities during the current prolonged drought in New South Wales?

Mr FAHEY: I appreciate being asked a question on this subject by the honourable member for Oxley, who represents a rural electorate in New South Wales. The rural community in his electorate and 93 per cent of communities in this State are suffering from the effects of the drought. All honourable members would be aware that for some time the Government has expressed concern abut the effects of the drought and has taken steps to support rural communities during this period of difficulty. The Government has not restricted itself to implementing programs in this State. When the Council of Australian Governments met in Darwin in August I requested, and received, the support of other Premiers and of the Prime Minister to put drought on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments in February. This will enable us at a national level to take steps that will ultimately lead to an improvement in the way in which we look after rural New South Wales.

Several initiatives will ensure that that most important section of the economy is viable long after the drought is over, which we all hope is soon. In August I wrote to the Prime Minister and indicated to him that he must do something about extending the exceptional circumstances. I also said to him that it was sheer stupidity to allow farm workers to be taken off farms, away from the work they are doing, simply because their employers - the farmers - cannot afford to pay their wages. That is happening every day in New South Wales and in all those areas that are
Page 3981
affected by the drought. The stupidity is that the moment the workers walk off the farms and go on to the unemployment benefit no-one is available to feed and water cattle on a daily basis.

It is necessary for the future of rural Australia to keep those people in work so that the devastation is not felt by their families. They should be paid the unemployment benefit to remain on the properties. I raised both those points in a letter to the Prime Minister in August and I spent some time discussing those matters with him in Sydney and requesting him to do something about it. The Prime Minister has done something about the exceptional circumstances. The Federal Government has drawn a line on the map in the north of the State and has said, "If farmers happen to have a farm on one side of the road they will not qualify for exceptional circumstances, but if they have a farm on the other side of the road they will". The Prime Minister, in Canberra, is totally out of touch with what is happening in rural Australia, just as members of the Opposition are totally out of touch with what is happening in rural New South Wales. The Prime Minister is arbitrarily saying that the rain falls on one side of the road but does not fall on the other.

In August the Deputy Premier and I visited many areas of New South Wales that are affected by drought. This Government responded. It reacted in a responsible and sensible way with a package of $22 million for drought support in August. A committee of senior government representatives is monitoring the drought on a daily basis. Last night, while members of the Labor Party held a crisis meeting to determine ways to get out of their $10 million debt, Cabinet met and dealt with the crisis in rural New South Wales. I am pleased to announce today that the Government has responded further to the crisis in rural New South Wales. That response, totalling $65 million worth of support, is very much in line with what the community needs.

The devastation in New South Wales is affecting farmers, families and small business people. It is not confined to the country; it will also have an impact on the city. The impact on the city will relate to the cost of food. The price of bread, poultry and dairy products will increase. Figures obtained from rural lands protection boards relating to on-farm slaughters show that on the north coast the rate of on-farm slaughter at present is 0.5 per cent; in six months it will increase to 33.75 per cent. In the western district on-farm slaughter of herds and flocks is currently 12.5 per cent; in six months it will increase to 65 per cent. Of course, we all hope the rains will come and the drought will end. The estimated value of the grain crop in 1994 is $250 million; in 1993 it was $1.3 billion. That is less than a quarter of the grain crop this year as a result of the drought. The expected harvest of wheat in October 1994 is 660,000 tonnes; last year it was 5.8 million tonnes.

The Government has responded to the 93 per cent of New South Wales that is affected by drought. It has not simply drawn a line in the middle of the State and allowed benefits to people on one side of that line, as the Federal Government has done. This Government's response will provide relief for farmers, families and small businessmen. The Government will match the rural adjustment scheme - the exceptional circumstances - announced by the Federal Government on the basis of $10 million in State funds. An additional $1 million will be provided to New South Wales Agriculture for allocation to rural lands protection boards to ensure that all affected livestock in drought areas is humanely treated. The Government will provide funding of $0.2 million to animal welfare agencies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and WIRES - Wildlife and Information Rescue Service.

The honourable member for Broken Hill asked me a question in this Chamber recently about local government rate relief. The Government has indicated to local government bodies that it is prepared to extend borrowings. They will be able to borrow an additional $35 million on the basis that they determine where the relief will be given. It could be provided to small businessmen in towns rather than only to people on the land. Both groups of people deserve relief. When the drought is over, the money can be returned to the programs and the rates can be levied in a responsible manner.

The situation for families is extremely difficult. The emotional strain on families in the west of New South Wales is unbelievable and is causing enormous pressure. There is a need for a further subsidy to transport children to school by private vehicle conveyance. Funding of $7.5 million will be provided. For a 50 kilometre journey there will be a subsidy of between $7.50 and about $16. The Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and the Minister for Community Services have liaised to ensure that the generosity of people in the city enables carriage of charitable goods to be provided by Trackfast at no expense. Over-dimension vehicle permits and special livestock load limits will assist delivery of those primary products.

Grazing land seems to have captured the imagination of certain people. The Government has identified 200,000 hectares of Crown land and State recreation areas - I stress Crown land and State recreation areas - to be made available to allow stock access to pastures. This will enable the stock to get off the roads. People are on the roads all around western New South Wales and now the stock will be able to use the 200,000 hectares. This land does not include and will not include national parks. There will be a relaxation of conditions of the special conservation scheme to allow people to borrow at subsidised interest rates for conservation schemes without a ceiling of $800,000. An additional $500 in debt mediation assistance for farmers will be provided, with no funds being provided by the farmer. The State Government contribution for this mediation in conjunction with the Australian Bankers Association will increase from $1,000 to $1,500.

Page 3982

Currently $30 vouchers are available for domestic users of electricity; no vouchers are available for rural supply. These vouchers will be extended to apply to rural supply. In addition Pacific Power will provide a $10 million subsidy through the supply authorities, to assist electricity users in rural New South Wales. The St Vincent de Paul Society, the Smith Family and the Salvation Army are taxed to the limit, providing support in country towns like Bourke, Moree and Wilcannia. An additional $1 million will be made available to provide support to needy families who are in difficulty because of the devastation caused by the drought. Bore deepening grants will provide additional funds to ensure that bores are deepened to reach water tables from which they are currently not capable of pulling water. The cloud seeding that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation has mentioned will be continued.

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

Mr FAHEY: I turn to fodder and water trains. Currently it is costing some farmers about $3,000 to transport a load of hay from Western Australia to New South Wales. State Rail Authority, under the Minister for Transport, has arranged for supply available in the west to be taken into New South Wales at no cost. The $3,000 component on transport of hay alone from available supply in the west will be removed. There will be no increase in Valuer-General's fees for valuations of rural New South Wales, a saving of $300,000 to the west. Western division lease fees have been reduced. Leases now in towns are being examined by the Minister. There will be finetuning of the water, fodder and livestock agistment transport subsidy announced in August, to ensure that additional assistance is given. The Government has already extended the 1,000 kilometre limit to 1,850 kilometres to ensure farmers can get feed from South Australia if they should need it. The total aid package of $65 million is a responsible approach.

The Government recognises that this drought may be here for a long time, and has examined the need to address it daily, weekly and monthly. The Government has done that and has looked at scenarios right through to next winter. To ensure coordination, a drought relief coordinator operating out of the Premier's office will be responsible for ensuring that all agencies of government respond in these matters and that the utmost support is given to the people of New South Wales. The Government is going to ride this drought with rural New South Wales. To do anything less would be irresponsible. The Government recognises that for our future and to ensure the future viability of the rural economy in the years ahead it is essential that we support people in rural areas of the State. I contrast that with the irresponsible approach taken by Labor. Nothing whatever has been heard from Labor on drought. I quote Federal member Mr Bob Horne on the drought, as reported in today's Maitland Mercury:

I don't have an answer for those areas that fall outside the criteria. If they make a submission to me it will go to the Minister, but I can't guarantee that I can change the criteria.

Labor has absolutely no regard for the difficulties being experienced in the Hunter Valley, unlike the State member for Maitland, who has been constantly in touch with all Ministers, doing his utmost to ensure support for those in need in the Hunter Valley. I would urge all honourable members to realise the extent of devastation in our State at the present time. All of us should do all we can to assist those who are suffering under that devastation.


Mr WHELAN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development. Is it a fact that the honourable member for Blue Mountains has no development approval for his illegal airstrip, which he has been operating for the past 16 years? Is the honourable member attempting to sell the property? Is the solicitor acting in the sale the honourable member for Baulkham Hills?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. The Premier is the only member with the call.

Mr FAHEY: I thought the big shake-up on the frontbench opposite earlier this week was about giving responsibility to the honourable member for Ashfield, a man who seems to enjoy the favour of the Leader of the Opposition - unlike the honourable member for Liverpool, who I notice has moved to the backbench if not right out the back door. He is not even in the House today. He no longer wants to be embarrassed by the stupid questions that are asked in question time by his colleagues on that side of the House. I thought the honourable member for Ashfield became spokesman for police matters. I did not realise he was into real estate. I should have been surprised, however.

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

Mr FAHEY: Someone said to me, "Why would the member for Ashfield get police responsibilities?" I said, "Because he is an expert on liquor licensing laws". Maybe that is the real estate connection as well. I suggest, when it comes to development application approvals or otherwise, that the honourable member for Ashfield should take a trip out to Katoomba and check at the council if he wants the answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order. The level of interjection emanating from both sides of the Chamber makes it difficult for question time to continue in an orderly fashion and for Hansard and others to hear what is being said. The Premier is the only member with the call.

Mr FAHEY: There is no way that the honourable member for Ashfield is going to make any journey towards the west - for a couple of reasons. He might actually see what is happening in the west of this State, if he gets that far, and he might get the same sort of response the Leader of the Opposition
Page 3983
got when he went out to Bourke and Narromine recently. The Leader of the Opposition came back with his tail between his legs. They said to him, "Get out of here. After what you have been saying about the drought, you show total ignorance and have no idea about it".

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

Mr FAHEY: He came back and kept his mouth quiet.

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


Mr SMALL: I address my question without notice to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports. How does the drought assistance package for rural communities offered by our State Government compare to what the Labor Party states it is prepared to do?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order. I call the honourable member for Broken Hill to order.

Mr ARMSTRONG: I shall answer the honourable member's question straight out by saying that there is no comparison because Labor has no policy at all.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: At a time that has been recognised as the most severe drought in the recorded history of this country the response of the Labor parties in New South Wales and Australia has been minuscule and pathetic. This insidious and terrible drought has been building up for four years in the north of New South Wales and Queensland, denying country people the opportunity to eke out a living and to contribute further to the economy. This drought is regarded by the current Prime Minister as, "Just a normal part of country life". I wonder if the Opposition is prepared to support the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the drought is just a normal part of country life. There are not too many interjections at the moment from the honourable member for Port Stephens, who loves to chatter away in his inane fashion, because he is embarrassed - as is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - that the Prime Minister does not understand and does not want to understand. Now that he has made his money out of his pigs and has bought his new house, he could not give a damn about rural New South Wales.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: The bottom line is that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Carr, released a drought package, dated 12 October, which states, "State Labor Leader Bob Carr today released his own package for drought-affected communities". There it is: one page containing seven points. The Opposition touts itself as the alternative government, yet this package is its only answer to the worst drought ever experienced in this country.

[Interruption]

Did I hear the shadow spokesperson for conservation and land management say, "Burn it"? I agree; it should be burnt. This one-page document states:

Labor's additional drought relief measures include:

•introducing legislation to enforce mediation between banks and farmers to avert foreclosures and evictions;

That is point one. The Opposition's answer is to kick farmers off the land during the drought. No thought has been given to assisting the farmers on the land and keeping viability in country towns.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: Point two states:

•increasing the energy accounts payment assistance scheme.

It is too late; the Government has done that. Point three states:

•A special Rural Support grant to non-government organisations to assist families in rural areas.

The Government has covered that. The fourth point states:

•deferment from payment of council, water and Rural Lands Protection Board rates for farmers where financial hardship can be demonstrated;

The Government has covered that because it has matched the Commonwealth interest subsidy.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: The fifth point states:

•negotiating with the Legal Aid Commission to make legal advisers available to farmers and small business when dealing with banks and other creditors;

That will not encourage credit provision in the rural community. The Opposition is advocating, first, to kick farmers off their properties, to get rid of them, and, second, that they take legal action against the banks and the creditors, thus drying up all available finance in the rural sector. That is how much vision there is in this document.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: The sixth point states:

•despatching financial counsellors to rural areas to assist farmers, country households and small business in managing financial assistance payments and in their dealings with banks and other creditors.

What do honourable members opposite think about the 29 rural counsellors who have been placed throughout New South Wales? The Government is paying 50 per cent of the funding, which is more funding than was required on the original deal.

Page 3984

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: The final point states:

•deferment of motor vehicle registration fees payable by drought affected farmers transporting stock or fodder to and from their farms.

Was mention made of fodder, town water, farm water, further support for the purchase of fodder and grain to help livestock carry on through the months of the drought? Was any mention made of the necessity for assistance in recognition of the difficulties with sowing further crops?

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: Where is their mention of the cruelty being experienced by the rural community at present? By any benchmark the Opposition's own package for drought affected communities is abysmal and pathetic. What a sham! Opposition members have done nothing to put pressure on their Federal colleagues to bring about a better recognition of what is needed in New South Wales. Where were the motions on drought from the recent Australian Labor Party conference? Where was the announcement about drought relief following the Australian Labor Party conference? There is not a bigger issue affecting the greatest productive area of Australia today, yet no resolutions were carried nor announcements made. If there were, let us hear them. Do not keep hem secret. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not hide his light under a bushel.

Many people are on the brink of emotional exhaustion, and what does the Labor Party offer - compulsory farm debt mediation. All the Opposition has done for weeks is speak about it. Apparently it is having difficulty drafting legislation. However, the legislation is virtually a mirror of the legislation the Opposition attempted to introduce in 1987 - the Credit Rural Finance Contract Act, which if enacted would have completely dried up credit for the rural sector. Had that bill been proclaimed, banks and private financiers would simply not have lent money to the rural sector.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Campbelltown wishes to conduct a lengthy conference, he should do so outside the Chamber. He has no authority to walk around the Chamber while another member is addressing the House. I direct him to resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Gordon to order.

Mr ARMSTRONG: In response to the so-called Labor Party package on rural credit the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 November 1987 stated:

If the Act is proclaimed, the banks and finance companies will respond by increasing the cost of finance to farmers.

That is good Labor policy!

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: The editorial continued:

The proposed NSW law is an absurd intervention in the normal commercial dealings between farmers and their financiers.

What did interest groups say about Labor's legislation? The New South Wales Farmers Association, quoted in the Land on 29 October 1987, stated:

The proposals are simply window dressing designed to create an impression that the Government is doing something. However, in the long term, they do more to hurt than assist farmers.

That is Labor Party policy and the Opposition is trying to reintroduce it now. The Australian Bankers Association said about Labor Party legislation on 28 November 1987:

Mr Langton: What date was that?

Mr ARMSTRONG: 28 November 1987.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: Why do we have to go back to 1987? That was the last time that the Labor Party tried to do anything about finance to the rural sector of New South Wales. The Opposition has taken no interest in this issue for the last few days.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: It is a fact of life. The article stated:

There is no doubt we will be going to lend a lot less to the rural sector and it will be dearer.

It is a mirror of that legislation and it is a mirror that the Labor Party is trying to have drafted in this House now. It is another favour.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: Quite simply, lessons must be learnt from this drought and the Labor Party here and in Canberra must be prepared to recognise that at the same time as helping people in New South Wales and across Australia to deal with this drought, moves must be made now to minimise the impact of future droughts. It is universally agreed that unless there is a reintroduction of income equalisation deposits for farmers these financial circumstances will occur again. I would like to think that there would be support from the Labor Party for the reintroduction of IEDs, as they are called, which the Labor Party took away. The Labor Party had the opportunity to demonstrate that support at its recent national conference.

Page 3985

The second aspect to this is to help farmers prepare for drought, to reintroduce a reasonable rate of depreciation for equipment and fodder storage facilities, such as silos, haysheds, silage pits and haymaking machinery, so that farmers can become self-sufficient and will not have to go cap in hand to the government of the day for assistance when these natural phenomena occur. It is a disgrace that despite letters being written to the Prime Minister and to Senator Collins along these lines, there has not been the courtesy of a response let alone an intelligent addressing of the problem. The bottom line is that the State Labor Opposition and the Federal Labor Government have no appreciation of the long-term economic and social ramifications of this drought. They do not appreciate that if the State herd and State flock are allowed to depreciate below their present numbers it could take up to seven or eight years before stock numbers return to present levels. Imagine what that will do to the State's economy. It is significant that this afternoon the Opposition decided to move a matter of public importance. And what is it? I will read it:

The criteria for the determination of drought declarations in New South Wales and the exclusion of a number of rural lands protection board areas from Commonwealth assistance.

The bottom line is this: where does that make any mention of livestock or people? In no way is it an attempt to address the core problems of this drought. The fact is -

Mr J. H. Murray: On a point of order: this matter is already before the House. The Minister is pre-empting debate and I ask you to direct him to return to the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. To directly mention a matter which will soon be considered by this House is to infringe the anticipation rule. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries may contribute to that debate when the motion is considered later today.

Mr ARMSTRONG: Over the past 18 months the honourable member for Drummoyne has failed to ask one question about these matters. It is good to see him on his feet. It is reasonable to say that instead of being interested in the true plight of rural New South Wales the Labor Party is more interested in trying to mediate some of its own debt problems.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: While the Opposition has Tony the tea money tickler there - Tony the caucus tea money tickler - and while it has its own emergency of a $10 million debt it would be better off to mediate that, because its contribution to the rural sector of New South Wales is a total and absolute failure.

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

Mr J. J. AQUILINA: My question is directed to the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development. Does Dr Brian Scott in his resignation letter to the Premier, set out seven pages of criticisms of the Government's education record? Do these include: "a backsliding to centralised control"; and "that money to schools is being decreased, and that the Government will claw back funds from school bank accounts"?

Mr FAHEY: Not even members of the Opposition would believe that anybody would claw back money from school bank accounts.

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

Mr FAHEY: It is pathetic the way these things are approached by the Opposition. The honourable member referred to a letter. Obviously there is a letter, but whether it is made up by the tall, dark, handsome Aquilina or the short, fat one, I do not know. It is obviously the intention of the Opposition to give it to the media shortly. No doubt I will get a copy in due course and have a look at it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Riverstone to order. I call the honourable member for Lake Macquarie to order.


Mr MERTON: I ask a question without notice of the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time. Excessive interjection is making it difficult for the Chair to hear members speaking from the back of the Chamber. I have a long list of members who have been called to order on one or more occasions. I deem all members who have been called to order today to be now on three calls to order.

Mr MERTON: What action is the Government taking to improve security on Sydney's rail system? What progress has State Rail made in using guards to patrol trains as a deterrent to crime and vandalism?

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

Mr BAIRD: I commend the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, chairman of the Government's transport committee, for his excellent question. It was with some amusement that I heard recently the honourable member for Kogarah announce on radio a new policy. We all know that he does not have many of those. His last big brainwave was that wonderful invention, the electric bus - the one that had to carry around 18 tonnes of batteries.

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

Page 3986

Mr BAIRD: On morning radio the honourable member was saying that the only way to improve security at night is to get guards to patrol trains. He said he wanted them to become real guards again. Honourable members on this side of the House think that is a good idea. The only trouble is that the honourable member stole the initiative from us. On 28 February I issued a media release headed, "Train guards to boost security", in which I made exactly the same announcement. It took him seven months to think about that. After thinking long and hard he decided that the battery buses idea had to go. Now he has come up with the proposal about guards.

I should inform the honourable member that a joint working party of CityRail and the unions is looking at the technology that might be required. We are hoping to implement that proposal midway through next year. The fact is that the chances of being attacked on the rail network are minuscule, but we have to continue to introduce initiatives to give people, especially women, confidence in their security when travelling by train at night.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for the Environment to order. I call the Minister for Consumer Affairs to order.

Mr BAIRD: That is why I am pleased to be able to confirm that an additional $1.5 million will be spent on improving security at railway stations over the next 12 months. This money will be spent on more hidden video cameras, extra lighting, telephones and help points. Security at 14 Sydney railway stations will be improved with the installation of closed circuit television systems. The colour systems will be installed at Mount Druitt, Granville, Auburn, Clyde, Punchbowl, Tempe, Killara, Macquarie Fields, Liverpool, Warwick Farm and Chatswood, as well as at Lisarow, Narara and Niagara Park on the central coast.

Honourable members will note that one of those installations will be at Macquarie Fields. The honourable member representing that area would know all about security in that area. We know that he missed out on elevation to the Opposition frontbench; he did not get enough stars while on the backbench. But he knew how to put out a press release. Let me tell the House about his concern. His local paper carried an item entitled "MP Wants to See Security on the Railway Station", pointing out that he wanted this to happen at Meadowbank station and Holsworthy station. In the accompanying photograph there was the honourable member looking really concerned as he posed in front of the Holsworthy sign. But there was a small problem. He was not actually at Holsworthy station. It was a photograph of Ingleburn station. And the lady involved was the honourable member's electorate secretary.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for the Environment to order for the second time.

Mr BAIRD: It took a while before the local journalists got on to him and had a closer look at the tactics of this man who aspires to the frontbench. As we all know, honourable members opposite do not have to have enormous qualities to make the transition.

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

Mr BAIRD: The honourable member missed out, but the Liverpool champion had a series of articles called "Click Go the Jeers". The article went on to say that "Craig Knowles has apologised for embarrassing media treatment of a photographer caused by what he agreed was a dummy photograph in the Liverpool Leader. The State MP for Moorebank said that he regretted the taking of his photograph with his secretary at Ingleburn". There is another one entitled "MP's Apology for flak over Leader photo".

Honourable members opposite who intend to express their concerns about security on railway stations should first ensure that they have their facts right. They should not use dummy photographs. While the Opposition is putting out dummy photos the Government is improving the security system at our railway stations. Let there be no doubt that the security cameras are playing a key role in catching law breakers. Recently a closed circuit camera detected a 17-year-old youth who attacked another young passenger and stole his shoes, a disturbing practice that needs to be wiped out. That young offender was sentenced to nine months detention as a result of surveillance video cameras installed by this Government.

I am sure that honourable members opposite would be keen to praise the Government for these initiatives. We are making real changes that improve our public transport. One of Labor's big initiatives in government was a plan - which, fortunately, it did not have time to implement - to spend half a million dollars on plastic noses on the silver double-deck trains. Though Labor wanted to spend money on plastic noses, this Government is spending money on real initiatives to improve security. Video cameras are planned for 58 stations. We do not need dummy photographs and we do not have to use stunts such as the honourable member for Moorebank tried to pull. We are producing real initiatives.


Mr J. H. MURRAY: I address a question to the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development. Does Brian Scott in his resignation dossier criticise the Government's management of the Bridge Street Department of School Education building? Has the building now been vacant for more than four years while the Government has spent about $30 million on substitute head office rentals?

Mr FAHEY: It is fair to say that if anyone wanted to be fair about the role that Mr Scott played - a man with a great deal of knowledge on matters of education and of considerable value in so many areas - it would be recognised that there are many things that consultants provide to the Government that are not necessarily taken on board. Some matters presented by consultants are rejected by
Page 3987
the Government. That is the role that the Government should have. It must deal with any consultant's report and recommendations objectively. It was Mr Scott's recommendation to the former Minister for Education that the only way to break the culture of education, this staid process set back in colonial days, was to get the department out of its antique, colonial, head office building. The Leader of the Opposition laughs and shows his usual ignorance, as he has shown his ignorance on so many matters in the course of today, and as he does every day.

Today he was talking about house invasion and the need for a penalty of 20 years imprisonment for that crime. We all know that he is trying to shore up the waning support for the Labor candidate for Cabramatta. That is why he was at Cabramatta today. He was talking about home invasions when quite clearly at law it is armed robbery. The penalty for armed robbery is 20 years. If anybody invades a home and is armed with a weapon, it is nothing short of armed robbery and the penalty is 20 years imprisonment. We all know that he needs to shore up support for the candidate for Cabramatta.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment to order.

Mr FAHEY: Yesterday the Great Vietnam Herald said of the candidate -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: clearly the Premier has strayed, as he did yesterday, from the question. Standing Order 78 provides that an answer must be relevant, directly or indirectly.

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

Mr Whelan: The answer the Premier is giving has no relevance to the question asked. I ask that you draw the attention of the Premier to that fact and bring him back to the leave of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Premier is well aware of the rules of relevance that apply to the answering of questions. I think he was straying a little from the original question, but I am sure he will return to the leave of the question.

Mr FAHEY: I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition persists with his inane interjections. To get back to the report of Mr Brian Scott, and all reports provided to the Government over the years, this Government will take on board all recommendations from all consultants. When consultants are asked to report on a particular area of government administration, their recommendations are evaluated. It surprises me that honourable members opposite are supporting Dr Scott, because in 1988 and 1989 - the honourable member for Drummoyne laughs because he knows exactly what I am about to say - they constantly criticised every recommendation that Dr Scott made. We had debates in this Chamber about what Dr Metherell was doing to education with the support and advice of Brian Scott and the role that he played.

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

Mr FAHEY: They criticised every single recommendation and the very role that Brian Scott played in education. Now, of course, they are attempting to suggest that there was some credibility in matters put forward in recent times by Brian Scott.


Mr TINK: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Housing. Is the Minister aware of a police investigation into the misuse of confidential housing commission clients' personal details, known as Operation Anode? Was anyone found to have acted improperly?

Mr SOURIS: I am aware of a police investigation known as Operation Anode. It was conducted into the abuse of confidential housing department data. A police report was investigating that:

. . . between August 1987 and March 1988 the then Minister for Housing, Mr Frank Walker, used his official position to obtain confidential Department of Housing data, that is, lists of existing tenants and prospective tenants' names and addresses for use by a private industry computer company. The information was ultimately used for the production of a series of individually addressed one-page political letters signed by Mr Walker. The letters, rather than containing matters of general concern to the tenants, appear to have been purposely slanted towards improving the Labor Government's chances of winning an upcoming election. The Department of Housing was subsequently invoiced . . .

Mr Whelan: Stale news.

Mr SOURIS: How much then, if it is stale news? It was $18,103.90. The report continues:

The Department of Housing was subsequently invoiced that amount by the computer company for the work performed. Police inquiries were initiated following complaints from tenants, the Auditor-General and the Department of Housing.

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

Mr SOURIS: Further, the reports states:

The issues identified are: firstly, the disclosure of confidential Department of Housing data for the purposes other than a departmental function; secondly, the expenditure of the department's funds for non-departmental purposes; and thirdly, the use of departmental resources, human and material, on non-departmental functions.

Mr J. J. Aquilina: On a point of order: this matter was raised by Nick Greiner in 1988 and the Government did not take any action then. The Minister was reading from old copies of Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Riverstone well knows that is a totally spurious point of order. In accordance with the practice I have adopted lately on that sort of matter, I deem him to be on three calls to order immediately.

Page 3988

Mr SOURIS: As I said, we have disclosure of confidential information, the misuse of government funds, and the misuse of government resources and personnel. The report continued:

The following persons played a key role in these events and are suspected of corrupt conduct, the police report said: Mr Phil Ruskell from the Department of Housing, Francis John Walker, Minister for Housing during the time of the offences, Michael Stephen Knight, MP, member for Campbelltown.

The police report also noted "that attempts to interview all these persons has been negative". There is little doubt that the most dangerous and foolhardy decision made this year by the Labor Party was to agree to accept the Opposition leader's personally anointed member for promotion to the frontbench, the rewarded faction traitor, the honourable member for Campbelltown.


Mr E. T. PAGE: My question without notice is to the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development. Why is the Chairman of the Ethnic Affairs Commission, Mr Stepan Kerkyasharian, listed as a keynote speaker at a $1,000 per table Liberal Party fundraising lunch to be held on 24 October at the ANA Hotel? Did Mr Kerkyasharian object to having to perform this partisan political role? Will he be removed from the speakers' list?

Mr FAHEY: The honourable member raises a matter relating to some fundraising program in the near future and, whether he is right or wrong, it is a matter that I will inquire into. The question deals with matters of government administration relating to ethnic affairs. Had the honourable member cared to address his question to the very capable Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, the Minister would have been able to enlighten him on matters relating to our multicultural society.

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

Mr FAHEY: I shall make inquiries into the matter raised by the honourable member.


Mr BLACKMORE: Is the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines aware that the Leader of the Opposition has announced his intention to abolish the Department of Mineral Resources? Will the Minister advise the House whether the Government plans to close the department and withdraw from encouraging mining in this State?

Mr CAUSLEY: This particularly pertinent question is aimed at mining - an industry of importance in the Hunter Valley. Opposition members do not realise its importance. Did we hear anything from the honourable member for Cessnock or the honourable member for Waratah? Did they speak up when the Leader of the Opposition decided on a cost-cutting exercise and in his sights was the Department of Mineral Resources? Where is the honourable member for Bathurst? Something will have to be done about the Bathurst electorate because that honourable member is never in this Chamber. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition, who has been making promises across this State, is hardly ever cross-examined about where he will get the funds. When the Leader of the Opposition is cross-examined he comes up with some beauties.

Only yesterday the Minister for Health was telling us how the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was promising a hospital a day; wherever he went he would promise to build a hospital. The honourable member for Port Stephens, who recently visited the north coast, has not been promising hospitals - he has gone right outside his shadow portfolio and has promised roads. He said that a Labor government would spend between $8 billion and $9 billion on roads. The previous Labor Government did not spend that amount of money on roads when it was in office, so one would hope that a future Labor government would do better. The other day the ALP candidate for the Lismore electorate was promising $50 million for Summerland Way. All these promises have to be funded. We should follow the Canberra procedure: when Opposition members there make promises they are challenged and asked how they are going to fund them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I have already warned the honourable member for Campbelltown and the honourable member for Ashfield. If they wish to confer, they should do so outside the Chamber.

Mr CAUSLEY: When the Leader of the Opposition was challenged he said, "We will abolish the Department of Mineral Resources". Big deal! The Department of Mineral Resources, a government department that receives the least resources, is very important. I wonder whether the honourable member for Wollongong and other Opposition members realise the importance of the mining industry. Twenty-three thousand people are employed in the mining industry in this State and 100,000 jobs are generated by it. Yet Opposition members are mute when the Leader of the Opposition -

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Blacktown has just interjected. Actually, I was waiting for her to interject yesterday. She also visited the north coast recently. By some mistake she was rated by the Sydney Morning Herald last week as a four-star performer. All I can say is that the journalist must either have been drinking or wearing rose-coloured glasses. I think I would give the honourable member for Blacktown five stars. She can visit the north coast every second week if she wants to, because we cannot believe how many votes we get after she visits. Please come back. We need you up there. The mining industry in this State is worth $5 billion in export income, and at present we need that income.

Each year an amount of $160 million in royalties goes to the taxpayers of New South Wales, but the Leader of the Opposition wants to abolish the Department of Mineral Resources. What a promise
Page 3989
that is from a Labor leader! One day I went through his virtues and I told honourable members where I believed he should be. It is unfortunate, I suppose, that Opposition members do not have the gumption to do anything about it. All they did was get rid of the only person who could have made a contribution.

Members of the Opposition are bereft of policies that are important to New South Wales and to the economy of Australia. I said earlier that the income-earning industries of this State are mining and agriculture - 50 per cent from mining and 30 per cent from agriculture. Opposition members do not understand that. This Government supports the Department of Mineral Resources. Recently the Premier and I were delighted to announce Exploration 2000. Anyone who understands mining would know that it is a competitive industry worldwide. It is also a competitive industry in Australia. If we do not encourage exploration across this State, the mining industry will eventually dwindle and die.

Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia have all announced that they will support exploration. This Government recognises that it is vital to expand mineral exploration in New South Wales. A $10 million project over four to five years will involve an aerial survey of the State and the mapping of radioactivity of rock and the earth's magnetic field to enable us to identify the areas we can explore. That is of vital concern to the Government - an area that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to abolish. If we ignore this area we will place at risk 100,000 jobs, $150 million in royalties and $5 billion in export income. There is no doubt that the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is brilliant!

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

Mr CAUSLEY: It exposes the shallowness of the Leader of the Opposition. He has no knowledge of economic matters. It is about time honourable members and the people of New South Wales noted that. The Leader of the Opposition would be a disaster if he ever got an opportunity to lead New South Wales.


Petitions praying that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Gaudry, Mr Hunter and Mr Mills.

Petition praying that the Tempe Tram Depot, because of its unique heritage and historical value to all people of Australia, should be preserved with all its magnificent heritage items intact; and that the Bus and Truck Museum on the depot site should be retained, received from Dr Refshauge.

Petition praying that a school crossing supervisor be provided for the Lake Avenue crossing outside Cardiff South Primary School, received from Mr Mills.

Petitions praying that legislation be enacted to give effect to the Law Society's recommendations on reform of marijuana prohibition laws relating to the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use, received from Mr Bowman, Mr Gaudry, Mr Markham and Mr Mills.

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

Petition praying that Hamilton Police Station continue to be a 24-hour station, received from Mr Gaudry.

Petition praying that the salaries and conditions of part-time TAFE teachers be improved, received from Mr Mills.

Petition praying that Wyong Hospital be provided with a fully functioning obstetric and childbirthing facility, received from Mr Crittenden.

Petition praying that the present level of services be retained at Coledale, Bulli and Port Kembla district hospitals, received from Mr Sullivan.

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


Motion by Mr West agreed to:

That the following papers be printed:

Statistical Return for the By-election held in the Electoral District of Parramatta on 27 August 1994.
Statement of Corporate Intent of the Hunter Water Corporation for 1994/95.
Environmental Impact Statement Strategy Progress Report under the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act, 1992, dated 30 September 1994.
Report of the Industrial Registrar for 1993.
Report of the Anti-Discrimination Board for year ended 30 June 1994.
Special Report on the HomeFund Commissioner of New South Wales to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, dated 1 June 1994.

Page 3990

Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [3.21]: I table report No. 29 of the Regulation Review Committee entitled "Report upon Regulations", dated October 1994.

Ordered to be printed.


Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown) [3.21]: In view of the serious nature of the notice of urgent motion given by the honourable member for Eastwood, I believe it is important that the House proceed with it. Having regard to the undertakings given by the Leader of the House regarding unlimited time for the Leader of the Opposition and an extended debate on that motion, I withdraw my notice of motion.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Tink agreed to:

That Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow:

(1) That this House censures the Leader of the Opposition for the inconsistent application of ethical standards he applies to members of his party.

(2) That the following time limits apply to the debate:

Mover of the motion and
Leader of the Opposition Unlimited
Any other member 20 minutes
Leader of the Opposition in response 20 minutes
Mover in reply 20 minutes

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [3.22]: I move:

That this House censures the Leader of the Opposition for the inconsistent application of ethical standards he applies to members of his party.

The Leader of the Opposition has set very high standards for his troops. In the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 26 September he was quoted as saying, when speaking in Hobart at the ALP national conference, that he demanded the highest standards from the team he hoped would win government at the next election in March. The inconsistency which is the essence of the motion can be demonstrated first in relation to the honourable member for St Marys. He faces his Armageddon or political end tomorrow evening, because the Leader of the Opposition has placed the onus upon him to justify what he has done or to produce material to excuse the allegations that have been made against him. The Daily Telegraph of 21 September quotes the Leader of the Opposition as saying:

I have told Mr Aquilina to produce material, including (bank) statements which trace the cheque.

I therefore put the burden of proof on him.

The inconsistency of the Leader of the Opposition can be demonstrated by comparing his approach to the honourable member for St Marys with the approach he has taken in relation to other members. The serious matters I wish to raise relate to matters concerning the Hon. Frank Walker and the honourable member for Campbelltown. A police report by Sergeant Meddings indicates that the honourable member for Campbelltown was sought to be interviewed in connection with the matter that was raised in question time by the Minister for Housing.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: the honourable member for Eastwood is quoting from a document. Could he identify the author and verify the source?

Mr TINK: The document from which I am quoting is a police department document. It has the signature of Detective Sergeant Meddings of the State investigative group and is dated 14 September 1990. I table the document.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Private members cannot table documents.

Mr Knight: On a point of order: it is a longstanding practice of this House that if a member quotes from a document he must verify its authenticity. I would like the honourable member for Eastwood to verify the authenticity of the document by telling us how it fell into his hands.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has identified the document, and that is sufficient identification. If the honourable member for Eastwood is engaging in a total fabrication, it will be on his head. However, I am sure he is not doing so.

Mr TINK: Sergeant Meddings indicates in connection with the inquiry he was conducting, which was called Task Force Anode, that the honourable member for Campbelltown declined to be personally interviewed and subsequently declined to answer 133 typed questions in connection with that matter. Sergeant Meddings also says in his report that the findings of the task force relating to the matters referred to by the Minister during question time were incomplete and that one of the key reasons the findings of the task force are incomplete is because of the refusal or reluctance by other witnesses and suspected offenders to be interviewed.

This serious matter involved the misuse of Department of Housing resources and involved the honourable member for Campbelltown amongst others. The honourable member for Campbelltown - who at the relevant time was a member of Parliament - refused to answer police questions. Furthermore, he then refused to answer 133 written questions about the same matter. As a result, the police inquiry had to be aborted; it was incomplete. If the Leader of the Opposition has set a standard for the honourable member for St Marys it is incumbent upon him to call on the honourable member for Campbelltown - whom he considers to be fit and to have the wherewithal and ethical and moral capacity
Page 3991
to be on the frontbench - to forthwith answer the outstanding questions on this crucial matter. Unless and until the Leader of the Opposition does that, he deserves the censure of this House.

It goes further. This is obviously not a matter of recent origin; it goes back some years. It has been in the press on numerous occasions. One would have thought that in the context of putting the honourable member for Campbelltown in the shadow ministry the Leader of the Opposition might at least have wanted to be confident that there was nothing in the background of the honourable member for Campbelltown that should be investigated before he was promoted to the frontbench.

I suppose the problem was an embarrassment of riches. They have probably not built enough trucks in New South Wales to carry the material that would need to be gone through for that exercise. The reality of this matter is that the Leader of the Opposition has just promoted to his frontbench a person who has consistently declined and refused to assist lawful authorities in progressing a serious investigation into matters relating to the use of very extensive resources of the Department of Housing. And precisely because the honourable member for Campbelltown has refused to answer those questions, police investigations have not been able to be taken further. What are some of these issues? The Department of Housing received complaints from a number of departmental tenants who had received unsolicited election material in the form of letters personally addressed to them and signed by Frank Walker.

During 1987 the honourable member for Campbelltown made an approach to CoCam for costing estimates for the supply and installation of printing equipment for the Department of Housing for an anticipated volume of work. Present at that time was Mr Michael Knight, the honourable member for Campbelltown. CoCam produced estimates of costs and they were presented to Michael Knight, who appeared to be a representative of the department of housing. Michael Knight, who at that time was a private backbench member of Parliament, indicated, according to the police report, that he was a representative of or was representing himself as a representative of the Department of Housing. Is that the sort of person the Leader of the Opposition is going to put on his frontbench - someone who represented himself as a representative of the Department of Housing? The report stated:

During November 1987 Knight placed an order for 6,000 or 6,500 letterheads with Tony Wolf Printers Pty Limited on behalf of the Department of Housing. These letterheads contained the crest of the Department of Housing and the signature of Minister Frank Walker. An invoice was prepared and an invoice forwarded to the Ministry of Housing which was subsequently paid by the department on 3 March 1988.

. . .

The nature of these letters was a political bias towards the Labor Party.

. . .

Around the beginning of December 1987 Knight again placed an order with Tony Wolf Printers for a further 29,000 letterheads similar to those described, plus 18,500 survey cards on behalf of the Minister, Frank Walker.

. . .

Shortly before 7 March 1988 Knight ordered another 14,000 letterheads.

. . .

Resulting from complaints made by the Department of Housing, Task Force Anode commenced inquiries into the expenditure of certain funds, the use of equipment and confidential data relative to the Housing Department tenants and prospective tenants.

I quote from paragraph 22 of the report:

The findings of the taskforce are incomplete for the following reasons:

. . .

Refusal or reluctance by other witnesses and suspected offenders to be interviewed.

Paragraph 23 states:

Members of the Task Force met with a great deal of hostility during their inquiries from persons they wished to interview.

Paragraph 25 states:

Although this inquiry is incomplete, from the statements and records obtained there appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest instances of "Official Misconduct" as defined under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, 1988 . . . The conduct referred to is as follows:

a. Disclosure and use of confidential information (names and address of Department of Housing tenants and persons on waiting lists) for purposes other than as a function of the Department of Housing.

b. Expenditure of Department of Housing funds on non departmental functions.

c. Use of human and material resources on non departmental functions.

The Leader of the Opposition, knowing that this matter has been around, knowing that it had been drawn to the attention of the Parliament by the Auditor-General in 1988, knowing also that it involved the honourable member for Campbelltown, should have got to the bottom of it before putting the honourable member for Campbelltown on the frontbench. In doing so he has demonstrated a double standard in relation to the honourable member for St Marys on the one hand and the honourable member for Campbelltown on the other. And most serious matters they are. A detective sergeant involved in special investigations clearly indicated that they involved official misconduct, and that the main reason the matter could not be taken any further was that the honourable member for Campbelltown failed to answer questions, failed to make himself available for interview, and failed to answer questions in writing.

Whether the honourable member for Campbelltown had anything to hide - and the litany I have read out suggests he had plenty to hide and plenty of reason not to be talking to the police - are his actions those of someone who had nothing to hide? Are they the actions of someone whom the Leader of the Opposition should be putting on his frontbench?
Page 3992
Are they the actions of someone who deserves to be on the frontbench? The matter goes on. The annexures to the report indicate that following the State election of 19 March 1988 Mr Walker informed Mr Eyers, head of the Department of Housing, that he had paid $3,000 to the Auditor-General towards the cost of the Campbelltown-Camden letters. If that is not an admission by Frank Walker that there is something seriously wrong, I do not know what it is. I refer to an intriguing annexure to the report, on persons not interviewed, noted against paragraph 105 of the report:

Michael Knight . . . State M.P. for Campbelltown. An interview with Mr Knight was originally sought prior to the commencement of Task Force Anode. Knight declined to be interviewed personally and requested that he be given written questions to answer. A typed questionnaire consisting of 132 questions was forwarded to Knight.

Paragraph 106 reads:

No reply was forthcoming from Knight . . .

I turn to paragraph 54 of the report. The production manager of CoCam, Robert Hickman, indicated that in September 1987 he was handed a two-page document entitled "Department of Housing Direct Marketing Needs" by CoCam Director Dennis Rowe. Some time later he received a second copy of this document containing alterations. He cannot recall who made the alterations but he remembers conversing with Knight about them. I think it is fair for the police to ask the honourable member for Campbelltown about these matters. Why does not the Leader of Opposition tell his shadow frontbencher to go down and have a talk to the police about this matter? It goes on. Paragraph 56 of the report reads:

Hickman commenced to form a State Electoral Roll from the Federal Electoral Roll, from boundaries supplied to him by Knight. As each electoral roll was produced they were made available to Knight and delivered to either Walker's office or Knight's office at Parliament House.

Paragraph 58 reads:

Hickman had a second meeting with Knight in his Parliamentary office . . . The discussion centered on matching Department of Housing lists with State Electoral Rolls, the format for production of mailing lists from these records. During the course of the meeting Eyers informed Knight that the Minister would have to prepare a memorandum for access to those records.

Paragraph 65 says:

Between September 1987 and March 1988 most of the instructions Hickman received regarding this work were either verbal or written from Knight.

Paragraph 71, concerning Neil Horton, accounts manager of CoCam Computer Services says:

Horton had a further discussion with Knight regarding the information Knight had to break down and withdraw specific names and addresses from files. During that conversation, Knight said, "We need to send a letter almost immediately, and if that is successful others will follow". About 15 September 1987 Horton produced a program and specifications and forwarded those to Hickman . . .

Paragraph 72 states:

Knight sent Horton preprinted letters with an accompanying letter.

Paragraph 74 states:

Subsequent conversations took place between Horton and Knight regarding further mail runs for the Labor Party and Walker.

Matters raised by the police in an attempt to get to the bottom of the issues they were investigating in operation Anode remain outstanding - a gross misuse of taxpayers funds, a gross misuse of departmental resources. All these questions remain outstanding because the shining star that the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to promote to his frontbench the other day, he having passed all the Tony probity tests, will not go to the police and talk to them about these outstanding matters. The Leader of the Opposition says that it is six years; it is old hat. Some of the matters that could have been raised are indeed statute barred under the Public Finance and Audit Act as they could not be pursued because the honourable member for Campbelltown did not speak to the police. That is an absolute disgrace.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call members on the Opposition benches to order.

Mr TINK: The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Campbelltown sit in this Chamber and laugh about a matter that is statute barred under that particular Act. If the police had received a full brief, the matter may have been determined and might have resulted in clearing the name of the honourable member for Campbelltown. It is a complete disgrace that honourable members opposite sit and laugh about this incomplete matter that is statute barred because the honourable member for Campbelltown did not speak to the police. Honourable members are elected by the public to carry out a sworn duty in this Chamber. Every honourable member should uphold the law in this Chamber. For years the Leader of the Opposition has been spouting about better standards and better codes of conduct. However, when it comes to the crunch, the Leader of the Opposition fails to direct a member of his own party to speak to police to clear up the matter.

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

Mr TINK: It is a disgrace that the Leader of the Opposition has failed to resolve an important matter. He is deserving of the censure of the House. Lest it be seen as a matter which, on analysis, is now of no consequence, I inform honourable members that only yesterday the honourable member for Campbelltown, in his role as a shadow minister, asked a question of the Premier wherein he attacked the honourable member for Georges River. In his role as shadow minister for the Olympics, today in this urgency motion he raised serious allegations about the Olympics. His role as shadow minister is to look at probity, financing and other issues relating to matters that might be of interest to the Auditor-General - a duty that the Leader of the Opposition placed upon him just a couple of days ago.

Page 3993

The honourable member knows that the Auditor-General brought this matter to the attention of the Parliament in 1988. The police have not been able to clear up this matter because the honourable member for Campbelltown will not go down to the police station to help clear it up. All honourable members should ask why the honourable member for Campbelltown is still able to continue in his public role. The Leader of the Opposition laughs because the matter is statute barred on one small aspect. So what? The serious allegations remain and the serious provisional conclusions remain that there is official misconduct in this matter. These incomplete aspects need to be cleared up. The Leader of the Opposition should be telling his shadow minister to clear the matter up with the police. How can the honourable member for Campbelltown, or the Leader of the Opposition for that matter, confer with the Auditor-General on any matter until they start to take seriously the matters raised by the Auditor-General in his report, and the matters that were referred to the police as a consequence of what was raised with the Auditor-General and the Department of Housing?

The link is the trigger of the Auditor-General and the trigger through the department to the police. Those matters also remain unanswered. How can these members continue in their public roles when they do not pursue matters that have been raised by the Auditor-General and by the police? The High Court has recently handed down a decision explaining the special position of members of Parliament in defamation matters. Members of Parliament are in a special position in relation to many matters, one of which is in cooperating with the police. We ought to cooperate with the police and answer their questions on matters that involve our official duties.

If this matter could be cleared up by the honourable member for Campbelltown's speaking to the police, why has he not done so? That is the next question that the Leader of the Opposition must answer in this censure motion. If this question is outstanding, it is for the Leader of the Opposition to clear it up with his frontbencher. He has not done so. The poor old honourable member for St Marys must be wondering what he has done wrong. I understand he has to attend a meeting at St Marys tomorrow night. He must be wondering what he has done that got him offside and caused the Leader of the Opposition to deal harshly with him given that the honourable member for Campbelltown has been promoted despite his involvement with outstanding and unresolved matters. That is the essence of the motion and the essence of the inconsistency in the application of the ethical standards. What is it that causes a difference in the treatment of the two members? Allegations have been raised about the honourable member for St Marys in the context of cheques going to the Australian Labor Party.

[Interruption]

Perhaps it has something to do with that and perhaps that is part of the reason that the honourable member for St Marys has been harshly dealt with. Perhaps some of the people who attend the St Marys meeting tomorrow night will ask themselves some questions about the honourable member for Campbelltown. They might wonder whether the honourable member for St Marys is getting the rough end of the pineapple compared to the treatment of the honourable member for Campbelltown.

These allegations are exceptionally serious. They go to the misuse of departmental resources and to the extremely serious concerns of the Auditor-General which caused him to make comments as part of his 1988 report. These allegations relate to matters that were referred to the police and to matters in relation to which one of the most important key players is the honourable member for Campbelltown, who has just been promoted. The allegations go to the issue of the 133 unanswered written questions from the police; to the refusal of the honourable member for Campbelltown to speak to the police; and to the proposition that as a result a police inquiry into serious matters, which are described as official misconduct on the available evidence, is incomplete. Why are those allegations incomplete? They are incomplete because the honourable member for Campbelltown has not been down to the police station to clear them up.

Mr Face: On a point of order: the Chair does not need me to remind it of the provisions of Standing Order 157 with regard to tedious repetition. A member when speaking in debate must either refer to relevant material or expand on his argument. Both in my room and in this Chamber I have heard numerous references to the honourable member for Campbelltown not going to see the police. The Chair must be tempted to invoke Standing Order 157. The honourable member for Eastwood should either expand his arguments or raise only relevant matters.

Mr TINK: The cover-up continues.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Charlestown correctly stated the relevant standing order. The honourable member for Eastwood is cognisant of the forms of the House as they relate to tedious repetition. I am sure he will observe those forms for the remainder of his contribution.

Mr TINK: In summary, the Leader of the Opposition deserves the censure of the House because plainly by his conduct in the Chamber he is continuing to ignore the conduct of his shadow minister, whom he personally anointed to the position. The Leader of the Opposition must ensure that the honourable member answers these questions. Unless and until he does, bearing in mind his attitude to the matters raised this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition deserves the censure of the House for his attitude to and treatment of the honourable member for Campbelltown, his treatment of the honourable member for St Marys, the discharge of his duties as Leader of the Opposition and his clear failure to ensure that he is promoting people to extremely important and serious responsibilities who do not have incomplete, unfinished police investigations hanging over their heads in relation to the very duties for which they have shadow ministerial responsibilities. I commend the motion to the House.

Page 3994

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [3.51]: Throughout his speech I wondered why the Government chose the honourable member for Eastwood for this task. I have been exercising my mind on that question. The matter apparently relates to something that occurred in 1987 and was raised by the Auditor-General in 1988. I am told it was referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption but rejected as a subject for investigation. It was considered by the police in 1988, but not proceeded with. That is the matter before the House. This matter was investigated seven years ago but not proceeded with on any of these fronts. I found myself wondering about those matters throughout the exposition, even allowing for the honourable member's table thumping and very sincere swallowing. I must say I have seen a lot of swallowing by public speakers in my time, but his was the most sincere I have ever seen. Let us join in congratulating the honourable member for the most sincere swallowing in any public forum or in any parliamentary debate.

I wondered whether the Government chose him because in a backbench remarkable for the high percentage of members under investigation he is one of the few not currently the subject of a police or ICAC investigation. That is a good working hypothesis. But there is another reason why he was chosen for this motion: it was a reward, an acknowledgment, for his being in charge of the Liberal campaign in the by-election for Parramatta. The new member for Parramatta reminded me of a particular occasion during the by-election campaign, in which postal votes were said to be so important, when someone phoned the Liberal head office. The honourable member for Eastwood, in a mood of post-luncheon expansion, in response to an inquiry about postal votes said, "We are out of forms and out of volunteers. Why don't you ring the Labor office".

With a record like that no wonder he was chosen for this task today! His talents lend themselves to such a case. This genius who ran the Liberal campaign for Parramatta has dared to raise the question of ethics, and the way ethics are applied in this place by the respective party leaders. The team over there sitting behind the Premier includes - dare I remind you, Mr Speaker - that man famous for his interest in conserving great civic buildings in his electorate, the honourable member for the Blue Mountains. Yes, whatever is said about him, he has an interest in the built heritage, the architectural heritage of his electorate - he is making phone calls about those buildings all the time. According to his phone bill, and I have it here, he is on the mobile phone all the time, and so many of his conservations are about the future of the historic building stock of the Blue Mountains.

Mrs Chikarovski: On a point of order: the motion clearly refers to the actions of the Leader of the Opposition and his side of the Parliament. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make allegations about honourable members on this side of the House, I suggest he do so by way of a motion of his own.

Mr Whelan: On the point of order: the Minister should know that there is no lack of opportunity in a debate for members to make a passing reference to matters that form part of the substantive debate. The debate is whether the Leader of the Opposition should be censured. If the Minister had been listening to the previous speech, she would have heard the serious matters raised by the honourable member for Eastwood. The Leader of the Opposition is simply referring to matters that are relevant to the overall debate.

Mr Rogan: On the point of order: this is a censure motion. In past censure motions, Mr Speaker, you have given latitude to members to refer to peripheral matters. I urge you to allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue his contribution in the manner in which he commenced.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is some validity in all the arguments that have been presented. The Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment correctly stated that the latitude that is traditionally extended to members in censure motions of this kind is not a licence for members to traverse any and every matter that might touch on the probity of a member. The leave of the question is specific. However, a certain amount of latitude has always been given to allow members to refer to peripheral matters which seem to bear upon the general question. The Leader of the Opposition has been in order to this stage, but he should not fall into the trap of raising issues which are not within the leave of the motion.

Mr CARR: I thank the Minister for reminding me that my purpose is to foreshadow this amendment: That this House censures the Premier for his consistent failure to apply ethical standards to members of his Government including, inter alia, the honourable member for the Blue Mountains, the honourable member for Georges River, the Treasurer, the previous member for North Shore, the previous member for The Hills, and the former Premier, the Hon. Nick Greiner. We have this Government and this Premier, and sitting behind him is the honourable member for the Blue Mountains and, of course - I am going to say it; honourable members know whom I am about to name - that great moral adornment, the honourable member for Georges River, call him what you will. But that is not the point. Behind the Premier sits the honourable member for Georges River and the honourable member for the Blue Mountains. They come in here today attempting to rebuke me for not applying ethical standards to my team. In this debate the Opposition will look at what standards the Premier has applied to his errant members and at how prompt the Premier was in handling those members. I heard a little muttering from the Minister. What was it? Was the Minister, as the Minister for women's affairs, defending the honourable member for Georges River?

Mrs Chikarovski: On a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition made it perfectly clear that he had absolutely no idea what I said. I make it perfectly clear to the House -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! With the level of interjection it is impossible for me to rule on the point of order.

Page 3995

Mrs Chikarovski: On the point of order: unless the Leader of the Opposition hears what I say -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order cannot be based on whether a member is making comments that are inaccurate. The Minister for Industrial Relations may speak later in the debate to refute such statements. In this Chamber somewhat derogatory comments and interjections have been allowed. I remind honourable members that the Minister made a valid point when taking a point of order that a barrage of interjections makes it difficult for those in the Chamber to hear what is being said. When it is impossible to hear the contribution of a member offence may be taken on the basis of what a member thought he heard. I ask members on the Opposition benches to cooperate and allow the Leader of the Opposition to make his speech in silence so that all will have the benefit of hearing what he has to say.

Mr CARR: Hansard will note that the Minister for women's affairs of this Government spoke out in defence of the honourable member for Georges River. Hansard will record that. On the Government backbenches sits the honourable member for Georges River, so admired by the Minister for women's affairs, and the honourable member for Blue Mountains -

Mrs Chikarovski: On a point of order: if the Leader of the Opposition insists on making reference to me, he should at least do so by using my correct title.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to Ministers by their correct titles. I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order.

Mr CARR: Once again we see loyalty between Cabinet colleagues, past and present. She will not give him up. He is out of the Cabinet but she is still defending him. She still defends the member for Georges River. I understand the closeness and the bonding process that exists in the Fahey Cabinet. We know that the Minister for women's affairs is proud to be part of his team.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On several occasions I have warned members of the Opposition that the level of interjection is intolerable. This debate has been conducted in a childish fashion by some members of the Opposition. Though I have been tolerant and have called only a few members to order, from now on I will certainly call to order all members who are unruly. If I happen to call to order a member who is not contributing to a barrage of interjection, then so be it. That will be on the head of members of the Opposition. If a member is called to order for a third time, I will not hesitate to order his removal from the Chamber. It is essential that these types of debates are conducted in a proper manner. I ask all members to conduct themselves in that fashion. If they cannot contain themselves, they will leave the Chamber.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: this censure motion of the Leader of the Opposition is well deserved. He has been speaking for a number of minutes and during that time has exchanged comments with the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Mr Carr: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. A point of order is being addressed.

Mr Hartcher: I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be ruled out of order and that he be directed to resume his defence of the censure motion moved against him.

Mr Whelan: On the point of order: the Minister for the Environment, like the Minister for Industrial Relations, was not in the Chamber when the Leader of the Opposition foreshadowed his telling amendment. That amendment enabled the Leader of the Opposition to canvass the substance of the motion of censure and the substance of the amendment and argue that the House should support the amendment rather than the motion.

Mr Humpherson: On the point of order: the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Ashfield are seeking to bolster the defence of the Leader of the Opposition pursuant to the amendment foreshadowed by him. I submit that the Chair should rule the amendment out of order because the original censure motion is directed at the Leader of the Opposition whereas the amendment would redirect censure of another member of the House, completely changing the intent of the censure motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is without substance. Yesterday, ruling on a similar matter in respect of which it was argued that an amendment was a direct negative of the original motion, I reminded honourable members that it is a tradition of the House that it is competent to move, "That all words after the word "that" be deleted and that other words be substituted". I readily understand members being somewhat puzzled by a procedure under which it appears an amendment can result in a direct negative of the motion originally moved. However rulings of Speaker Ellis which I quoted yesterday are quite clear; they indicate the parameters of this form of amendment and provide that an amendment of the nature moved in this instance is in order.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come now to the substance of his amendment and of the original motion, as he indicated he would. I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations to desist from interjecting. Unless there is cooperation from both sides of the House, the debate will not be able to proceed in a satisfactory fashion and that will not reflect credit on anyone. I seek the cooperation of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Mr CARR: I hope the Minister for the Environment gives another pep talk in Cabinet soon.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to observe my instructions.

Mr CARR: The Government has moved censure against me over my handling of ethical issues. On the Government backbenches sits the member for Georges River and the member for Blue Mountains, unrebuked at any time by the Premier for their
Page 3996
behaviour, unrebuked at any time for their egregious behaviour. At no time have those on that side of politics had their party's endorsement of them reconsidered. That is the absolute essence of this debate. Therein lies the contrast. I am going to refer to the questioning in this place about both the member for Georges River and the member for Blue Mountains, as well as questioning of the Premier.

Yes, it was a brilliant idea to bring on this censure motion. Congratulations! This debate gives me the opportunity to place on the public record - absolutely relevant in terms of this debate - what old Fred Flintstone Premier Fahey said about his team when questions were raised about the ethical standards of his team. Let us start with the member for Blue Mountains. Recall these words:

He's a going to blow your place up. You cannot bad things.

Now what he's going do is bomb your place and at the city hall.

He's going to give it the big bang, you watch.

And the Pascoe, he's going to kill him.

Yeh, Tony's going to get the Mafioso, you know.

I's a going to tell you he's going to bomb you, ho ho, bye bye.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order -

[Interruption]

You are the biggest gutless wonder in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for the Environment will give me the benefit of his point of order and not indulge in discussion across the Chamber with other members.

Mr Hartcher: I draw attention to the sub judice rule as applied in this Parliament and the subject of many learned rulings from you, Mr Speaker, over a period of some time. You and the House are aware that certain matters are pending before the court involving the honourable member for Blue Mountains. In fact, a hearing date has been listed for April 1995. The charges which are laid against the member for Blue Mountains relate to various matters of evidence. It is those matters which the Leader of the Opposition now is seeking to canvass in his speech in this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition is canvassing evidence to go before a court on a designated date in April, so it is not just a problematical matter but a clearly identified matter, and therefore the Leader of the Opposition is out of order. I ask you to so rule.

Mr CARR: On the point of order: the Government brought this matter on. We will canvass ethical questions about those who sit on the Government side of the House. The Government is not going to bring on a debate like this then tell the Opposition it cannot canvass the ethical questions that the Premier had to deal with and so notably failed to deal with properly.

Mr Scully: On the point of order: the sub judice rule rightly applies to matters currently before a court. Everyone knows that the member for Blue Mountains has been charged with various offences. The Leader of the Opposition is not seeking to deal with those charges; he is dealing with the comments which the Premier made on the ethical nature of the actions engaged in by the member for Blue Mountains. It is appropriate that debate be permitted in this Chamber on that matter, given that the issue relates to ethics. If the Leader of the Opposition cannot comment on that matter, there is little that anyone in this Chamber can comment on during this debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The sub judice rule protects litigants who are before the court. The general rule applied in this House over the years has been that it is undesirable to canvass issues that touch on matters that are before the court. The House applies the sub judice rule in the interests of the integrity of the legal system and of a fair hearing for litigants whose matters are before the court. The Leader of the Opposition may raise matters that reflect upon ethical standards of other members of this House in the course of debate, but I caution him that he should be careful not to comment on the evidentiary matters which may be before the court and upon which the court will have to determine the guilt or otherwise of persons before it. The Leader of the Opposition is traversing difficult ground. I leave it to him and his sense of integrity, fairness and justice not to intrude into areas that may force the Chair to invoke the sub judice rule. The challenge very much lies with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr CARR: My concern will be with the way the Premier dealt with certain material, the procedures adopted by the Premier in handling matters relating to the honourable member for Blue Mountains. Honourable members must have noted that as soon as the name of the honourable member for Georges River is mentioned the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women is up in his defence. As soon as the name of the honourable member for Blue Mountains is mentioned the Minister for the Environment is up in his defence. The last time we heard from the Minister for the Environment was when he told Cabinet that there had to be enforcement of loyalty standards among ministerial staff. When they all marched into the Chamber at question time his staff phoned the Public Service Association about their jobs after the election. His Cabinet colleagues wonder what he is doing reading lectures to them about staff loyalty.

On 5 May 1994 I asked the Premier a question about how he was handling the events that had overtaken the honourable member for Blue Mountains. Honourable members will recall the Optus telephone account and the famous recording. The Premier said that the honourable member for Blue Mountains had kept him informed on these matters, that he made a statement in the House last week, and the matter was in the hands of the police.
Page 3997
Ponder that. That was the extent of the Premier's concern. Allegations had been made but the Premier says, "They are in the hands of the police", that there is no obligation on him to act. That was the standard he was applying.

The Premier was asked another question about it and his response was, "What are you trying to do, kill the member for Blue Mountains". In other words, he was saying in the face of these serious allegations, "Don't persist with questions because our little mate with the airstrip has got a fragile ticker and you might upset him". We were told to lay off because of the fragile health of the honourable member. Talk about strict ethical standards; talk about washing your hands of the whole affair. The Premier was saying, "Lay off, don't press the matter any further".

On another occasion, 13 May, the honourable member for Ashfield asked a question and the Premier said that all members of the House heard the honourable member for Blue Mountains state quite clearly on Tuesday in this House his response to allegations, imputations and innuendo. You know, enough of that marked similarity in timbre and tone, imputations and innuendo by members of the Opposition. He then proceeded quite spontaneously to give a character reference. He said - this is Fred Flintstone talking - "I have always found the honourable member for Blue Mountains to be an honest and forthright man. He has worked extraordinarily hard in his electorate for the benefit of the people in that electorate. The competent manner in which the honourable member for Blue Mountains represented his electorate can be seen in the roads, the sewerage".

In other words, if you raise an ethical question you just refer to roads and bridges in the electorate and regard it as answered. He pressed on and said, "Do members of the Opposition want to put him in a hospital bed". He would not get a hospital bed in New South Wales. There are 40,000 on the waiting list and he would be five hours in casualty before he got attention. The Premier said, "Do they want to play the public execution game again". Now this was after the allegations about the honourable member for Blue Mountains had dragged on for a week or two weeks. The Premier was giving him character references, telling us to look at roadworks and bridge works in his electorate and accusing us of driving him to ill health. Goodness knows, the honourable member for Blue Mountains has always put his personal health first

That is how the Premier handles an ethical matter. Was that a model of promptitude? Is it a matter of exacting standards remorselessly applied? There is no evidence in any of these answers in Hansard that he called him, that he talked to him. Is there any evidence in the whole affair that the Premier invited him up to his office, even offering him the inducement of a drink? I suppose after his party tricks it would have to have been an Italian white. There is no evidence that he called him in to discuss the matter, talk it over. Is there any evidence in all the Premier's performance on this matter that he asked the honourable member for the Blue Mountains at any time whether there was the slightest truth in any of these grave allegations? Can any Government member answer that? Is there any evidence that the Premier called the honourable member for Blue Mountains and put these grave charges to him? No, it was enough for the Premier to say that these matters had been placed in the hands of the police and to threaten Opposition members that they would be held responsible for a health lapse on the part of the honourable member for Blue Mountains if they persisted with their parliamentary questioning.

So we pass right on to the very dear friend of the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, a person for whom she was most emotional in defence a moment ago, the honourable member for Georges River, or as I describe him, that great moral adornment to the Parliament, a great champion of family values. Every time I open the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader he is there touting family values. Anyway, what was the Premier's response when serious allegations surfaced about the honourable member for Georges River? His response was to give some cryptic interviews where he said, "The matter had been dealt with in the ministerial resignation". That was it. For him there was no exploring with the honourable member whether these grave charges were well based, no question of raising his party endorsement, no suggestion that he was not a fit and proper member to adorn the Liberal benches in New South Wales. I suppose with the precedents, how could we argue that? From Bob Askin through to Tony Packard, precedents do not leave him in a strong position. For the Premier, faced with serious charges concerning the honourable member for Georges River, it was altogether enough to say that the matter had been dealt with in his resignation from the ministry and there it should rest. We all remember him saying that on the 7.30 Report. The Sydney Morning Herald, in its editorial, said:

Mr Fahey's failure was his refusal to explain why Mr Griffiths was resigning.

Remember all that mystery? We were not told why he was resigning - it was enough that he was gone. Here was the Premier applying remorseless ethical standards that the honourable member for Eastwood asserted were appropriate. It was enough that the honourable member for Georges River was gone. The Sydney Morning Herald said:

It was simply unacceptable that a minister should resign without proper explanation. And the explanation offered by Mr Griffiths himself at the time was an insult to the intelligence of all who heard it. He spoke of his resignation as "a matter of principle" and said it was "time to take a career change".

Government members are forcing us to revisit these matters. For me this is tasteless stuff. I do not like being forced to get up in this Chamber and talk about the honourable member for Blue Mountains, Tony the Wheel and those charges, and the Premier's prevarication when the matters were raised. Do honourable members think it gives me any pleasure to
Page 3998
draw attention to the fact that the Minister for Industrial Relations will defend the honourable member for Georges River time and again? Do honourable members think it gives me any pleasure to talk about the Premier's embarrassment and the embarrassment of all good Liberals at the performance of that Minister and the grave charges against him which are now being investigated by Ms Niland? The Minister for Consumer Affairs, who has just come into the Chamber, must have heard me talking about the honourable member for Georges River. She has come to speak in his defence. No surprises! The Sydney Morning Herald went on to say:

That was no more convincing than Mr Griffiths' later attempts to justify his behaviour by confessing.

Oh, yes! Remember that? The great defence of the honourable member for Georges River against these grave allegations made by his staff was that he was a very touchy guy.

[Interruption]

He is a hands-on man. He said that after the roughing up we gave him in question time he was driven to rush out of the plate glass doors and embrace his staff. What an experience that would be! They would be hiding in the toilets if they encountered him on the way out. That was his great defence. What evidence is there that Premier Flintstone -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have tolerated for far too long the use of quite inappropriate phrases by the Leader of the Opposition to describe members of Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition should address members by their correct titles.

Mr CARR: You are altogether right, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition should be careful to show respect to the Chair. The Chair is endeavouring to help him.

Mr CARR: I hear that the Minister for Consumer Affairs is now speaking up in defence of the honourable member for Georges River. She is altogether indignant about the material we have been forced to revisit because of this brilliant motion. Government members come in one after the other in defence of Terry. She is a great Terry Griffiths fan. She is another great fan of the member for Georges River.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already given sufficient warning to Opposition members.

Ms Machin: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, that is a lie. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is a falsehood.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. I call the honourable member for Broken Hill to order. I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order.

Mr CARR: There must have been great bonding in the Fahey Cabinet. There sat the Minister for Consumer Affairs with a Cabinet colleague through thick and thin - the good times, the bad times; the laughter, the tears; the Metherell affair; the Packard affair, and smiles from all of them. They were a loyal bunch, sticking together and praising solidarity. The Minister for Consumer Affairs hears Terry Griffiths' name mentioned and she dashes through the doors into the Chamber and lashes out in his defence. What a great team!

[Interruption]

Yes, that is right. The Chief Secretary has not been herself lately. She will be the next one in, the next called. She will dash into the Chamber. I have a story to tell about the Chief Secretary but I will wait until another debate to relate it. The honourable member for South Coast will be interested to know that one of the first acts of the current Premier was to take this document and say "It means nothing any more". Do honourable members know what the document is? It is dated March 1988 - it is Nick Greiner's document. It is entitled "Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown". Remember that, the code of conduct? Within months of its coming out it had led to Matt Singleton's departure. What has happened to Matt lately? I hate to raise these matters, but Government members bring on these motions. It started with the Matt Singleton affair and there was scandal after scandal after scandal and matters conducive to corruption before the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Before we knew it this code of conduct was not worth anything. But John Fahey was the Premier who officially buried it. John Fahey said, "The code of conduct is not worth the paper it is written on", and they bring this motion against me today on ethics.

Let me say this. An allegation - I believe a very serious allegation - was made against a backbench member of my team. The day after it was made I wrote to the Federal Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and I sent a memo to the member concerned. I asked him to provide me with a satisfactory explanation. None was forthcoming. I wrote to my party and said he was not worthy of endorsement by the party. Apply that standard to how the Premier has prevaricated, twisted and turned over these matters concerning the honourable member for Blue Mountains and the honourable member for Georges River and his attitude towards this code of conduct. All of a sudden the motion directed at me must end up being directed at him. No wonder this Premier is derided by his counterpart in Victoria. According to the Australian only last week, Jeff Kennett regards the New South Wales Premier as a figure of fun. No wonder Joe Schipp stood up at the first party meeting after the Parramatta by-election and said, "Nick Greiner couldn't run a presidential campaign; how could John Fahey do it?"

No wonder they have to live with ministerial staff on the phone day after day to the Public Service Association seeking job guarantees and protection
Page 3999
after March. The best Government members can do is to get the bloke who organised the Parramatta by-election for them to come into this House and censure me because I had not acted on a matter that was discussed in this Parliament in 1988 - it has not been heard of since - in a report by the Auditor-General, looked at by the ICAC and not investigated by it, not proceeded with by the police and, might I add, not raised by Government members on any sitting day in all that time since 1988.

Mr Knight: For seven long years.

Mr CARR: For seven long years. If after seven long years this is the best that Government members can bring forward as an attack on the Opposition, all I and my colleagues can say is: bring on 25 March next year.

Mr Humpherson: Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not given the honourable member for Davidson the call. I would like a copy of the amendment before I go any further. I have not received a written copy of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms Machin: He was so busy acting, he forgot to move it. He did not even move it.

Mr Whelan: Do not get too excited; I will move it.

Ms Machin: I am glad you are not rushing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Davidson will resume his seat. I have already indicated that the Chair is less than impressed with the way this debate is proceeding. For an amendment to be valid a written copy must first be handed to the Chair. It would be insult to the House for a member to move an amendment and leave the Chamber without bothering to hand a written copy of the amendment to the Chair. The House will wait for the written amendment.

Mr CARR: I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all words after "That" and inserting the following words "this House censures the Premier for his consistent failure to apply ethical standards to members of his government including, inter alia, the Member for Blue Mountains, the Member for Georges River, the Treasurer, the previous Member for North Shore, the previous Member for The Hills, and the former Premier, the Hon. Nick Greiner".

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.31]: I refer to the somewhat energetic and spirited defence by the Leader of the Opposition to the censure motion moved by the Government. However, there was less focus on defence than on trying to redirect the argument to other members in this place. It is interesting to note the energetic presence of Opposition members behind the Leader of the Opposition. One person was missing; one person was conspicuous by his absence - the one and only honourable member for St Marys. Where was he? Sitting in his room because he does not support the Leader of the Opposition? We should watch very closely as this day pans out. Is the honourable member for St Marys going to speak in defence of the Leader of the Opposition?

What about one other member who is not present and was not present on the Opposition benches? What about the honourable member for Liverpool, who has been stabbed in the back by the Leader of the Opposition? Will he be here with a spirited defence of his leader? Will he be here to vote in support of his leader? I intend to focus on the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition in the application of the probity and ethical standards that he claims to have and claims to apply to the position he holds. He is right: the public and this State have high expectations. They expect high standards of all their elected members in the way they conduct themselves and the way they approach their roles. The Leader of the Opposition claims that he is setting high ethical standards, high standards of probity - and he is stabbing the honourable member for St Marys in the back.

He has not supported the honourable member for St Marys or the honourable member for Liverpool. He claims he had to get rid of the honourable member for St Marys, he had to cast him adrift because he had not met the standards he wished to set. But how consistently has he applied those standards to other members of his shadow cabinet and other members of his team? He has not. As was indicated by the honourable member for Eastwood, the classic example of that inconsistency is the situation relating to the honourable member for Campbelltown. Let us look at the history of the Leader of the Opposition. For someone who has such high standards of probity, high standards of ethics, how is it that when he was formerly a Minister of the Crown in this State he was quite happy to sit next to and hold the hand of Rex Jackson, the Labor Minister who was later to go to gaol.

What about other Ministers of that cabinet? Frank Walker - of recent fame this afternoon - who is now a Federal Minister, was involved in a number of questionable incidents over a long period of time when he was Minister for Housing. Laurie Brereton is another former Labor Minister who has still not answered a series of questions raised in this Chamber over many years. He had a long history in local government and State and Federal politics. What about the questions that have been raised many times and the answers that have never been provided in relation to Botany Council? The Leader of the Opposition was happy to sit next to those people and work closely with them yet he claims that he, above all people, has high ethical standards and understands what probity is about. He is the last person who would understand that.

The Australian Labor Party has been linked with corruption before, and that has been shown in recent times, particularly in Western Australia where the former Premier and Deputy Premier are having a brief break from public life. Corruption and the ALP are integrally interwoven throughout New South Wales and Australia. On the one hand the Leader of the Opposition is happy to send to the gallows one of his colleagues on the claim that he is exercising high standards. On the other hand, within a matter of days he is happy to promote to his frontbench a prospective future Minister of the Crown with a long series of
Page 4000
questions behind him, questions he is not prepared to answer. On the one hand is the honourable member for Campbelltown, on the other hand is the honourable member for St Marys - one with a doubtful history and one who at best can be described as a bumbling operator who has been cast adrift by his team and by his leader.

The honourable member for Campbelltown indicated in this Chamber yesterday that serious questions have been raised by the Auditor-General in regard to his involvement with Centennial Constructions and a housing project which involved Frank Walker a number of years ago. A number of meetings occurred between the honourable member for Campbelltown and Frank Walker, the then Minister, and with Centennial Constructions, as concluded by the Auditor-General. As a result of those meetings Frank Walker, the then Minister for Housing, withdrew public land - land that was on sale to the public - from sale and ultimately sold that land through a private contractual arrangement to Centennial Constructions.

There was no public tender, there was no restricted tender. There was no way members of the public in this State could be certain that the best price was achieved for that land. There was a closed in-house deal about which questions were never answered by the honourable member for Campbelltown or the former Minister for Housing. No-one knows how much public revenue was forgone because of this closeted deal. Was there any consideration to the ALP for this act? Was any donation ever forthcoming from Centennial Constructions to the Labor Party? Let us wait with great interest as this debate pans out to see whether the honourable member for Campbelltown is prepared to answer that question on the record in this Chamber.

I move now to the Department of Housing election scam in 1987-88. That is the pre-election scam that involved the honourable member for Campbelltown and the former Minister for Housing, Frank Walker. Does Bob Carr, as leader now, stand by them? He certainly has not addressed that matter in his response so far today. Does he stand by that? The questions to which answers are not yet available and to which the police still want answers relate to invasion of privacy, and to the release of confidential Department of Housing names and addresses which were used ultimately for political purposes in the lead-up to an election. None of those names or addresses were given to the Department of Housing for political purposes, but they were used for that purpose, in breach of Federal privacy laws and in breach of any standards of privacy which could ever be applied.

Those letters, which were sent on Department of Housing letterhead, told lies. They alleged that there was to be a doubling of the rent of tenants with the election of a Greiner government. That was obviously patently untrue and was subsequently proved to have no substance. Those allegations were contained for political purposes on Department of Housing letterhead with the concurrence of Minister Walker and the honourable member for Campbelltown.

Today the Leader of the Opposition stands by that practice. He has not criticised it or said it was inappropriate. He has ignored and condoned the use of public resources and public funds for political purposes. There was a bill from the Department of Housing for $30,000 worth of printing for this political campaign. A $3,000 reimbursement was received from Frank Walker, but where is the contribution from the honourable member for Campbelltown? Where is the other $10,000 he still owes, plus interest over a number of years? He should answer that question and let the police have an answer to their questions. But he still refuses to answer the questions. The police still want answers to those questions; they are still there, waiting for a response. Is the Leader of the Opposition going to seek answers to those 133 questions? No reference was made to that in his response. He is condoning the questions remaining unanswered.

The police suspect corruption in relation to three people, two of whom are members of Parliament. One is Minister Walker, the other is the honourable member for Campbelltown. Will the member answer questions now? Is he going to substantiate to the police why they should not have suspicions of corruption about him? Throughout all of this and at the time these incidents took place the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the former Labor Government. How aware was he, as Minister for Planning at the time, and how involved was he in these types of campaigns? He must have known. He has not denied or refuted the claims. He must have known. After all of this, why is it that the honourable member for Campbelltown gets a promotion? What sort of standards of ethics and probity is that setting?

The Leader of the Opposition has just sent to the gallows and hung out to dry the honourable member for St Marys - who I trust and presume is sitting in his office quietly listening. The Leader of the Opposition has hung him out to dry, yet he has promoted another member of his backbench who has a much more questionable history than the honourable member for St Marys. The honourable member for St Marys, it is true, deserves to have a number of questions asked of his oversights and mistakes, but those offences have paled into insignificance compared with those of the honourable member for Campbelltown. What about the honourable member for St Marys and the $330 cheque? Is that common practice for members of the Labor Party and Labor members of Parliament? Do they regularly accept cheques for purposes other than those for which the cheques are supposed to be used? It seems there is a reasonably long history of that practice. It seems the $330 cheque went missing in the mail. That is a strange explanation, yet the Leader of the Opposition seeks to apply high standards and effectively dismiss from Parliament the honourable member for St Marys.

However, when a much more serious series of questions is on the record and much more money is involved, the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to apply the same standards. There are a number of questions that the Leader of the Opposition has not asked of the honourable member for St Marys. How
Page 4001
about providing a record of the sequence of cheque butts in relation to the $330 personal cheque made out to the Department of Immigration? How about a list of those cheque butts showing one missing which has been provided to the Leader of the Opposition? How about providing a bank statement showing the sequence of cheques presented and of course the one that has gone missing somewhere in the mail? It is almost a fatal comedy of errors. Unfortunately the honourable member for St Marys is going to pay the price.

I turn to the Henry Lawson Club cheques. That club is a veritable Australian Labor Party goldmine that is used to prop up the ailing Australian Labor Party in the western suburbs. How widespread is this reliance of Labor Party candidates and members on their branches in the west of Sydney? How widely do they depend on the Henry Lawson Club, the workers' club? How many other instances were there of misappropriation, other than those identified yesterday, of cheques and payments ostensibly for other purposes that ultimately went to the Australian Labor Party?

Mr Knight: On a point of order: the motion seeks, alternatively, to censure the Leader of the Opposition or, by way of amendment, to censure the Premier. It may be possible for members opposite to traverse some matters about the honourable member for St Marys, myself and other members, but the honourable member for Davidson has dwelt so long upon matters to do with the honourable member for St Marys that it is as though the motion were a censure motion of the honourable member for St Marys, which it is not. He can certainly make passing references, if he wants to imply some inconsistency in treatment, but he cannot treat the motion as a censure motion of either me or, more importantly, the honourable member for St Marys.

Mr Cochran: On the point of order: earlier a ruling was made on points raised about incidents and persons other than those mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition during his contribution. The same would apply in this case. The member is raising issues relevant to the debate and should be allowed to proceed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order was taken about latitude in the debate. It was argued by the Opposition that considerable latitude should be extended to speakers. However, the question concerned relevancy, and as the conduct of the member for St Marys appears to be germane because it has been mentioned by all speakers, including the Leader of the Opposition, reference to it is relevant. The honourable member for Davidson is in order.

Mr HUMPHERSON: I intend to give examples to show why the Leader of the Opposition acted inconsistently in applying what he would claim to be consistent standards. I have referred to the immigration cheque and the honourable member for St Marys. I shall now refer to his actions and involvement in payments to the Australian Labor Party from the Henry Lawson Fund. Payments were tendered from that fund to the Australian Labor Party. How many other Labor branches have received payments from the Henry Lawson Fund, where cheques have been made out to the Australian Labor Party but where requisitions for that purpose are entirely different? That is nothing less than misappropriation. If the board of directors of the Henry Lawson Club decided, under their charter, to make payments to the Labor Party, requisitions for those cheques should indicate that decision. That was not the case in the one clear example raised yesterday in regard to the Penrith branch of the Australian Labor Party.

It will be interesting to find out if the honourable member for Penrith was aware what happened. If not, how much more widely does that practice apply? How many other requisitions benefited the Australian Labor Party? The Leader of the Opposition has set - or has attempted to claim he is setting - high standards of probity and accountability. In that process he has sought to dismiss from Parliament the honourable member for St Marys by way of disendorsement. That disendorsement may well take place tomorrow. Not many would differ with the Leader of the Opposition on his desire to apply the high standards expected of members of Labor's parliamentary team. However, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to apply those standards, he must apply them consistently. The censure motion demonstrates he is not applying the same high standards to the honourable member for Campbelltown that he has applied to the honourable member for St Marys. The Leader of the Opposition has promoted the honourable member for Campbelltown from the obscurity of 14 years on the backbench into his shadow Cabinet team. The Leader of the Opposition hopes that at some time Labor will win office and he will want to have the honourable member for Campbelltown with him as a Minister of the Crown. There is no way that the people of this State would condone or endorse someone with a long, questionable history.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order. I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order. I call the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment to order. I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time.

Mr HUMPHERSON: The motion seeks to censure the Leader of the Opposition on two bases. The first is the inconsistency in the way in which he has applied standards. It is acknowledged that he has applied a standard in a one-off instance to the honourable member for St Marys, but he has certainly not applied that consistently and cannot claim that the standards of probity that applied to the honourable member for St Marys have been applied to any other member of his parliamentary team. That refers to the honourable member for Campbelltown and to former members of the Opposition - the Rex Jacksons, the Frank Walkers and the Laurie Breretons. I support the censure motion. I am sure that the Independents will be listening carefully to the substance rather than to the enthusiastic defence offered by honourable members opposite, because it is quite clear that that was all that was coming from the Leader of the Opposition and from his team - enthusiasm but no substance. [Time expired.]

Page 4002

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [4.51]: What a pathetic response to a serious motion moved in the Parliament by the honourable member for Eastwood, who accepted unhesitatingly the poison chalice offered him. Was he offered that by the Minister for Police, who had the information, the Premier, who was privy to the information, or the sponsor, the Minister for the Environment? Who gave the poor honourable member for Eastwood this brief, knowing full well that he had no chance of success; that a judgment properly could not be offered against the Leader of the Opposition; and that neither could they, in a veiled way, sully the reputation of the honourable member for Campbelltown by virtue of some police report about a matter some time back in 1987. This is the same police report, on my understanding, that was not only in the hands of the police, this police Minister, Torpedo Ted, hands-on Minister Terry Griffiths -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ashfield will recall that earlier I brought to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition the rule that members should be referred to by their correct titles. I ask all members to adhere strictly to that rule.

Mr WHELAN: Former police Ministers Pickering and Griffiths and the current Minister all had the same file. The Minister for Police is not in the Chamber with a police brief attacking the Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member for Campbelltown. It is the Parliamentary Secretary, number 25 in the Cabinet, who is trying to sully the reputation of the honourable member for Campbelltown. As I understand it, the matter is so old that it had to be dusted off. It has been to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Independent Commission Against Corruption said, "No further action warranted". So what the honourable member for Eastwood wants the Opposition to do is to go behind the Independent Commission Against Corruption decision and reopen the matter.

The thing that really stuck in my craw was that the honourable member for Eastwood kept saying that the honourable member for Campbelltown should go to the police and answer their 130-odd questions. The honourable member for Eastwood is supposed to be a lawyer and is supposed to understand that it is not wise to implicate oneself. The honourable member knows that, because he sits with a number of Government members who have refused point-blank on dozens of occasions to give any evidence, whether it be in a civil inquiry or in a police inquiry. I shall mention some of the people who have been referred to. The Treasurer, in a civil defamation action, jumped into the witness box - but did he go before the Independent Commission Against Corruption when required to by this Parliament to investigate the terms of evidence? No, of course he did not. He sent Roger Gyles QC at the taxpayers' expense to represent him before the Independent Commission Against Corruption, but the Treasurer never went within cooee of it - on a civil matter. And yet it has been suggested that the honourable member for Campbelltown should reply to police questions.

Some people on the Opposition benches, and a majority on the Government benches, believe that just because a person is charged by the police, that person is guilty. In this instance that is not the case. The question of whether the police file is still current remains doubtful. In view of the ICAC's treatment of it, that matter is finished, and so too is the whole of the police matter. The matter is stale and statute barred - it is an old story. This is a miserable, failed attempt by a shoddy government, tired and stale, without the commitment of a Cabinet Minister, to move a censure motion against the Leader of the Opposition. The Government has had to put two of the small pups up to try to besmirch the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Campbelltown, and they have failed abysmally. I do not know why the Government has done this. Those who have been members of this Parliament for some time will recall the matter of Fontana Films. In 1987 the Opposition was in government and a motion was moved by the then Opposition about Fontana Films. I remember thinking how fantastic it was, and I can tell you that was the day the then Unsworth Government went downhill, and this is such a day in the life of this tired Government. This is such a day. It is happening.

Mrs Chikarovski: Do you want to bet?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, I am very happy to bet you, and give you a start. This motion is about ethical standards. The Leader of the Opposition has drawn attention to that in the amendment to the motion. He has pointed out the ethical standards of the Premier in his attitude to the honourable member for Blue Mountains, who has been charged by the police. What is consistent about that member and the honourable member for Campbelltown? Nothing, because the honourable member for Blue Mountains has been charged. He did not give a statement. The honourable member for Campbelltown did not give a statement, but he has not been charged - that is the difference - the reason being that there is a substantial weight of evidence in the minds of the police that the honourable member for Blue Mountains has to be charged. But, before he was charged he was in this Chamber; he had the full support of the Government; he was embraced by the Government and the Premier, and guess what he does now? He sits in the Chamber, votes to protect the Government and Ministers on resolutions - he is a member of the Government and of the Liberal Party.

The honourable member for Blue Mountains still attends party meetings and votes consistently with the Government in the House. He still represents the Government in the seat of the Blue Mountains and he still draws a hefty salary from the Government. Those comments could also apply to the honourable member for Georges River, the former Minister for Police. He was dragged screaming before the Independent Commission Against Corruption as a result of my reference to it. The Independent Commission Against Corruption reviewed the whole matter as best as it could, and ultimately the Government was shamed into referring the matter to
Page 4003
a special investigation headed by Carmel Niland, a commissioner, under the signature of the Governor of New South Wales to report to this Parliament on the variety of matters referred to in the terms of reference.

Did Mr Griffiths go before that body at his expense? Well, we believed that he might be going there but what do we find? We find that Minister Griffiths not only is the subject of an allegation but has been provided with legal aid on the allegation of sexual misconduct. Where is the ethical standard there? A Minister of the Crown gets legal aid on an allegation of sexual misconduct. When is sexual misconduct part of a Minister's official duties? That is the only time that a Minister is entitled to get legal aid.

Hypocrisy! Ethical standards, failed ethical standards. The Premier did nothing about the honourable member for Georges River until he was dragged screaming and shouting by resolution of this Parliament, by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, by public opinion, by editorials ad nauseam, saying that he had to show some guts. You know what guts he showed? He sent a reference off to Carmel Niland to conduct an inquiry - in private. The State taxpayers have to pay the bill for the honourable member for Georges River to go and give his evidence, if he chooses to give his evidence in the future. I return to ethical responsibility. The honourable member for Georges River is still a member of the Government, he is still a member of the Liberal Party, he sits beside Cabinet members of the Liberal Government when he goes to the party room; he votes for them in this House; he still represents the electorate of Georges River and still gets a very hefty government pay packet. Where are the ethical standards in relation to those allegations?

How do you think the women at the centre of that storm, that sexual molestation allegation, feel about this? Where are they? What do they think about the ethical standards of a government that gives the man who is alleged to have made the sexual harassment legal aid and does not provide legal aid to them? As honourable members of this House know, I have been at pains to point out the rank hypocrisy of the Government's unethical standards in relation to Dr Ryan and the Treasurer, Peter Collins. I am not going to tell the House the story again but honourable members know that the defamation matter was settled out of court. I raised the issue in the House and the matter went to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It was investigated by the ICAC, which found that the Treasurer acted imprudently. That is what it said, "The State's Treasurer acted imprudently".

What did the Premier do to the Treasurer after he had been given what we think was the very light recognition of his conduct being considered imprudent? I will come back to his conduct. The Premier has condoned the whole of the Treasurer's conduct in the matter. If the ICAC said that the person in the high office of Treasurer - the person in charge of the State's purse strings - acted imprudently, one would think the Premier would adopt the same sort of high standards that the Leader of the Opposition has adopted with a member with a much lower status.

There are no prizes for second-guessing this, but I might say that the State taxpayers had to pay Peter Collins' fees with regard to his appearance before the ICAC. He had the famous Sydney barrister, who again got him off the hook, Roger Gyles QC, an eminent and brilliant lawyer. It was Gyles who got Metherell, Greiner and Tim Moore off the hook by finding an inconsistency in the law. As a matter of interest, that inconsistency in the law is the inconsistency that the ICAC bill is intended to remove. Those inconsistencies were found by Roger Gyles but they were found by him at the State taxpayers' expense. Where is the ethical standard there? As I said last week in a debate about legal aid, where is the ethical standard when the Government gives all its Ministers legal assistance and legal aid but does not give it to members who are offside with the Treasurer? They do not get legal aid and the people of the State do not get legal aid.

The resolution is about ethical standards. In 1993 ICAC Deputy Commissioner Holland brought down the report on his investigation of the settlement of a defamation action between Treasurer Collins and a former employee of the Department of Health, Dr Ryan. Collins, as the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 January noted, "claims to be vindicated by the findings". That is what the Treasurer said. The editorial states that many people, including me and my colleagues on this side of the House, remain unconvinced.

There are two important aspects of this report that stand out. Collins and his solicitor refused to be interviewed by ICAC investigators on his version of events. It is a shame that the honourable member for Eastwood is not here because I wanted to point that out to him: Collins and his solicitor refused to be interviewed by the ICAC on his version of events. The honourable member for Eastwood makes some sort of claim that seven years ago the honourable member for Campbelltown refused to answer police questions. In 1990, four years ago, the matter was investigated by the ICAC and no action was taken. The ICAC said no action was to be taken. Yet what did Mr Collins do? When called before the ICAC he refused to give evidence, his solicitor refused to give evidence, and the ICAC found that the Treasurer was imprudent. What does the Premier do about replacing his Treasurer? Nothing. He thinks it is just a flick of the hand and the State Treasurer is an innocent man.

Mr W. T. J. Murray: Did you replace Rex?

Mr WHELAN: Rex was not replaced. Rex Jackson was put in gaol. Rex Jackson was a fool. Rex Jackson served his time. The only real crook in New South Wales who did not serve time but deserved to was Bob Askin. He was the biggest single crook that ever existed. I hope I get some anecdotal evidence on the State Bank bill debate
Page 4004
because years ago I was reliably informed that the biggest SP bookie in the State Bank when he worked there as a clerk was none other than Bob Askin. We also know that Bob was very frugal! He must have been because when he died he left about $3 million or $4 million. He must have saved a lot!

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

Mr WHELAN: Askin must have saved a lot of money! Oh gosh he must have been frugal!

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

Mr WHELAN: His poor wife must have been living off crumbs because he died a very wealthy man! He was the biggest crook in Australia's history and Government members know it as well as I do. He was a big crook and sponsored all the crook coppers. He lived with them, he handled them, and if anyone started institutionalised corruption in New South Wales and got the police into that league it was that rotten crook Askin. Never let anyone ever forget about it.

I would be happy to move a motion in respect of Sir Robert Askin, or Robin Askin, at any time. I revert to the question of inconsistencies in ethical standards and their application and refer in particular to the State Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Collins, and his position with the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Because of major discrepancies in statements by witnesses I will move in this House a motion that will ask why the commissioner did not hold a full public inquiry into this sordid story. That is a matter critical to the Government's motion relating to the ethical standards of the Leader of the Opposition.

What did the State's Treasurer do about his own personal defamation action? Peter Collins personally contacted Fairfax deputy executive Michael Hoy about the defamation action and said, "Michael, Fairfax will bankrupt me". This is a plea for mercy on a private, failed defamation action by the State Treasurer. What did the Premier do about that response? Absolutely nothing. If I am wrong on that matter, then how about this one? There were a series of meetings and communications between Collins and senior management of Fairfax. The State's Treasurer, Peter Collins, proposed that litigation be settled on the basis of each side bearing its own costs.

Treasurer Collins gave Fairfax his legal opinions. There was intervention by a Fairfax major shareholder who advised a Fairfax director that settlement was on certain conditions. This is the State's Treasurer hand in hand with Fairfax on a private defamation action, and the Premier of New South Wales did nothing about it. Is that not in stark contrast with the response of the Leader of the Opposition? It is getting under the skin of Government members that the Leader of the Opposition did not mince his words and took action about people stepping out of line. The Government has this litany of failed people - [Time expired.]

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [5.11]: The valid motion before the Chair seeks that the House censure the Leader of the Opposition for the inconsistent application of ethical standards that he applies to members of his party. I believe he is guilty as charged. We all agree that standards must be set for members on both sides of the House. However, I must say that this motion will not do us a great deal of good. We as members of this Parliament have provided ourselves with an opportunity to air our dirty washing, a procedure that can only result in the image of members of Parliament being further tarnished in the eyes of the public.

The code of ethics for members of this House must be applied to members without discrimination. We need a set of standards that will make us proud to be members of Parliament and proud to be engaged in our occupations. The dirty linen to be hung out today will do nothing to enhance the reputation of this Parliament in the eyes of the public. We need to establish a code of behaviour for members of Parliament when conducting their affairs in public, in their electorate offices, in their electorates and in Parliament. If ever there was a demonstration that we need a code of ethics it is the fact that recently motions of censure have been aired so publicly and with such vehemence as has been the motion today.

Much has been said with an air of humour by the Leader of the Opposition about the former member for Coffs Harbour, former Premier Nick Greiner, former Minister for the Environment Tim Moore, the former member for The Hills and other members on this side of the Parliament. The glee with which the Leader of the Opposition made those comments, and the joy he gained and the humour he used in exposing those issues did nothing to enhance the credibility of members of this Parliament. The frivolous attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition when dealing with this matter did nothing for the standing of this Parliament. These are serious matters. They diminish the standard of politics in this State.

Ethical standards have been set by those on this side of the House. I believe it to be the will of almost every honourable member of this House that those standards be applied. It was, after all, a coalition Government that established the Independent Commission Against Corruption with the very intent of establishing standards and conduct of which we could all be proud. Regrettably the Independent Commission Against Corruption has been used to intimidate, threaten and seek retribution and revenge in a most malicious way. Such behaviour does little to enhance the image of members of Parliament in the eyes of the public. But I can say confidently that former Premier Nick Greiner was an honest man, and his intention always was to raise the standard of behaviour of members of this Parliament in the eyes of the public.

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

Page 4005


Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon) [5.15]: I wish to bring to the attention of the House and of the Auditor-General two reports. One is an audit report by the firm of chartered accountants B. Noordzy & Co. on the Moree Local Aboriginal Land Council and the other is a report by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations on the Gwydir Property Aboriginal Corporation. The first of those reports reveals that the Moree Aboriginal people are being bled of funds to a degree that is unbelievable. The report, dated 3 March 1994, makes abundantly clear the extent of theft that is taking place in regard to the operations of that land council. Technically, the Auditor-General cannot look into the affairs of a local land council, but he may investigate the operations of a regional land council. I strongly urge him to do so in an attempt to look at all these operations. Paragraph 1 of the audit report sets out the following disbursements not considered by the firm to have been appropriate:

(a) An amount of $4,000 was paid to the Gwydir Property Aboriginal Corporation on 2 October 1991 as a loan to sponsor the Boomerang footballers to Sydney for a knockout carnival.

(b) Payments totalling $1,287.46 have been made to Avis for car hires to attend meetings when the Council has two vehicles of its own.

(c) Many cheques have been paid during the year where no supporting accounts or invoices have been attached.

(d) An [loan] amount of $375.00 paid on behalf of the Wirraway Aboriginal Homes Housing was not repaid.

(e) Amounts have been paid to directors and/or committee persons for travelling to regional meetings without any documentation of receipts for expenditure incurred. Travel allowances have also been paid to people who were not office bearers of the Council.

(f) On the 8th July, 1992 Renee Adams was paid $180 for one week's secretarial work. On the 9th July, 1992 she was paid $218 for a further week's secretarial work.

Paragraph 4, which relates to wages records, states:

(b) Employment declaration forms have been not completed by any of the employees, and under these circumstances tax at the maximum rate of 48.25c in the $1 should have been deducted from all wages paid.

(c) On one occasion group tax of $43.05 was deducted from wages paid but has not been remitted to the Taxation Department. In all other instances no tax has been deducted from taxable wages.

In paragraph 5 the audit report states:

A contingent liability of approximately $32,000 exists for a project commenced on the property at Terry Hie Hie. No allowance has been made for these costs in the Financial Statements.

The sorry story of accounting deficiencies goes on. I move to the case of the report on the Gwydir Property Aboriginal Corporation. This corporation has 26 houses, but only nine of the 26 occupants are paying rent. The remaining 17 occupants are being subsidised in their rental payments. Under the heading "Summary of Findings" are these opinions based on the investigations:

(b) Large numbers of cash cheques for significant amounts are drawn without any documentation. (From 1/7/91 to 30/6/92 cash cheques amounted to a minimum $30,000).

(c) Wages are being drawn indiscriminately and bear no relationship to wages records.

The financial records of the corporation are in total disarray. All these matters as well as others need to be checked out and action taken. Under "Payments made by the Governing Committee" are these matters:

(a) The cheque books were deficient in that many were blank or had insufficient identification of details.

(b) Significant numbers of cheques of large amounts are made out to "Cash" without any documentation.

Among those was a cheque for $6,000 from rent money to Michael Anderson for writing two submissions. Other items under the heading were:

(c) No cash book is kept.

(d) There is no evidence of the Committee approving payments that are made.

Where those moneys go, no-one knows, because there is no authorisation. In respect to other matters, payments have been made to both Mr Doug McGrady and Mr Lyall Munro and, of course, to another committee member, Ms Rhonda Swan, who purchased a number of heaters, all of which went into their own homes. Numerous debts have been created. In fact, a guarantee in favour of Renee Adams to the ANZ Bank for $10,000 has still not been repaid and the bill is now $10,133. A loan of $700 to Ken Copeland on 22 November 1991 has not been checked and no payments have been made. Group tax has not been paid to the taxation department. [Time expired].


Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [5.20]: I wish to raise a matter of extreme concern to the residents of Greystanes and Merrylands West in my electorate concerning the proposal by the property section of the Water Board that the water supply canal which runs from Prospect Reservoir to pipe head at Guildford be sold and developed as medium density housing. I am reliably informed that this proposal is being seriously considered by the board. This would be an act of gross environmental degradation and should not be permitted. The Water Board is currently constructing underground pipes which will run from the proposed filtration plant to pipe head, rendering the open canal obsolete in terms of the water provision to the people of Sydney.

I cannot understand how this Government can seriously claim that it is concerned about the environment when this urban vandalism proposed by
Page 4006
the Water Board is being allowed by the Premier, the Minister responsible for the Water Board and the Minister for the Environment. This Government is only interested in flogging off valuable open space heritage in western Sydney so it can spend the money on the north shore or in rural areas. The canal was constructed about 100 years ago and is of great heritage value. It leaks a large amount of water that feeds a number of small ponds and creeks, which in turn have provided havens for many and varied bird life that, but for the canal, would not appear in such an otherwise urbanised area. These include but are not limited to cockatoos, parrots and kookaburras. In fact, the Cumberland Bird Observers Club has informed me that up to 130 different species of birds have been observed from time to time along the canal.

The canal runs for about seven kilometres and is about four metres wide but is contained in a beautiful open space corridor of up to 100 metres in width in some parts. The constituents of this part of my electorate are up in arms about it and are outraged. They share my outrage at western Sydney losing this beautiful area to medium density housing and for whatever other profit making venture the Water Board proposes to dream up. I have received more than 300 letters and more than 30 phone calls from people expressing extreme opposition to any proposal other than the canal and the surrounding land on either side being left for open space purposes. The Water Board commissioned a report in January 1993 on the value of vegetation along the canal, and it was suggested that the canal land, like other remnants of open space in western Sydney, could be regarded as "an important fauna link between the large bushland areas and national parks in the north and south of the city, in addition to forming a tenuous east-west corridor through the heavily developed western suburbs".

The honourable member for Blacktown, who from next March will be the Minister responsible for the Water Board, has given me a categorical assurance that the canal will be protected as a heritage item of great value and that the land surrounding the canal will be left in public ownership in perpetuity for the benefit of the people of western Sydney. This would allow it to be opened up for walkways, cycleways, children's playgrounds, and barbeque areas. It would allow the greening Australia program to plant thousands of trees along its banks and make it a haven for birds and, of course, for families to enjoy on weekends and in their leisure time. The honourable member for Moorebank, who is the chairman of the parliamentary Labor Party task force on urban affairs, has visited the site and has formally endorsed this assurance and is strongly opposed to its being developed for housing or for anything other than public purposes.

I ask the Minister for the Environment, through the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, where is the Environment Protection Authority? What is it doing to protect the urban environment of western Sydney? Why has not the Water Board conducted an environmental impact statement into what is a gross act of vandalism? What is this Government doing to protect the environment of western Sydney? Come election time in March next year, I will be saying to the people of my electorate, particularly those in Greystanes and Merrylands West, that a vote for Labor is a vote to keep the canal and the surrounding land in public hands, but a vote for the Liberal Party is a vote for environmental vandalism and a loss of the canal and the surrounding lands.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [5.25]: Though I do not know the details of the particular matter to which the honourable member for Smithfield refers, I assure honourable members that this Government has a good record on matters relating to the environment. This Government is genuinely concerned about the environment and not about making cheap political points. I note that the honourable member said he has received 300 letters. The issue is obviously a matter of great concern to his electorate. I assume that he has not been dragging the chain and has already raised these matters with the Ministers responsible. If he has failed to do so, obviously he is not as concerned as he makes out. I will ensure that the matters are raised with the responsible Ministers as a matter of urgency.


Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [5.27]: I wish to express my extreme concern and dismay at the way a constituent of mine, Mr Colin Herr of Mount Colah, is being treated by the Building Services Corporation. Mr Herr was a subcontractor on a job at 20 Burns Road, North Beecroft, some time ago, where two defects occurred for which the Building Services Corporation paid insurance and sought to take action against my constituent. My constituent had been engaged by the owner builder of that property and was doing work at his direction and at the direction of others, including an engineer who designed the work. The two defects comprised a leak in the house and a defect in the concrete slab, which occurred during the pouring of the slab.

When my constituent appealed to the Commercial Tribunal against the rectification orders and disciplinary proceedings, the Commercial Tribunal found that, after long proceedings and considerable evidence, my constituent could not be considered responsible for the leakage in the house. In fact, on page 13 of the Commercial Tribunal's findings it said that the problem arose "because of a design defect for which the appellant was not responsible and therefore he had reasonable cause not to comply with the rectification order". In relation to the concrete slab, it was established that the owner "prevented the appellant from complying with the rectification order and accordingly he had reasonable cause for failing to comply with it".

My constituent also argues that the defect that occurred during the pouring of the slab was related to a delay in the process and was not a matter over
Page 4007
which he had control. The engineer's design of the slab did not specify that there was to be no stop in the pour of that slab. In other words, it is arguable whether my constituent was responsible for the defective concrete slab. So of the two matters involved, the Commercial Tribunal is convinced my constituent had no control over one of them. In relation to the second matter, there is doubt as to whether he had control over it.

The Commercial Tribunal found substantially in my constituent's favour. Nonetheless, the Building Services Corporation, under its Act, is seeking to recover insurance moneys from my constituent to the value of about $49,000. Of that amount $18,000 relates to the slab and $30,000 relates to the leakage of water. My constituent argues - and on the basis of what I have seen I agree with him - that he should not be pursued for the leakage in the house. Indeed, there are serious doubts whether he should be pursued for the defect in the slab. The Building Services Corporation argues that there are different tests in law. The Commercial Tribunal, when investigating questions of disciplinary proceedings, applies a different test to that which would apply for the same matter going to the Local Court for recovery of insurance moneys paid out under the Building Services Corporation Act. That may be the case, but I am firmly of the opinion that, on the basis of what I have seen and on the facts that were established and discussed by the Commercial Tribunal, even though there may be a legal right to pursue there is no moral right to pursue for the full amount - which is what the Building Services Corporation is seeking to do.

There is no moral reason for the Building Services Corporation seeking to pursue my constituent. On the question of the claim for rectifying the defect in the concrete slab - remember my constituent was denied access to do the work or to rectify the problem - he has now pointed out a number of matters in the claim that relate to additional carpentry, a roof inspection and plumbing. It could be argued that that had little to do with rectifying a defect in a concrete slab. The Building Services Corporation has paid out on that, and it needs to reinvestigate that claim. My constituent should not be pursued over this. He has suffered severe trauma and personal, financial and family hardship as a result. He and his family have suffered, and I see no reason to suggest that he should suffer further by being dragged through the courts. I call on the Minister to stop the Building Services Corporation pursuing my constituent or, at the very least, to appoint a mutually agreed upon mediator to examine these matters.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie - Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport) [5.32]: I thank the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai for again bringing this matter to my attention. He has been pursuing this matter diligently on behalf of his constituent. In the brief time that I have available it will be difficult to inform the House of the detail of the information surrounding this case. Unfortunately, many of the issues that come before me via the Building Services Corporation are complicated. Some of the matters referred to by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai are new to me. I was not aware that other issues were raised in regard to roofing and so on in connection with the slab. I am more than happy to have those matters investigated. I appreciate that this may have caused concern to Mr Herr and to the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. It has to be remembered that consumers are also involved in this equation. For whatever reason they were probably not terribly happy to find these fairly significant defects in their house.

The Building Services Corporation somehow has to establish who is right, and it has to get the right balance at the end of the day and arrive at an outcome that is fair to both parties. A couple of issues are involved. The issue of disciplinary proceedings is quite separate from the issue of debt recovery. Disciplinary proceedings are held in the Commercial Tribunal and debt recovery is undertaken by the Building Services Corporation within its own organisation. It does so on behalf of consumers generally - where it is possible. When the Building Services Corporation pays out an insurance claim it attempts to recover some of the moneys for the benefit of future cases. I understand that the Building Services Corporation has made an offer to have further discussions with Mr Herr or his representatives. I share the concern expressed about this matter going to court because that will only delay matters, and court action is very expensive. From my understanding - I think I conveyed this in correspondence to the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai - the Building Services Corporation has offered to meet with Mr Herr or his representatives to discuss this matter. [Time expired.]


Mr SHEDDEN (Bankstown) [5.34]: I wish to refer to a matter of great concern to parents, teachers and pupils in my electorate, namely, the discovery of asbestos illegally dumped in the grounds of Condell Park High School. This matter has been raised by the Opposition in the past two weeks. The response by the Government over that time leaves a lot to be desired. It has been reported that, as alleged by a landscaping company that has done work for the school, asbestos has been found on the site. Parents are naturally concerned about whether it is safe to send their children to the school. Despite a newsletter from the Department of School Education the public cannot yet be sure whether to trust these assurances. After a public meeting at the school this week many parents to whom I spoke are still very concerned about this issue. This is because the tests have not been carried out according to agreed specifications.

Until this week the Government has not had proper consultation with teachers, students, parents and the local community. The key concerns at this stage must be whether the testing of the site was carried out properly and whether the plan for the removal of the asbestos so far discovered is satisfactory. I shall deal with each of these concerns
Page 4008
in turn. There must be serious doubts about whether the testing was properly carried out on the site. An inspection of the site was carried out on 26 September. I attended that inspection, accompanied by a representative of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Workers Union, representatives of the Environment Protection Authority and representatives of the Public Works Department and the landscaping company that alleged the presence of asbestos. The CFMEU official pointed out that the appropriate work safety protocols for the testing for asbestos were not in place. Sites were marked in the huge mounds of earth under which the asbestos is alleged to be located. The contractor who created those mounds and who knows where the asbestos is located indicated where he thought it would be found. Marks were painted along the mounds to indicate where the drilling to test for asbestos and other chemicals should take place.

It transpires that these sites were not the places where the actual drilling took place. According to the CFMEU organiser who inspected the site with the relevant Public Works officials after the results were announced, the people doing the testing drilled horizontally into the mounds and not at the same locations where the marks were painted. They were suppose to drill vertically at those marks. In other words, testing did not occur where it was claimed the asbestos would be located. Even so, asbestos was discovered. But there can be no guarantee that more dangerous asbestos and toxic chemicals are not at other marked sites. The only conclusion from the publicly available information is that it cannot be said with any certainty that no health risk is posed by the site. An official from the Public Works Department, Mr Keith Ryan, who was asked by the Sydney Morning Herald whether toxic chemicals could be present, is quoted as saying that such dangerous substances could still be there.

Yet the department says that there is a negligible health risk. It plans to go ahead and bulldoze the site during the Christmas holidays, and to look for further toxic substances. Until that time parents will not know what risk their children face. The plan to bulldoze the mounds back into the hole might be the wrong one. The costs associated with restoration work should not be allowed to penalise the school's budget. It is the right of these students to have education funds spent on them. The Department of School Education allowed this situation to get out of hand with its policy of turning schools into small businesses. The department should bear the costs of the failed enterprise. I urge the Government to be open with parents and the community and to keep them fully informed of any further information as it comes to light. The Government will now have to work hard to help the school restore the credibility it has lost over this incident.


Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [5.39]: I wish to raise a matter of grave concern that I first raised in this House on 3 May. I am particularly worried about my constituents who are caught up in this matter and who do not seem able to obtain any solution to their problems. A well respected car dealer in my area - a man to whom many in my electorate return time and again to buy vehicles and a man who has been in business for many years and is highly thought of by people in the trade and by his customers - purchased a vehicle in Victoria that he was going to sell in his car yard. On 29 January he sold the vehicle - a Ford Falcon station wagon, registered number SUT869 - to Mr Kevin Raine, a constituent of mine who lives in a village just outside Albury. That constituent is an ordinary, young fellow battling to look after a young family. When Mr Gillett first bought this vehicle he checked with the Register of Encumbered Vehicles to determine whether or not the car had been stolen. When he sold the car to Mr Raine, Mr Raine also checked with the Register of Encumbered Vehicles to confirm that the car had not been stolen. Mr Raine's wife had access to the same information; she had checked it independently. There was nothing about the car being stolen.

Mr Raine bought the car in early February and within a couple of days police were on his doorstep saying the car was stolen and had to be impounded. Mr Gillett, wanting to do the right thing, lent his customer a car. He has lent him a number of cars since then so he can drive his family about and get to work. All Mr Raine has been told is that there was some delay with the car being entered on the register of stolen vehicles and that his only recourse was to go to court. He made some inquiries and found that the original owner had left the car with someone who claimed to be a friend. That person decided the car was a bit of a wreck and that he would sell it to a wrecking yard. He said he had authority to do that. The original owner said he did not have the authority.

The car was sold. The wrecking yard sold it and it was sold again. Finally Mr Gillett bought it and sold it to Mr Raine. When the original owner returned and found his car had been stolen he notified the police. Mr Robert Steed was charged with stealing the vehicle and the matter was due to be heard on 30 August this year. The defendant, Mr Steed, died on 14 August, and when the matter came to court the magistrate ruled that the matter could not proceed because the defendant had passed away. The information had to be withdrawn.

Where does this leave my constituents? They were told they could buy the car from the original owner. Mr Gillett has tried to contact him so the car can be released, but he cannot contact the original owner. What can these people do; who can they turn to; how can they get some redress? The car dealer was trying to do the right thing. The purchaser of the car has paid his money but the car has been impounded. My constituent is still borrowing cars from the car dealer. He has complained that the police officer who was originally informed about the theft was lax in having the information entered in the police computer. He has asked me to raise this matter with the Minister for Police and the Ombudsman. I plan to do so, but I would like to know how my constituents can get justice in this matter.

Page 4009

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie - Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport) [5.43]: I acknowledge the remarks made by the honourable member for Albury. I do not have an answer to his closing question. It is a sad story and one that is heard too often. However, I can give him some hope. The Register of Encumbered Vehicles holds some information on stolen vehicles. That service has been improved in the last couple of weeks. The primary role of REVS is to keep a register of encumbrances on vehicles so that people buying a car know whether money is owing on that car. Information has been kept on stolen vehicles but until the last month or so that information was only provided to us about every 32 hours. Updates from police are now received every six hours.

To determine whether a vehicle is stolen the vehicle has to have been reported to police as a stolen vehicle. It will then be entered on the computer. If a buyer rings REVS he or she can find out whether any money is owing on the vehicle or if it has been stolen. The honourable member has done the right thing by drawing this matter to the attention of the Minister for Police. I will make sure he receives a response. While this has been a terrible experience for his constituents, I hope that the improvements that have been made will prevent similar problems for constituents and consumers in the future.


Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [5.45]: I want to speak about a good working-class family in my electorate. They were a typical Australian family until they ran into problems with the Department of Community Services. That day their lives changed dramatically. My concern is about a 13-year-old girl who was born on 1 May 1981. For the sake of this exercise I will refer to her as Mary. Her mother wrote to me. Mary's parents had had troubles with her from time to time. She had always demonstrated difficulties in development. The mother realised that in order to assist Mary, advice was needed from experts. Unfortunately this advice was not always the best advice. Mary's mother stated in her letter to me:

It was left to us to seek therapy for Mary as best we could. This included tests by the Dept of Education, Gross and Fine Motor therapy from Westmead Hospital, as well as Speech therapy from the same place. During her junior schooling, the problems became more pronounced, and we sought to have an Itinerant Teacher installed at the school to assist the other teachers. This lasted a short time, before the teacher moved on . . .

When Mary was about 10 years old it came to the attention of her parents that she had been sexually assaulted on a regular basis by a trusted associate. The offender pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The letter continued:

Weeks after the sentencing, Mary made allegations of assault against her father and 2 other people. The Dept of Community Services removed Mary from the school grounds, placed her in care and instructed the Police to charge the father with sexual assault. The other 2 people were not even interviewed.

Frank, the father, went through the whole legal procedure until it was time to go to court, when Mary owned up and said she had been telling fibs. No charges were continued against the father. The letter from her mother continued:

The stress on our family was enormous, as you may well imagine, and our marriage was suffering badly.

She was placed in various centres, at Minali and Allanville. During this time Mary ran away from their care, placing her at risk. The parents discovered that Mary had been sexually and physically assaulted on many occasions whilst placed there, but it was never reported to them or to the police. Mary became street-wise. She began to steal and swear. She totally changed from the little girl they knew. She wagged school and refused to attend school. Her mother's letter continued:

Her medical needs were not met, nor did she receive any discipline at all. She attended some "camps", where she was also assaulted by campers. No action was ever taken by these people. When I confronted DOCS about all these assaults, they said that Mary was not to be believed. This from the same people who said that children DO NOT tell lies about these matters . . . Their Big reason for having the father charged!

We took them back to Cobham Court and the Magistrate agreed with us that DOCS have failed in their obligations. He even went so far as to reprimand their actions . . . and directed that Mary be returned to us forth-with. He further directed the Dept to render all assistance to us to aid Mary.

The mother says no assistance was given. The Department told them that the only way to help Mary was to make her a State ward. She stated:

We persevered with Mary for several months, but we could clearly see that this was not the same girl that was taken from us 2 years earlier. She was uncontrollable, and accused her father of physically assaulting her. The Dept used this to take Mary away once again. She was placed at Minali.

There were more assaults at Minali, running away and vandalism occurred on a continuous basis. She told her parents she was sexually active. The Department said they cannot do anything unless Mary makes a complaint. The mother asks, quite rightly, "Are these the actions of a responsible `single parent'?" They are Mary's parents at the moment. The parents have been told that they cannot even take action to safeguard her against sexually transmitted diseases, since this would be an invasion of her privacy. The mother said, "Mary has had over 5 D.O's in recent times". She also said:

My marriage has failed. I know that this is a direct result of the conflict we have with DOCS. The stress on my family has been too much. The alienation of my husband from his child by DOCS has destroyed a family of some 19 years standing

This situation has happened many times. I ask for an inquiry into this case.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [5.50]: The case raised by the honourable member for Londonderry is obviously
Page 4010
distressing to him and to the family involved. In the Parliament it is not possible to provide enough detail to enable the matter to be investigated, but I am sure that if the honourable member would like to provide those details to the Minister, appropriate action would be taken.


Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [5.51]: The Association of the Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill in the Nambucca district in the Oxley electorate is working hard to overcome the tyranny of distance and communication problems experienced when caring for a person who is mentally ill. Association members help support relatives and friends so that they can cope. However, it is difficult to be positive when the future is not certain. Notwithstanding that, considerable respect is held by me and by the area mental health services manager for the energy and enterprise of Nambucca ARAFMI. The Nambucca association, in its 1993-94 annual report, identified three main areas of concern. The first was a shortage of professional staff. Unfortunately, psychiatric nurse staffing has been static for 10 years, at 1.5 nurses for the valley, and for most of 1994 there has been no visiting psychiatrist service at Macksville Hospital. It is impossible for the existing staff to cope adequately with crisis care, let alone cater for a full program of ongoing care for the long-term mentally ill.

The second concern in the report was about accommodation. There is urgent need for suitable accommodation, both residential and drop-in, with educational centres which could be used for the ongoing treatment of the long-term mentally ill. The third major concern in the report was about communication. In the past the group has found difficulty in maintaining satisfactory lines of communication between family carers and the professions, such as psychiatrists, general practitioners, institutions and their staff. Following talks at the local level and with the mid north coast area health services board, I understand a community consultative committee will embrace the needs and concerns of Nambucca district ARAFMI, their carers and their clients.

People with psychiatric disabilities have long-term problems which require care over many years. No one can question the reality of the situation. All these elements are necessary to establish effective case management care for the mentally ill, particularly in a rural area such as the Nambucca and other parts of the mid north coast represented by me and other colleagues. Sometimes hospitalisation is required and a period of stabilisation may follow. People who have mental illness usually suffer very much and so do their carers. Many of us who have a friend, a work mate, a neighbour or family members who have suffered a mental illness or nervous breakdown will understand. Studies suggest that something like 20 per cent of people at any one time could be given a psychiatric diagnosis. Most mentally ill people are treated successfully outside hospital and never need to be admitted. This, of course, is the best scenario. But those who are carers need backup support so they can keep the patient on an even keel.

The Nambucca ARAFMI provides much needed support for their members who are carers, but more needs to be done for them by way of visiting psychiatric services. There is need for at least two more permanent health workers in this field to cater for the acute and long-term treatment of mentally ill people in the Nambucca valley and Oxley electorate. The appointment of a psychologist-counsellor would greatly assist carers in their endeavours to understand and cope with their loved ones who suffer mental illness. The establishment of a program of leisure and recreation activities for the mentally ill would also help greatly. Social and physical activities teach and encourage mentally ill people to express themselves, enjoy themselves and build self-esteem. I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment to go to the Minister for Health for his assistance and advice on current and proposed mental health services in the mid north coast health region.

I also seek earnest consideration regarding a boost to expenditure in the area for this special health service. Different types of treatment are used for different forms of mental illness. Treatment should be tailored to the individual's needs. By understanding mental illness we, as a community, are more able to accept people who are, or have been, mentally ill. Then we can help them to take their place in society, free to develop their physical, economic and social potential. Support for the carers of mentally ill patients will keep hospital admissions down and, in the long run, be much more cost effective and helpful to sufferers and their carers. Recognition of the plight of these people is the first step in the development of a workable, effective program. Given the commitment by the State Government and the Minister to improving conditions for people with mental illness and their families, I hope that he will be able to respond in a positive way. The Minister has in the past paid tribute to the efforts of Nambucca ARAFMI and I know that that organisation has his ongoing support and appreciation. [Time expired.]

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [5.56]: All members are well aware of the commitment of the Minister for Health to our health system. In particular he has demonstrated his personal commitment to people who have mental health problems. He has made perfectly clear that he is committed to improving services and support available for people with mental illness. It is a great pleasure to this side of the House that it is not only members of Parliament who recognise that commitment. Commissioner Brian Burdekin recognised this Government's substantial commitment to mental health and has welcomed the health Minister's announcement of $169 million for mental health services over the next four years.

Page 4011

I am pleased to note that the Minister has indicated that additional recurrent funding will be provided for mental health services on the mid north coast, Macleay, Hastings and lower north coast districts over the next four years. The final allocations and projects are currently being discussed between the Department of Health and the district health service. In addition to this process, the mid north coast district has already been given $12,000 additional funding this financial year to assist in providing relief for mental health nurses in the Nambucca area including Macksville. [Time expired.]


Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [5.58]: I rise to express pleasure at Auburn Council's policy on water conservation as a result of a letter sent by the Water Board asking that council support its campaign calling on residents to conserve water during the drought. At the council meeting last Wednesday night the Water Board request was debated and endorsed. Water conservation will be the name of the game in the Auburn electorate, particularly for the council and council facilities. The council street sweeper will no longer be able to cleanse with water, but recycled water will be used for flushing. The council is also organising an anti-litter campaign.

In recent years the council's parks and gardens department has become more dependent on water from Duck River for watering Mona Park and the great parklands to the east of the river. The council will use that water for watering the golf course and Auburn Botanic Gardens. Automatic watering systems have been installed to optimise watering efficiency. Generally watering is undertaken in the early hours of the day to reduce evaporation levels. These are the ways and means by which Auburn Council is going about water conservation.

People in the Auburn electorate are doing their best. Recently an Auburn resident on a Warragamba Dam tour was amazed to hear the tour guide advise the group that there would be no water restrictions for at least four years. The Premier has announced that 93 per cent of New South Wales is officially drought affected. The Government and farmer groups have intimated that Australia may have to import wheat for its own domestic needs if the drought continues. During the last week in September an officer of the Water Board announced on television that there will be no water restrictions in Sydney. Yet Auburn has been asked - and is complying with the request - to put water restrictions on its own activities and to encourage its residents to do the same.

Recently I visited the aquatic centre at Homebush Bay. I found water going everywhere, in the middle of the day. During my visit an employee asked me why the sprinklers at the Olympic Games site are going 24 hours a day. The sprinklers there are on from about 11 a.m. to midday each day. Commonsense would suggest that the best part of the day for watering is at dawn or dusk. Water is being wasted at that site. That water could be recycled and reticulated through bores on that land. But we all know what is buried on that old abattoir site. Anyone who is silly enough to use that water deserves what is going to happen to the plants.

The fact is that the area is being watered in the middle of the day, so if the people of Auburn and Auburn Council are doing their bit to restrict water usage, why is the Government not doing its bit? Why is the Government not introducing water restrictions now? The simple answer is that the State elections are coming up and it may be assumed that the Government is not managing this issue as well as it should. I received a brochure entitled "Homebush Bay Update". This has been sent to every household in my electorate and has beautiful photos of Government Ministers and a few school children. It refers to the greening of Homebush Bay. To have this brochure printed and distributed in my area would have cost somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000. It is a piece of political propaganda. I could not believe that John Curtis, the Chairman of the Homebush Bay Corporation, would put his name to a piece of propaganda that has nothing to do with conservation in the area, including water conservation.

The brochure has beautiful photographs of the Minister for Planning, Robert Webster, the Minister for the Environment, Mr Chris Hartcher, and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing. A bipartisan approach has been taken to the Olympic Games. The Government professes that it is greening, but that is not the case at all. It is propagating its own affairs through the use of money set aside for the Olympics. If Auburn Council and my constituents have to conserve water, why is the Government wasting $50,000 on such a document? That money could have gone to the farmers of New South Wales. [Time expired.]


Mr KERR (Cronulla) [6.03]: I bring to the attention of the House a very serious matter. Local government exists to provide basic services to residents and ratepayers, and to enhance civic pride. The Sutherland Shire Council, that nightmare on Eton Street, has done it again. Despite having a budget of more than $107 million, it seems that it cannot provide the sort of basic services a council should provide to ratepayers. The council has a town planning section that is staffed by professional officers, and runs at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the ratepayers. One would expect the councillors to refer at least basic planning services to them. I make no criticism of the staff because I do not believe that they were consulted on this matter. In fact, the civic design awards I attended some months ago were a credit to the planning section of the council. The awards demonstrated what can be done by partnership between community and council. In this instance I am referring to the work of council officers.

Page 4012

On 8 April council decided to proceed with a review of the development control plan for the head of Gunnamatta Bay. It was decided to allocate funds and employ consultants to carry out the work, despite professional officers working at the council. The consultants were to effect community consultation, and yet this council sets up precinct committees. Why did it not liaise with its own precinct committees? The consultants were required to prepare the Gunnamatta development control plan, covering matters of water quality, marine ecology issues and waterfront development. These are all important issues that fall within the expertise available at the council. The council also employs a highly qualified scientific officer - Dr Smith - who recently received a substantial wage rise. How much would one expect to pay consultants? Payment of $80,000 was considered a realistic figure, based on the amount of public consultation that would be required. In order to make a funding allocation councillors recommended that $90,000 be available for the project. That amount was recommended, yet this same council cannot provide funding for dredging, despite the fact that the lives of residents and ratepayers will be at risk in the forthcoming boating season.

Mr Jeffery: Shame.

Mr KERR: Yes, as the honourable member for Oxley said, shame. In the Sutherland Shire we want a partnership between the community and the council. It is not good enough for the council to employ consultants. It has precinct committees and community consultation should occur. As the local member I am prepared to offer my services. For example, so far as issues of water quality and waterfront development are concerned, the State Government may be of assistance, particularly in addressing technical questions. Once again ratepayer funds are being squandered. There is no money available for dredging or to make the port a safe recreational facility, yet council is happy to take the rates of waterfront owners and spend it on consultants. This matter cannot be allowed to rest. [Time expired.]

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing) [6.08]: I listened with interest to what the honourable member for Cronulla had to say. The vast majority of residents in the Sutherland shire are gravely concerned about the activities of the Sutherland Shire Council, particularly with regard to the employment of consultants. It is about time Sutherland Shire Council told the ratepayers just how much of their money is expended by council on the employment of consultants. Consultants are being employed by the Labor controlled council to help promote councillors who are Labor candidates in the next State election. The ratepayers want to know what the true story is with regard to council's costs for consultants, whether they be engaged for legal, media, or public relations purposes. Whatever the purpose, that cost is enormous. The council must be accountable to the residents.

The honourable member for Cronulla also raised the issue of precinct committees. It is about time the council investigated the way in which precinct committees are operating in the Sutherland shire. There is one in the Woronora area within my electorate where the chairman's relatives, who live outside the precinct committee's area, came along and stacked a meeting one night. That caused considerable concern amongst residents in the Woronora River area. The precinct committees are being abused and used for political purposes. It is about time Sutherland Shire Council got its act together with regard to precinct committees and consultants and did something about its shameful lack of action. [Time expired.]


Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [6.10]: On 22 September I drew to the attention of this House the Government's appalling lack of judgment in announcing the closure of the Ingleburn fire station. I outlined then the bizarre sequence of events that led to a decision to close Ingleburn fire station and leave the entire Ingleburn town centre and significant sections of Ingleburn industrial estate exposed to extreme fire risk. In brief, the New South Wales Fire Brigade announced on 15 December 1993 that the Ingleburn fire station would close. The closure was to allow a new station to be constructed at St Andrews. To put it mildly, local residents were outraged. They could not believe the stupidity of a proposal that would see one fire station closed simply so that another could open. They could not believe that in one of the fastest growing regions of the State the New South Wales Government would try to spread resources so thin that critical, high hazard areas of the Ingleburn district would be totally exposed to fire. The lunacy of the proposal to close Ingleburn fire station was not lost on the former Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

It is fair to say that the Minister knew a dodgy deal when he saw one, because when he visited my electorate earlier this year he agreed to review that earlier December decision. Suffice it to say that the subsequent review confirmed what most of us knew all along, that is, that closing Ingleburn fire station would created unacceptable risks and hazards. Specifically, the entire Ingleburn town centre, the public school, the railway station, sections of the F5 Freeway and category one hazards in the Ingleburn industrial estate would be left without proper protection when measured against the standards of cover of New South Wales Fire Brigades. In short, thousands of lives would be put at risk if Ingleburn fire station is closed.

One might have thought that as a result of the review the residents in my electorate would have received an early announcement from the Minister that the Ingleburn fire station would be retained and that construction of the St Andrews fire station would go ahead as planned. Sadly, that is not the case. I now discover that because of the penny-pinching
Page 4013
attitude of this Government, New South Wales Fire Brigades is planning to retain Ingleburn fire station and build St Andrews fire station, but only on the basis of reducing staffing rosters, apparently in some inane effort to save costs. I understand that the staffing proposals of New South Wales Fire Brigades have been put to the permanent staff at the existing fire stations in the Campbelltown region and have been rejected out of hand.

The Government needs to learn that it cannot provide fire services on the cheap. Based on the standards of cover of New South Wales Fire Brigades and hazard assessments, there is no doubt that Ingleburn fire station should be retained and that St Andrews should receive its full complement of permanent fire officers. Nonetheless, I am advised that the so-called economic appraisal of the St Andrews fire station will not allow the budget to stretch far enough to achieve proper fire safety objectives. Without putting too fine a point on my opinion of the Government's economic models, I simply ask the question: what price does the Government put on a life? That is what we are really talking about here. The lives of thousands of men, women and children will be put at risk unless the Government allocates sufficient funds to do the job properly.

The three fire stations currently operating in the Campbelltown region are the busiest in the State. That is not merely my assertion. The figures can be checked in the annual reports of the New South Wales Fire Brigades. Since the January bushfires a day has rarely passed when the three stations were not required to deal with grass and bush fires throughout the region as well as attend to all of their normal duties. I pay tribute to the men and women of the New South Wales Fire Brigades who operate in my electorate, both the permanent and retained
firefighters, for their diligence and effort on behalf of the communities they serve. Those men and women deserve better than the shabby treatment they are currently receiving from the New South Wales Government - and, of course, so does the community in my electorate.

We should all be able to take some things for granted. The provision of proper fire services is one of them. Frankly, I do not care if it costs a few more lousy dollars to do the job properly and provide adequate staff and infrastructure. Fire services on the cheap ultimately lead to lives being lost. The Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services needs to show some leadership on this issue. It is not a matter for economists or theoreticians in the New South Wales Fire Brigades. Public policy, whatever the issue, is ultimately decided by the people who are elected to serve in this place. I therefore call on the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services to resolve this problem as a matter of urgency. There is only one solution: to provide the money to allow Ingleburn fire station to be retained, St Andrews fire station to be built as proposed and both stations to be staffed with their full complement of personnel.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rixon) left the chair at 6.14 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Motion, by leave, by Mr West agreed to:

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude the consideration of Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1 forthwith.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services [7.30]: With the leave of the House, I have amended the motion of which I gave notice to provide in schedule 2 that the 12.30 finishing time be changed to 1.00 p.m. I move:

That, in accordance with the Sessional Order on Estimates Committees:

(1) The following Estimates Committees are appointed:

1. The Legislature Estimates Committee;

2. Premier and Minister for Economic Development Estimates Committee;

3. Treasurer and Arts Estimates Committee;

4. Agriculture and Fisheries and Mines Estimates Committee;

5. Attorney General and Justice Estimates Committee;

6. Chief Secretary and Administrative Services Estimates Committee;

7. Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs Estimates Committee;

8. Consumer Affairs Estimates Committee;

9. Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Tourism Estimates Committee;

10. Environment Estimates Committee;

Page 4014

11. Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Estimates Committee;

12. Health Estimates Committee;

13. Industrial Relations and Employment and Status of Women Estimates Committee;

14. Police and Emergency Services Estimates Committee;

15. Energy and Local Government and Co-operatives Estimates Committee;

16. Land and Water Conservation Estimates Committee;

17. Planning and Housing Estimates Committee;

18. Public Works and Ports Estimates Committee;

19. Sport, Recreation and Racing Estimates Committee;

20. Transport and Roads Estimates Committee; and

21. Small Business and Regional Development Estimates Committee

(2) The clauses and items of the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill set out in Schedule 1 to this motion be referred to the Estimates Committees as set out in that Schedule.

(3) The Committees shall have power to send for and examine persons, papers, records and things and to report from time to time.

(4) The quorum of an Estimates Committee shall be eight members provided that the Committees meet as Joint Committees at all times.

(5) The Chairman of an Estimates Committee shall exercise a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.

(6) A Chairman may from time to time appoint another member to act as Deputy Chairman and the member so appointed shall act as Chairman when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

In the event of absence of both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, a member of the Committee shall be elected by the members present to act as Chairman for that meeting.

(7) The proceedings of the Committees shall be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Committees.

(8) The Legislative Assembly membership of the Committees (5 Government members, 3 Opposition members and 1 Independent member) be notified to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by the Government and Opposition Whips. The Government Whip shall nominate the Independent member.

(9) The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly shall arrange the places for meetings of the Committees and notify, formally, the Members of the Committees of the times and places for the meetings.

(10) The Chairmen of the Estimates Committees be as follows -

The Legislature Estimates Committee - Mr Kerr

Premier and Minister for Economic Development Estimates Committee - Mr Tink

Treasurer and Arts Estimates Committee - Mr Zammit

Agriculture and Fisheries and Mines Estimates Committee - Mr Small

Attorney General and Justice Estimates Committee - Mr Kerr

Chief Secretary and Administrative Services Committee - Mr Kinross

Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs Estimates Committee - Mr Ryan

Consumer Affairs Estimates Committee - Mr Bull

Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Tourism Estimates Committee - Mr O'Doherty

Environment Estimates Committee - Mr Ryan

Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Estimates Committee - Mr Samios

Health Estimates Committee - Mr Glachan

Industrial Relations and Employment and Status of Women Estimates Committee - Mrs Forsythe

Police and Emergency Services Estimates Committee - Mr Turner

Energy and Local Government and Co-operatives Estimates Committee - Mr Turner

Page 4015

Land and Water Conservation Estimates Committee - Mr Cochran

Planning and Housing Estimates Committee - Mr D. L. Page

Public Works and Ports Estimates Committee - Mr Beck

Sport, Recreation and Racing Estimates Committee - Mr Petch

Transport and Roads Estimates Committee - Mr Merton

Small Business and Regional Development Estimates Committee - Mr Fraser

(11) In an Estimates Committee

(a) The responsible Minister shall be present at all times

(b) The Chairman shall call over the Estimates for each ministry and declare the proposed expenditure open for examination

(c) The question shall be proposed for each organisational unit "That the Vote be recommended"

(d) The proceedings of a Committee shall be recorded by Hansard

(e) The Clerk shall prepare minutes of meetings which shall be signed by the Clerk and the Chairman.

(12) During the conduct of the Estimates Committees questions be limited to a maximum of 1 minute and replies be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes.

(13) When each area of Estimates in the first Schedule is commenced the period set aside shall be equally apportioned between Government and non-Government Members. The Chairman of the Committee shall permit non-Government Members to question the Minister for the first 20 minutes; Government Members for the next 20 minutes and so on in rotation until the expiration of the allocated time.

(14) Advisers who are present at an Estimates Committee to assist Ministers and the Presiding Officers (in the case of the Estimates of The Legislature) may address a Committee or answer questions if such questions are referred to them by a Minister or the Presiding Officers as the case may be.

(15) The proceedings of a Committee shall be regarded as proceedings of the Parliament.

(16) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Standing or Sessional Orders, Ministers may indicate to Estimates Committees that information supplementary to a response given to the Estimates Committee in reply to a question asked by a member of that Committee may be lodged with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. Such information shall be regarded as part of the proceedings of the Parliament (and published as an annexure to the Questions and Answers Paper of the Legislative Assembly). Answers to questions taken on notice are to be answered by 18 November 1994.

(17) The times and dates for consideration of the Estimates by the Estimates Committees be as set out in Schedule 2 to this motion.

(18) The Committees shall have the power to sit during the sitting or any adjournment of the House.

(19) A message informing the Legislative Council of the terms of the resolution and requesting its nomination of 5 of its Members to participate on each Committee (of whom 2 shall be Government Members, 2 shall be Opposition Members and 1 shall be a non-Government Member nominated by the Leader of the Government) and requesting arrangements for the publication in the Questions and Answers Paper of the Legislative Council of supplementary information to Estimates Committees shall forthwith be transmitted to the Legislative Council.

Recurrent Capital
Items Items

1 Legislature

The Legislature - subject to a separate Appropriation Bill

2 Premier and Economic Development

Cabinet Office 6.1.01 6.2.01

Parliamentary Counsel's Office 6.1.02 6.2.02
Premier's Department 6.1.03 6.2.03
Independent Commission Against Corruption 6.1.04 6.2.04
Ombudsman's Office 6.1.05 6.2.05
State Electoral Office 6.1.06 ...
Government Pricing Tribunal 6.1.07 ...

Page 4016

3 Agriculture and Fisheries

Rural Assistance Authority 7.1.01 ...
Department of Agriculture 7.1.02 7.2.01
New South Wales Fisheries 7.1.03 7.2.02

4 Mines

Department of Mineral Resources 7.1.04 7.2.03
Coal Compensation Board 7.1.05 7.2.04

5 Attorney General

Attorney General's Department 8.1.01 8.2.01
Judicial Commission 8.1.02 8.2.02
Legal Aid Commission 8.1.03 8.2.03
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 8.1.04 8.2.04

6 Justice

Department of Courts Administration 8.1.05 8.2.05
Department of Corrective Services 8.1.06 8.2.06
Department of Juvenile Justice 8.1.07 8.2.07

7 Chief Secretary and Administrative Services

Chief Secretary's Department 9.1.01 9.2.01
Casino Control Authority 9.1.02 ...
Office of the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services 9.1.03 9.2.02

8 Community Services

Department of Community Services 10.1.01 10.2.01
Social Policy Directorate 10.1.02 ...
Community Services Commission 10.1.03 ...

9 Aboriginal Affairs

Office of Aboriginal Affairs 10.1.04 ...

10 Consumer Affairs

Department of Consumer Affairs 11.1.01 11.2.01
HomeFund Commissioner's Office 11.1.02 ...

11 Education, Training and Youth Affairs

Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs 12.1.01 12.2.01
Department of School Education 12.1.02 12.2.02
New South Wales Technical and Further Education Commission 12.1.03 12.2.03

12 Tourism

Tourism NSW 12.1.04 ...

13 Energy

Office of Energy 13.1.01 ...

14 Local Government and Co-operatives

Department of Local Government and Co-operatives 13.1.02 13.2.01

15 Environment

Environment Protection Authority 14.1.01 14.2.01
National Parks and Wildlife Service 14.1.02 14.2.02
Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust 14.1.03 14.2.03
Urban Parks Agency 14.1.04 14.2.04

16 Health

Department of Health 15.1.01 15.2.01
Health Care Complaints Commission 15.1.02 ...

17 Industrial Relations and Employment

Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education 16.1.01 16.2.01

Page 4017

18 Status of Women

Ministry for the Status and Advancement of Women 16.1.02 16.2.02

19 Land and Water Conservation

Department of Conservation and Land Management 17.1.01 17.2.01
Department of Water Resources 17.1.02 17.2.02

20 Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs

Ethnic Affairs Commission 18.1.01 18.2.01

21 Planning and Housing

Department of Planning 19.1.01 19.2.01
Homebush Bay Development Corporation 19.1.02 19.2.02
Payments to other Government Bodies under the Control of the Minister 19.1.03 ...

22 Police and Emergency Services

Ministry for Police and Emergency Services 20.1.01 ...
The Police Service of New South Wales 20.1.02 20.2.01
New South Wales Crime Commission 20.1.03 20.2.02
New South Wales Fire Brigades 20.1.04 ...
Department of Bush Fire Services 20.1.05 ...
State Emergency Service 20.1.06 20.2.03

23 Public Works and Ports

Office of the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports 21.1.01 21.2.01

24 Small Business and Regional Development

Department of Business and Regional Development 22.1.01 22.2.01

25 Sport, Recreation and Racing

Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing 23.1.01 23.2.01

26 Transport

Department of Transport 24.1.01 24.2.01

27 Roads

Roads and Traffic Authority 24.1.02 24.2.02

28 Treasurer

Treasury 25.1.01 25.2.01
Crown Transactions 25.1.02 25.2.02
Advance to Treasurer 25.1.03 ...

29 Arts

Ministry for the Arts 25.1.04 25.2.03
State Library 25.1.05 25.2.04
Australian Museum 25.1.06 25.2.05
Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences 25.1.07 25.2.06
Historic Houses Trust 25.1.08 25.2.07
Art Gallery of New South Wales 25.1.09 25.2.08
Archives Authority of New South Wales 25.1.10 ...
New South Wales Film and Television Office 25.1.11 ...

Committee Time

Agriculture, Fisheries and Mines 9.30am - 1.00pm

Industrial Relations and Employment and Status of Women 9.30am - 1.00pm

Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Land and Water Conservation 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Consumer Affairs 7.00pm - 9.00pm

Page 4018

Transport and Roads 9.30am - 1.00pm

Police and Emergency Services 9.30am - 1.00pm

Treasurer and Arts 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Premier and Economic Development 2.00pm - 4.30pm

The Legislature 7.00pm - 9.00pm

Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs 7.00pm - 9.00pm

Planning and Housing 9.30am - 1.00pm

Attorney General and Justice 9.30am - 1.00pm

Local Government and Energy 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Chief Secretary and Administrative Services 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Regional Development and Small Business 7.00pm - 9.00pm

Sport, Recreation and Racing 7.00pm - 9.00pm

Health 9.30am - 1.00pm

Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Tourism 9.30am - 1.00pm

Environment 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Public Works and Ports 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Honourable members are aware that estimates committees are scheduled next week. They would be aware also that during the last sitting week the honourable member for Ashfield, on behalf of the Opposition, gave notice of a motion about the establishment of estimates committees that sought to change the format of estimates committees from the way in which they had been developed last year. First I apologise to the House for the lateness of the Government's motion. I had hoped it could have been dealt with earlier, but that was not possible. However, it has served the purpose of allowing my motion on behalf of the Government and that of the honourable member for Ashfield to be discussed at some considerable length last evening at a meeting of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee.

A number of views were expressed by members on both sides of the Chamber. As a result I amended my motion to allow committees that were scheduled to sit for three hours to now sit for 3½ hours. That is meant by way of a compromise, in an endeavour to meet the concern of members of the Opposition who believe that estimates committees are not sufficiently wide-ranging and do not allow a proper questioning of the estimates process.

There seems to be concern that the Government will spend its allocated time asking dorothy dix questions and responding appropriately. What short memories the Opposition has. When it was in Government it did not have estimate committees. We are now moving towards having proper estimate committees, and we are developing the concept of "proper". Each year we have come a little further towards an estimates examination process that is suited to this Parliament. Many people have compared this process with the Senate committee process. Honourable members should understand that the Federal Government has a different number of members, that its bi-cameral system works differently, and that the Federal estimates committees are solely Senate committees. In this State we have a process whereby members on each side of the House are able to examine the estimates in detail.

Another point raised last night in the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee was the practice of some committee chairmen of not permitting a member to continue with a particular line of questioning. In other words they require that questions be asked in a rotational process. On behalf of the Government I will indicate to the clerks and chairmen of the committees that it is the Government's expressed belief that if in a block of questions allocated to members not supporting the Government a particular member wishes, by arrangement with his or her colleagues, to ask questions for that whole 20 minute block, that should be allowed. I believe that will overcome some of the concerns raised at last night's meeting.

Page 4019

Again, I believe this year's proposal will allow all honourable members to inquire into the details of the full budget process. The Opposition intends to move an amendment to provide that each department should be the subject of an individual estimates committee, with unlimited time for examination. Again, I suggest to honourable members that if that process is to be adopted we would have to start well in advance, about February or March of each year, to put it in place. It would need an amount of detailed reorganisation. It may well be that while the budget debate is proceeding, an estimates debate could be conducted, either at night or concurrently - as is done in Canberra, where they have used a second Chamber. Those propositions need to be looked at and developed, as a lot of associated machinery matters would have to be resolved. If the House adopted the Opposition's proposal for each department to be subjected to individual inquiry, one would find for example that the portfolio of Premier and Economic Development would have to be split into seven separate committees - with unlimited time for each.

Last year a certain amount of time was allocated for each committee. In the case of a Minister with a wide-ranging portfolio there is no advantage in spending an hour on this and an hour on that when the depth of the portfolio, or a department within the portfolio, does not warrant such an allocation. I would prefer to not have that restriction on time; my preference would be for honourable members to have a wide-ranging questioning process, and that will be my recommendation and my advice to the chairmen and the clerks of the committees. I know there are some frustrations on the part of some members about the way estimates committees work. The honourable member for Ashfield appears to have some concern, or has made some allegation, that senior executive service officers of the police portfolio, which I administer, have prepared a host of dorothy dixers. There will be asked, during the Police Service estimates committee, a series of questions that will allow me, as the Minister subject to inquiry, to develop and expand upon matters that I believe are important for members of the community, as well as members of Parliament, to understand.

I do not believe that that is an incorrect use of estimates committees. All of us in this Parliament want to make sure that what is said in here does not stay here; we want to disseminate that information into the public forums. We are judged as members of Parliament on what we say and what we ultimately disseminate as to how faithfully we have represented our constituents or our portfolios. During the years that the estimates committees process has been in place, the Government has been refining and developing it, to the stage where all members of Parliament - not just those on the Opposition benches - can gain some advantage in the inquiry process. Therefore, I commend this motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [7.42]: Other than on a few very important matters that I will cover by way of moving an amendment, the Opposition largely agrees with the time scheduling for the estimates committees. I move:

(1) That schedule 2 be amended as follows:

Treasurer and Arts, 9.30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

I also foreshadow that I will move that each government department be the subject of a separate estimate committee; each committee have unlimited time for questions; the adoption mutatis mutandis of the estimates committee system of the Commonwealth Parliament, including permitting questions to be directed to public servants; that Monday, 24 October, be a reserve date for consideration of any estimates committees not concluded; that questions be allowed to cover off budget items; and questions to be permitted on any areas of a Minister's responsibility.

The Government has very cunningly scheduled the Treasury and Economic Development estimates committees for the same time, from 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. The Leader of the Opposition and the spokesperson on the Treasury and Economic Development, notwithstanding the great job they are doing, cannot be in both places at the one time. For that reason, the Opposition seeks that alteration to the scheduling. In addition to what I see as a device by the Government to escape accountability for the Treasury and for its alleged economic success - in fact, the truth of its economic failure would be brought out - I also wish to put those matters that I have raised in the Parliament in the past. Estimates are about accountability. The estimates debate in this Parliament is short on all the matters to which I have referred. Questions are not permitted on off budget items.

[Interruption]

My resolution is about Government trading enterprises; it is about the amount of money the Government takes from those enterprises that is not subject to analysis, let alone critical analysis, by any member of Parliament. Questions should be permitted on any area of a Minister's responsibility. Monday, 24 October, is a reserve date for consideration by the committees. Part of this process is to enable each committee to have unlimited time for discussion. Naturally, the purpose is that if any committee has remaining any matter not determined, it can be dealt with on that Monday. For those reasons, I am hopeful that the Government will accede to the amendment.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [7.46]: I had not intended to speak to this motion of the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services, but having heard the motives that the honourable member for Ashfield has attempted to attribute to the Government, to the Premier and to me in particular, regarding the timing of the estimates committees, I feel compelled to bring certain matters to the attention of the House. First of all, estimates committees are an innovation introduced by this Government to improve public accountability in this State - something that seems to have escaped the attention of the honourable member for Ashfield, who ignores the fact that for 12 years when in office the Opposition never dreamed of, let alone suggested, and much less implemented, anything that could ever have led to establishing estimates committees of this Parliament.

Page 4020

The honourable member for Ashfield has said, "I want a bit more time for this; I want a bit more time for that". When the Opposition left office there were no estimates committees. They did not exist. The Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services has made every attempt to assist the process of public accountability, to assist the transparency of the activities of government in this State, by providing a schedule for estimates committees that is designed to provide a window on government expenditure during the budget session. Not only has the Government repeated the exercise of last year, but the Leader of the House has added half an hour to the sessions this year.

I want to make this observation: as somebody who has been on the receiving end of estimates committees, I have to say that members of the Opposition have to get their act together. When they turn up to those committees they sit around and waste time with stupid, nonsensical questions because they have not done any homework. They should do their homework before they go to the estimates committees. I will be facing an estimates committee next week, and I am happy about that. I am not going to have this snivelling attack by the honourable member for Ashfield, who said that because the estimates committee for the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development has been scheduled for the same time as my estimates committee, I am trying to avoid this great onslaught of Opposition questions.

Being questioned by Opposition members at estimates committee hearings is like being savaged by a dead sheep. The Opposition can call on estimates committee hearings at any time and I will be there, prepared. I hope Opposition members also will be there and that they will stay awake during those proceedings. They should do more preparation work than they appear to have done in the past. The honourable member for Ashfield knows that Opposition members do very little work to prepare questions and he is also aware that a number of Opposition members simply do not turn up at estimates committee meetings. He knows they have abused the estimates committee process. Despite that, the Leader of the Opposition has been willing to extend the duration of estimates committee hearings.

I am happy to have the estimates committee in question put on at whatever time suits the Leader of the House and the honourable member for Ashfield. I will have no problem with that. I commend the Leader of the House for extending the estimates committee sitting time by half an hour because as Treasurer I regard estimates committees as a valuable window on government expenditure. I hope the opportunity that is presented by the Government - an opportunity not made available by any previous government - is used better and more effectively this year than it was last year.

Though members of the Opposition say they support the estimates committee process, they do not do their homework and make the process more efficient. It is not good enough for the Opposition to have an extension of sitting time in which they can sit and listen in the hope of learning more about matters. Because they have not done sufficient homework they hope that if they ask enough questions, or have enough time to chew up the budget of the Legislature on estimates committees, there will be perhaps some significant revelation for members of the Opposition.

They must use their time more effectively. Any suggestion by the honourable member for Ashfield that the Premier or I, because we happen to have estimates committees proceeding at the same time, are somehow avoiding being put under this strong microscope of Opposition scrutiny is nonsense. The Premier and I are happy to be subject to the microscope of the Opposition or anyone else at any time. I look forward to the estimates committee meetings next week.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services [7.54], in reply: At discussions last evening in the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee this matter was put forward by the honourable member for Ashfield. I took due cognisance of his notice on this matter and discussed it with the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development and the Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts as to whether at this late stage it would be possible to reschedule diaries to accommodate the proposed change. I acknowledge the point made by the honourable member for Ashfield, but I inform the House that at this late stage, having circulated the timetable to members and Ministers, such a rescheduling is impractical. The honourable member for Ashfield attributed to me some conspiracy in scheduling the estimates for the Treasurer and for the Premier in the same time slot. It was only when the honourable member drew that to my attention last night that I realised that that could have been the masterful stroke that the honourable member believes it is.

Mr Whelan: We would have put the energy estimates committee on first.

Mr WEST: You would not have had estimates committees in the first place. As the Treasurer has said, this Government introduced estimates committees. For the benefit of the honourable member for Ashfield, I will tell the House what my procedure is. I establish the time needs of various estimates committees and negotiate with the appropriate Ministers the best times at which to schedule those committees to accommodate their diaries. That is the way I have approached it on this occasion, and the House knows the result. The Government rejects the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Ashfield at this late stage.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

[In Division]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Owing to a discrepancy in the pairing arrangements, I call the division off and ask that the division bells be rung again.

Page 4021

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

Mr Beck Ms Machin
Mr Blackmore Mr Merton
Mr Causley Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr Chappell Mr O'Doherty
Mrs Chikarovski Mr D. L. Page
Mr Cochran Mr Peacocke
Mrs Cohen Mr Petch
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Griffiths Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hatton Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross Tellers,
Mr Longley Mr Jeffery
Dr Macdonald Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Doyle Mr Baird
Mr Gaudry Mr Fahey
Mr Irwin Mr Morris
Mr Martin Mr Phillips
Mr Rumble Mr Turner

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [8.08]: Earlier I was relating to the House that in the first instance this motion was a censure of the Leader of the Opposition for the inconsistent application of ethical standards he applied to his party members. I drew the attention of the House to the fact that it was not doing the image of parliamentarians a great deal of good to be debating these types of issues when the entire State is 93 per cent drought declared. We could be dealing with far more important issues. I realise that it is not the choice of many honourable members to be debating the motion, nevertheless we are debating it. I also stated that we need to set standards and a code of ethics which should be implemented on the basis of honour, and that we should cater for a code that takes into account the behaviour of honourable members in their electorates, in the Parliament and in public.

I said also that the Leader of the Opposition had made considerable mention of former members of Parliament who, for whatever reason, had judgment passed on them in the House, their party room or a court of law, had been dealt with and those matters had long past. I said that I believed Premier Greiner was an honest Premier who had maintained the ethical standards demanded by this Parliament. Much more could have been said by the Leader of the Opposition in his somewhat overzealous way. He seemed pleased that the debate would further denigrate the standards by which people measure members of Parliament.

I was disturbed to hear the Leader of the Opposition question the ethical standards set by our current Premier. I should not have to remind the House that it was this Government which introduced the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It was this Government that set standards for a ministerial code of conduct and those standards are being applied. I was gravely concerned that the Leader of the Opposition raised issues relating to the honourable member for Blue Mountains and the honourable member for Georges River. Both issues have been considered by the relevant authorities and have had those ethical standards applied to them, all of which leads me to conclude that this Government is applying those ethical standards evenly and equitably to all members of the Parliament.

That stands in stark contrast with the Leader of the Opposition, which is why I said that this is a valid motion. The Leader of the Opposition has been the judge, jury and hangman of the honourable member for St Marys who, by anyone's standards, should be innocent until proven guilty. However, the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to publicly condemn the honourable member for St Marys. The manner in which the Leader of the Opposition has treated the honourable member for Campbelltown sustains the argument that his application of ethical standards to members of his party is inconsistent. Further, in relation to the honourable member for Campbelltown,
Page 4022
paragraph 26 of the police report of which I have a copy from the Police Service states in part, "persons suspected of corrupt conduct". They were suspected, not tried before a court, but the suspicion was there. Paragraph 26 states, "The following persons played a key role in these events and are suspected of corrupt conduct. They are: Francis John Walker, Minister for Housing during the time of the offences, Michael Stephen Knight, MP for Campbelltown, and Phil Raskall the former head of the Economic Development Unit, Department of Housing". It is also stated that attempts to interview all of these persons had been negative.

I should have thought that if the Leader of the Opposition were to apply the same principles to the honourable member for Campbelltown as he applied to the honourable member for St Marys, the honourable member for Campbelltown would not be on the frontbench, a position that he currently occupies. In the case of the honourable member for St Marys, clearly he has to prove his innocence before he can get endorsement by the Australian Labor Party, yet having made his judgment, the Leader of the Opposition is not taking any formal action against the honourable member for St Marys. Though he has passed judgment on him, he has not referred the matter to the ICAC or the police, and it is not up to any honourable member on this side of the House to pass judgment on the honourable member for St Marys or the honourable member for Campbelltown. The due process of the law takes account of those matters and that is precisely why I claim that on this side of the House we have at all times adhered to the principles and code of ethics for Ministers and ethical standards applied to members of these parties.

Mr Martin: Matt Singleton.

Mr COCHRAN: The honourable member for Port Stephens interjects with Matt Singleton. It is a shame the honourable member was not here earlier. He would have heard me refer to the previous member for Coffs Harbour. The previous member for Coffs Harbour was dealt with by the Premier of the day, who applied ethical standards from which the honourable member for Port Stephens could learn a deal. The standard that he sets by his interjections does not enhance his image in his electorate or in this Chamber. The honourable member for Port Stephens is probably the greatest asset the Government has apart from the Leader of the Opposition. I am delighted to have the honourable member visit my electorate any time, because every time he steps off the plane he is worth a thousand votes. The people of the forestry industry think he is a fool. The people of the fishing industry think he is a fool.

Mr Martin: Name them.

Mr COCHRAN: I will name them. The Forest Products Association thinks you are an absolute moron.

Mr Martin: Name them.

Mr COCHRAN: The lot of them. They all think that. The honourable member should ask the fishing industry on the South Coast. They think he is an absolute moron. The honourable member cannot dispute the ethical behaviour and the standards set by former Premier Nick Greiner or Premier John Fahey. In every case Premier Fahey has sustained and is still sustaining the standards on each and every one of the incidents that have been brought before him by the Opposition or any institution of law in this State. The honourable member cannot argue against that because that is the case and that is where the Opposition amendment to this motion will fail. We can prove unequivocally that we have maintained our standards, but that is not the case with the Opposition.

Opposition members have double standards, one set for the honourable member for St Marys who has been tried and executed by his leader yet the honourable member for Port Stephens sat there and let him go. Great mate, this fellow! Never leave your mates behind is what the honourable member for Port Stephens says. I would not like him standing behind me as a mate. The principles that have been applied in the case of these two members referred to in this motion are unquestionably inconsistent. On the one hand we have the honourable member for St Marys who, according to the news today, paid an electricity account for the club of which he was secretary. That may well be an honourable thing to do. As a local member it may not have been prudent so far as his accounts were concerned, but at least his heart was in the right place. But Opposition members have dumped on him. Have they ever considered for a moment that he might be innocent? The honourable member for St Marys has not been before a court, yet his leader condemns him publicly. The honourable member for Port Stephens may well smirk about this, but one day he may be in the same position himself, and I wonder whether the honourable member for St Marys will be smirking then.

I think there was some glee in the eye of the Leader of the Opposition when this motion was brought before the House. He saw it as an opportunity to drop a bucket on the Government. If we look carefully at the wording of the motion we see that it asks whether we have consistently applied ethical standards on this side of the House. Unquestionably, the answer is yes. I do not think it would be in the best interests of the Opposition to start a major debate on the question of ethics. We could refer to the Labor Party of Western Australia. We could talk about instances at Enmore. Peter Baldwin got his head bashed in by members of the Labor Party. He is currently a Minister in the Federal Parliament - and he had his head kicked in by members of the Labor Party.

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

Mr COCHRAN: The Labor Party does not have a proud record of honesty and integrity; it has a record of thuggery, dishonesty and sending the States broke one by one - Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Western Australia is a proud record for the ALP, is it not?

Page 4023

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

Mr COCHRAN: The honourable member for Port Stephens said that I was an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation spy. I place on record that I am proud of the fact that I worked for ASIO for seven years. I am bound by the Official Secrets Act, but during that time much was done to defend this country against a variety of subversive activities which the honourable member may well be pleased to know about one day if he ever broadens his mind enough to take into account some of those issues. The ASIO is administered by the Federal Government - Paul Keating and crew. During the time I was employed with the organisation, it was administered by Bob Hawke - who is currently in dispute with Paul Keating. If I was not bound by the Official Secrets Act I could tell honourable members a thing or two about what happened during the time he was Prime Minister. It would embarrass the hell out of Opposition members.

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

Mr COCHRAN: If I ever get a chance to write my memoirs, Labor Party members can bet their bottom dollar that they will all know about it. In conclusion, the Government can hold its head high as having applied ethical standards which have set standards to be applied across the country. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has taken into account allegations of corruption. As I said earlier, the ICAC has been used to a large degree, regrettably, to intimidate and threaten people in various circumstances. I proudly support the motion of the honourable member for Eastwood. I condemn the Opposition for having even suggested that either the former Premier, Nick Greiner, or the current Premier, John Fahey, in any way or at any time have been inconsistent in their application of ethical standards to members of both parties.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown) [8.24]: I suppose I should be flattered. At around 11.00 a.m. on Tuesday my colleagues in the parliamentary Labor Party gave me the honour of representing them on the frontbench. By about 2.30 p.m. the Government wanted to raise allegations about my pecuniary interest declaration on matters that had been openly declared on the public record. By Wednesday the Government wanted to dredge up matters to do with a 1987 housing development in what is now the electorate of Camden - a matter that has been dealt with, examined and disposed of by the Auditor-General. Today the Government has resurrected Task Force Anode, the politically motivated police inquiry into Frank Walker. I will have some more to say about that later. I am grateful that the Parliament is not sitting tomorrow, because I am sure the Government would have dragged out my primary school reports, including the most serious incident with the water pistol in 1959.

Why is the Government obsessed with all these old, outdated, disposed of and completely irrelevant matters? Is it something I have said to upset the Government? Was it something I said about Tony Packard being a criminal and bugging his customers? Was it something I said about Neil Pickard, who was found to have misappropriated public funds? Was it something I said about the honourable member for Wakehurst ripping off a widow to the tune of $1 million? Was it something I said, along with my colleagues, about the honourable member for Blue Mountains who is before the courts on serious criminal matters?

Was it something I said about the honourable member for Georges River? I would be very surprised if he is not soon before the courts on very serious matters? Was it something I said about Phillip Smiles, who was hounded out of the Parliament? Was it something I said about the Olympic Games blow-out? Was it something I said about the scandal in the Victims Compensation Tribunal? Was it something I said about Eastern Creek? Was it something I said about the costs involved in the GIO privatisation? There have been many other waste and mismanagement matters. Let me make one thing abundantly clear: the Government can tell as many lies about me in the Parliament as it likes; it will not divert me from telling the truth about the Government.

Mr Tink: Tell the truth about yourself, Michael.

Mr KNIGHT: I will get to the honourable member for Eastwood in a minute. I am working my way down the food chain. He should just wait his turn. I will deal with some of the matters the Government has raised. On Tuesday the Government raised questions about my trip to Atlanta. Yes, I committed the unforgivable sin: I went to look at the preparations for the Atlanta Olympics to see what we could learn and how New South Wales could save money. Honourable members can be sure that the Government is not happy about that - it is not happy that I went, and it is not happy that the people treated me a lot better than it treated the Ministers who went to Atlanta, because they thought I was serious about the issue rather than junketing at the taxpayers' expense. The Government is not happy about what I have learnt, what I have written and what it will hear in the future.

I refer to public housing in Ambarvale. I make no apologies for supporting the construction of public housing on a site next to the railway station, next to the major shopping facilities and near the Campbelltown public hospital - the one site in the area that provided the best range of facilities. Members of the present Government wanted to see that land sold off to foreign interests, to Malaysian and Hong Kong businessmen. I supported the proposal that that land go to public housing for the citizens of this State. There was an ethical problem. The Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Camden, the current MLC Hon. J. F. Ryan, started to stir up bigotry and distress in the electorate. He whipped up a campaign and said, "We don't want these dirty, grubby public housing tenants in our suburb". That was the ethical problem.

Page 4024

The Hon. J. F. Ryan did not want people to get homes. He did not want that project built. That was the ethical problem, and it went a little further than that. John Ryan stirred up this trouble when he was supposed to be on sick leave from his job as a schoolteacher at Sarah Redfern High School. While his students were preparing for the higher school certificate he abandoned them, put in for sick leave and was reported in the Daily Telegraph Mirror as attacking public housing tenants. There was an ethical problem there. I took a role in settling that situation down, unashamedly, and claiming the credit for it in the local media. I brokered a compromise between the residents that John Ryan had stirred up and the department. In the end the residents said, "We will cop public housing so long as it is detached dwellings, not medium density". The department then had to enter into some contractual compensation for the developer for variation of contract. I had nothing to do with that matter. It was brought on by John Ryan's naked attempt to stir up bigotry.

Let me deal now with today's matter - the so-called Task Force Anode. Not everyone in this House now was here before 1988 so I might remind them of the climate at that time. There was enormous hatred and bitterness between Frank Walker and Nick Greiner. Straight after the election Greiner instigated a police task force to go after Frank Walker. Greiner was pretty open about it. At one stage Frank Walker held a press conference complaining about it. Nick Greiner then sued him, but he did not proceed with the matter because he knew it was unsustainable. In May 1989 I was contacted by Task Force Anode. I recognised it as a witch-hunt that was politically motivated to go after Frank Walker. It was a political partisan attempt to use the police for improper purposes. At that stage Walker was a candidate for the marginal Federal seat of Robertson. My solicitor gave me certain advice about this matter. I want briefly to quote from two letters. The first is a letter my solicitor wrote to me on 30 May 1989. The second is a letter my solicitor wrote to Task Force Anode on 30 June in the same year. In part, the letter to me states:

I also confirm my verbal advices to you that in my humble opinion the questions submitted by the Police Department should not be replied to. The questions do not in any way allege any offences against any person. They therefore amount to what I would describe as a "fishing expedition" with very little basis.

As I said, my solicitor wrote also to Task Force Anode - to Detective Senior Constable Gary Bourke, one of the men on the witch-hunt job. This letter is very important because the Government alleged that I would not talk to the police. In part, that letter states:

Mr. Knight is always ready, willing and able to assist Police Officers in proper enquiries. However before answering any questions Mr. Knight will depend on the writer's advice as to whether the enquiry is a bona-fide enquiry and is being properly and legally conducted.

The writer is not prepared at this stage to advise Mr. Knight that it is a bona-fide enquiry. We require considerably more details as referred to above before we are prepared to make an assessment in respect of the same.

What did Task Force Anode do? When it received a letter from my solicitor stating, "If you can assure us that this is not a political witch-hunt and it is a fair dinkum inquiry into an alleged criminal offence, we will talk to you", we never heard from Task Force Anode again. Who was the solicitor who appeared on my behalf? One would always expect one's solicitor to be on one's side. The name of my solicitor was John Marsden. And how does the Government view John Marsden's advice on police legal matters? So highly that it put him on the Police Board! I have a letter from a man who this Government appointed a member of the Police Board and who has said that this was not a proper and legal inquiry. What did the police find? The police found that there was no offence. This was pretty embarrassing. Imagine being set up by the Premier to try to nail Frank Walker and to come back empty-handed! It would be a fairly embarrassing thing. The police tried to embellish their report a bit to cover their embarrassment and they said, "We really think they are dreadful, awful people. Of course, we cannot prove it because they will not tell us that they are dreadful, awful people".

Police forensic experience actually involves a little more skill and detection than that. If there was anything there, the police would have and should have found it. So the police said, "Refer it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. We cannot find anything, so send it to the ICAC". It went to the ICAC. There are three things that the ICAC does with complaints. At the top level it sometimes holds public inquiries - certainly commissions of inquiry and hearings. That is what it did with the Peter Collins, Peter Blackmore, Wal Murray, Nick Greiner and Tim Moore references. I could go on ad nauseam. At the second level it conducts preliminary inquiries. It calmly interviews people and tries to decide whether there is enough evidence to go to a full inquiry. At the third level the ICAC says, "This is rubbish. This is malicious. It has nothing to do with us", and that is the end of it.

I am sure people can guess which of those three alternatives the ICAC took when it got the file from the police Task Force Anode. It said, "No further action. Nothing in there even warrants a preliminary private inquiry". That might be why the Government is so unhappy with the sort of people it is getting as ICAC commissioners. It now wants to appoint as the ICAC commissioner someone who put out politically motivated and partisan material during the Parramatta by-election campaign. What did the police and the Government do? This matter allegedly happened in 1987-88. The police found no evidence of any offence and the ICAC found nothing even worth investigating. The next step is for Government members to try to run it in the Parliament as a political vendetta. If ever anyone had any doubt that I was right back in 1989 in believing that the police were not genuine and were being used for political purposes, the proof of the pudding is right here today. Government members are hawking around the internal police report. Some of them may well have
Page 4025
committed criminal offences because of how they came by it. But we have seen members of the Government, backbenchers, Ministers and the Premier's No. 2 or No. 3 Press Secretary, Wayne Geddes, hawking it around the press gallery this afternoon.

There is prima facie evidence of some political corruption in this matter. It is political corruption of the independence of the police force by the Greiner and Fahey governments - trying to corrupt the police force and to use it for political purposes and then using material, however ineffective, for naked, political attacks. How that galls Government members! They set up a whole task force just to get Frank Walker, and what happened? They not only did not get him; he won the marginal Federal seat of Robertson. He then went into the Federal Parliament and became a Minister. Government members used public resources to try to nail that bloke for naked and personal political purposes, yet he is now in the Federal ministry. And what happened to the person who started it all? Nick Greiner got thrown out of the Parliament because his own creation, the ICAC, judged him to be corrupt. How that galls Government members!

Do honourable members in this Parliament or people in New South Wales seriously believe that, if this Government had one skerrick of evidence of criminality on my part - not enough to convict but just enough to try to justify bringing a losing prosecution - it would not have commenced such a prosecution? It has had seven years in which to try to do that. Of course, it has not done that because it has nothing. It knows that the matter has been disposed of. I want to deal briefly with some letters that went out to people on various occasions. It is not surprising that the Government and the police seem to confuse at least two different letters. There were the letters which Frank Walker sent to public housing tenants defending them against the attacks made upon them in public and the denigration that they suffered at the hands of John Ryan. The Auditor-General ruled that although that was done quite a way from an election, that was political. Frank Walker copped that decision and he paid up the money for those letters. Honourable members will find that anything else of a political nature sent out by individual candidates or Mr Walker did not involve public resources. They have been declared on Frank Walker's and other people's electoral funding returns.

The Government does not spend a lot of time looking at electoral funding returns because those documents are embarrassing for the Government. The returns from 1988 are particularly interesting. A few weeks after they were lodged I found three interesting things. I found that the Liberal Party funded the Independent candidates in Campbelltown and Camden. The people who ran as bona fide Independents gave their preferences to the Liberal Party and were funded out of Riley Street. The bills were paid by head office of the Liberal Party. I also found another fascinating set of returns for one Government Minister. His agent mistakenly put in a lot of receipts that he did not mean the public to see. No-one else can see them because the Minister snaffled them back very quickly, but I had a pretty good look at who was giving to his campaign and which interest group later benefited from his portfolio. We might talk about that in a bit more detail on another occasion. The third thing I found was the great rort that went through the organisation Community Polling run by Ministers of the Crown, Terry Metherell and Michael Yabsley.

It is significant that the person who is responsible for this pathetic attempt to muddy the waters today - the Premier - is not in the Chamber. He is not speaking. This motion originated in his office. I would not say he is the architect, because to be an architect you have to have a foundation to build on. This was a matter which he and some genius in his office and on the Liberal Party tactics committee thought might divert attention from the Government's inability to solve problems in health, public safety and education. Let us look not at the Premier's personal integrity - that is also for another time - but at his political integrity. Although he accuses the Leader of the Opposition of having double standards in ethical matters, no-one can accuse Premier John Fahey of being inconsistent in his ethical standards. They have been universally low.

I remind honourable members of the roll call of spivs and crooks that have been through the other side of this Parliament in recent years: Packard, Pickard, Hazzard, Morris, Collins, Blackmore, Griffiths, Smiles, Murray, Beck - they were up before ICAC - Singleton, who is still before the courts, Metherell, Greiner, and Moore. It does not read so much like a police line-up as a remand cell. Now we have the member for Blue Mountains and the member for Georges River. I will tell the Parliament what everyone around here knows. It is not a matter of what the Opposition thinks. No-one can find a single member of the Government who does not think that Barry Morris made the phone call, and it is pretty hard to find a single member of the Government - off the record - who does not think Terry Griffiths was molesting his staff, but Government members are here tonight crying crocodile tears for the honourable member for St Marys.

This motion was meant to be a diversion from the Government's troubles but all it has done is allow the Leader of the Opposition and others to highlight exactly what the Government's problems are. Tonight will go down in history as the greatest own goal since the Colombian World Cup soccer player Escobar scored against his own team - and we all know what a messy end he came to. This censure motion is a pathetic attempt to attack the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition has nothing but contempt for the lack of ethics amongst members of the Government and the lack of competence in people who think they can mount an attack. There is a terrible sense of deja vu here. [Time expired.]

[Debate interrupted.]

Page 4026

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Glachan): Order! I draw the attention of honourable members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mr Saburo Tanaka, Consul General for Japan.

[Debate resumed.]

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [8.44]: We all remember the infamous Tony Packard, the former member for the Hills. I am pleased that the honourable member for Eastwood and the honourable member for Cronulla are present tonight, because both honourable members opposite remember him quite well. There may be other members who are not as well acquainted with the devious actions of the former member for The Hills. Tonight I want to remind the House of Premier Fahey's role in protecting someone who can only be described as a scoundrel. On 25 February I asked the Premier whether there were outstanding State taxes to be paid by the Packard Motor Company Proprietary Limited - what I believed was a matter of public importance and an entirely justified question. The Premier's response to this most searching question was, "I am unaware of the answer to the question". The next day, 26 February, I asked the Premier:

The Premier will recall that yesterday I asked him a question concerning the actions of the Packard Motor Company, whether it had outstanding monies payable to the State, and if so the quantum. Has the Premier an answer, and will he provide it to the Parliament?

The Premier, with a full 24 hours to summon up the details from the Department of State Revenue, said, "The answer is the same as yesterday". In other words, the answer was: I am not interested, I do not know. These were serious allegations that were reported in the press at the time. The Premier had the audacity to come to the rostrum and say, in effect, "I don't give a damn". Being the terrier that I am I persisted, and on the third day, 27 February, I asked the Premier:

. . . whether he will now answer the questions I had asked during question time in the past two sitting days?

The Premier replied, "The answer to the second part remains the same" - an erudite answer. What this House got, in simple terms, was a coalition Premier saying he would not provide information to the House; he would not seek information; and, more importantly, he would not ask for information about non-payment of State taxes by a member of his own party. That is the key. He had the opportunity to provide information which he obviously knew was damaging - information of a criminal nature - to one of his backbenchers, but he refused to front up. The Premier was covering up. He failed to uphold the standards of propriety expected of a member of this House.

In this debate the House has heard the sorry saga of a tired old Government seeking to censure the Leader of the Opposition for inconsistently applying ethical standards to members of his party. What a joke! What an absolute farce! The Premier's role in the cover-up for the then member for The Hills cannot be defended. On three successive days he was asked to provide information about whether Tony Packard's motor company had fulfilled its legal obligations - and I stress legal obligations - to pay State taxes, including the payment of stamp duty, motor registration fees and payroll taxes to the State Treasury. The Premier continued right to the very end, right to the death, to protect the member for The Hills.

What actions of the former member for The Hills did the Premier seek to protect during that period? The Packard Motor Company misappropriated $37,000 from one customer who had traded in his car with that company and signed up for another loan. The customer then found that the dealership had failed to honour its agreement to pay out the original loan. An amount of $37,000 that should have gone to a consumer in The Hills district was misappropriated by a member of Parliament representing the government of the day. The Opposition moved a motion calling on the member for The Hills to explain his conduct both as proprietor of the Packard Motor Company and as a member of Parliament. At no time during that debate did the Premier give any indication that the unscrupulous behaviour of the former member for The Hills was anything but defensible. The Premier in this Chamber defended the former member for The Hills.

The Government put forward that standard of propriety, yet it has the audacity to move a motion seeking to censure the Leader of the Opposition for inconsistent application of ethical standards. The essence of this debate is whether the Leader of the Opposition or the Premier - an amendment was proposed to the motion - acted with propriety in relation to alleged actions by members of their respective parties. The Premier's actions in covering up the Packard fiasco was nothing but pathetic. The key to the debate is that the Premier failed to condemn the outrageous actions of the then member for The Hills. A most serious allegation was being put to this House about use of listening devices and avoidance of State taxes, sales tax and Commonwealth taxes - the gamut of malpractice in any business. A number of allegations against Tony Packard were made in this House, and on all such occasions the Premier came out and defended the scoundrel. Eventually Tony Packard pleaded guilty in court and was fined. He resigned from this place in disgrace. In the lead-up to that resignation the Premier came to the table in this House not wanting to answer questions. When the Opposition moved motions in this Chamber, the Premier came out and defended the actions of someone I believe was a scoundrel. The courts have sanctioned my thoughts on that matter.

The Premier has not hit the deck tonight in this House. The Opposition has not seen one Minister of the Crown in the Chamber. Instead, a few emissaries have been sent in to be the dirt diggers. They have been attempting to condemn the Leader of the Opposition, but it is evident from their speeches that they do not have their hearts in it. There has never
Page 4027
been a more barefaced example of double standards than that shown by the Premier in the Tony Packard saga cover-up. Members opposite might say that is merely Opposition rhetoric, but he pleaded guilty in court. The essence of the matter is that at one stage the Premier had the then Minister for Consumer Affairs, Peter Collins, obtain a report. A report was presented by the Minister for Consumer Affairs on the circumstances and impact on consumers of the failure of the Packard Motor Company. Under a report entitled "Unsatisfied Encumbrances" the department has 13 instances where existing loan arrangements for trade vehicles were not finalised because Tony Packard had failed to pay out encumbrances in accordance with the obligations of the purchasers. One was worth $37,000. They found 13 of them. In six cases the purchaser had entered into a further loan with AGC in relation to the purchased vehicle - one for $59,000, but in that case AGC accepted responsibility. The document contains claims for $37,000, $7,681, $27,807 and $10,000.

In that saga the Premier in this House defended a scoundrel because he did not have the guts to stand up and say, "I believe that the actions of one of my backbenchers needs some examination and some action on my part". It may be that the state of the numbers in the House and the former member for Davidson were causing some difficulty for the Government at that time, but that does not hide the fact that the Premier of the day did not do the right thing. If this House does not censure the Premier for his consistent failure to apply ethical standards to members of his Government as per the example I have given about the former member for The Hills, he must be condemned. There is not a person walking the streets of New South Wales who could honestly say that the Premier did the right thing in defending Tony Packard, and that what he did was acceptable. The Premier stood up in this House and looked after Tony Packard. The Premier said that what Tony Packard did was acceptable. No-one in New South Wales would accept that, yet today members have been asked to vote on a motion to condemn the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier has shown base motives which no-one would accept. I ask the House to throw out the motion and vote for the amendment.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [9.00]: I have often wondered why the honourable member for Eastwood has never made it to the frontbench, and this motion shows me why. It is interesting that a person of little weight, as the honourable member obviously is, was the member called upon by the Premier to move this motion of extraordinary ineptitude. I do not think the honourable member for Eastwood has realised that it is a boomerang; a boomerang that after tonight will fly back in his face.

Mr McManus: Right between the eyes.

Mr SCULLY: Right between the eyes. I am astonished, perhaps mesmerised, by the fact that this Government of all governments, with the litany of characters that we have been talking about tonight, could bring a motion of this nature before the Parliament. Next thing we will have Alexander Downer moving a motion in Federal Parliament condemning Paul Keating for not having electoral appeal. Why does the Liberal Party not do that? This Government's hypocrisy knows no bounds. That members opposite are political has-beens, clinging to a deflating life raft which will expire on 25 March, is simply confirmed by this nonsensical motion.

The Liberal Party and the National Party almost reel in horror when the word "ethics" is mentioned. It is like a vampire with a cross being planted in front of his face. All one has to say to Government members is "ethics" and they reel back in shock saying, "Hold on, don't say that word". "Ethics" is a word that Government members cannot digest. I have heard a story that Bob Askin started this, and Government members still live up to it. Every time a member of the National Party or the Liberal Party puts in a nomination for preselection, they have to sign a pledge that upon being elected to Parliament they will get liquid paper and white-out every time the words "ethics" or "integrity" appear in their dictionaries. Visit the room of the honourable member for Barwon or any of the characters opposite and the word "ethics" will have been deleted because the Government cannot handle that word. Who dreamed up this motion? I cannot believe that honourable members opposite dreamed this up. It must have been John Fahey, the great strategist, or Chris Hartcher. The political acumen almost floors me; it is brilliant!

Mr Knowles: It is like the time I asked Macdonald the question.

Mr SCULLY: Absolutely, I remember that. When you asked Macdonald the question on the Water Board, he threw you for six. How could a government of this stature move a motion like this, a government full of tax cheats, convicted criminals, fraudsters and a pervert.

Mr Iemma: And the National Party.

Mr SCULLY: The National Party, and a pervert, the terror of the typing pool. How could a government, with a litany of these characters, who have been paraded through this Parliament since March 1988, dare come into this Parliament and insult the people of New South Wales by pretending that it has any character or integrity. You succeeded Tony Packard because he was a criminal. That is the only reason you are in this Parliament - because your predecessor was a crook. You can get up here when I am finished and tell the House about Tony Packard and how you are proud of the fact -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Glachan): Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr SCULLY: This Government has trotted out this stuff that is seven or eight years old. I am told that when it decided to have a shot at the honourable member for Campbelltown, it had to get the Gumption
Page 4028
and scrubbing brush out from under the sink and scrub off the thick dust. There is nothing in it. As honourable members opposite well know, the honourable member for Campbelltown is a person of the highest integrity.

Mr Kerr: You have not lost your sense of humour, Carl.

Mr SCULLY: You know that. Well, if you think this is a joke - is that what you are doing? This is a joke, is it? Is this a flippant -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I ask Government members to cease interjecting in this manner and I ask the member for Smithfield to continue to address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr SCULLY: The honourable member for Cronulla has just indicated that this motion is flippant -

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: I interjected by accusing the member of having a sense of humour. I withdraw that.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr SCULLY: The affront and insult to this Parliament launched by the Government is something that all honourable members should be insulted by, not only by the flippant disregard for the valuable time that we should be spending on the dispatch of business for the people of New South Wales, but because this is probably the greatest time waster ever. In March 1988 the first Premier of this Government issued a code of conduct statement relating to members' ethics. The document states at 1.2:

Ministers should avoid situations in which they have or might reasonably be thought to have a private interest which conflicts with their public duty.

The documents states further at 3.2:

A Minister shall not -

(a) use his or her position for the private gain of the Minister or for the improper gain of any other person.

How does Treasurer Collins explain the fact that he continues to be a Minister when he has clearly breached both of those sections in doing what he did, that is, exerting pressure upon Dr Ryan to obtain a financial benefit. We have a Treasurer in this State whose integrity has been impugned. He took money from the public purse, in effect, by exerting pressure on a person via his position as a Minister. He went to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, flicked a little statement and then got off because there was no cross-examination. I have no doubt whatsoever that had that man - who embarrasses this State by continuing to be its Treasurer - been cross- examined by competent counsel, he would have been sacked. No decent Premier -

Mr Martin: And sent to gaol.

Mr SCULLY: And probably sent to gaol, but he continues to stay here. We all know that he is a crook. We all know he got his hand in the till.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: if the honourable member wants to attack another member, he should do so by way of substantive motion. This goes right outside the leave of both the amendment and the motion.

Mr SCULLY: On the point of order: that is a farce. The amendment says, "That the House censures the Premier for his consistent failure to apply ethical standards to members of his Government". While the Treasurer ought not be a member of the Government, he unfortunately continues to be a member of the Government and I am entitled to comment on his disgraceful behaviour while a Minister.

Mr Kerr: Further to the point of order: the honourable member for Smithfield is addressing situations that did not occur. He is saying, if this hypothesis happened, then this is what would occur. The honourable member should only address behaviour that has been occasioned by the member.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Glachan): Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member should confine himself to the facts.

Mr Collins: On a point of order: I heard in my room that the honourable member for Smithfield has just made a scurrilous personal attack on me and has used words which I insist he withdraw. If he wishes to make any claim against me, he should have the guts - this snivelling member for Smithfield, this coward, would not have the guts - to repeat what he said outside this Chamber. He should withdraw those words unreservedly because he knows there is only one procedure by which he can make that sort of claim, and it is by way of substantive motion against me and he does not have the guts to do that.

Mr SCULLY: Mr Acting-Speaker, you have already ruled on this point of order. He is out of time.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order and ask that the honourable member withdraw the remarks complained of.

Mr SCULLY: I withdraw the remark that you are a crook.

Mr Collins: On a further point of order: Mr Acting-Speaker, I also ask that the honourable member for Smithfield withdraw the other assertion he made that I have my hand in the till. I find that to be trifling with your ruling. He knows he is out of order. He knows he has overstepped the mark. He knows he is a coward. He knows he would not have the guts to repeat that outside. This man who masquerades as the member for Smithfield qualifies for the greatest coward's award in recent memory in this place. I ask that he withdraw his full imputation unreservedly - no qualification, unreservedly.

Mr SCULLY: I am happy to withdraw the fact that you have your hand in the till.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: the Minister has indicated that he found the words offensive. The honourable member for Smithfield has sought to make an assertion.

Page 4029

Mr Collins: On the point of order: the honourable member for Smithfield has just said he withdraws the fact. He must withdraw, he is playing with your ruling. He is trifling with this House. If he continues to trifle with the House, he should be expelled from this Chamber. There is no such fact, and he knows it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Smithfield to withdraw those remarks unreservedly.

Mr SCULLY: I withdraw the remark that he has his hand in the till.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Unreservedly?

Mr SCULLY: Unreservedly. Are you happy now?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr SCULLY: The code of conduct in that particular case was blatantly breached, of course. Mr Greiner set it up and used the so-called code of conduct to somehow justify his behaviour vis-a-vis the Metherell situation. Why are you moving? I am pleased you have come down.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! On a number of occasions I have asked the honourable member to address his remarks through the Chair. I warn him that if he continues to ignore my directions I will have him removed from the Chamber.

Mr SCULLY: I would like to know the justification for this motion being brought before the House. I can only surmise that the Government somehow fears the honourable member for Campbelltown. He was basically left alone for seven years and upon his promotion to the frontbench of the parliamentary Labor Party we have had an entire week of activity from the Government side of this House relating to the honourable member for Campbelltown. I can only assume that Government members fear him. What the Government has done this week is to emphatically endorse the decision that the caucus unanimously made to promote him to the frontbench. The public will see this as such an endorsement.

On behalf of the honourable member for Campbelltown I express appreciation for the Government members assisting the process of presenting the Opposition's newest talented member of the front row so blatantly across the airwaves to the community. What is the charge? The charge that the Government has alleged against the honourable member for Campbelltown is that he took a trip to Atlanta, paid for by supporters of his political activities. Further, that he supports public housing in his electorate. Wow! Gee, I am blown away; that is terrible! I guess if that is unethical just about everyone in this House might as well accept the fact that we should no longer be here. I wonder how many members opposite would withstand a charge of being unethical if they went on a trip and supported public housing. I do not think many would support public housing; we all know what they think of public housing tenants.

Look at that charge: a trip and supporting public housing tenants. Compare that with Tony Packard, a convicted criminal. Tony Packard was kicked out of this House only because of the pressure placed on the Premier through a conviction. A litany of things, almost of biblical proportions, was alleged against the former member for The Hills. He would have stayed here had it not been for that conviction. He has support from the Premier and others. I think the goblin from Ku-ring-gai backed him all the way, right to the finish post. An article by Mark Coultan in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 July 1993 stated:

As much as Mr Fahey would like to paint the Independents as Mr Packard's executioners, they firmly had the high moral ground from the start. Mr Fahey was left to defend, in a half-hearted way, Mr Packard's position in Parliament, if not his actions.

Here is a man who would have us believe that somehow we have something to answer for when we have that situation: a Premier defending a convicted criminal. We have Mr Morris, the member for Blue Mountains, the Guy Fawkes of the Blue Mountains City Council - not a person in this House genuinely believes that he will not be convicted. Is there any suggestion -

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: the member is now attacking another member, purely on speculation. The member is entitled to address the House on facts relating to the amendment and the motion. He is not entitled to fabricate something into the future.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member should refer only to facts and not to hypotheses or to circumstances as he imagined them to be.

Mr SCULLY: In this debate we have heard criticism of the ethical stance taken by the parliamentary Labor Party. We also had the airing of certain things in relation to the honourable member for St Marys. The Leader of the Opposition took a robust position in relation to the endorsement or disendorsement of the honourable member for St Marys. Nothing of that nature has occurred in respect of far more serious allegations against the honourable member for Blue Mountains. If we are to say that they are still in the realm of allegations, they are one hundredfold more serious than what is alleged against the honourable member for St Marys, yet the parliamentary Labor Party moved for disendorsement. Nothing of that nature has occurred in terms of the honourable member for Blue Mountains. There were allegations also in relation to the member for Georges River who could only be called the terror of the typing pool. They were serious allegations.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: the honourable member is not entitled to use nicknames for other members. I make that point of order having been convinced of this by Opposition members who say they should be addressed only as members for their particular electorates.

Page 4030

Mr SCULLY: On the point of order: I am prepared to accept that, provided no hypocrisy is intended.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The debate is rapidly getting out of hand. There has been too much interjection and exchange across the table. A serious amendment has been moved to a serious motion, and the honourable member should make some effort to confine his remarks to the matters that are before the Chair.

Mr SCULLY: We are attempting, and I believe we have -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member continue his contribution, as his time for speaking has almost expired.

Mr SCULLY: We are attempting to set standards of ethical conduct which we will live by when we form government in March 1995. A Carr Labor Government will not be found wanting, as the Greiner-Fahey Government has been with a litany of characters that we have talked about this afternoon and this evening. I am appalled that such lack of political acumen could result in what are otherwise professional politicians allowing a motion to come before this House so that the Opposition can highlight certain behaviour. It gives the Opposition the opportunity to present countless examples of lack of good character, lack of good fame, lack of integrity, and lack of good reason why a whole host of their people should not be in government, and why they were removed from Government. The people of this State will realise that the party of this Parliament which supports the ethical conduct, the party concerned about integrity, good character and good fame, is the parliamentary Labor Party.

Members on the Government side throw feathers at the honourable member for Campbelltown. That is all they are, feathers wafting in the air. They carry no substance other than dust accumulated from their being kept in the cupboard for so long. Government members' suggestion that the honourable member for Campbelltown is a man lacking in character is shameful. Their attitude reflects poorly on them. I am confident that the Opposition amendment will be carried and that the Government's disgraceful motion will be defeated, as it deserves. [Time expired.]

Mr J. J. AQUILINA (Riverstone) [9.20]: I oppose the censure motion moved by the honourable member for Eastwood and support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government should hang its head in shame. It has shown its hypocrisy and contempt for the institution of Parliament by drawing up and moving this spurious motion against the Leader of the Opposition. It asserts inconsistent application of ethical standards by the Labor leader. One thing is certain: there is no inconsistency in the way that the Government applies ethical standards, for it has none. Go back through the seven long years of coalition history and see how those administrations have failed to apply even what they considered passed for ethical standards. I start with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines.

Mr Causley: On a point of order: the honourable member for Riverstone cast an aspersion on me. I ask him to inform the House of the basis of that aspersion. I remind him that if it relates to a case mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald he should ask the Sydney Morning Herald what happened to it.

Mr J. J. AQUILINA: For the past seven years New South Wales has endured one of the most shameful periods of administration in the history of this State. One member after another from the Government side has been paraded before all sorts of judicial institutions, whether the courts, the Independent Commission Against Corruption or this Parliament. In each instance it has been a case of shame, shame, shame. That long litany of disgraceful behaviour has involved not just one or two but almost a dozen members of the Government being forced out of this Parliament or being forced to withdraw or retract.

I repeat that there has been no inconsistency in the way that the Government has dealt with its so-called ethical standards. Whether it was Premier Greiner or Premier Fahey, on each occasion the allegation of impropriety has been met with efforts by the Premier to excuse the behaviour complained of. There has been a consistent failure to apply proper standards and ethics in respect of several members of Cabinet and of the Government collectively. Quite frankly, I do not know how honourable members sitting on the Government benches can raise their heads in a show of pride or honour when they know what their colleagues have done, what they have had to tell the people of New South Wales, and what Premier Greiner and Premier Fahey have put up with.

I am proud of my leader Bob Carr because there is no duplicity in his standards. There is no duplicity in the demands that he makes of his Labor colleagues in this Parliament. We appreciate the great honour and privilege bestowed on a member elected to represent in this Chamber the people of New South Wales. Attaching to that privilege is an absolute demand that members be as clean as a whistle in their public behaviour and in their financial affairs and personal honour. Those are standards that every leader has a right to demand and all taxpayers have the right to expect of their elected representatives.

What have taxpayers received in substitution of their expectations on these matters? I had a fair bit to do with my counterpart colleague in education, Terry Metherell. I note that many Liberal members on the Government side refrain from mentioning the name Terry Metherell particularly as the Government is spending tens of millions of dollars on undoing his education policies in an attempt to put the Metherell legacy behind us. Need I remind Government members that Terry Metherell was a crook; he was found to be a crook by a court of this land. He cheated the taxpayers of Australia. What was the response of Premier Greiner? Did he tell Metherell to resign his seat? Did Premier Greiner say, "I am going to withdraw your endorsement as a member of Parliament"? Did he say, "You are not a worthy
Page 4031
candidate for election in New South Wales"? No. He said, "Terry, thank you for resigning as Minister. I accept your resignation with regret. Perhaps, after the next elections when we are returned, I will consider putting you back in Cabinet".

Those are the sorts of ethical standards that Premier Greiner had for the people of this State. That is an absolute shame. But Terry Metherell was not on his own. The first member forced out of office, not by those on his side of the political spectrum but by the State Opposition, was the member for Coffs Harbour, Matt Singleton. The member for Hornsby, Neil Pickard, was another. The member for North Shore, Phil Smiles, also was a crook. He would not even pay his own solicitor's fees. These are the sorts of people who were members of the Liberal Party, and they even rose to executive positions within their governments.

What about the member for The Hills, Tony Packard? I never thought I would need to refer to this file again. It is a file on Tony Packard. It does not tell a very nice story. It is by no means a dirt file; it is a file of facts. It is a file that tells of the broken lives and the heartaches of the common people - former employees cheated by Tony Packard. These ordinary men and women fell victim to this bon vivant member of the Government. So many on that side of the political spectrum were very pleased and proud to associate with him. But Tony Packard cheated people of their hard earned money. Packard still owes them money for unpaid wages and overtime. They eventually brought him undone.

Tony Packard never hesitated to listen in on the private conversations of customers who came to his car yard. He and his salesmen used to leave these husbands and wives alone, ostensibly allowing them to discuss their financial affairs privately, but then went to a nearby room where they could listen to those private conversations captured by bugging devices. That was a shameful and disgraceful practice. He was rightfully found guilty by a court of this land and subsequently fined $1,000. But what was the response of Premier Fahey even after Tony Packard was found guilty? The Daily Telegraph Mirror of 28 July 1993 said:

Premier John Fahey again defended the backbencher's actions, saying it was no worse than former MP Terry Metherell's convictions on tax offences in 1990.

Talk about ethical standards! Why should Tony Packard be pushed out? After all, Terry Metherell was found to be a crook and Premier Greiner never tried to get rid of him. Why should Premier Fahey want to get rid of Tony Packard? What sort of ethical standards are those? Do the people of New South Wales not have the right to expect better from their Premier? The article of 28 July 1993 stated further:

Terry Metherell is more of a criminal than Tony Packard. He received a penalty in court almost four times the amount that Tony received, Mr Fahey said.

Wowee! Because Terry Metherell is fined something like $4,000 he has four times as much right as Tony Packard to be thrown out of this Parliament. The judgment of the people of New South Wales was sane and sound. They were the ones, not the Premier, who forced Tony Packard out. The journalist went on to say, "The honourable thing would have been for Mr Fahey to condemn Mr Packard's action unless he could come up with a satisfactory defence". And again, "The question is not why Tony Packard resigned yesterday. It is why the Premier did not insist on his resignation six weeks ago". We are talking about standards and ethics here. We are talking about a Premier having the guts to demand the highest ethical decorum from his members. We are talking about a Government that is not going to take the people of New South Wales, the taxpayers, the little people of this State, for a ride or take advantage of them.

An article in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 28 July stated, "The strongest condemnation Mr Fahey has made of his former member is that he made a gross error of judgment". This is after he had been fined $1,000 for the despicable act of listening to the little people talking, supposedly in private, about their financial affairs so he could rip them off later when they went to purchase their cars. Many of the big people, for that matter, were just as disgusted with Tony Packard and the way he was tolerated by his Liberal Party colleagues and those who sought to defend him, a man who should have been thrown out a long time ago. Again I quote from the article: "This was more than a mistake. The magistrate had found in late 1990 Tony Packard was made aware of potential problems surrounding the two-way intercom system used to bug clients but Mr Packard determined that it remain".

What we are calling for here is some consistency in ethics. That is what my leader has shown and continues to show and, indeed, there is no inconsistency in the way in which he has dealt with the honourable member for St Marys, or the honourable member for Campbelltown for that matter. The honourable member for Campbelltown and I go back a long way. We have probably had the longest association of anyone in this Chamber. We were school kids together a long time before either of us went to work or even considered going into politics. He comes from a respectable family and is a man with whom I am proud to associate. I have not always agreed with his political point of view but I am pleased that in recent times we have managed to come to agreement. I have always respected his intelligence, his capacity and, above all, his integrity. Those are measured words and words of which I am very proud.

What has the Government produced today to condemn the honourable member for Campbelltown? What has it been able to rake through? I guarantee that the Government does not have files that could condemn him like the file I have that condemns Tony Packard or other files I have in my possession in relation to other Government members who have been told to run away from this Chamber with their tails between their legs. The Government went through some old documents - seven or eight years old - and could only come up with spurious reports of task
Page 4032
force Anode, a task force deliberately put together by the Premier in order to rake over old coals, to try to see whether the honourable member for Campbelltown could be entrapped in any way. What did the Government find? Absolutely nothing.

If we are going to talk about ethical standards, we should talk about the ethical standards of the Premier who is willing to misuse the Police Service of this State and taxpayers' money on a political witch-hunt, because that is what happened with task force Anode. The legitimate police services of this State were put to a political purpose, to carry out a witch-hunt, very much akin to the McCarthy days of the United States. What did they find? Absolutely nothing. Not being satisfied with that, the matter was referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. What did it find? Absolutely nothing. If we are going to use a standard which would condemn the honourable member for Campbelltown after the ICAC found he had no case to answer, why do not we adapt that standard to members on the Government benches? Why is that standard not adapted to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, or to the former Deputy Premier of this State who was found by the ICAC to have performed in a manner conducive to corruption? Why do we not rake over old coals and say to John Fahey that he is being inconsistent with his application of standards because he does not do anything about these people?

No, the hypocrisy of this Government speaks volumes today. Two amateur Government members tried to embarrass the Opposition and to censure the Leader the Opposition. They failed abysmally. The Government failed in its attempt because the allegations raised lacked substance and truth. The honourable member for Eastwood is a talented lawyer, but as a politician he has a lot to learn. He needs more experience in this Chamber. I give the honourable member fair warning. When members of the Government want him to do its dirty work, to be the bomb thrower, though that may be the way to advance to the frontbench at some future time, tell them, member for Eastwood, to go jump. Tell them you will not do their dirty work for them and prove your character as a member of Parliament by standing on your own two feet and performing your job with integrity and honour. Your actions today have brought you no honour. It has brought you no praise in the eyes of your colleagues and it will not bring you any accolades from your constituents or the legal fraternity.

As for the other little bomb thrower, there is only one genuine bomb thrower in the Government and he has not spoken at all today in this debate. I advise the honourable member for Davidson to pull on his head, stay back a little and get lost for a while until he gains more experience. What he is attempting to do now will undermine his capacity, integrity and reputation as a member of Parliament and the general public will have every reason to ask: why are these people doing this? They have no conviction about what they are doing. It is all a political ruse which has been handled very badly indeed. I hope this exercise today is a sobering lesson for this Government. My plea is, get off the back of the honourable member for Campbelltown because you are really pushing the wrong horse. You are going the wrong way.

Mr Tink: Then get him to answer the questions.

Mr J. J. AQUILINA: He will answer your questions. He will answer whatever questions you want to throw at him provided they are legitimate questions, provided they are not bogus questions put together by a Police Service deliberately press-ganged into raking over old coals to carry out a massive political witch-hunt. Legitimate questions and legitimate debate is what we should be on about in this Parliament. To the absolute disgrace of this Government and the Leader of the House, it is now 9.40 p.m., and what have we dealt with that has been of benefit to the people of New South Wales? Zilch. The Government has the hide to want to debate later a procedural motion on the sitting times of this Parliament - how we are all going to sit at more congenial hours so that we can go home to our beds at night. I have certain points of view about that and I will not canvass them now, but in reality this Parliament is about the needs of the men and women in this State. It is about the needs of providing health services, public transport, schools and teachers. It is not about conducting witch-hunts. It is not about wasting the time of this Parliament on a motion which some people may construe as a political convenience for one side or the other.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.40]: In May 1993 the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption made a recommendation to this Parliament after hearing evidence and giving it due consideration. It made a recommendation on a bipartisan basis that changes be made to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act to embrace members of Parliament following the Greiner-Moore decision by the Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Appeal. It is now mid-October 1994 and nothing has been done about that matter. The recommendation was that a code of conduct be established for members of Parliament. The Independents have spent a considerable amount of time this week talking with the Government about the need for a code of conduct. For some months the honourable member for Manly has been looking at the question of ethics and ethical standards, whether there ought to be such a thing as an ethics committee of parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians, and whether we should try to improve the behaviour and standards of members of Parliament.

This motion was doomed to backfire. Before honourable members dive in, they should determine whether there are any piranhas in the water; they should have a 360 degree view of the environment. If they want to rake up old events in this House they should do a bit of research to determine what happened under the Askin, Wran, Lewis, Willis, Greiner and Fahey governments. When they start to
Page 4033
rake up old events it becomes evident that they cannot possibly win. Later in my speech I will talk about overcoming a problem of history if we are to advance. Recently I spoke to Sir Richard Kirby, a man in his eighties and a former chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, about these things. He likes to sit down and talk. On the subject of the police he said, "If you are to deal with the problems in the police force, because of the long history of corruption you should draw a line and say that, from this day forward, that standard is not acceptable. Then you can go forward". That is an important and wise point, as one would expect from such a venerable judge and a person of his age and experience.

It is a joke for members of Parliament to look at the history of events in this Parliament. They go back for many years. This Fiftieth Parliament will go down in the history of New South Wales as the most accident prone; I have never known such a series of events involving members of Parliament. However, standards might have improved. Members of this Parliament have been caught out because of their actions. It may well be that members in previous parliaments were not caught out for actions that were equally criminal or dishonest, but I do not make a judgment on that. It is to the Government's credit that the creation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption has brought members of Parliament undone. This Government brought in a code of conduct for Ministers, which can be added to the ICAC benchmark. Matt Singleton went by the board because of that; he was sacked by Premier Greiner. Metherell stood down because of tax charges. When the Premier left the Parliament at that time he broke that code of conduct. He no longer gives a second thought to commercial in confidence matters. I am not saying that he has deliberately told people the secrets he learned in Cabinet, or that he has divulged commercial in confidence matters, but he carries into the private sector a lot of knowledge which ordinary mortals like me, as a member of Parliament, would not know about. I do not know how many boards Mr Greiner is on, and he is also a lobbyist.

Should we be looking at the code of conduct adopted in Canada, which provides that for 12 months or two years after leaving Parliament a Cabinet Minister cannot engage in activities that will allow him to use knowledge gained in confidence to his advantage? Unfortunately, Premier Fahey abandoned that code of conduct. He said it was meaningless. The code of conduct is a key element in this debate. I will not rake over old events, as that has been part of this political debate, but I will mention in passing the names of Packard, Pickard and Smiles, the honourable member for Blue Mountains and the honourable member for Georges River. We know that the history of the Australian Labor Party will not stand up to scrutiny. We know that Jackson would never have been charged with criminal offences if it were not for the fact that the Australian Federal Police picked up on what was happening from a phone bug. There was no way in the world that Wran was going to reveal what was happening. I know that Cabinet knew in large measure what was happening. I know that Cabinet knew what was happening in the Department of Planning.

Incidentally, I do not refer to the Leader of the Opposition when I am talking about the Minister in charge at that time. I know that certain members of the Australian Labor Party at that time would have used their good offices, because they were honest people, and said, "Enough is enough. Back off". I know that they would have tried to set some standards of behaviour for members of Parliament. We heard about Mochalski, Brereton and the Botany Council, and the bashing of Peter Baldwin. I could go on. If honourable members rake into history they will be wasting their time. This motion is doomed to failure. I do not care whether the motion is moved by Opposition members or Government members; there is such a wealth of material that they will be wasting their time. This debate interests me because it opens up to scrutiny internal party matters. I am grateful to the honourable member for Eastwood for doing that, because I think that is where the bodies are buried. That is where the decisions are made and that is where the deals are done. I, as an Independent, am happy to see all that happen and to see all the badness and rottenness come out. Honourable members can throw as many bombs as they like, but they should let the people know what is happening in the party room.

If they want to rake over old events they should refer to Community Polling. How many Liberal members of Parliament were involved in Metherell's office in that shonky arrangement? All I am saying is that this motion is a waste of time. If I were permitted under standing orders I would be tempted to vote for both the amendment and the motion. As I cannot do that I intend to vote against both. But I will say this about the Leader of the Opposition: whether his judgment is right or wrong, and whether he did what he did for party reasons associated with internal party machinations, I will never know. But at least for the first time someone in this House has said, "I do not think that behaviour meets our standards and something will be done about your preselection". I really cannot judge whether or not that was fair, so I make no judgment about the honourable member for St Marys.

Let me turn to the main point made by the honourable member for Eastwood, the mover of the motion. He examined the actions of the Leader of the Opposition, who took internal party action that should be flushed out because it affects a member's right to stand as a candidate and, therefore, affects the democratic party process. After his assessment of matters to do with cheques and allegations concerning a licensed club he made certain decisions. The honourable member for Eastwood referred to a police report concerning the honourable member for Campbelltown and his failure to answer questions. Those allegations, like the allegations against the honourable member for St Marys, are untested at this stage. I do not know how my colleagues the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Bligh and I are supposed to make up our minds on these untested allegations.

Page 4034

If we are to talk about censure it comes down to this: if the allegations are that the conduct does not meet the code of conduct for a member of Parliament, what measure do we have? There is no standard of conduct for members of Parliament, although a parliamentary committee recommended in May 1993 that one be established. The Government did nothing about it and the Opposition did nothing about it, so there are no standards against which my colleagues and I, or anyone else in this place, can be measured. There are a number of ways in which this matter can be handled, including reference by the police to the courts. In the case of the honourable member for St Marys, I only know what I am told in this House. The Director of Public Prosecutions found insufficient evidence to proceed with any charges.

The matter can be referred to the ICAC for determination, because there is no statute of limitations, as was mentioned in the case of the honourable member for St Marys. The allegation of disclosure and use of confidential information was mentioned in the case of the honourable member for Campbelltown. That is current when one considers the recent report of the ICAC on corrupt conduct in making improper use of confidential information. The honourable member for Eastwood is a barrister and would appreciate those points. It comes down to whether double standards are in operation, and whether they are double standards in a matter of party preferment and party preselection. I am delighted because I would love to see these standards examined by this Parliament.

Let us have a debate every time Parliament sits. The people of New South Wales would learn a lot about what happens inside party meetings and how their party candidates are selected for them. But is that a matter for censure? I still welcome this motion because it opens up a whole new area and invites the Parliament into the party room. Some good points were made about the member for Campbelltown. If the allegation is correct he should have spoken to the police. The ICAC is not statute barred. Refer it to the ICAC if you want to, then move a substantive motion on the member for Campbelltown, but I do not know whether it would get anywhere. On the evidence before me I doubt that it would. But do not move censure of the Leader of the Opposition on his judgment of matters and, in his exercise of that judgment, whether he applies ethical standards. I cannot see that that is a matter of true censure.

To get to the essence of true censure one must ask what did the member of Parliament do wrong and zero in on that person, whether it be the member for St Marys, the member for Campbelltown or any other member. That should have been the point of a censure motion. Parliament is represented by a cross-section of the community. That has always been the case and I hope it always will be. There are people in Parliament who are honest and dishonest to varying degrees; there are people who are hard workers and people who are lazy; people who are teetotallers and people who are alcoholics. A wag said to me in years past that he thought alcoholics are underrepresented; that if 5 per cent of the community are alcoholics we should have more alcoholic members in the House. We are a cross-section of the community and there will be variations in standards and in interpretations of the role of members of Parliament and their behaviour.

The Parliament needs a code of conduct or some way to measure standards and try to set standards, hopefully by example. If we are to go forward and learn something from this debate, we should look seriously at ethics and a code of conduct. Let us not go through the exercise that the Federal Government has just completed, which was a total waste of time. That was exposed recently in the media. I noticed some comments from my colleague Ted Mack, the Federal member for North Sydney. Federal parliamentarians went through about three inches of documents, took all the evidence and so on, and reduced those documents to about seven motherhood statements that did not mean a thing. In other words, Federal parliamentarians do not want to set a code of conduct. We have to make up our minds whether we are going to establish a code of conduct for this Parliament, how we are going to do it, and how we are going to treat ethics.

We should give serious thought to it, because the history of this Parliament is not a proud one. We have to make up our minds about our standards and whether we are going to set an example. I am no different from anyone else. I have my weaknesses like everyone else, I have to compromise like everyone else, I am a politician like everyone else in this Parliament, and I am partisan like everyone else. A Minister of a Liberal government is likely to be partisan towards big business. A Minister in a Labor government may be partisan towards a union. All representatives will be partisan towards their electorates. This question of partisanship as a standard is an important matter to consider. We all come to grips with it and it is worrying many members in the light of the ICAC's findings.

A number of discussions have been held, both on the record and off the record, between ourselves and with members of the ICAC committee, as to how vulnerable a member is when that member sincerely thinks he or she is doing the right thing. Therefore, members of Parliament have a role in setting their own code of conduct. They understand the standards that should apply because they understand the complexities of the job. However, it should not be only their role. Members of Parliament are representatives and members of the wider community. There is a real role for people who are not members of Parliament to sit on a committee of this House, to be involved in assisting members of Parliament to set a code of conduct.

The bottom line is if we set a code of conduct and that code of conduct is used by the ICAC to put members under the aegis of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act so that findings can be made against members of Parliament and Ministers under section 9 - and they cannot at the
Page 4035
moment. If members of Parliament set their own standards they will be a laughing-stock. We would be setting our own standards but imposing another set of standards on public servants. Those people can be judged by those standards as to whether they will lose their jobs and, under section 9 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, as to whether they may be found, because it is a sackable offence, to be guilty of corrupt conduct.

I do not think the general public would accept that. The feeling amongst members with whom I have discussed this matter is that people outside cannot assist in setting a code of conduct with any real say, and they would not accept that. The fact is there is a real world out there. John Dowd said to me that John Maddison, former Attorney General, gave him some wise advice, and I took that advice myself: never forget, wherever you are, whatever you say, whatever you do, that you are a member of Parliament. For all the abuse that we suffer, for all the jokes that are made about us, a member of Parliament has a special place in the community. If you forget that, you do so at your peril. If you do not set reasonable standards for yourself and abide by them, and if you are not subject to the law and to the ICAC in exactly the same way as the people you choose to represent, and if you do not set the example, you are vulnerable. That is the clear message of this debate.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [9.58]: What a dismal week for the Liberal Party! Yesterday we had that genius, the Minister for the Environment, with his urgency motion on mining in national parks. The National Party, I am sure, was frothing at the mouth at his ineptitude and the fact that without any problems whatsoever the Opposition was able to show that the Liberal Party had no record in that area and in fact was a laughing-stock. In the party room this morning, when the Government members were considering what to do today, I am sure that the honourable member for Eastwood, in his new position as parliamentary secretary, came up with the brilliant idea of testing the integrity and ethics of the Labor Party. I can imagine the scene in the National Party room. The Nationals would have been agog at that because when the words "ethics" and "probity" were used they would have thought back to all the difficulties they faced as a result of the north coast inquiry into behaviour conducive to corruption.

Mr Causley: On a point of order: if the honourable member for Newcastle wants to quote selectively the findings of the north coast inquiry, he should also state what was defined under corruption. The inquiry found - I remember it clearly - that there is no, and there never was any, evidence of corruption. The honourable member should quote the whole report.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Hazzard): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr GAUDRY: It was behaviour conducive to corruption. National Party members, given their difficulty with ethics, felt that entering this debate would not be attractive to them. They did not want to get dragged into a debate on probity, integrity, honesty and forthrightness. What ethics and support for ethics has the Government demonstrated in the seven long years it has been the protector of probity and honesty in this State? The famous job-for-a-vote case went to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The decision of the ICAC was contested, which led to the finding by Mr Temby that Metherell and Greiner had acted, in terms of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, in a manner that he thought was corrupt being overturned. As the honourable member for South Coast has said, the appeal made clear that under the present terms of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act a Minister of the Crown could not be found to be corrupt. The ICAC committee, of which I am a member - the honourable member for Eastwood was a member of it at that time - deliberated at length and produced a comprehensive report on changes required to the Act.

That report, delivered to the Parliament in May 1993, found an urgent need for changes to be made to the Act to make Ministers of the Crown subject to the provisions of the Act. The Government, so full of concern about integrity and acting ethically, made no attempt in that 18-month period to make the changes that would have brought its Ministers within the scope of the Act. Why did the Government not act properly? It made sure that humble Opposition backbenchers, people in the public sector and members of the public are all subject to the provisions of the Act but not Ministers of the Crown, as found in the decision of the Supreme Court. That double standard has been maintained by the Government. And it has the hide to talk about ethics! A code of ethics or conduct of parliamentarians has been suggested. As the honourable member for South Coast said, we deliberated on a code of ethics not in 1994, not in 1993, but in 1992. The ICAC committee received a series of learned submissions on the need for development of a code of conduct for parliamentarians. It was said that code of conduct should be built from the grass roots up, that parliamentarians should participate in the process. But it took until April 1994 for this document to be tabled.

No action was taken by this so-called ethics-driven Government until it was forced to do so by the Independents because of its passion to have Mr Justice Barry O'Keefe inducted as ICAC commissioner, and not until the Government did something about amending section 9 of the Act. The result is these three absolutely worthless pieces of paper. The Government attempted to dredge up a frothy code of conduct - not something discussed by parliamentary colleagues or worked out by outside experts but some trashy piece of Government legislation introduced purely to facilitate the leap into the commissioner's position by the present nominee. The Hon. S. B. Mutch, who I am delighted is present in the gallery - a person of independent spirit within the Liberal Party - at the time presented a very strong dissenting report to the discussion paper on a code of ethics.

Page 4036

I turn to the Government's handling of the whole issue of the appointment of an ICAC commissioner and its real purpose in trying to destroy the ICAC as an effective body. New South Wales had the highest standards of probity and ethics in its public sector. The Government knew five years ago that Commissioner Temby was to retire on 13 March this year. It knew that a procedure must be set in place under the Act to advertise the position of commissioner, to interview the many people who want that well paid but extremely onerous position, and to provide to the ICAC committee, which has veto power, the name of a nominee. The Government did not set out in any structured way to make sure that would happen.

The Government did not advertise the position until January 1994, which gave far too narrow a time period in which to make proper decisions. The ICAC committee was not given, through departmental advice, any idea of what it ought to do in its deliberations. The committee was left floundering trying to decide what procedures ought to be invoked. That placed Commissioner Temby in the position of knowing that he would stand down on 13 March without a commissioner being in his place to ensure the continuity and effectiveness of the ICAC. The Government has criticised the Leader of the Opposition for acting decisively and effectively with regard to the probity of the Opposition frontbench. In effect, it deliberately set out to neuter the ICAC.

I have been most concerned about that and, when Acting Commissioner Mant was in charge of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Labor members of the ICAC committee requested that the committee meet with him to discuss his term of office. It was a most interesting discussion. The obligation of the committee is to ensure that the ICAC is carrying out its functions in a fit and proper manner, not to overview its operations but to review its operations at arms-length. Commissioner Mant felt quite strongly that he had been placed in a difficult position. He felt also that morale at the ICAC had been affected because of the way the Government acted to replace the commissioner.

This so-called Government of probity and ethics - a government that is supposed to follow the rules - knew that it should have decided upon a nominee and brought the name of that nominee to the attention of the committee, to give the committee the opportunity to discharge its responsibility. But did it do that? No it did not. The Premier, in a pre-emptive statement, named Mr Justice O'Keefe as the new ICAC commissioner and then gave the committee the unenviable task of agreeing to the appointment. That process not only embarrassed the nominee but flouted the responsibility of the committee under the provisions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. And this Government of high ethics and probity has the hide to cast aspersions upon the Leader of the Opposition for acting in a decisive and ethical manner!

I shall refer again to the wonderful background of this Government and the decisive way in which Premiers Fahey and Greiner have acted. I remind honourable members of the famous job-for-a-vote case, the Metherell-Greiner case. I know the pain that particular matter caused the honourable member for Wakehurst, who was caught in a difficult situation. Most of the members involved in that case have left the Parliament, either by their own volition or because they have been forced to leave as a result of legal process.

I reiterate for the benefit of honourable members opposite the so-called high ethical standards displayed by Government members. The former member for The Hills, that rat with the gold tooth, had developed a wonderful selling technique for his cars, making sure, of course, that customers had every opportunity to agonise over whether they could afford to purchase. Honourable members are all aware of the highly unethical and clandestine method he adopted to clinch deals with his customers. He bugged them! For many people the purchase of the family car - along with the purchase of a home - is one of the most important financial decisions they will make in their lives. The former member for The Hills, that ethical member, probably did not regard his actions as unethical. The honourable member for Gladesville nods his approval. Obviously such a practice is regarded by him as good, sharp, business practice when clinching deals. Such a method should not be countenanced, and of course it was not countenanced by the courts.

I refer also to another highly ethical person, the former Agent-General in London. Regardless of the outcome of the matter, it was evident that he was living high on the hog in London after a successful parliamentary career. The Government has a hide to cast aspersions on the Leader of the Opposition, who has acted decisively and ethically in regard to matters of major concern to him. The former member for North Sydney, who was a nice chap, also had some difficulties. He is no longer a member of Parliament. Government members are acting more like members in opposition. They have adopted the "shift this way, shift that way, let us throw a few bombs and hope to have an effect" type approach one expects from members in opposition.

A number of other Government members are sweating in their shoes at the moment. The member for Blue Mountains is waiting judgment day in court in April next year. The member for Georges River is the subject of a serious inquiry into his behaviour as a Minister of the Crown. The honourable member for Eastwood, the instrument of the Government, has foolishly tried to criticise the Leader of the Opposition. But the Leader of the Opposition has effectively turned that criticism back on the Government. [Time expired.]

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [10.18]: This motion seeks to censure the Leader of the Opposition not because of his conduct but because of his judgment. It is a sad day when parliamentarians can be censured
Page 4037
for their judgment rather than their conduct. A similar motion was moved towards the end of last year when the Government sought to censure me because of a political thought - not because of my conduct or even my judgment.

The Leader of the Opposition has turned the censure motion back on the Premier, but because of his conduct not his judgment. The censure of a member of Parliament is an extremely serious matter. I assure the honourable member for Eastwood, who moved this censure motion, that his party colleagues are running around tonight trying to find out who was the architect of this brilliant idea. All he has succeeded in doing is turning the tide back on the Government. The honourable member for South Coast talked about the real world. We must never forget that we are members of Parliament; we are the chosen, we are the first of 99 to be elected by the people. It is our responsibility to hold our special place in the community.

The community expect us to maintain high standards and to reflect those high standards in the community. The community does not expect us to be absolutely perfect or absolutely moral, but it does expect a high standard of behaviour. No-one is above the law. The Government introduced the code of conduct for Ministers of the Crown - as opposed to a statement which is not an effective legal document - in an attempt to measure the honesty and integrity of Ministers. What former Premier Greiner said in March 1988 is significant given what has happened to the Government over the years. Almost two-thirds of the Ministers of March 1988 have either been replaced or have left the Parliament. The circumstances surrounding the departure of some of them were quite despicable. Some left because of political foolishness and ineptness. The very first paragraph of the code of conduct, of which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would be aware, states:

It is essential for the maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of the Executive Government of the State that Ministers of the Crown exhibit, and be seen to exhibit, -

I emphasise those words "be seen to exhibit" -

the highest standards of probity in the exercise of their offices, and that they pursue, and be seen to pursue, the best interests of the people of New South Wales to the exclusion of any other interest.

The very first Minister to fall from grace was the former member for Coffs Harbour. He fell from grace because of his association with development on the north coast. He has since been charged with two serious sexual offences, which I will not canvass. He was the member who drove the former member for Wallsend, Ken Booth, to his death with his continual harassment and allegations. Shame! We all know in our hearts, minds and souls that the former member for Wallsend, now deceased, was not a crook - unlike the former member for Coffs Harbour.

If honourable members want to throw mud, throw stones in glass houses, then they should practise what they preach. But they do not. Truth is honesty, but honesty is something that Government members know nothing about. The purpose of members of Parliament is to represent the people not to destroy individuals. The probity, honesty and public confidence of the former member for Coffs Harbour are being assessed. There is a climate conducive to corruption: those famous words, a climate conducive to corruption. Earlier the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries took a point of order on the honourable member for Newcastle and asked the honourable member not to quote selectively from the ICAC report into development on the north coast. I remind the House that those very words were used in reference to the member for Clarence, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. And what were those words? They were: a climate conducive to corruption.

Mr Causley: Give us the full details.

Mr NAGLE: I would do that if I had another two hours available to me. I would like to read to the House the whole report about the Minister. But I read the Government's standard:

It is essential for the maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of the Executive Government of the State that Ministers of the Crown exhibit, and be seen to exhibit, the highest standards of probity in the exercise of their offices, and that they pursue, and be seen to pursue, the best interests of the people of New South Wales to the exclusion of any other interest.

How does that paragraph in the ministerial code of conduct equate to a climate conducive to corruption? The second paragraph reads:

It is essential for the proper working of Executive Government that Ministers of the Crown should enjoy and retain the trust and confidence of their ministerial colleagues both in their official dealings and in the manner in which they discharge their official responsibilities.

I emphasise the words "the trust and confidence". What were the words again: a climate conducive to corruption. The code of conduct continues in bold letters:

1. MINISTERS WILL PERFORM THEIR DUTIES IMPARTIALLY, DISINTERESTEDLY AND IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

What were the words again: a climate conducive to corruption. The code continues:

2. MINISTERS WILL BE FRANK AND HONEST IN OFFICIAL DEALINGS WITH THEIR COLLEAGUES AND WILL MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION COMMITTED TO THEIR SECRECY.

What were the words again: a climate conducive to corruption. The role of the Independent Commission Against Corruption is to deal with the issue of corrupt conduct not the morality of Ministers. Replacing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at the table is the architect of this motion, the man who thought it up, the not so brilliant Minister for the Environment. It was his idea and his colleagues are after him. Tonight in the bar they were discussing his future. The motion was ill-conceived - I was going to say by
Page 4038
a clown, but I will not - by the Minister for the Environment. The amendment has turned the spotlight back on the Government because the Minister for the Environment was foolish enough to conceive this silly idea.

A similar silly censure motion was moved against me last November because of a political thought - not because I did anything wrong but because I dared to have a thought that no-one should go to gaol without a trial. I remember the debate at that time about high standards of probity, et cetera. Purity is life but people are people. The people of New South Wales do not want a strict code of conduct but they do want their Ministers to have a high standard of probity and to act accordingly. The honourable member for South Coast is demanding a code of conduct. The Government's inaction over the Smiles, Packard, Pickard, Greiner, Moore, Metherell, Blackmore and Yabsley allegations is of concern. The standard of conduct of parliamentarians is measured by the Parliament, by the electors, by our parties and by the media. The code refers to "the highest standards of probity in the exercise of their offices".

The honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Eastwood trod the road but not the water before they brought this motion before the House. This motion is nothing more than a witch-hunt to get the honourable member for Campbelltown, who has just been elevated to the frontbench. The motion was designed to try the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for St Marys in this Parliament, turning this institution into a court of law. It will become a terrible practice if we set out as in a court of law to try members in this place by way of censure motion. I return to the code of conduct to read another paragraph which should be taken on board by the Minister for the Environment and other Ministers:

Ministers should avoid situations in which they have or might reasonably be thought to have a private interest which conflicts with their public duty.

I remind honourable members of the censure motion moved against me because I took a brief as a barrister. It did not matter one iota that members of the Liberal Party had given me permission to act in that capacity. No, that did not matter to them. I had spoken to every person I could think of to get permission to do that, and everyone I spoke to gave me permission. The taking of that brief did not conflict with my public duty; it enhanced and added to it. The reality is that the motion is a matter of grave concern. This lengthy document on the code of conduct goes to the very heart of the matter, and says:

A Minister shall not use his or her position for the private gain of the Minister or for the improper gain of any other person.

We have seen what happened in respect of that former member for Hornsby and Agent-General in London. We have seen what happened to others who ran foul of the law because of their dealings. Sometimes standards that you set reflect back on you. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has had a problem with the appointment of its new commissioner. The problem again is the code of conduct that applies to Ministers of the Crown. The Premier constantly makes allegations that the Labor Party is undermining the appointment of the new ICAC commissioner.

The reality is as pointed out by the honourable member for Newcastle. The Government had five years to prepare for the appointment of an ICAC commissioner. For some reason it decided not to address that problem until it got to the end of the road last year. Then the Government got its head hunters to look around and ask prospective applicants. We do not know who those people are. At the end of the day Mr Barry O'Keefe became the candidate. Then there were questions about his appointment and government promises made to him, and his proposed appointment was examined by a parliamentary committee.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Hazzard): Order! The level of audible conversation is excessive. Members should pay the honourable member for Auburn the courtesy of remaining silent while he makes his contribution.

Mr NAGLE: Just as we were about to accept Barry O'Keefe's appointment we find out that he decided to write a letter in support of the Liberal candidate in the Parramatta by-election saying, "Good news for Parramatta". That brings us back to discussing his probity as ICAC commissioner. After an agonising meeting that went from 6.15 in the evening until 1.30 the next morning and took a lot of evidence from Barry O'Keefe, we are left to ponder whether an omission to reveal facts is worse than telling a deliberate lie. It has now been discovered that Mr Justice Barry O'Keefe wrote a letter that was distributed through the electorate of Willoughby endorsing the Treasurer as the Liberal candidate in the last election. Barry O'Keefe never told us that.

So we now have questions about the probity of the Crown and the senior executive service. What are we to do about this problem? Are we to create a higher standard, or should we just say that these things happen in politics and should be ignored, that we should go about our business and appoint people to these positions in public office? Or should we adhere to "the highest standards of probity in the exercise of their offices, and that they pursue, and be seen to pursue, the best interests of the people of New South Wales to the exclusion of any other interest"? Those who would like to know the meaning of "any other interest" should read the pecuniary interest legislation. Company directorships and other such interests are covered by that definition.

It is difficult to understand the logic of moving against the Leader of the Opposition a censure motion relating to his judgment rather than his conduct. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition goes right to the heart of the conduct of the Premier. Consequently, I ask the House to support the amendment and censure the Premier for his failure to ensure that he and his Ministers maintain "the highest standards of probity in the exercise of their offices, and that they pursue, and be seen to pursue, the best interests of the people of New South Wales to the
Page 4039
exclusion of any other interest". I call upon the House to take note of the arguments put in this debate and support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.36], in reply: I listened to the many members of the Opposition who contributed to this debate but not one of them addressed the key point, which is that honourable member for Campbelltown still needs to answer 133 questions being asked by police. That fact must be compared with the circumstances in which the Leader of the Opposition put the onus of proof on the honourable member for St Marys. If the Leader of the Opposition did not know about the 133 unanswered questions before today, he certainly knows about them now. He treated the refusal of the honourable member for Campbelltown to cooperate with the police as a joke.

It is no joke when anyone refuses to cooperate with police. It is far less of a joke when that person is a member of Parliament. It is an extremely serious matter, deserving of the censure of the House, when the Leader of the Opposition actually promotes to a key shadow ministerial portfolio a member who is refusing to answer questions being put by police. That is what the motion is all about. It is about censuring the Leader of the Opposition for his active support and promotion of a member who is refusing to cooperate with police investigating a matter and refusing to answer 133 questions.

A lot of nonsense went on when members opposite sought to make comparisons between the conduct of certain other members and Ministers. Some of that nonsense was in reference to the Treasurer. The point is that the ICAC inquiry that investigated matters raised against the Treasurer concluded that there was ample evidence to deal with that matter without hearings. The point about the matter the subject of the motion before this House is that police had to stop their inquiry precisely because the honourable member for Campbelltown refused to answer questions. The inquiry was getting nowhere. It stalled. It is stillborn because the honourable member refuses to answer those questions.

I do not know whether the honourable member for Campbelltown has anything to hide, but I start to draw conclusions when he refuses to cooperate with police inquiries. If he does not have a problem, he should answer the questions and help police in their conduct of the investigation. If he did, that would be the end of the story. That has not happened. So we draw the second conclusion that the person is not only refusing to answer but is refusing to answer because he has something to hide in the context of serious criminal matters. That is the person promoted to the frontbench of the Labor Opposition.

Much has been said about the Premier. What I want to say is that the Premier has always upheld the highest standards in respect of his party, and he would expect the Leader of the Opposition to do likewise. Where there have been problems, they have been dealt with directly and honestly. They have been dealt with consistently, respecting the rights of people before the law.

That is the position so far as this Government and the Premier are concerned. As the honourable member for South Coast said, much credit is due to the Government for setting up the Independent Commission Against Corruption and continuing with it. Heaven forbid if the Opposition ever gained office. The ICAC would be dead in about half an hour, because of the sort of things that the honourable member for Campbelltown has done or has failed to do. Following up police questions is precisely the sort of thing that, it would appear through the Leader of the Opposition's support of this man, will become regular again on the Opposition frontbench if it ever gains office. It is little wonder that there ought to be concern about the future of the ICAC. The message being sent out is that people can do what the honourable member for Campbelltown has done - they can thumb their noses at the police, and they will get preferment.

But heaven help members in the position of the honourable member for St Marys - are a few cheques payable to the Australian Labor Party floating around, or a few factional problems, problems with female quotas and all that sort of thing - because the onus of proof will be on them and they will end up on the political gallows. The heart of the issue is the 133 unanswered questions. I venture to suggest that there is not one other politician, let alone frontbencher, anywhere in the country who has 133 unanswered questions to the police as has the honourable member for Campbelltown. That is at the heart of the problem. That is the matter that the Leader of the Opposition must act upon. If he has failed to act upon it to date, he must now act upon it in full knowledge of it or accept that he is condoning this behaviour for the whole of the front bench. That is why this censure motion should be carried against the Leader of the Opposition.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

Page 4040

Mr Beck Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Doherty
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Petch
Mrs Cohen Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hatton Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Armstrong
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Baird
Mr Carr Mr Cochran
Mr Doyle Mr Fahey
Mr Gaudry Mr Griffiths
Mrs Grusovin Ms Machin
Mr Irwin Mr Morris
Mr Rumble Mr Phillips

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Petch
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mrs Cohen Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Kerr

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

Mr Armstrong Ms Allan
Mr Baird Mr A. S. Aquilina
Mr Cochran Mr Carr
Mr Fahey Mr Doyle
Mr Griffiths Mr Gaudry
Ms Machin Mrs Grusovin
Mr Morris Mr Irwin
Mr Phillips Mr Rumble

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wollongong to order. I ask all honourable members to remain silent while the business of the House is continuing. Those who wish to leave the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly.


Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens) [10.58]: In view of the hour I will be brief. I move:

That this House notes as a matter of public importance the criteria for the determination of drought declarations in New South Wales and the exclusion of a number of Rural Lands Protection Board areas from Commonwealth assistance.

The drought is causing terrific hardship in rural New South Wales. It is of great concern to Opposition members that a political game is being played. There is a lack of leadership and a lack of simple criteria concerning drought declarations. After seven long years of this Government we do not have -

Page 4041

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I warned members that if they wished to stay in the Chamber they should remain silent. That includes the honourable member for Smithfield. I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order.

Mr MARTIN: The method that is used in New South Wales to declare a drought is different from the method used in Queensland and in other States. People in New South Wales are suffering hardship. There has been dishonesty about the amount of money coming to the people of New South Wales. The rough criteria for declaration of drought in New South Wales are a subjective process initiated by rural lands protection boards, of which there are 59 in the State. New South Wales Agriculture and regional veterinary services decide whether a drought exists in the area. A drought is deemed to exist when paddock conditions are such that insufficient feed and water are available to sustain dry sheep or cattle.

If at least 50 per cent of the pastures protection district is employing hand feeding to sustain stock, the recommendation for drought declaration is likely to be confirmed. There would be some reduction of stock or use of supplementary feeding if a declaration were made. In Queensland the situation is different. This State should have better criteria because of the hardship in New South Wales. I will refer to areas that have been excluded.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Barwon may laugh and other members may laugh.

Mr Rixon: I am crying.

Mr MARTIN: The honourable member for Lismore is making a joke of it. A number of rural lands protection board districts have been excluded because of the system in New South Wales. There is no leadership and no guidance.

Mr Rixon: Rubbish!

Mr MARTIN: I present a paper to the House from the Casino Rural Lands Protection Board. If the honourable member for Lismore wishes me to table it I will. The paper states:

It should also be noted that this Board was not declared drought in the month of March, 1991 due to pressure from NSW Agriculture even though Directors were of the opinion the Board area should have been.

A document from the Casino Business Enterprise Centre states:

In our discussions though with representatives from these RLPB's, it would seem that there is evidence to suggest that on a couple of occasions, drought declarations were actually withdrawn prematurely. These include:-

Tenterfield . . .

Casino . . .

That in itself is an indictment of the administration of the Minister and the administration of the Government. That area is suffering from drought. The Minister's own electorate of Clarence, which adjoins that area, is a disgrace the way it is being looked after.

Mr Rixon: Why is the Federal Government not helping?

Mr MARTIN: Come on! The Federal Government has come up with a package of $164 million between the two States. This Government has been dishonest in faxing material. It has even been dishonest to the extent that the House has been misled. That will be the subject of a separate motion at another time.

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

Mr MARTIN: It is interesting to note that the New South Wales Farmers Association supported the package. As is mentioned in the Land newspaper, New South Wales Farmers supported the package. Today the Government has promised $20 million to help farmers in New South Wales. That is not acceptable because it will only touch the tip of the iceberg. The Premier could not even get the figure right for the press gallery today. That is nothing short of a disgrace.

Mr Rixon: Tell us about the facts.

Mr MARTIN: The facts are very important. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has a habit of sending funny faxes, and we know about the forged documents out of his office with regard to the markets. That draft fax was sent on 28 September. It was clearly marked "supplied on a no commitments basis". The Minister played games with the member for Parkes and the Senator who is based at Tamworth, Senator Brownhill. He was also involved in the falsification of information in this House when he indicated that he did not distribute the fax. The Opposition has copies that have been sent to members of the press, including Rural Press in New South Wales. He has played a cheap trick on the people of New South Wales. He should be ashamed of it. The people of New South Wales deserve better.

The people of New South Wales are suffering. Better methods are needed for declaring drought and for ensuring that people receive help. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been nothing short of callous in the way he and his colleagues have acted. The Sydney Morning Herald of 26 September contains an article entitled "A hollow ring to Causley's criticisms". That article states how hollow the Minister is. He has shown himself to be hollow all the way. New South Wales deserves better. It deserves a better way of declaring drought, better treatment for the six rural lands protection boards to which false faxes were sent. After seven years in power and after four years of drought the Government has no strategy for the importation of grain and no strategy for the reduction of herds and flocks to ensure that the right number is maintained, a number that will be able to be increased following a drought. He is not doing what is expected of him. All he is doing is slipping backwards. [Time expired.]

Page 4042

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence - Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines) [11.08]: I doubted the honourable member for Murrumbidgee when he told me today that the Labor Party is desperately talking to John Dalbroy in the Murrumbidgee. The Labor Party is trying to get him to stand against the member for Murrumbidgee. The promise is that he will be the Minister for Agriculture in the new Labor Government. We can see why tonight.

[Interruption]

I am glad he told me that. I was doubting it very much but after that performance I know why. It is just as well that the time limits have been reduced for this matter of public importance. It was a desperate attempt by the honourable member for Port Stephens to justify an extraordinary decision by the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.

Mr Martin: Tell us about this left-wing rag, the Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr CAUSLEY: We will talk about that if the honourable member wishes. That was a few weeks ago, and I have to say it has been proved absolutely correct. I said at the time, "Watch the small print", and that was borne out. I wonder whether the journalist would have the gumption now to rewrite the article and tell the truth about it, because I have been proved right. I have a great deal of trouble coming to terms with why the Government does not declare drought rife in New South Wales. Apparently the honourable member for Port Stephens believes that there are people in drought declared areas that should not be. He is saying the Government does not declare it right. Apparently he believes some areas that are declared drought affected should not be. When there is not enough fodder or water to sustain the flock, the area is recommended by the rural lands protection board to be drought declared.

There is a second guess from the Department of Agriculture, which is only right because the directors of rural lands protection boards are also graziers. There should be a second guess to make sure that an application is genuine. If it is approved by the Department of Agriculture it comes to me to be declared as a drought area. That is the way assessments are made. Let us consider the whole situation with regard to the Federal Government. Since July this Government has been trying to find out from the Federal Government just what the criteria are. That went on and on and on. We went to a meeting of the Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

Mr Martin: You shook hands.

Mr CAUSLEY: Yes, we shook hands, and I will tell you about shaking hands, too. It was at that meeting that we were told that the Federal Government criterion was 24 months out of 36. I indicated to the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy that under that criterion only one rural lands protection board would be eligible. We sat down with the Federal Government, explained the criteria we were using and asked whether the Federal Government would confirm them. We received no answer. I should like to say a few words about the ARMCANZ meeting. Officers of my department and officers of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy sat down and agreed on a map and on the areas that would be included in that map and the areas that would receive special drought concessions. There were 21 such areas. That is confirmed -

Mr Martin: Someone's cheating.

Mr CAUSLEY: That is confirmed in the video, and the honourable member for Port Stephens is invited to a viewing of the video. The rest of his colleagues are also invited to a viewing. Warwick rang in and asked a question about Grafton. He asked, "Do you realise that Grafton has not had 24 months out of 36 without rain? Is it still included?" The spokesman from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy went through the criteria and he did not deny that Grafton is included. I have phone calls to my electorate office from people who rang Harry Woods' office, in the electorate of Clarence. Those people asked whether they were entitled under the special circumstances criteria, and Harry Woods' office said yes, they were. There is a great smokescreen going on at present to try to protect the hide of the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. He got it wrong again. He agreed in the telecommunications affair that he did not check.

Mr Martin: Don't mislead the Parliament.

Mr CAUSLEY: He did not check again, because here is the evidence. The honourable member is invited to the viewing of this video, and we will invite a lot of other people to view it as well. Let us talk about the celebrated fax that the Australian Labor Party is trying to hide behind. The fax was sent from my office to the office of the Federal member for Parkes, Mr Cobb, at 2.20 p.m. on 29 September. Actually, if honourable members took a look at the copy they gave the Sydney Morning Herald they would see that the information is printed on the fax.

[Interruption]

It was sent at 2.20 p.m., and there is only one copy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Stephens to order. He will have a chance to respond later, if he wishes to do so.

Mr CAUSLEY: He cannot help himself, it is a problem he has. The fact is that the fax was sent at 2.20 p.m. on 29 September. When was the teleconference? It went right across the State, and people were invited to hear about it, at 10.40 a.m. on 29 September. That fax was not sent out until after the teleconference, yet the ALP is trying to say that we misled the people. The only one who misled the people is the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. In the fax a senior member of the
Page 4043
Department of Primary Industries and Energy explains the criteria and says very clearly that 21 rural lands protection boards are entitled to the Federal Government relief. What did the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy do some days later? He withdrew six areas, after people had been led to believe that they were entitled to relief. People had made applications for relief. That is where the mix-up is.

The Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy blamed the officials last time. He is trying to blame someone else this time. At the end of this material it is said that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy was going to attend that morning but he was too busy. Of course, at that time the conference was on in Hobart, and no doubt the Minister was trying to drum up votes on the uranium deal. He was going to go to the conference; it is a pity that he did not attend because then he would not be able to hide behind anything. He sent his senior officials, and that is exactly what they said. There is no doubt in my mind that the responsibility for the fraud that went on lies solely on the shoulders of the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The problem we have at present is that people are now left out in the cold. The Federal member for Page, Harry Woods, said in the press, "I am sorry, but you've been left out and I can't do anything about it. You'd better write to Farmhand, you might get some support from Farmhand". After Harry Woods had led people up the garden path and told them that they were included, he cut them off and said that they would get no support.

It is extraordinary that the honourable member for Port Stephens has moved a motion on a spurious matter of public importance that claims that somehow or other the declaration of drought in New South Wales is affecting the Federal Government. Before I came to work one morning recently I was listening to the Today Show. The Prime Minister's announcement had just been made and Senator Collins was on the show. He was asked who sets the criteria for declaration of extreme drought areas. He said that the Federal Government would take advice from the States but that the Federal Cabinet would decide which areas are suffering extreme drought.

Mr Shedden: Did you listen to Alan Jones' show.

Mr CAUSLEY: Don't worry, Alan Jones will soon tell you what he thinks. There is no doubt that Senator Collins is responsible for this. He says that he is responsible, and there is no doubt that the guidelines show that he is. It has nothing to do with the declaration of drought in New South Wales. The criteria are set by the Federal Government. Honourable members opposite ought to have a close look at some of those areas and try to determine how long it will be before they get support from the Federal Government. It will be found that a lot of those areas will be seven months, eight months, up to 24 months - two years - before they qualify for support under the conditions that have been set by the Federal Government. At present we have people who cannot afford to carry on with their stock. They are going out and destroying their stock. They cannot carry on.

Mr Martin: Why don't you help them?

Mr CAUSLEY: Why don't we help them? Was the honourable member not listening today? The State, with its limited resources, is now committed -

Mr Thompson: You've got $200 million in your slush fund.

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

[Interruption]

Mr CAUSLEY: You would be great at budgets, wouldn't you? Where did you come from? Was it a bank?

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

Mr CAUSLEY: It is no wonder he got out. There is no doubt that there have to be reserves. A lot of that money has gone already in drought relief. A Government would be pretty poor if it did not have some reserves in a budget, and that money is going. [Time expired.]

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [11.18]: For seven hours today we have been subjected to one of the most demeaning debates I have heard in this House. Both sides of the Parliament have been attacking each other personally. A few minutes ago there were two divisions in which Independents voted on both sides and no result occurred. At this late hour of the night we are here to determine what we are going to do to help those people out in the country areas that desperately need our help, and all we have is a king-size fight going on. It is about time somebody in this Parliament woke up to the fact that our petty little games in here are not the important issue. We are arguing whether the Government is responsible, the Opposition is responsible or the Federal Minister is responsible. I do not care who is responsible, I just want somebody in this Parliament to wake up to the fact that out there in the country people are suffering badly.

Mr Causley: You should do something about it, you and your mates.

Mr CLOUGH: I am doing the best I can. I am at least working with those farmers to see what we can get. Today in this Parliament I heard the Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Lachlan, say that he is frightened of the banks. He is frightened stiff of the banks because the banks are saying they will take money out of the rural sector if the bill is enacted. Whilst all this is going on, people are putting together food parcels -

Mr Causley: You were not in the Chamber. You were out playing pool.

Page 4044

Mr CLOUGH: I was not playing pool. I heard your reference when I was listening to what was going on, and I can prove it. I was asked by the young whippersnapper opposite where I was. I was up watching the football because I was ashamed to be down here. The Minister should go down to Canberra, sit down with the Federal Minister, and wake up to the fact that while we are playing our petty little games here people in rural New South Wales are losing their properties and being harassed by the banks. Whether people have been suffering for 15 or 20 or 24 months out of 36, they are entitled to get the assistance that should be coming to them. I am disgusted by this exchange of pleasantries. We are trying to score points off each other but we do not give a damn about farmers trying to survive in circumstances that no Government member would put up with. Farmers are losing the fruit of their entire life's work. It is a pity that my friend the honourable member for Barwon is not leading the National Party today; had he been, there would have been a different result.

My advice to the Minister is to get off his backside, get down to Canberra, see Collins, sit down with him and tell him that McFarlane's recommendation that those six areas come out of the list is wrong, and start to put them back in. The Opposition has sent that request for a review down to Canberra. Comments by smart alec Ministers are not taken seriously by people in the bush, who know what is happening in this Parliament. As long as the Minister goes along with these petty little differences, people out there are going to suffer. They are losing their stock, they are losing their crops, they are losing their farms. They are being harassed at night by bank managers ringing them up and saying, "You have got 24 hours to find money, and you have got 36 hours to get off the property".

The worst banks involved in that are the Commonwealth Bank, under the Federal Government, and the State Bank, run by the New South Wales Government. Unless the parties are prepared to put their differences aside and get down to some meaningful discussions, farmers will continue to suffer. I do not care who gets the credit for what happens. I do not care how much money is spent. When it comes to other projects such as the slush fund referred to by my colleague, the money can be found. The farmers are hurting, and I expect the Government to be prepared to do something about it. I regret that our Parliament has got to the stage that all it is doing is passing time away in character assassination. For God's sake, do something about it. [Time expired.]

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens) [11.23], in reply: Tonight we could have put something on the record about better treatment for farmers. We could have worked out the problems between Canberra and this Government. I have here a fax out of Senator Brownhill's office. Members should be very careful about what they say. Let me give Government members a word of advice. I have seen press releases of the Rural Assistance Authority. It is not appropriate that public servants start playing games. I can give the Minister a copy of that press release before the night is out. It is wise for public servants not to buy into the political arena and to stay very much in the public service arena. At the start of the debate the House heard all about the Minister's explanation of where the problems are. The problems flow from the Government's inability to recognise drought declarations.

Mr W. T. J. Murray: With 93 per cent of the State drought declared?

Mr MARTIN: This drought has been going on for four years. There was one bumper wheat crop in the middle of it, but the Government did nothing about contacting the Commonwealth until June this year. That fact is well documented. This week the Government misled the Parliament about negotiations and tried to create mischief instead of trying to fix the problems suffered by country people. Members opposite interjected and became excited about the extra $20 million the Government is putting in. I will ask the Public Accounts Committee to look carefully at the drought relief package and at the programming of the Rural Assistance Authority to make sure that the funding announced is not recycled money. That will be most important for the people of New South Wales.

The Minister has been trying to play a horrible little joke. The editorial in the Land of 29 September stated that everyone in the industry welcomed the package except the National Party, which said it was a political stunt. The people of New South Wales deserve something better than cheap political tricks. Let us get to the bottom of it and find better ways of declaring drought. Let us all work together to try to resolve the status of the six areas in question and sort out how that is done. The way that it is done is most important. The Minister has cheapened this process, made it a nasty grubby little act, and in the end he cannot get it right. The people of New South Wales deserve better than that.

I have heard that 149 families are crying for help in those six Rural Lands Protection Board areas, but all the Minister does is try to blame someone else instead of getting in and helping them. It is nothing short of a disgrace that the Clarence electorate should have been neglected in the way it has been neglected by the Minister. Many people in the electorate are suffering hardship, but the Minister will not get in and do anything about it. The State does the first part of it, and when exceptional circumstances are triggered the Commonwealth comes in. The Minister is not carrying his weight. He is not sitting down and working out ways in which assistance should be given. I am glad the Treasurer is present because he can usually work these things out. I hope that down the line the Treasurer gets all the accounts and puts them together for the coming estimates committees, which will want to know exactly where the money is and where it is going.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The only matter before the Chair is the motion moved by the honourable member for Port Stephens.

Page 4045

Mr MARTIN: Today we set out to highlight the need for classification of drought in New South Wales. The Government had the opportunity to give guidance about the way ahead and some hope for the people of New South Wales. That has not been achieved. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [11.28], by leave: I move:

That the Legislative Assembly asks the Auditor-General to examine the proposed sale of the State Bank of New South Wales to advise whether, having regard to the preferred terms of sale, the consideration for the sale of the State Bank provides a fair and reasonable economic return for the sale of the Bank and in particular to report on:

(a) the anticipated range of costs to be met by the State under the proposed Contract of Sale (including indemnities, warranties and reimbursements) and the comparable costs to the Government if the State Bank remains under Government ownership;

(b) the anticipated range of the Bank's projected operating profits;

(c) whether, in light of the above, or any other factors the Auditor-General believes relevant, the net sale proceeds are likely to be less than, approximately equal to, or more than a reasonable retention benchmark; and

(d) any other matters within the jurisdiction of the Auditor-General that the Auditor-General believes are pertinent to Parliament's consideration of the proposed sale.

The Auditor General will report to the Treasurer by no later than 18 November 1994.

The Treasurer will provide the report to the Parliament by no later than 21 November 1994. The Parliament resolves that the report will be considered and the debate concluded on the sale of the State Bank by no later than 24 November 1994.

On Tuesday I gave notice of a motion to introduce the bill to sell the State Bank of New South Wales. Yesterday I delivered my second reading speech. Another event occurred yesterday which brought about this motion. The three non-aligned Independents - the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for South Coast - indicated their desire to involve the Auditor-General in providing advice on certain issues to assist them formulate their position in relation to the sale. The request of the Independents resulted in discussions over the last 24 hours. The discussions have shown a rare and constructive attitude, and have brought together the Government, the Opposition and the three non-aligned Independents.

I do not wish to add a great deal. It is important that this motion is passed as quickly as possible to enable the Auditor-General to commence his task without delay, to engage the necessary support staff he will need, and to enable the Parliament to reach a suitable conclusion within the terms of the contract. I have already indicated strongly what I believe the conclusion should be. I do not intend to take up the time of the House by running through the issues, the preferred terms of sale, or why the Government enunciated them. That information is already on the parliamentary record. The spirit of cooperation which led to this motion is a positive indication of the way in which the issue has been approached to date.

The Government is confident that the sale process will stand the most rigorous scrutiny. The Government is confident that this move in no way diminishes anything that it has endeavoured to do to date by bringing it before the Parliament. It has nothing to hide with respect to the sale process. Therefore, it readily agrees to the proposal which was initiated by the three Independents. The Government also acknowledges that the Auditor-General - the Auditor-General is the first to acknowledge this - cannot make a decision on this issue for any member of Parliament. Ultimately, the decision rests in this Chamber. I have always acknowledged the role of the Parliament in making the ultimate decision on this issue. The Government introduced the bill and has given its reasons for its support. I welcome the resolution that was arrived at after some hours of consultation. I commend the motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.34]: I have had a lengthy conversation with the Hon. Michael Egan, the Leader of the Opposition in the Upper House, who advised that in the terms the Premier has outlined to the House an agreement has been reached. For those reasons, the Opposition supports the motion.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.34]: I should like to add a couple of comments to make some points quite clear. The Independents were not seeking in any way to delay this process; we merely wanted to add substance to the decision making process. In a sense, the Independents have been acting on behalf of every member of Parliament in that we have sought to provide an independent second opinion on the issue. It is true that the Independents are alone in this House in that they must make a merit decision on every matter that comes before the Parliament. On the one hand, the Government says that we must trust it - that this is a good preferred contract of sale. On the other hand, the Opposition says that this is a fire sale and the bank is worth more than $1 billion. Who is right?

The Independents decided that we need an independent second opinion. It is more than just the sale price; it is a $19 billion decision, which represents the liabilities of the bank. We must ask questions, such as: how good are the assets of the bank? Loans worth $12 billion are involved. Are they good loans or not performing? That shows the magnitude of the decision we face. At the end of the day is it indeed a fair and reasonable price? That is the substance of the reference to the Auditor-General. I met with the Auditor-General, as did the other Independents. He believes that this is an appropriate role for him. The inquiry was initiated by the Independents, not by the Auditor-General. He acknowledged - and still does - that the time frame is uncertain. He can give no absolute guarantee, but we
Page 4046
hope that the matter will be clarified within the next week. He also indicated that resources would have to be enhanced. It is to the credit of the Government, particularly the Treasurer, that the Auditor-General is prepared to provide the necessary resources.

Another question is whether this contract should in any way control Parliament. In fact, the question is really whether the law of contract should interfere with the intramural role of Parliament. This question will prevail and continue to be raised in relation to the sale of the State Bank and the conditions of the contract. It is fundamentally wrong for the Executive to control Parliament in any way. I have indicated my concerns in that regard to the Treasurer. It is difficult if a member of Parliament feels intimidated in any way by a contract date or by the penalty of $7 million. It is important that we ask whether it is proper for these matters to in any way interfere with a parliamentarian's responsibilities.

The reference to the Auditor-General is about process. There are two elements to that process. The first is the involvement of the Auditor-General, which I think is a due process that is about accountability regarding a large asset sale. Governments and government activities are changing, in the sense that we are now seeing much more out of the budget sector deals; we are seeing privatisation by all shades of government; we are seeing more of joint sector financing; we are seeing contracting. In that process there must be transparency - no hiding behind commercial confidentiality. The sale of the State Bank deserves the cold eye of the Auditor-General.

The other element is that process within the Parliament that honourable members have witnessed in the past 24 hours. The Independents were given the impression that the world would fall in if a decision was not made on this matter. We were told it was impossible to bring the different sides together; that the Opposition and the Government would never agree and that broking was a waste of time. However, it has worked. We now have a bipartisan reference - which is crucially important - and when the matter comes back before the Parliament I will be interested to learn how the Opposition handles this matter. Consensus and mediation are much better than the political adversity that takes place so often in this place. It has often been said that the Independents interfere with good government, that they destabilise the process within the Parliament. This is evidence to the contrary.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [11.40]: I welcome the agreement that has been reached. It is a real achievement that has resulted from a consensus approach - a process much heralded in other parliaments. But this is happening in the Fiftieth Parliament of New South Wales in October 1994! All parties, the Treasurer, the Opposition spokesman on finance and the Independents sat down together with Treasury officials, the Auditor-General, and representatives of Bankers Trust and agreed to these terms of reference and this referral to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General, as the auditor of public expenditure, is the appropriate person to examine, on behalf of the Parliament and the community of New South Wales, whether the Government and the taxpayers are getting the best possible value from the sale. The Treasurer has said that he has every confidence that they are. I acknowledge that the Treasurer has been working on this for a very long time and he is committed to the process. I acknowledge also that he is receiving enthusiastic support from Treasury, the Bankers Trust and a range of people within the New South Wales community. The Auditor-General on our behalf will be able to examine the shape of the bank's loan book, sale price versus residual value, and the extent of the potential non-performing loans, subsequent government liability and the continuing government guarantees.

As an Independent holding the balance of power in a hung Parliament, I have found myself in the invidious position of having to make what has been described as a $19 billion decision. Obviously both the Government and the Opposition have political agendas - all honourable members acknowledge that. Both have said for quite a while now that they believe neither the Government nor the Opposition should be involved in banking. Really, the question is whether it is the right time. The Treasurer and the Government say that now is the right time, that they have brokered the best possible price and the best possible deal in terms of retaining the maximum number of jobs, particularly in country areas. They have said to me, "Trust us. We have done the best for the State". In fact, they have even gone so far as to sign a contract which, if it is not honoured, will cost the State $7 million.

The Opposition on the other hand has told us just as enthusiastically that now is not the right time to sell, that the State Bank has potential and is currently on the road to a recovery, as the $1.6 billion profits over the next five years will highlight. The ALP proposed an alternative: a new board which directs business into the domestic and small to medium business loans market, which would enable the bank to steadily and safely grow. The Opposition has said that the State Bank, in a good financial position, could be the subject of a public float - an option preferred by the State Bank Employees Union. This would ensure the continuation of an independent entity which would provide competition.

As an Independent I am presented with these two opposing views. I should like to summarise briefly some of the other conflicting views I have received in recent weeks. I have been told that the bank has the potential to earn $200 million if managed properly and that it can provide an ongoing return and offer essential services, but that it needs capital and needs to be nursed back to health. Another view is that the bank does not need capital injection; that it is fully capitalised under rules established by the Reserve Bank; that the price is too low and that the big four in banking should not have been excluded; and that a contract could be written to keep staff employed. Another view is that the State Bank is an attractive
Page 4047
acquisition for the big four, that it is undercapitalised by 100 per cent, that it is underperforming and that the deal the Government has brokered is in fact defensible, given the terms laid down at the beginning - that is, no loss of jobs and the exclusion of the big four.

It has been claimed that if the State Bank is not sold now the bank will lose experienced staff, and that it does not have the people at the present time to turn the bank around. Others have said that the bank needs to be turned around and that a sale in two years would not be a good idea. the financial reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins, has said that the bank is not a good buy; that it is relatively unprofitable, mainly due to bad loans made in the 1980s. He says that there is a risk to the State but that the risks are greater if the bank is not sold. I agree with my Independent colleague, the honourable member for Manly, that the complexities of the sale are beyond the power of one or any of the Independents to assess. That is why I welcome the response of the Treasurer in working with the Independents and the Opposition spokesman on finance to develop these terms of reference to the Auditor-General. I believe this will enable us to make the best decision at the end of the day, in the best interests of the people of New South Wales.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [11.46]: I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Manly on the role that he has played in negotiating a commonsense and consensus approach in the reference to the Auditor-General, which may or may not lead to the sale of the State Bank. This resulted from a discussion, which he initiated, with the Auditor-General and out of that came a series of events. This debate is about process, accountability and respect for Parliament. The debate is about a Government which, for seven years, has announced its intention to sell a bank and yet in the dying hours of this Parliament, before an election, it has signed a contract, with a penalty clause, that depends on parliamentary sanction. This has left the Independents, who hold the balance of power in the Parliament, in the impossible situation of having to assess what we were repeatedly told through the media and face to face was the wisdom of a $19 billion arrangement with a $7 million penalty clause.

In fact, the $7 million penalty clause and time limit of 28 November were held over our heads. We were offered a briefing by Treasury and then left to fend for ourselves. That is a daunting task for anyone regardless of his or her experience, but for one who has no experience in banking it is a frightening situation. Each of us handled it in his own way, but we are proud that independently we sought our own advice. We attended a briefing of Treasury and we spoke individually to the Auditor-General. We examined the submission made by the public sector finance union and discussed the matter individually with representatives of the finance union. The honourable member for Manly and I had discussions with the Opposition spokesperson, the Hon. Michael Egan. I had a discussion with the honourable member for Tamworth because he raised another aspect: the fact that the State Bank was once the Rural Bank and that it had a role in helping to cushion the effects of banking and loans on the rural sector. Perhaps the State Government or a contribution from the sale could play an important role in this regard. Considerable work has been undertaken on that issue and more meetings will take place.

I will not canvass the creditable initiative of the honourable member for Tamworth, but I will give him all the support I can. I would like to think that the Government will look at that initiative. It is not too late and I do not believe it would hold up the sale. The National Party must become crucially interested in that initiative as a means of finding a long-term solution - as have other countries, such as Holland - to the terrible debt structures that are destroying families and properties in this State. The Independents had to look at the net present value; income streams; the effect of ongoing liabilities; whether the tripartite committee had a disciplined role to play in the process; the timing of the sale; the circumstance of one contender and one eager seller; the bargaining process; the time limit, the $7 million penalty, the price and conditions; the time at which those factors came into the process; who instituted them; why; the public float option; and a number of other matters.

Our discussions with the Auditor-General underlined for each of us the importance of the fact that in a $19 billion arrangement with a sale proposal that might net the State $576 million the Parliament must have as much information before it as possible, and that it must have an independent umpire. I do not detract from the graciousness of the contribution made by the Treasurer. I congratulate him on the way in which he has involved himself and the department in the discussions, which became conciliatory and constructive. I congratulate also the Opposition spokesman, the Hon. Michael Egan, on his contribution and on his conciliatory and careful approach to this matter.

However, one must ask why the Auditor-General was not involved from the beginning. I understand that when the Executive Government has control of the Parliament it may not wish to do that and may not see the need to do so. However, the New South Wales Parliament is in a balance of power situation. Consequently, if the Government were any judge at all of the way the Independents would react, it would have realised that the Independents would need an independent assessment and some way of satisfying themselves about the answers to a host of questions. A number of unfair statements have been made in the media. It is unfair, if not dishonest, to compare the State Bank of New South Wales to the State Bank of Victoria and the very real problems that bank got itself into.

The management of the State Bank of New South Wales is sound. To the Government's credit, I do not believe there is any political interference in the management of that bank. The bank lived through the 1980s, when unwise corporate loans were made and
Page 4048
a number of loans were non-performing. The bank emerged from that difficult period, when some most unwise things were done. It is in the process of consolidation and is forging ahead. It became involved in the housing market and, naturally, the question arose in my mind: why should a bank that is getting back on its feet and moving forward be sold now? Is it better to look down the track?

The motives of the Opposition must be examined. The Independents are aware that this Government, while it has been in office during the past seven years, has announced that it would like to sell the State Bank. That is fair enough. The Government and the Treasurer have been up-front about selling the bank before the election, and I understand that. The Government wants to ensure that the sale takes place within its terms of office in case something goes wrong. We are also well aware of the tactics of the Opposition, which might like this windfall for itself. If the sale is delayed the Opposition could perhaps get the benefit of it further down the line. In the negotiations there was a wonderful conflict of forces, as it were, but the Opposition realised that its situation would be untenable if it did not support the process of involving an independent arbitrator, at least to obtain an evaluation.

A problem arose in that the Crown Solicitor's advice to the Government was that under the Public Finance and Audit Act the Auditor-General could not examine policy matters. Therefore, even in his report to Parliament the Auditor-General will not be able to examine the policy decision not to involve the four major banks in the sale. The Independents and the Opposition will not have an independent assessment from the Auditor-General of whether it would have been wiser to sell the bank to one of the four and the economic cost and the pros and cons of doing so. As a result of the agreement the Auditor-General can get straight into the process tomorrow. He is keen to do so. He realises that the Parliament has given him a proper role. He is, in the process of his normal audit, undertaking a complete audit of the bank's present position. He will have access to the loan books; he is up and running.

The Auditor-General has to consider whether he will be able to meet the deadline. The Government has generously said it will resource him to whatever extent is necessary. I commend the Government for that. If there is a deadline to get his report through to the Treasurer, the Auditor-General will be adequately resourced to meet that deadline. It is important to record in Hansard that the Auditor-General has not claimed that he can meet the deadline, but he will certainly try. He will let the Treasurer know about any difficulties he has as the process goes on. He cannot report direct to Parliament because under the Public Finance and Audit Act he needs a 28-day period to do so. However, he can report to the Treasurer. The question of whether the Treasurer then reports adequately to the Parliament has been resolved. The Auditor-General will soon expose any lack of disclosure, because in the subsequent 28-day period he will be able to draw to the attention of the Parliament any matters that have not been revealed.

That process satisfied the Opposition and the Independents. The Independents had a briefing with Treasury; a discussion with the Auditor-General; and meetings with the Hon. Michael Egan, representatives of Bankers Trust and the Public Sector Union, and with the honourable member for Tamworth. I did not meet with Nicholas Whitlam; I had a brief discussion with him over the phone. Representatives of Colonial Mutual Life wanted a meeting with me. Frankly, I was not interested in meeting a party to a contract; I did not think it was proper. I must place on the Hansard record one last difficulty that I have, and that is whether under the Constitution the Government is able to anticipate a parliamentary decision and sign a contract with a penalty clause.

I do not raise this in any way to frustrate the sale. I think we have tried to get this matter on track. I will reserve my decision on the actual sale but I want to see what the Auditor-General has to say. However, this measure may have an effect on the penalty. Is it a question of constitutional law whether one can sign a contract that contains a clause which states that if the Parliament does not do a certain thing the Treasury must pay out, on behalf of the people of New South Wales, a certain sum of money? Commonsense and, if you like, a bush lawyer's approach, and some of the experience I have had in the past, would dictate to me that no contract can place an imposition which anticipates a parliamentary decision.

There is yet to be a definitive opinion raised on that matter but it could be a significant point. I do not think it would prevent a sale; it might well cancel out the $7 million penalty clause. Whether it will effect the actual signing of the contract in anticipation of the parliamentary decision - the penalty question being put aside - is a matter I am not competent to report upon. This has been a worthwhile exercise and I am pleased to have been involved in it even though there has been an enormous amount of pressure on the three non-aligned Independents. Once again, I thank all who have participated.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [12.01 a.m.], in reply: I will attempt to be brief. Tempting as it is to reply to the many issues raised by honourable members in support of this motion, I will confine my remarks to a couple of areas. I start with the issue raised by the honourable member for South Coast at the end of his address when he raised various constitutional questions of legal impediment. I assure the House that the Government would not have embarked upon this course and would not have signed a contract unless it was legal and within its constitutional powers to do so. Governments enter contracts on a regular basis. What we need to understand with this particular transaction is that although the second reading speech only came before the Parliament last night, the best part of a year has gone into bringing us to this point. Considerable expenditure has been made within the public sector on getting us to that point, and expenditure by the State Bank and expenditure by Colonial Mutual Limited in ending up the successful bidder for the bank.

Page 4049

I assure the House that the honourable member for South Coast is on the wrong track in suggesting any constitutional or legal impropriety. There is not the slightest foundation for any such suggestion. That is readily demonstrated. If he or any other members want advice to that effect from relevant Crown law authorities, I am sure there will be no difficulty in providing it. I am quite sure that the Opposition understands that principle. Penalty clauses are included in contracts on a regular basis, including penalty clauses in government contracts. If Colonial Mutual Limited decided to go on a different course, to disengage from its purchase of the bank, it would suffer a $20 million penalty.

The honourable member for South Coast said that perhaps the Auditor-General should have been involved all along; I advise the House that he has been. The Auditor-General has been consulted on a regular basis on the sale process to date. The Auditor-General, I am instructed by the Secretary of Treasury, did not see his role going beyond auditing, did not indicate at any time a wish to undertake a special audit, but has indicated as a result of the initiative of the three Independents his willingness to comply with the direction from this Parliament within his powers as outlined in the Public Finance and Audit Act. In our discussions today we canvassed the ways in which we could pursue the proposal to involve the Auditor-General and to enable him to provide further technical assistance to members of Parliament in this sale process.

There were a number of options. One was for me to refer the matter to the Auditor-General. I regard it as symbolically important for the Parliament to refer this matter to the Auditor-General on behalf of all members of the Parliament. In conclusion, I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. In particular I thank the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for South Coast for initiating this proposal. I trust that it will enable an enlightened consideration of the sale process and appropriate debate within this Chamber, the only place where this issue can be resolved, by 24 November.

Motion agreed to.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [12.06 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Historically, the opposing sides in the long running and often acrimonious debate on the future of our forests have rarely agreed on anything. But one piece of common ground is support for the establishment of tree plantations, particularly plantations of native species. A greatly expanded planting program is supported by conservationists and loggers, unions and employers. Almost everyone supports well planned tree planting on cleared land. One might reasonably expect that something so universally supported should be growing apace. Yet recent surveys reveal minimal private sector investment in New South Wales hardwood tree plantations, and subdued activity in softwood establishment.

It is clear that the commercial and legislative disincentives to tree planting in New South Wales have been sufficient to prevent any significant investment. If we are to encourage investment and participation by landowners we must create the right legislative environment. The national forest policy statement endorsed in 1992 by the Prime Minister, the Premier of New South Wales and six other heads of Australian governments committed the signatories to fostering plantation development. It is a commitment that this Government has taken seriously. Earlier this year we substantially increased funding for hardwood plantation establishment. Today I present a bill designed to remove key impediments to plantation development, particularly by private sector investors. I want to quote from the national forest policy statement, because it provides a common set of objectives that need to be met if we are to reverse the national trade deficit in forest products by fostering ecologically sustainable tree growing and wood processing.

Plantations can provide a wide range of commercial, environmental and aesthetic benefits to the community, and they will become increasingly important . . .

To achieve the Governments' objectives it will be necessary to ensure the impediments to plantation development are minimal in areas such as taxation, planning and access to information . . .

. . . State and local governments will provide a planning framework that facilitates the development of large-scale industrial plantations.

Taxation laws administered by the Commonwealth currently discriminate against long-term investment projects such as tree plantations. The policy statement highlighted the Commonwealth's obligation to remove these disincentives. We look forward to appropriate action by the Federal Government. The issue of how to better encourage plantations was the first reference given to the Forestry Policy Advisory Committee which was established late last year as part of the Government's wide ranging reform of forest administration. This reform package included the appointment of the Director General of the Department of Conservation and Land Management as the Commissioner for Forests and the creation within CALM of the Office of Forestry, an independent policy making body to advise the Director General and the Minister. Forestry Policy Advisory Committee members, who represent the principal stakeholders including industry, conservationists, and key agencies recognised that they had a common interest in working together on this issue, and speaking to Government with a common voice.

The committee's report on forest plantation establishment, delivered to me in early May this year, stressed the long-term benefits for the economy and the environment of an expanded plantation program by the public and private sectors. The report also highlighted the disincentives to investment in
Page 4050
commercial tree plantations, including existing planning and environmental legislation. In particular, recommendation 4 of the committee's report urged the Government to implement legislative or contractual measures that provide appropriate compensatable security to the harvesting of plantations.

Recommendation 8 sought the implementation of codes of practice for the development and management of plantations on both public and private lands to ensure protection of environmental values. Within weeks of my receipt of the committee's report the Premier announced a $6 million program to boost the establishment of hardwood tree plantations by State Forests in partnership with private landholders. The additional funding will, subject to drought, allow State Forests to boost its hardwood planting program fourfold from 500 hectares to 2,000 hectares in 1994-95. It is planned that this program will be further expanded in the future with the ultimate goal of boosting the hardwood plantation estate from the current 26,000 hectares to 100,000 hectares.

At the time of this announcement the Premier committed the Government to introduce legislation to guarantee harvesting rights for landholders who invest in plantations or who enter joint ventures with State Forests. This bill recognises and addresses the economic and legal realities that stand between the idea that everyone supports and its translation into the plantation program that this State needs. As a signatory of the national forests policy statement the New South Wales Government has committed itself to reduce the impediments that currently exist to plantation development and to encourage the expansion of the plantation resources where economically viable by public and private bodies.

This bill demonstrates that the Government has honoured that commitment. It is the outcome of a process of consultation with stakeholders which identified where the legal and administrative barriers to plantation development lay. For landholders and businesses to invest in tree plantations there must be economic incentives and there must be reasonable certainty that trees that are planted today with be available for harvest in 15 or 20 years. We must ensure that environmental and planning laws that exist to protect native forests do not impede us from adding to our forest estate. The bill addresses some of the key disincentives to increasing plantation forestry in a way that ensures that establishment, management and harvesting will be carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner.

The bill provides for plantations to be subject to environment protection codes which must be consistent with existing environmental controls such as those included in the Clean Waters Act, the Soil Conservation Act and the Pollution Control Act. Only plantations established legally under planning laws will be eligible for accreditation and be able to benefit from the harvest security outlined in the bill. I now move on to the details of the bill. Clause 3 sets out the object of the bill. Clause 4 makes it clear that the proposed Act will apply to existing plantations as well as new ones. Clause 6 provides a practical definition of "tree plantation", which explicitly excludes natural forests. Clause 7 defines "harvesting operations" and makes it clear that the term does not include activities associated with the establishment of a tree plantation, but does include the construction of access roads to allow logging to be carried out.

Clause 8 provides that harvesting operations in an accredited tree plantation are not subject to the environmental assessment or approval procedures of part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and such operations do not require consent under part 4 of that Act. It also provides that harvesting cannot be prohibited or restricted by an environmental planning instrument. Clause 9 exempts a person who is harvesting trees on an accredited plantation from certain offences under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. This exemption only applies if the harvesting is carried out in accordance with the environmental code applying to that plantation. The offences that are exempted refer to the taking or killing of protected or endangered fauna, which normally requires a licence under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

Under that Act the definition of "take" is extremely wide and includes significant modification of the habitat of fauna which is likely to adversely affect its essential behavioural patterns. This clause also prevents interim protection orders and stop-work orders under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and conservation instruments under the Heritage Act from interfering with harvesting on accredited plantations. Clause 10 provides that a local council cannot give an order under the Local Government Act to prevent or interfere with harvesting operations on accredited plantations. Clause 11 provides that harvesting operations must comply with the relevant environmental code and be subject to other relevant laws. Clauses 12 to 18 make provision for the accreditation of tree plantations. Only plantations accredited under the proposed Act will be able to benefit from its harvest security provisions.

These clauses provide for applications for accreditation, determination of those applications by the Director-General of the Department of Conservation and Land Management, and reviews of those determinations by the Minister. They also provide for certificates of accreditation, duration of accreditation and public notification of accredited tree plantations. Significantly, clause 16 provides for the cancellation of accreditation by the director-general if there has been a significant breach of the relevant code or if the land has ceased to be a tree plantation. Clauses 19 to 24 deal with the preparation and operation of tree plantation-environment protection harvesting codes. Clause 19 requires the director-general to prepare a draft code, which must be approved by the Minister before being finalised.

Clause 20 authorises a code, for the purpose of protecting the environment, to regulate the carrying out of harvesting operations on accredited tree plantations. A code may deal with such matters as soil erosion, native animals and plants. Clause 21 provides that a code may not contain provisions that are inconsistent with the provisions of laws applying to harvesting operations. These include the Clean Waters Act and the Soil Conservation Act. Clause 22
Page 4051
requires a harvesting code to be adopted by regulation before it comes into force. Any such regulation will need to comply with the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act. In other words, the proposed regulation must be advertised, consultation must take place and a regulatory impact statement must be prepared. Clause 23 requires the owner and manager of a tree plantation, including a licensee of the Forestry Commission, to ensure that harvesting operations on the tree plantation are carried out in accordance with any code applying to that tree plantation.

Clause 24 provides for the Director-General of Conservation and Land Management to appoint tree plantation officers to supervise compliance with codes. It provides for court action against plantation managers who fail to provide appropriate information to those officers. Clause 25 provides that the proposed Act binds the Crown. Clause 26 enables proceedings for offences under the proposed Act to be dealt with by local courts. Clause 27 empowers the Governor to make regulations for the purposes of the proposed Act, including savings and transitional provisions consequent on the enactment of the proposed Act. It provides for regulations to create offences punishable by a penalty of up to 10 penalty units. Clause 28 amends section 27(3) of the Forestry Act. This section allows a person to take timber from certain Crown timberland if the Forestry Commission certifies that the tree has been planted for the purpose of tree farming.

The amendment provides that this certification will not be necessary if the tree is situated on an accredited tree plantation. Clause 29 amends the note to section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 so that it refers to the operation of clause 10, which prevents local councils from interfering with harvesting operations on accredited plantations. Clause 30 provides for the proposed Act to be reviewed by the Minister after five years. This bill demonstrates that the Government is serious about its commitment to encouraging tree plantations and is willing to create a legal environment where people can invest in confidence, knowing that once they have received any necessary development approval to establish a tree plantation, harvest cannot be impeded by the planning and environment laws referred to in the bill.

The Government recognises the need to maintain proper environmental standards and safeguards. For this reason the bill provides for a proper process of accreditation that would allow only bona fide plantations to benefit from the proposed harvest security. It also provides for the preparation by the Department of Conservation and Land Management of environment protection harvesting codes, and provides that plantation accreditation may be withdrawn if these codes are violated. All approved codes will be consistent with existing environmental legislation. Nothing in the bill affects the current process of obtaining the necessary up-front development approvals for establishing plantations.

The Government recognises that reforms are needed to remove the disadvantages suffered by tree growers compared with other primary producers. The need for the reform of planning laws to encourage plantations is recognised in the National Forest Policy Statement, and the issue is currently before the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture. To ensure compliance with harvesting codes, tree plantation officers are able to be employed to inspect plantations. The bill provides for court action and fines for plantation owners or managers who fail to provide information about their operations to tree plantation officers. The widely appreciated benefits of an expanded tree plantation program are both environmental and economic. Given appropriate management, plantations are beneficial for soil, water and air quality.

Trees can help restore land that has been damaged by other uses. They can lower water tables and improve water quality. They turn atmospheric carbon dioxide into cellulose and as such reduce the greenhouse effect. Plantation development will only occur with strong government support and with the removal of legal and economic disincentives. This Government has given tangible support by committing substantial funds. We now look to the Parliament to support this bill, a measure that bridges the gap between the idea that everyone says they support and the reality of getting trees in the ground now. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.


Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that, having had under consideration the Assembly's Message of 13 October 1994 relating to the appointment of Joint Estimates Committees, it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

That:

(1) The following Estimates Committees be appointed:

(a) The Legislature Estimates Committee

(b) Premier and Economic Development Estimates Committee

Page 4052

(c) Treasurer and Arts Estimates Committee

(d) Agriculture and Fisheries and Mines Estimates Committee

(e) Attorney-General and Justice Estimates Committee

(f) Chief Secretary and Administrative Services Estimates Committee

(g) Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs and Ageing Estimates Committee

(h) Consumer Affairs Estimates Committee

(i) Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Tourism Estimates Committee

(j) Energy and Local Government and Co-operatives Estimates Committee

(k) Environment Estimates Committee

(l) Health Estimates Committee

(m) Industrial Relations and Employment and Status of Women Estimates Committee

(n) Land and Water Conservation Estimates Committee

(o) Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Estimates Committee

(p) Planning and Housing Estimates Committee

(q) Police and Emergency Services Estimates Committee

(r) Public Works and Ports Estimates Committee

(s) Small Business and Regional Development Estimates Committee

(t) Sport, Recreation and Racing Estimates Committee and

(u) Transport and Roads Estimates Committee,

to examine and report on proposed expenditures from the Consolidated Fund for each organisational unit for each Minister listed in the tabled Estimates, and the corresponding clauses and schedules of the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill which shall stand referred to the appropriate Committee.

(2) The clauses and items of the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill set out in Schedule 1 be referred to the Estimates Committees as set out in that Schedule.

(3) The Committees shall have power to send for and examine persons, papers, records and things and to report from time to time.

(4) The quorum of an Estimates Committee shall be eight Members provided that the Committees meet as Joint Committees at all times.

(5) The Chairman of an Estimates Committee shall exercise a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.

(6) A Chairman may from time to time appoint another Member to act as Deputy Chairman and the Member so appointed shall act as Chairman when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

In the event of absence of both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, a Member of the Committee shall be elected by the Members present to act as Chairman for that meeting.

(7) The proceedings of the Committees shall be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Committees.

(8) The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly shall arrange the places for meetings of the Committees and notify, formally, the Members of the Committees of the times and places for the meetings.

(9) The Chairmen of the Estimates Committees be as follows:

The Legislature Estimates Committee - Mr Kerr

Premier and Economic Development Estimates Committee - Mr Tink

Treasurer and Arts Estimates Committee - Mr Zammit

Agriculture and Fisheries and Mines Estimates Committee - Mr Small

Attorney General and Justice Estimates Committee - Mr Kerr

Chief Secretary and Administrative Services Estimates Committee - Mr Kinross

Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs and Ageing Estimates Committee - Mr Ryan

Page 4053

Consumer Affairs Estimates Committee - Mr Bull

Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Tourism Estimates Committee - Mr O'Doherty

Energy and Local Government and Co-operatives Estimates Committee - Mr Turner

Environment Estimates Committee - Mr Ryan

Health Estimates Committee - Mr Glachan

Industrial Relations and Employment and Status of Women Estimates Committee - Mrs Forsythe

Land and Water Conservation Estimates Committee - Mr Cochran

Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Estimates Committee - Mr Samios

Planning and Housing Estimates Committee - Mr D. L. Page

Police and Emergency Services Estimates Committee - Mr Turner

Public Works and Ports Estimates Committee - Mr Beck

Small Business and Regional Development Estimates Committee - Mr Fraser

Sport, Recreation and Racing Estimates Committee - Mr Petch

Transport and Roads Estimates Committee - Mr Merton

(10) In an Estimates Committee:

(a) the responsible Minister shall be present at all times;

(b) the Chairman shall call over each program area of each organisational unit for each Minister and declare the proposed expenditure open for examination;

(c) the question shall be proposed for each organisational unit "That the Vote be recommended";

(d) the proceedings of a Committee shall be recorded by Hansard;

(e) the Clerk shall prepare minutes of meetings which shall be signed by the Chairman.

(11) During the conduct of the Estimates Committees questions be limited to a maximum of one minute and replies be limited to a maximum of three minutes.

(12) When each area of estimates in Schedule 1 is commenced the period set aside shall be equally apportioned between Government and non-Government Members. The Chairman of the Committee shall permit non-Government Members to question the Minister for the first twenty minutes, Government Members for the next twenty minutes and so on in rotation until the expiration of the allocated time.

(13) Advisers who are present at an Estimates Committee to assist Ministers and the Presiding Officers (in the case of the Estimates of the Legislature) may address a Committee or answer questions if referred to them by a Minister or the Presiding Officers as the case may be.

(14) The proceedings of a Committee shall be regarded as proceedings of the Parliament.

(15) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Standing or Sessional Orders, Ministers may indicate to Estimates Committees that information supplementary to a response given to the Estimates Committee in reply to a question asked by a Member of that Committee may be lodged with the Clerk of the Parliaments. Such information shall be regarded as part of the proceedings of the Parliament and published as an annexure to the Questions and Answers Paper of the Legislative Council. Answers to questions taken on notice are to be answered by 18 November 1994.

(16) The times and dates for consideration of the estimates by the Estimates Committees be as set out in the Schedule 2.

(17) The Committee shall have the power to sit during the sitting or any adjournment of the House.

(18) The Report of each Estimates Committee shall state whether the votes of each organisational unit in the Estimates and the corresponding clauses and schedules in the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill are recommended or otherwise.

The failure of an Estimates Committee to report on any part of the votes shall be deemed to be a report recommending the proposed expenditure.

(19) The following Members be appointed to the Estimates Committees:

(a) The Legislature Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Bull, Mr Gay and Mr Jobling
Opposition Members - Mr Johnson and Mr O'Grady
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

Page 4054

(b) Premier and Economic Development Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Coleman, Mrs Evans and Mr Ryan
Opposition Members - Dr Burgmann and Mrs Walker
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(c) Treasurer and Arts Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Gay, Mr Smith and Mr Samios
Opposition Members - Mr Egan and Mrs Symonds
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(d) Agriculture and Fisheries and Mines Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Moppett, Dr Pezzutti and Mr Smith
Opposition Members - Mr Kaldis and Mr Obeid
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(e) Attorney General and Justice Estimates Committee

Government Members - Miss Gardiner, Mr Mutch and Mrs Sham-Ho
Opposition Members - Mr Shaw and Mrs Symonds
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(f) Chief Secretary and Administrative Services Estimates Committee

Government Members - Dr Pezzutti, Mr Smith and Mr Ryan
Opposition Members - Mr Johnson and Mr Manson
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(g) Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs and Ageing Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Jobling, Mr Ryan and Mrs Sham-Ho
Opposition Members - Mr Dyer and Mrs Symonds
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(h) Consumer Affairs Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Bull, Miss Gardiner and Mr Samios
Opposition Members - Mr Enderbury and Mr Johnson
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(i) Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Tourism Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Bull, Mr Moppett and Mrs Sham-Ho
Opposition Members - Mrs Arena and Mr Vaughan
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(j) Energy and Local Government and Co-operatives Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mrs Evans, Dr Goldsmith and Mr Mutch
Opposition Members - Ms Burnswoods and Mr Shaw
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(k) Environment Estimates Committee

Government Members - Dr Goldsmith, Mr Ryan, and Mr Samios
Opposition Members - Ms Burnswoods and Mrs Kite
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(l) Health Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mrs Evans, Mrs Forsythe and Dr Pezzutti
Opposition Members - Mrs Isaksen and Mrs Walker
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

Page 4055

(m) Industrial Relations and Employment and Status of Women Estimates Committee

Government Members - Miss Gardiner, Mrs Forsythe and Mr Mutch
Opposition Members - Dr Burgmann and Mr Shaw
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(n) Land and Water Conservation Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Coleman, Mrs Evans and Mr Moppett
Opposition Members - Dr Burgmann and Mrs Walker
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(o) Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Coleman, Mr Samios and Mrs Sham-Ho
Opposition Members - Mrs Arena and Mr Kaldis
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(p) Planning and Housing Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mrs Forsythe, Mr Gay and Mr Ryan
Opposition Members - Mr Macdonald and Mr Obeid
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(q) Police and Emergency Services Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Bull, Mr Gay and Mr Jobling
Opposition Members - Mr O'Grady and Mrs Walker
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(r) Public Works and Ports Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Coleman, Mr Mutch and Dr Pezzutti
Opposition Members - Mr Dyer and Mr Macdonald
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(s) Small Business and Regional Development Estimates Committee

Government Members - Dr Goldsmith, Mr Jobling and Mr Mutch
Opposition Members - Mr Macdonald and Mr Vaughan
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Revd Mr Nile

(t) Sport, Recreation and Racing Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mrs Forsythe, Mr Moppett and Mr Smith
Opposition Members - Mr Enderbury and Mr Manson
Australian Democrat Member - Ms Kirkby
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile

(u) Transport and Roads Estimates Committee

Government Members - Mr Coleman, Miss Gardiner and Dr Goldsmith
Opposition Members - Mrs Isaksen and Mrs Kite
Australian Democrat Member - Mr Jones
Call to Australia Member - Mrs Nile.

(20) The Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Australian Democrats and the Leader of the Call to Australia Group may nominate in writing to the Committee Chairman an alternative Member of the Legislative Council to represent an appointed Member, if that Member is unavailable to attend any meeting of any Estimates Committee.

(21) The Legislative Council insists that the Estimates Committees be composed of an equal number of Members of each House.

(22) The Legislative Council requests the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly that the Estimates Committees be composed of an equal number of Members of each House.

(23) The Legislative Council expresses the view that on any future occasion on which a Joint Committee may be proposed the same number of Members should be appointed from both Houses.

Legislative Council The Hon. Max Willis
13 October 1994 President

Page 4056

Estimate Committee Recurrent Capital
No. Items Items

1 Legislature

The Legislature - subject to a separate Appropriation Bill

2 Premier and Economic Development

Cabinet Office 6.1.01 6.2.01

Parliamentary Counsel's Office 6.1.02 6.2.02
Premier's Department 6.1.03 6.2.03
Independent Commission Against Corruption 6.1.04 6.2.04
Ombudsman's Office 6.1.05 6.2.05
State Electoral Office 6.1.06 ...
Government Pricing Tribunal 6.1.07 ...

3 Agriculture and Fisheries

Rural Assistance Authority 7.1.01 ...
Department of Agriculture 7.1.02 7.2.01

New South Wales Fisheries 7.1.03 7.2.02

4 Mines

Department of Mineral Resources 7.1.04 7.2.03
Coal Compensation Board 7.1.05 7.2.04

5 Attorney General

Attorney General's Department 8.1.01 8.2.01
Judicial Commission 8.1.02 8.2.02
Legal Aid Commission 8.1.03 8.2.03
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 8.1.04 8.2.04

6 Justice

Department of Courts Administration 8.1.05 8.2.05
Department of Corrective Services 8.1.06 8.2.06
Department of Juvenile Justice 8.1.07 8.2.07

7 Chief Secretary and Administrative Services

Chief Secretary's Department 9.1.01 9.2.01
Casino Control Authority 9.1.02 ...
Office of the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services 9.1.03 9.2.02

8 Community Services

Department of Community Services 10.1.01 10.2.01
Social Policy Directorate 10.1.02 ...
Community Services Commission 10.1.03 ...

9 Aboriginal Affairs

Office of Aboriginal Affairs 10.1.04 ...

10 Consumer Affairs

Department of Consumer Affairs 11.1.01 11.2.01
HomeFund Commissioner's Office 11.1.02 ...

11 Education, Training and Youth Affairs

Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs 12.1.01 12.2.01
Department of School Education 12.1.02 12.2.02
New South Wales Technical and Further Education Commission 12.1.03 12.2.03

12 Tourism

Tourism NSW 12.1.04 ...

Page 4057

13 Energy

Office of Energy 13.1.01 ...

14 Local Government and Co-operatives

Department of Local Government and Co-operatives 13.1.02 13.2.01

15 Environment

Environment Protection Authority 14.1.01 14.2.01
National Parks and Wildlife Service 14.1.02 14.2.02
Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust 14.1.03 14.2.03
Urban Parks Agency 14.1.04 14.2.04

16 Health

Department of Health 15.1.01 15.2.01
Health Care Complaints Commission 15.1.02 ...

17 Industrial Relations and Employment

Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education 16.1.01 16.2.01

18 Status of Women

Ministry for the Status and Advancement of Women 16.1.02 16.2.02

19 Land and Water Conservation

Department of Conservation and Land Management 17.1.01 17.2.01
Department of Water Resources 17.1.02 17.2.02

20 Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs

Ethnic Affairs Commission 18.1.01 18.2.01

21 Planning and Housing

Department of Planning 19.1.01 19.2.01
Homebush Bay Development Corporation 19.1.02 19.2.02
Payments to other Government Bodies under the Control of the Minister 19.1.03 ...

22 Police and Emergency Services

Ministry for Police and Emergency Services 20.1.01 ...
The Police Service of New South Wales 20.1.02 20.2.01
New South Wales Crime Commission 20.1.03 20.2.02
New South Wales Fire Brigades 20.1.04 ...
Department of Bush Fire Services 20.1.05 ...
State Emergency Service 20.1.06 20.2.03

23 Public Works and Ports

Office of the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports 21.1.01 21.2.01

24 Small Business and Regional Development

Department of Business and Regional Development 22.1.01 22.2.01

25 Sport, Recreation and Racing

Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing 23.1.01 23.2.01

26 Transport

Department of Transport 24.1.01 24.2.01

27 Roads

Roads and Traffic Authority 24.1.02 24.2.02

28 Treasurer

Treasury 25.1.01 25.2.01
Crown Transactions 25.1.02 25.2.02
Advance to Treasurer 25.1.03 ...

Page 4058

29 Arts

Ministry for the Arts 25.1.04 25.2.03
State Library 25.1.05 25.2.04
Australian Museum 25.1.06 25.2.05
Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences 25.1.07 25.2.06
Historic Houses Trust 25.1.08 25.2.07
Art Gallery of New South Wales 25.1.09 25.2.08
Archives Authority of New South Wales 25.1.10 ...
New South Wales Film and Television Office 25.1.11 ...

Committee Time

Agriculture, Fisheries and Mines 9.30am - 1.00pm

Industrial Relations and Employment 9.30am - 1.00pm
and Status of Women

Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Land and Water Conservation 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Consumer Affairs 7.00pm - 9.00pm

Transport and Roads 9.30am - 1.00pm

Police and Emergency Services 9.30am - 1.00pm

Arts and Treasurer 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Premier and Economic Development 2.00pm - 4.30pm

The Legislature 7.00am - 9.00pm

Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs 7.00am - 9.00pm

Planning and Housing 9.30am - 1.00pm

Attorney General and Justice 9.30am - 1.00pm

Local Government and Energy 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Chief Secretary and Administrative Services 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Regional Development and Small Business 7.00pm - 9.00pm

Sport, Recreation and Racing 7.00pm - 9.00pm

Health 9.30am - 1.00pm

Education, Training and Tourism 9.30am - 1.00pm

Environment 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Public Works and Ports 2.00pm - 4.30pm

Legislative Council The Hon. Max Willis
13 October 1994 President


Page 4059

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it that the Legislative Assembly accedes to the Legislative Council's request that the Joint Estimates Committees be composed of an equal number of members of each House, but notes on this occasion that only seven Legislative Council members were appointed to each Committee.


Motion, by leave, by Mr West agreed to:
That the reporting date for the Legislation Committee on the Endangered and Other Threatened Species Conservation Bill be extended to 24 November 1994.




Motion by Mr West agreed to:

That this House at its rising this day do adjourn until Tuesday, 25 October 1994, at 2.15 p.m.