Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 18 September 1996, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [10.00]: I do not lead for the Opposition; the Leader of the Opposition will do so. As the shadow minister for the Olympics and Leader of the National Party it gives me enormous pleasure to speak in this debate this morning. Probably nothing will do more in the next five or six years for the future profile of Sydney, New South Wales and Australia than the year 2000 Olympics. It goes without saying that the Parliament, the Government and the people of New South Wales have to get it right. There will be no second prize in Sydney's preparation for and conduct of the year 2000 Sydney Olympics, no pre-run and no dress rehearsal. It will be a one-off event of extraordinary national importance to Australia. The athletic and cultural events and environmental factors will have a dramatic if not a significant effect on Australia's culture and attitudes, its sporting reputation, recognition of its business opportunities and our relationships with the rest of the world.

I expect the year 2000 Olympics and associated events to bring about a considerable change in attitude in Australia and in much of its structure. This bill essentially will allow the Minister for the Olympics, the Hon. Michael Knight, to crown himself, uncontested, the king of the Olympics. It will allow Caesar to render unto Caesar. Under section 20 of the 1993 legislation the appointment of the President of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games could be terminated only by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister of the day. If the Minister becomes the president, he will have to sack himself, which is surely the greatest bureaucratic hypocrisy.

The Opposition believes that the Minister may have every claim to a seat on the board, but the 1993 legislation called for the President of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games to be an independent person who was free from the shackles of politics, a person who was respected in the community and a person who had a business, administrative and personal reputation that would be acceptable not only to national and international corporations but to the Olympic movement and, indeed, to the bulk of the people of the world who might be interested in the Olympics. It would be a big call for any politician to fulfil those requirements, let alone for a Minister of the Crown who has the responsibilities of overseeing the Olympic Co-ordination Authority and the roads portfolio as well as fulfilling his duties as a local member.

The Olympic Co-ordination Authority is a government-funded body essentially comprised of government departments. The authority answers to the Minister who is to be the President of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. Will he as president feed the reports of the Olympic Co-ordination Authority into the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and therefore bury the bad news? The bill provides for the shadow minister for the Olympics to be an ex officio member of the board of directors of SOCOG - and I will deal with the mechanics of that later. Section 24 of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games Act 1933 clearly articulates the duty and liability of directors and provides in subsections (3), (4) and (5):

(3) A director or former director must not, in New South Wales or elsewhere, make improper use of information acquired by virtue of his or her position as a director to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for himself or herself or for any other person or to cause detriment to SOCOG.

(4) A director must not, in New South Wales or elsewhere, make improper use of his or her position as director to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for himself or herself or for any other person or to cause detriment to SOCOG.

(5) If a person contravenes any of the provisions of this section, SOCOG may recover from that person:

(a) if that or another person has made a profit because of the act or omission constituting the contravention - an amount equal to the amount or value of the profit, or

(b) if SOCOG has suffered loss or damage as a result of the act or omission - an amount equal to the amount or value of the loss or damage.

The words "for any other person or to cause detriment to SOCOG" are repeated in subsections 24(3) and (4). I have no doubt that the directors, including the Opposition representative, if the Opposition accepts the invitation, will endeavour to adhere to the provision, but it is an interpretation. The Minister for the Olympics held a press conference on 13 September. The Sydney Morning Herald on 14 September reported:

The Minister for the Olympics, Mr Knight, said the Opposition would be free to criticise the Government's handling of the preparations for the 2000 Games.

"There is no intention to shackle the Opposition here," Mr Knight said. "At the moment, the Opposition don't see anything that's going on at SOCOG. They are entitled to criticise where they think the Government has done the wrong thing.

Page 4270

"Nobody is going to ask them to shackle themselves and not criticise any of the Government's activities.

There is an absolute contradiction between what the Minister is saying to the press and the impression he is trying to make on the public and the provisions of the legislation, which are quite definite. The responsibilities of directors are clearly articulated in the words "a director must not . . . cause detriment to SOCOG". Directors who are deemed to have caused detriment face stiff penalties, and there is no argument that there should be stiff penalties. The Opposition is asking how the Minister for the Olympics proposes to deliver the commitment he made on 13 September. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald headlined "No plot to gag Libs on Games: Knight" reported the Minister as saying:

At the moment, the Opposition don't see anything that's going on at SOCOG. They are entitled to criticise where they think the Government has done the wrong thing.

I expect the Minister to articulate clearly for the record how the Opposition can have a representative on the board of directors and continue to meet its bona fide responsibilities as the Opposition representing the people of New South Wales. It is the taxpayers of New South Wales who are underwriting these Games, not the Minister or the Government. The taxpayers are entitled to expect the Opposition to probe the process fully, with commonsense and propriety, to ensure that the Olympic Games are run with integrity, honesty, efficiency and competency and that they deliver. I make it patently clear that neither the Opposition nor I as shadow minister will resile from our fundamental responsibilities. It is the Minister for the Olympics as the newly self-appointed President of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games who has to explain how he will deliver the promise to the people of New South Wales. Clearly, there are a number of difficulties with the Minister anointing himself as president. I shall work through the legislation. For instance, on the composition of the board, the Minister in his second reading speech said that changes will be made to section 14(1)(g), which states:

(g) two persons with appropriate expertise and experience appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister, to represent the Minister,

The Minister said that on 31 December those two positions will disappear and one of the persons will be appointed to one of the positions provided for in section 14(1)(h), which states:

(h) four persons with appropriate expertise and experience appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister,

That will be a total of five persons; the positions of the present incumbents, Ms Anna Booth and Mr Brian Sherman, will disappear. However, the Minister did not say that the appointees on the recommendation of the Minister will be re-elected or renominated on 31 December. So the Minister will have six persons, five of whom he will choose. I do not want to be suspicious of the Minister, but who will he shaft to give the Opposition a seat on the board of directors of SOCOG? I am prepared to lay good odds and there is what one might call universal recognition that it will not be a Labor Party appointee. Will it be Mr Greiner? It will be a travesty if that is so. History cannot be changed. Under Mr Greiner's premiership, the decision was made to bid for and the structure was set up to enable Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, to win the Games for the year 2000. Nick Greiner will have credit for that all his life and in history. Will it be Mr Rod McGeoch?

Mr McGeoch was the successful face and the successful negotiator of the Olympic bid. He is a popular national and international figure, revered by young people, sporting groups, cultural groups and the wider community. He is a highly successful man. Will the Minister spear Mr McGeoch? If so, that would be a tragedy. Will it be Mr Graham Lovett, one of the great promoters of sport in this country? He is a highly respected figure in sport promotion and in the business world. He has not sought to take personal advantage of his position. If one of the three persons to whom I have referred were speared, it would be a travesty that the people of New South Wales would see through. The Minister must come clean now; he must say who he intends to shaft on 31 December to accommodate the Opposition if it accepts a position on the board and give his reasons for doing so.

The legislation looks nice and simple and rosy on top, but underneath there is doubt about some of the probity involved. In conclusion I shall point out a number of other contradictions in the Minister accepting the position of President of SOCOG. The president has a number of duties, not the least of which is to ensure that SOCOG works and that it undertakes its duties properly. While President of SOCOG it will be the Minister's responsibility to raise enormous amounts of goodwill and financial support from the Australian and international business communities but at the same time he will undertake his duties as a Minister of the Crown. He is the Minister for Roads and the occasional member for Campbelltown. He will be raising money as a Minister of the Crown.

How does the Auditor-General feel about that? Has the Auditor-General been asked to give an opinion on the probity and integrity of a Minister raising money nationally and internationally? Is the Minister accountable to the Auditor-General and the Parliament, or is he accountable only to SOCOG? That question must be asked if there is to be confidence. The most important question is when will the new President of SOCOG, who is the Minister for Roads, admit that he cannot do both jobs and resign as Minister for Roads. Clearly, he has given up being the member for Campbelltown; the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn has taken over his responsibilities in Campbelltown. We know that the Minister has walked away from that. What will the Minister do about roads? He cannot fill the potholes in New South Wales with the bonhomie of being President of SOCOG. I do not think that Mr
Page 4271
Samaranch would care too much about potholes at the intersection of Smith and Brown streets, Clovelly, or whether a bridge washes away at Broken Hill. If the Minister is fair dinkum, he should inform the Premier today that he cannot look after roads and that the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism should be given the portfolio. I would love to see the fight that will emanate out of that, because I think it is already taking place.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [10.15]: I lead for the Opposition. I acknowledge the comments made by my colleague the Leader of the National Party and the excellent work that he has done as shadow minister for the Olympics over the past 18 months. The Opposition is concerned about greater transparency and accountability so that the taxpayers of New South Wales can understand precisely their liability for the Olympic Games. It is worth restating that on the change of government taxpayers were liable for roughly $1 billion, and that since that time the amount has increased by almost that amount again. The Opposition believes that Sydney will stage the best Olympics the world has ever seen. It is deeply committed to the Olympics because the coalition Government won the Olympic Games for Sydney. The Opposition wants to build on that success, and wishes the Government well in its stewardship of the Olympic Games.

Having said that, the Opposition has deep concerns about the Minister's proposals. The self-coronation of the Minister - his self-appointment - to the position of President of SOCOG concerns the Opposition deeply. The Opposition has no difficulty with the Minister of the day being on the SOCOG board. However, when one considers that the New South Wales Government appoints eight of the 15 members of the SOCOG board, the Government has more influence, and has always had more influence, than any other body on the way that SOCOG is run. The Government has claimed that Sydney does not want an Atlanta-style Olympics. It was never going to have an Atlanta-style Olympics because there never was an Atlanta-style organisation.

The committee organising the Atlanta Olympic Games was basically a private sector body. The private sector said that it could run the Atlanta Games, and run them without the Federal, State or local government. To the best of my knowledge the State of Georgia - and the Minister for the Olympics may correct me if he has better information - put nothing into the Games by way of capital investment and financial commitment of the city of Atlanta was minimal. The United States Government did not have to put in anything. Sydney's Games were not constructed that way.

From the outset the New South Wales Government realised that the Olympic Games would provide an opportunity to give the State much needed sporting facilities that would last well into the next millennium, and that commitment from the Government was always there. Eight of the 15 board members of the Sydney committee organising the Games were appointed by the State Government, two were appointed by the Federal Government and the Lord Mayor of Sydney was also a director. So State, Federal and local government were always represented on the Sydney committee organising the Games. I understand that the President of the International Olympic Committee, Mr Samaranch, would prefer a working arrangement for the organisation of the Sydney Games different from that in Atlanta. The taxpayers of this State must understand that Sydney never had an Atlanta-style administration nor would it have an Atlanta-style Games. The 2000 Games will be Sydney-style Games with a Sydney-style administration in which the State Government has been overwhelmingly represented from the outset. Given the taxpayers' investment in the Games, that is as it should be. In reply to the Minister's claim that we do not want an Atlanta, that he has to head SOCOG and that the Government has to become more involved, I say that the Government has always been deeply involved.

The Opposition has no objection to the Minister taking a position on the SOCOG board but it does have a fundamental objection to his heading the organisation. From a public perspective - whether it be in this State or internationally - from this point the Sydney Games will be wholly owned and run by the New South Wales Government because the Minister has made himself chairman of the Games. Until now the Minister has been able to say, "Our job is to provide the sporting facilities; our job is to provide the infrastructure for the Games; our job is not to run the Games." From this point the Minister is saying, "Our job is to provide everything for the Sydney Games." From the taxpayers' perspective that is a matter of deep concern and taxpayers need a much clearer window on exactly how the Olympic Games are to be run from this point. In future it is necessary to have greater transparency and greater clarity of government activities in the running of the Games. The Opposition has unsuccessfully attempted to learn more about the running of the Games and, more specifically, of the detail of Olympic contracts and projects being undertaken by the Minister and through his agencies. I will take the Parliament through my correspondence with the Premier in which I endeavoured to extract information from the Government about how the Games were proceeding, how facilities were being built, and the implications for the taxpayers. In my letter to the Premier of 28 March on behalf of the Opposition I wrote:

Clearly, the financial obligations of the Sydney Olympics are subject to the usual legal principles of contract law. If all relevant parties to the contract wish to vary the terms of the initial Olympic contract then, in principle, the Coalition would not want to obstruct such agreement.

However we make the following initial observation of the revised terms of the Olympic contract.

It appears that the NSW Government has committed an additional cost of approximately $100 million to the Olympics budget, regardless of a profit or loss from the Olympics. To date NSW taxpayers have not been exposed to this liability.

Page 4272

Whilst we reiterate our bi-partisan support of the Sydney Olympics, the Coalition requests as a matter of urgency a briefing to scrutinise the details of the variations to the original contract.

A pretty simple request - a briefing to scrutinise the details of the variations to the original contract. Over a month later, on 30 April, the Premier wrote:

On the question of briefings regarding the revised contractual arrangements, I am enclosing recent statements by the Minister for the Olympics which should supplement the verbal information he has conveyed to the Shadow Minister on this subject in recent months.

Mr Knight: You got a full briefing.

Mr COLLINS: This is the information we got back from the Carr Government - two Michael Knight news releases. It is not good enough. The Opposition requested detailed, hard information. I am not talking about some sort of verbal assurance from the Minister to the shadow minister, "Don't worry, Ian, everything is under control. She'll be right, mate." That is no reassurance whatever for the taxpayers of this State. The Opposition needs to see the figures. The taxpayers need to know the progress of Olympics construction and what is happening to the Olympics budget. With all due respect to the Minister's press secretary, a couple of Michael Knight news releases is a pretty thin response. I made another bid to get information through the Premier. This time I said:

It is essential that the Coalition be briefed on the Government's progress with the Olympic timetable. This briefing would be in addition to details of the variation to the Olympic contract.

The briefing would include

•Details of the processes involved in fulfilling the Olympic timetable

•Details of the progress of the Olympic budget, including details of any significant cost increases

•Details of the progress of related Olympic infrastructure projects, including road and rail links

•Details of Olympic related commercial development

•Status of individual Olympic projects

In order to formalise these briefings, the Opposition requests they occur once every three months. The Opposition reiterates its bi-partisan support of the Sydney Olympics. However, it is imperative that the people of New South Wales are kept fully informed of the progress of the Sydney Olympic Games timetable and that the costs of the Olympics are within budget.

That letter was signed by me and my colleague the Leader of the National Party as shadow minister for the Olympics. Having asked for that detail, we did not even get press releases from Bob Carr, the Premier? In his reply of 27 May the Premier said:

Regarding the specific issues in your letter, I am enclosing a copy of the "State of Play", which is a document containing the results of a year long review into the provision of infrastructure and facilities.

"State of Play" has been distributed to the media and is the sort of document that can be obtained from the Government Information Service. It told us absolutely nothing about the detail we sought about the Olympic Games. Again the Opposition was denied access to information by the Premier, who was prepared to stonewall and not provide information. The Opposition has made repeated written and verbal requests for detailed information on Olympic finances and was sent two Michael Knight news releases and one glossy document - the sort of material, left on a coffee table in an office, that reveals what people want to disclose, not what is going on behind the scenes. Contrast that with what the Labor Party wanted for itself. Lest it be said that the Opposition is being unreasonable, that it is asking for something that the Labor Party itself would not seek, let us look back at Labor's policy on the Olympics of February 1995. What sorts of things did Labor promise the people of New South Wales in the lead-up to the last election, just one month before it came to government and took over responsibility for the Olympic Games? Labor said:

A Carr Government will . . . open up the financial arrangements of the Games to greater public scrutiny. We will insist upon full disclosure of the real costs of all Olympic projects. All relevant accounts in SOCOG, SPOC and OCA will be regularly audited by the NSW Auditor-General and his reports made public.

The Auditor-General has not made any public reports on these matters. I suspect that the Auditor-General, as so often is the case, has been denied access to the information he needs to report to the Parliament.

Mr Knight: That is a lie, and you know it.

Mr COLLINS: The Minister, the self-appointed president, will have a chance to reply. The Opposition wants to know why it has not seen any information from the Auditor-General. Why have our simple requests made of the Premier been formally snubbed on two occasions? We want to know why the Opposition was again snubbed recently when I repeated my request for detailed information. The next Carr pre-election promise was:

A Carr Labor Government will . . . institute tough internal audit functions in both SOCOG and the new Olympic Co-ordination Agency. The Labor Party promised the taxpayers of New South Wales to "introduce tight new financial accountability measures to protect taxpayers' money."

Where are those measures? Where is this accountability? Where is the transparency that Labor promised in February 1995? Labor, in its February 1995 policy on the Olympics, said it would "require SOCOG to report monthly to both OCA and the Treasury". How does the public get a look at what Labor is doing behind the scenes, how the numbers are adding up, where budget overruns are occurring, and whether or not projects are really up to speed? We do not know that, and the Government is not prepared to open up the process so that the people of New South Wales are taken into its confidence. Consequently, the Opposition has repeatedly sought detailed information. All it gets are glossy handouts and press releases.

I think it is worth mentioning that the Opposition made another attempt at obtaining financial information after the Minister made his
Page 4273
wonderful, conciliatory and bipartisan gesture to crown himself president of SOCOG a couple of weeks ago. He said as an afterthought, "Oh, by the way, we will put an Opposition representative on SOCOG." I wrote to the Premier and raised some of the concerns that I am addressing in this debate today. I told the Premier that we are concerned about the high turnover of SOCOG appointees and continuity of appointment, a matter which I will refer to again. But I reiterated my call for the following information: details of the processes involved in fulfilling the Olympic timetable; details of the progress of the Olympic budget; details of the progress of related Olympic infrastructure projects, road and rail; details of Olympic-related commercial development; and the status of individual Olympic projects. I said that the Premier's reply dealt with my detailed request in a contemptuous manner. The Opposition got back from our Premier another contemptuous reply. In response to a three-page letter making a six-point request for detailed financial and project information, we got a letter saying:

Our offer is unconditional. I believe the people of this State would regard it as sensible that the Opposition accept, and accept without political conditions.

The role of the Opposition is to act as the watchdog for New South Wales taxpayers. The voters who put us here want us to play a role to make sure that the Government is kept honest. That is the role of the Opposition. If we are kept in the dark, our hands are tied. If we are not given relevant information that we can analyse and scrutinise, then our job is made impossible by the Government. Yet it seems to be precisely the intention of the Government to stonewall on the provision of any information at all, whether it relates to resolutions of the Parliament, freedom of information, the role of the Auditor-General, or access by the Auditor-General to financial data and Cabinet documents. The Government stonewalls every step of the way and turns its back on the commitments that Labor made as late as February 1995 - one month before it was elected to office. All of those principles go out the window because Labor holds the Treasury benches for the moment.

Opposition members are very concerned about the nature of the offer which has been made, given the contemptuous manner in which the Premier has now three times denied the Opposition access to detailed data. This is another deeply worrying and ominous sign of the Carr Government's commitment to secrecy above all. That is why we sought assurances from the Carr Government, so that we could get access to information. We have a watchdog role, and it is a role that we want to play, and play constructively, in relation to the Olympics. We are not interested if there is a $2,000 overrun in some Olympic project. We are concerned about the big issues in the Olympics. We are concerned about major cost overruns. We are concerned about union deals to which the Government will become subject over the next three to four years. The Government will be under a lot of pressure to deliver on time and within budget. We want to make sure that it is able to do that, and to do it honestly and above board.

Opposition members understand the public reaction to the political involvement that the Minister has mapped out by his self-elevation within SOCOG. Incidentally, that is really designed, in his mind, to increase his chances of succeeding Bob Carr as Premier. The Minister is trying to position himself, incredible as it may seem, as the man most likely to succeed Bob Carr. He has attempted to mask this self-promotional exercise by what he claims is a generous bipartisan gesture, namely, offering a position on the SOCOG board to the shadow minister for the Olympics. My colleague the Leader of the National Party and I have known about this offer for the last 10 or so days. That is probably one-sixth of the time that the Government has had to think about this deal that it has hatched and brought before the Parliament today, with the intention of ramming it through all stages as quickly as possible.

In the time available, the Opposition has consulted broadly with people in the Olympic and sporting communities - all of the agencies that are already locked into the Olympic Games. We have consulted broadly with community members to gain their reaction. I think it is fair to say that the community is very much divided on the proposal that is brought before the Parliament today and on the self-aggrandisement of a politician as President of SOCOG. I think the community is very sceptical about that grab for power by a politician when it is considered that there were already on the SOCOG board so many extremely competent board members with experience, corporate memory and management ability. This Minister is telling us that, despite looking at all the people available, all the people he could have chosen from anywhere round Australia, after scouring the world looking for the right person for the job, he finds that the right person for the job is himself. There it is! I have heard about a brain drain, but I did not realise that things were this bad! This Minister has now put himself forward as president.

The Opposition proposes to move amendments to this legislation in the Legislative Council. The amendments that we will attempt to move will give the Minister a seat on the board, but they will not guarantee him the presidency that he seeks so desperately. We are anxious to ensure that the SOCOG board, which has seen such major changes, should start to settle down. The last thing that Sydney and this State need is continuing instability on the SOCOG board. We have not seen the last of the changes from this Minister. Let us come to the position that has been offered to the Opposition - a position that my colleague the Leader of the National Party will be accepting on our behalf. We will not see that position accepted at the expense of someone already on the board. This Minister is signalling, with his rather unusual formula, that the
Page 4274
composition of the board increase from 15 to 16 until December - the Minister might correct me if I am wrong about this - at which time it will return to 15. Who do honourable members think will get the chop?

Mr Hazzard: The Minister!

Mr COLLINS: No, he will get the chop in March 1999. Which of those people now on the SOCOG board will the Minister drop?

Mr Hazzard: Graham Richardson?

Mr COLLINS: Will it be Graham Richardson, who I understand might have had a word in the Minister's ear to hatch this whole plan in the first place, or will it be someone else? Will it be Nick Greiner, the former Premier, the architect of Sydney's bid, the man who did more than anyone to bring the Olympics to Sydney? Will he be up for the chop? Will that be the backhander by this Minister? One thing we know is that when this Minister offers us something we have to hold it up to the light and look at it very carefully because there is always a catch. The Minister might say, "Did I not mention to you that the position you are taking is Nick Greiner's position?" We might then be able to say to him, "No, you did not mention it." I invite the Minister, when he replies to debate on this urgent legislation - he is so concerned about the state of SOCOG that he has to take it over himself - to give us a commitment that he will guarantee stability and continuity on SOCOG.

I, on behalf of the Opposition, will give the Minister a public commitment today. Once this legislation is through, which will see the Minister of the day and the shadow minister of the day on the SOCOG board - not at the expense of any existing SOCOG member - we will not change any SOCOG appointee, barring some unforeseen catastrophe, including appointments that this Government has made, between now and the running of the Olympic Games. In return, I ask the Minister for a public commitment today - a commitment to immediately stabilise the SOCOG board and to give a guarantee to all existing members of that board that they will continue. The Minister dropped a hint this week. When he was asked about Nick Greiner he let it slip and said, "He has many, many jobs", hinting that he was about to have one less. If the Minister drops Nick Greiner, the architect of the Sydney Olympics, it would be the same as a decision to drop Joern Utzon from the Sydney Opera House. If the Minister wants to drop Nick Greiner, whose idea it was to bring the Olympics to Sydney, those are the stakes.

The Minister said that he wanted bipartisanship. I give him the opportunity today, when he replies to debate on this self-coronation legislation, to say that he will give the public of New South Wales greater accountability, greater transparency of process, greater access to financial data for which we have been asking unsuccessfully for 18 months, and continuity and stability for SOCOG. So far as the Opposition is concerned, after this legislation has been amended by the Legislative Council and passes through the Parliament, only one change will occur, that is, a change of president in March 1999 when this Government is defeated at the polls and the Minister is looking for a new job.

Mr Photios: And a new press secretary.

Mr COLLINS: And a new press secretary. That is the very straightforward offer that the Opposition makes today. We are saying to the Minister, "Put SOCOG back on the rails." The Minister wants to crown himself king. We know that he has the numbers in this House to do it. The legislation will get through. Sensible amendments will come back from the Legislative Council building in accountability measures. The Minister should give us a commitment today that he will not axe the architect of the Sydney Olympics and that he will provide stability and continuity on the SOCOG board. Only in that way will he prove any genuineness in his claim to bipartisanship. If the Minister cannot give that commitment today, if he equivocates, if he defers his decision and if he says, "Wait until December," the message is clear: we and the public of New South Wales will know what this Minister is about.

The Minister said that he wanted bipartisanship. We will come on board. We will try to work as best we can to make it feasible. We will work constructively on the SOCOG board. My colleague the Leader of the National Party, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, will make a constructive, intelligent and thoughtful contribution to the running of the SOCOG board. He will look responsibly at any proposals. However we, as an Opposition, do not abrogate our right to speak about the Olympics and, if the Minister messes it up, to criticise the Government and to expose the Minister's shortcomings. The Minister, in this greater capacity which he has carved out for himself, has done something that very few people in New South Wales have attempted. His grabbing of the running of an organisation transcends politics. The Minister, in so doing, has set himself an almighty task. If he fails he will have that much further to fall.

We hope that the Sydney Olympic Games will be the best Games that the world has seen. They should be as we have the best city in the world. The groundwork has been done and the foundations were laid by the coalition Government, which brought the Games to Sydney in the first place. If the Minister gets it wrong, be it on his own head. We reserve the right to take him on any time in this Parliament. We reserve the right to use information in the public domain and in the public interest. We do not abrogate that responsibility for a second in taking up the offer which has been made. As I have said, this Minister acknowledged once - but I notice that it has not been put in writing - that he understands that the Opposition does not surrender its right to criticise the Government. We would like to hear more about that when the Minister replies to debate on this legislation. We would like to have it on the record.
Page 4275
We will play a constructive role on the SOCOG board. We ask the Minister to give specific assurances today that he will guarantee continuity and stability on the SOCOG board from this point on.

On behalf of the Opposition I support the general thrust of the legislation. As I have mentioned to the Minister, I foreshadow that the Legislative Council will prepare some amendments to the legislation to enshrine principles of accountability which do not currently exist and which ironically reflect unfulfilled commitments given by the Labor Party in its policy statement in February 1995, just one month before the State election. With those qualifications the Opposition supports the legislation and looks forward to the return of the amended legislation from the Legislative Council.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [10.51], in reply: I am disturbed by the tenor of the statement with which the Leader of the Opposition commenced his reply. Speaking of the coalition, he made the bold statement: "We were the Government which won the Olympics for Sydney."

Mr Hazzard: It is absolutely true.

Mr KNIGHT: Members of the Opposition interject to say it is true. As everybody in the Olympic movement and in the Australian community knows - except, apparently, some members of the coalition - the winning of the Games for Sydney was a team effort. It involved a partnership and a team effort with the Olympic movement. It was a team effort with the Federal Government, with the local council, with the business community and with the whole community.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Northcott will remain silent.

Mr KNIGHT: Of course, running the Olympics and putting on the best Games that the world has ever seen is also a team effort. The team wants the changes that are brought forward in this legislation. The team includes the International Olympic Committee President, President Samaranch, the two Australian members of the International Olympic Committee, and Phil Coles, whose presence I acknowledge in the gallery. Despite the pejorative assertions by members opposite, Phil Coles is one of the people who deserves to share the credit for bringing the Olympics to Sydney - not merely the last Government, as the Leader of the Opposition wants to propagate in this place. The legislation has the support of the Australian Olympic Committee, headed by John Coates. It has the support also of the overwhelming majority of board members of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, including the two members who represent the Federal Government on that board, who have been placed on the board following nominations by the Prime Minister. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition may want to degenerate into some sort of personal attack on me, and indeed on my press secretary, does nothing to detract from the substance of this issue. I want to deal with some specific allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition claims that he has been treated contemptuously and has been denied briefings. He quotes selectively from correspondence between him and the Premier.

Mr Collins: Table them.

Mr KNIGHT: I would be delighted to table the correspondence. Let me deal, not selectively, with the reality of what appears in that correspondence. The first letter, dated 28 March, comes from the Leader of the Opposition. What is that letter about? That is his letter complaining about the historic arrangement entered into between the Government and the Australian Olympic Committee to remove the veto that the last Government had set in the Act, a veto that was causing great difficulties for SOCOG, but to provide at the same time a legacy for all time for Australia's athletes - a very important initiative. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Premier complaining about that, saying he wanted to know more about it. What did the Premier write back to him? The Premier said four things. Firstly, he said, "There are some press releases about this on the public record and I will send you that." The second thing he said was that these will supplement the briefings that had already been given to the Leader of the National Party, the shadow minister. As the Premier, the Leader of the National Party and I know, the Leader of the Opposition was kept in the loop almost on a daily basis during those negotiations; he was briefed even before the negotiations started. Perhaps he has not shared that information with the Leader of the Opposition; perhaps it is a problem of information not being shared within the coalition.

Next, the Premier said that the legislation that will deal with the enshrinement of this arrangement would be brought before the Parliament and there would be an opportunity, if the Leader of the Opposition wanted it, to have further briefings on the detail of the legislation. Lastly, the Premier said, "Not only do you get to find out about this deal, not only do you get a chance to pass a comment on this deal, but you get to vote on whether or not you want the deal to go ahead." The Leader of the Opposition complains that he has not had a briefing, that he has not been told enough privately, and that there is some sort of sinister conspiracy not to share information. Not only was the information shared, not only was more information offered than the Opposition came to get, but it got a chance to pass comment and to vote in this Parliament on whether the Government's proposal should go ahead. The Opposition, from its experience in government, may not be used to that level of disclosure, openness and inclusiveness, but that is how this Government approaches the Olympics. In the second letter from which he reads the Leader of the Opposition wants to know about briefings, and he wants to know about the costs of Olympic projects. The Premier wrote back to him on 27 May, as follows:

Page 4276

As you are aware the Minister for the Olympics wrote to you on 20 March offering Opposition Members a tour of the Homebush site and a briefing on Olympic preparations. He wrote to you again on 9 April seeking to finalise arrangements. The Government is still waiting for the Opposition to take up the offer.

A briefing and tour were offered on 20 March. A follow-up letter was sent on 9 April saying, "We haven't heard from you. Do you still want to come?" On 27 May, more than two months later, the Opposition has still not taken up the offer. The Premier's letter reads:

However, the Government is always happy to provide additional briefings for yourself and the Leader of the National Party on Olympic and Paralympic matters. Should you require an additional briefing at any time simply contact my colleague, Michael Knight, who will make the necessary arrangements.

He asked some questions about costs of facilities. Just a day or two before, the Government had released the "State of Play" document. That is a document that the members of the Opposition wanted to disparage as a glossy publicity handout. That is not how people in the media, people in the Olympic movement or the IOC regarded it, and it is not how the general community regarded it. The "State of Play" document set out in great detail all the costs of all the Olympic facilities. The document said, in the case of each facility, "If there is any variation from what is in the bid, here is the variation, here is our benchmark actual cost, here is why it is different. If there is any difference in the timetable from the bid timetable, here is the difference." The Leader of the Opposition seems to complain that the disclosure by the Government in this regard has been to the entire public, not just to him personally; that the Government's disclosure on all of those issues has been wide, public and open, and that it will continue to be so. Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party have asked whether they still have a right to criticise. As members of the Opposition they have a right to raise any matter in this Parliament.

There are only two things that should inhibit the Opposition in any way. First, if the Leader of the National Party - or whoever is nominated as shadow minister for the Olympics - accepts a position on the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games then he, along with every other member of the board, will be bound by confidentiality in relation to certain board matters. The big problems that the Leader of the Opposition appears to perceive, however, are not matters to do with SOCOG but are to do with the Government. There is absolutely no attempt to gag or prohibit the Opposition from raising those matters. There is a problem in getting Opposition members to come to briefings to find out what is going on. Second, the Opposition should be cautious about the manner in which it raises matters. Opposition members are certainly entitled to attack the Government, but they must be careful not to do so in a manner that attacks or denigrates the Olympics or damages Australia's reputation internationally.

I am a little surprised that Opposition members consider there will be many things to criticise. The Government is, in a bipartisan fashion, drawing in the shadow minister as a full and equal player on the board and drawing into the Olympic organisation a range of people, trying to get it right for Sydney, New South Wales and Australia so that there will not be much, if anything, to criticise. The Government's objective ought to be achieving outcomes that are not criticised; its objective is not to gag any criticism. The Leader of the National Party spoke of concerns about the membership of the SOCOG board after 1 January. Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition bandied names around the Chamber. It should be understood that the current Act, legislation enacted when the coalition was in office, gives the Government the right to appoint on 1 January next year seven people to serve on the board through to the year 2000.

When the current Act was being drafted the Australian Olympic movement, through John Coates, raised with the former Premier, John Fahey, the issue of whether it was advisable to have appointees' terms expire as at 31 December. It was suggested that it might be preferable to provide for continuity and provide for the term of appointments to continue through to the time of the Olympics. The former Premier said no. The former Government insisted that the legislation provide an opportunity to review appointees' suitability after the experience of the Atlanta Olympics. That was not Labor Government legislation; it was the legislation of the former coalition Government. It was not the Labor Government nor the Australian Olympic movement that insisted on a review of appointments; that was the insistence of the former Government.

The current Act allows the government of the day to make seven appointments. The changes proposed in this bill reduce that provision in two ways. First, the Government can make only five direct appointments to the board. Second, instead of appointing a president for the entire term, the Government has decided to appoint the Minister for the Olympics, in conjunction with the Australian Olympic movement. If there is a change of government, a new government will not be stuck with "our" president; the president will be the Minister of the day. The changes to be made are not about personalities, they are not about individuals; they are about a working relationship on a sensible structure. The Government has reduced its power to appoint people to the board, it is reducing the power that the former Government gave itself and insisted on in the current Act. I have been asked what happens to those currently serving on the SOCOG board. There are six people on the board whose terms finish on 31 December.

Mr Collins: What about some continuity? What about suitability?

Mr KNIGHT: What about giving me a chance to answer the question? Under the current legislation there are six people whose terms expire
Page 4277
on 31 December. None of those people has a God-given right under the Act or under any other determination to continue on the board. It is my personal view, which I have indicated publicly and now reiterate in the House, that any change, if there is to be change, should be minimal. But it is the prerogative of the Cabinet - not the Minister - to decide who goes on the board. That is the power that the former Government put in the Act for the Cabinet of the day. I state unequivocally that, with the exception that there will be one person, whoever it may be, who will not be reappointed following changes to the legislation, under the existing legislation there is no guarantee that any of those six people would be reappointed to the board. The legislation of the former Government provides that the government of the day is to decide on each and every one of those appointments.

Mr Collins: Match the promise.

Mr KNIGHT: I listened quietly to the Leader of the Opposition; he should be quiet for a change. The Government will make its appointments. I have no fixed view on who should stay and who should go. A range of considerations need to be taken into account. The considerations include continuity, gender equity - and there has not been much gender equity on the board - and other issues that need to be incorporated. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition in his closing remarks indicated that the Opposition will support the bill and will accept a position on the board. Whatever criticisms Opposition members have made during the debate and whatever amendments they attempt to move, I welcome the fact that the shadow minister for the Olympics will come on to the SOCOG board. The Government's offer was unconditional and I think that in the end it will be accepted, as it should be, unconditionally. This bill has the support of everyone in the community, notwithstanding the grudging, mean-spirited attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [11.10], on behalf of Mr Carr: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Film Industry Act 1988 to strengthen and more clearly define the role of the Film and Television Office in assisting the film and television industry in New South Wales. The bill sets out for the first time an object of the Film and Television Office, expands its functions to reflect this new object, removes the office's responsibility as the sole producer of government documentaries, establishes a board of management for the office, and makes consequential amendments. The proposals stem from a review of the role, functions, structure, operations and lines of accountability of the office. The Film and Television Office was established in 1988 as the State Government's support agency for the film and television industry.

As honourable members know, the Government is committed to increasing financial and other support for this vital industry. Our support is all the more necessary at a time of Federal cutbacks. Already we have implemented a package of new measures worth an additional $11.5 million to the industry over the Government's first four-year term. These initiatives include an increase in the Production Investment Fund to $1.9 million a year, a $5 million revolving fund to provide a loan financing facility to cash-flow feature film productions, and the Government's new $350,000-a-year Young Filmmakers Fund, which is open to individuals and teams of individuals between the ages of 18 and 35 years. I remind honourable members of the valuable services of the Film and Television Office, which include a Production Investment Fund, a script and project development support program, assistance to individuals and organisations such as the Sydney Film Festival to further film culture, and location liaison assistance providing a central point for productions using Government properties for locations.

The initiatives introduced by this Government, supplemented by the revenues raised by the office from its investments, which are ploughed back into its assistance schemes, have increased the pool which the office has to draw upon from around $1 million in 1988 to $8 million this year. As investment returns flow back to the office over the coming years, the pool will grow further, necessitating improved systems of accountability and transparency. Proposed section 6A establishes the board of the office, which is to consist of seven members nominated by the Minister and appointed by the Governor. The chairperson of the board is to be from outside the film and television industry. This board of management - the film and television board - will oversee the operations of the Film and Television Office to provide enhanced delegation and flexibility.

The board will be subject to the control and direction of the Minister, consistent with the other boards of trustees of the cultural institutions in the arts portfolio. Suggestions for appointments to the new film and television board have been invited from key industry bodies. Amendment of the Film Industry Act also provides the opportunity to make other revisions. The existing Act does not provide a clear charter for the office; it does not set out an object for the office as such. Proposed section 4A inserts the following object:

Page 4278

. . . to assist, promote and strengthen the film and television industry in New South Wales so as to promote Australia's cultural identity, encourage the employment of Australians in all aspects of film and television production, encourage investment in the industry, enhance the industry's export potential, encourage innovation and enhance quality in the industry.

This object is intended to reflect the role of the office to promote growth in jobs and investment in the industry, particularly in relation to export opportunities, whilst acknowledging its activities in relation to promoting local content and the industry's cultural identity. Instead of focused charter or object, the current Act includes a haphazardly compiled list of functions. Except in respect of its responsibility for government documentaries, the essential functions of the office will not change. However, the way they are described in the current Act will. Under proposed section 6(1), the office will continue to provide assistance for directors, producers, actors, writers and technicians, for script and project development, and for film festivals and markets. It will also assist in the promotion of public interest in film as a medium of communication and as an art form. To highlight the office's role in providing support for the cultural life of the State in relation to film and television culture, a function is included in paragraph (e) of proposed section 6(1), which states:

to assist in the promotion of public interest in film as a medium of communication and as an art form and in the development of an informed and critical film audience,

The current functions provide the office with sole responsibility for the production and exhibition of government documentaries. This requirement has been difficult to implement in practice. It is proposed that this monopoly be removed to provide agencies with greater flexibility and foster the State's agreement under the National Competition Policy. Paragraphs (f) and (h) of proposed section 6(1), which replace this provision with several functions, state:

(f) to provide policy and support services and advice to Government agencies on the production of films and sound recordings . . .

(h) to undertake the production of films or sound recordings on its own behalf or for any other person, body or organisation (including any Government agency),

This does not restrict the office from undertaking productions on behalf of government agencies. The office will continue to provide advice to agencies on issues pertaining to production and copyright, and produce and update guidelines for agencies, all on a full cost recovery basis. These amendments reflect the Government's commitment to a strong film industry in this State. In developing this proposal the Government has consulted with key film and television industry bodies. With a board of management and a clear charter the Film and Television Office will be equipped to provide the industry with effective support and encouragement. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [11.16]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This legislation was prepared in response to an approach from the Hawkesbury Race Club which has occupied and used the Hawkesbury racecourse at Clarendon for horseracing and training for over 100 years. Over that time the racecourse has grown into a major provincial racing centre. In 1883 the land comprising the racecourse was vested in trustees under a Crown grant to be used as a racecourse, training ground, cricket ground and for other public amusement or purpose. With the enactment of the Hawkesbury Racecourse Act, a private Act of Parliament, in 1890, the trustees were authorised to grant a long-term lease of the racecourse to the Hawkesbury Race Club. The existing lease for the racecourse expires in the year 2009.

In addition, the Act conferred a measure of limited liability and protection on members of the club and made the chairman of the club a corporation sole. However, the existing provisions of the Act are no longer appropriate to current day practices in respect of the leasing, management and use of Crown reserves. Further, the committee of the Hawkesbury Race Club feels that the manner in which the club is constituted, and the rights and powers given to it under the Act, should be brought up to modern standards. The club has expressed concern that as an unincorporated body it does not enjoy the rights of a modern commercial entity, and there exists the potential for personal liability against the chairman, committee and members of the club.

Honourable members would no doubt be surprised that in this day and age, when even the smallest sporting or recreational club finds it prudent to become an incorporated body to protect its committee and members from personal liability for matters arising from its operations, a professional, high-profile organisation such as the Hawkesbury Race Club remains unincorporated. In addition, the club has indicated that it has been hindered by legal questions surrounding the club's right to dispose of freehold land and other assets acquired by the club. It is argued that these types of constraints are not imposed upon the overwhelming majority of other race clubs which conduct race meetings on Crown land.

The Hawkesbury racecourse has, through the efforts of the Hawkesbury Race Club, grown into one of the major thoroughbred racing and training venues in the State, and the club currently conducts 20 very successful race meetings at the racecourse each year. The club has recently been in the process of extensively improving its training facilities with the development of a new B-grass track and cinders
Page 4279
track, together with the upgrading of the existing track surfaces. The project, which I understand is nearing completion, will enhance the racecourse's reputation as a major racehorse training centre.

The Hawkesbury Race Club is a progressive race club which is restricted in its operations by an antiquated Act. The legislation before the House will empower the Hawkesbury Race Club to be incorporated as a company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act. Upon incorporation, all assets and liabilities of the former unincorporated club will be transferred to the company which will supersede it. This will include the lease of the Hawkesbury Racecourse Reserve and other assets held by or vested in the chairman of the club on the club's behalf by operation of the Hawkesbury Racecourse Act 1890.

The legislation will repeal the Hawkesbury Racecourse Act 1890 and declare for the avoidance of any doubt that the Hawkesbury Racecourse Reserve is a reserve within the meaning of and subject to the provisions of part 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1989. Finally, the legislation will resolve any ancillary matters arising out of the repeal of the 1890 Act, the transfer of assets and liabilities to the club's incorporated successor and its occupation and use of the Hawkesbury Racecourse Reserve. I am of the view that the legislation will greatly assist the Hawkesbury Race Club in its administration of horseracing at Clarendon and will no doubt be well received by both the members of the club and racing participants alike. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.


Bills introduced and read a first time.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [11.22]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

The introduction of these bills represents an historic moment in the life of one of this State's most high-profile and well-regarded commercial trading enterprises. New South Wales Lotteries, or the State Lotteries Office as it was previously known, is one of the world's longest continuing operators of commercial lotteries, having sold its first lottery ticket back in 1931. Since that time the organisation has sold many hundreds of millions of tickets in a wide variety of lottery, lotto and pools games and has generated revenue which has helped to fund a vast range of significant public infrastructure - including the Sydney Opera House - and other key public services.

As part of this Government's commitment to reform the way in which government sector entities are managed, the Premier announced in the June 1995 financial statement that New South Wales Lotteries, along with other key commercially oriented statutory bodies, would be corporatised under the provisions of the State Owned Corporations Act 1989. This will ensure that the corporatised New South Wales Lotteries is subject to the same laws and commercial disciplines as a private company, whilst remaining publicly owned. As a consequence of this, profits generated from its operations will be returned to the people of this State. The end result will be to create an operating environment for the corporatised New South Wales Lotteries which will encourage efficiency and allow it to compete on an equal footing with its competitors.

The corporatised entity will be exposed to the same financial and commercial pressures as exist for privately owned operators. However, in order to compete, New South Wales Lotteries will have clear commercial objectives and will be given greater operational flexibility. It will not be bound by public sector policies which would impede its commercial performance unless directed to comply by the portfolio Minister with the approval of the Treasurer, as provided for in the State Owned Corporations Act. The bills which give effect to this arrangement - the New South Wales Lotteries Corporatisation Bill and the Public Lotteries Bill - are introduced as cognate legislation. Together they create a legislative framework for the effective control of public lotteries, which are defined to include draw lotteries, instant lotteries, lotto and soccer football pools, in New South Wales.

The corporatisation bill will constitute a statutory State-owned corporation called New South Wales Lotteries Corporation, which will conduct, under licensing arrangements, those public lotteries which are currently conducted by New South Wales Lotteries. The Public Lotteries Bill establishes the regulatory framework by repealing the legislation which currently controls public lotteries, games of lotto and soccer football pools in New South Wales, and installing in their place a single streamlined piece of legislation which will regulate all public lotteries in a uniform and consistent manner. Under the current New South Wales Lotteries Act, the objects of New South Wales Lotteries are confined to the development, promotion and conduct of lotteries, and the conduct of games of lotto and soccer football pools under the Lotto Act 1979 and the Soccer Football Pools Act 1975.

These objects place clear restrictions on the type and nature of gambling activities which can be lawfully conducted by New South Wales Lotteries. These restrictions have become increasingly inappropriate in light of the dynamic and diverse nature of the current commercial gambling market - for example, New South Wales Lotteries is effectively prevented from becoming an equity partner in any other gaming products. The new legislation will remove these restrictions. I will now outline some of the key features of the corporatisation bill.

Page 4280

In addition to providing for the establishment of the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation, the corporatisation bill sets out the organisation's principal objectives and functions. The corporation's objectives are outlined in clause 6 of the bill and include the successful development, promotion and conduct of, and participation in, any lawful form of gambling and other related gambling activities, to be a successful business, and to exhibit a sense of social responsibility by having regard to community interests and endeavouring to accommodate them. These objectives aim to promote the ability of the corporatised New South Wales Lotteries to participate in the provision of lawful forms of gambling and gambling-related activities, whilst ensuring that a sense of social responsibility and awareness of community interests are maintained. This is consistent with this Government's recognition of the impact of gambling on the community and its determination to ensure that the gambling public is able to participate in public lotteries knowing they are being operated with the highest levels of integrity.

The functions of the corporatised New South Wales Lotteries, as outlined in clause 7 of the corporatisation bill, provide for the corporation's participation in lawful forms of gaming and specifically enable the corporation to hold licences for the conduct of public lotteries which are to be regulated under the cognate Public Lotteries Bill. I will elaborate on the specific features of that bill shortly. The corporatisation bill will allow me to transfer all assets, rights and liabilities of the dissolved New South Wales Lotteries to the new corporation. In addition, to ensure that there is no disruption to operations during the transition to the corporatised entity, the legislation provides for the transfer of all existing staff, including the general manager and other senior officers, to the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation.

The bill preserves the employment arrangements for staff who have been transferred to the new corporation and, supporting this, the State Owned Corporations Act will ensure that the superannuation and leave entitlements of those employees are maintained. In addition, the bill will allow existing employment contracts to continue until completed or terminated under the Public Sector Management Act 1988. Closely supporting the corporatisation bill, and providing the regulatory framework for the conduct of public lotteries by the corporatised New South Wales Lotteries and other licensed operators, is the Public Lotteries Bill. This bill has been introduced to provide a consistent regulatory framework for the commercial lottery, lotto and soccer football pools games which are currently conducted in New South Wales by different operators in accordance with separate pieces of legislation.

The objects of the Public Lotteries Bill are to provide for the proper conduct of public lotteries in the public interest, to minimise the harm which may be associated with the conduct of public lotteries, and to provide for the proper accounting for revenue derived from the conduct of public lotteries. The Public Lotteries Bill consolidates the corresponding controls in the Lotto Act 1979 and the Soccer Football Pools Act 1975 and the gaming, regulatory and financial provisions of the New South Wales Lotteries Act 1990. In short, it will ensure that a single and consistent regulatory framework is established for all public lotteries.

With the exception of the lotto game known as club keno, New South Wales Lotteries holds all licences currently in force to conduct games under the lotto and soccer football pools Acts. Specifically, these games are lotto, lotto strike, Oz lotto, and soccer football pools. The licence to conduct the game of club keno is held jointly by Club Gaming Systems, an AWA-associated company, and Clubkeno Holdings, a company owned by the New South Wales Registered Clubs Association. In addition, New South Wales Lotteries may conduct public lotteries by virtue of the statutory monopoly provided to the organisation by the New South Wales Lotteries Act. The games conducted under this Act are draw lotteries, for example the $2 jackpot lottery, instant lotteries, and powerball. For the most part, the standard provisions of this bill have been drawn from controls currently contained in the Lotto Act. For others, the New South Wales Lotteries Act, the Soccer Football Pools Act and the Casino Control Act 1992 have provided appropriate precedents.

I will now outline the major provisions of the bill. Clause 5 broadly defines a public lottery to include those games which are presently regulated under the New South Wales Lotteries, Lotto and Soccer Football Pools Acts, namely games of lotto, Oz lotto, lotto strike, keno, soccer football pools, powerball, jackpot draw lotteries and instant scratch lotteries. However, this definition does not, and is not intended to, interfere with the operation of any other piece of legislation currently in force, in particular the Lotteries and Art Unions Act 1901, which generally provides for the regulation of community-based, or non-commercial, lotteries. Part 2 of the bill provides for the lawful conduct of public lotteries in New South Wales and declares that public lotteries conducted through a licence arrangement by a licensee are not unlawful games under the Gaming and Betting Act 1912. Part 3 provides the framework for the conduct of public lotteries through the issuing of individual licences by the Minister. Further, it specifies the requirements for the application and granting of a licence, as well as outlining the conditions which may be included in a licence agreement.

I would like to take this opportunity to refer specifically to clause 17, which provides for circumstances where the Minister administering the Act may take disciplinary action against the holder of a licence under the Act. The scope of action available under this provision includes a written notice seeking compliance, a monetary penalty, which would not exceed $250,000, suspension of the
Page 4281
licence or, as a final course of action, termination of the licence. However, as a means of ensuring procedural fairness and equity, it is envisaged that upon the establishment of the proposed New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal, the legislation will be amended to give licensees a right of appeal to the proposed tribunal.

Part 4 of the bill requires, among other things, that all licensees develop rules for the conduct of their licensed public lotteries and have such rules approved and published in the Government Gazette prior to that game's commencement. As part of this requirement, clause 24 provides that licensees display the approved rules in all places where entries to public lotteries are sold. The Public Lotteries Bill will also standardise the financial provisions for all public lotteries and ensure that appropriate accountabilities are in place. Currently there are separate and varying methods of calculating duty for each public lottery, in addition to different methods of payment of such duty to the Government. Part 5 will ensure that a consistent framework for the calculation of duty is established, while allowing government an increased level of flexibility in its ability to negotiate different duty payment structures with individual licence holders, according to the nature of the specific public lottery and such other matters as may be considered relevant.

As stated in the object of the bill and in line with this Government's commitment to minimising the harmful effects which may be associated with lawful gaming in the community, a series of provisions have been included to protect the general public from inappropriate gaming practices. These include a prohibition on credit betting; restrictions on the type and nature of advertising of public lotteries by licensees and other persons; a prohibition on the promotion of betting syndicates, unless otherwise authorised in the licence agreement; a prohibition on the sale of tickets in public lotteries to minors; and a prohibition on the purchasing of tickets on behalf of a minor by a person, other than the minor's parent or guardian or other authorised person.

These provisions will also ensure a high level of integrity in the operation of public lotteries in this State. In particular, division 3 of part 6 of the bill maintains the provisions in the New South Wales Lotteries Act dealing with the verification and validation of prize-winning tickets in instant scratch lotteries. The enforcement of the provisions of the bill is dealt with in part 7. I would particularly like to draw the attention of honourable members to the provisions in this part relating to controlled contracts. Currently, it is only the keno licensees, under the club keno licence agreement, that are required to provide the Minister with details of contracts - over a specified amount or of a specified nature - which are entered into by the licensees. The bill requires all licensees to provide details of contracts negotiated or amended in relation to the operations of the licensee. This is another measure in the bill designed to ensure the integrity of all aspects surrounding the conduct of commercial lotteries in this State. The opportunity has also been taken in the drafting of the Public Lotteries Bill to update and standardise existing penalty provisions, to enhance enforcement capabilities, and to make minor drafting improvements to correct inconsistencies.

One final point I wish to make is with regard to the issuing of licences to the proposed corporatised entity for the products currently conducted by New South Wales Lotteries. As I have already mentioned, the public lotteries currently conducted under the New South Wales Lotteries Act will be required to be licensed under the new regulatory framework. In addition, licences will be re-issued to the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation under this bill for the conduct of games of lotto, lotto strike, Oz lotto and soccer football pools. As part of this Government's commitment to ensuring the economic viability of the newly corporatised entity, all licences granted to New South Wales Lotteries Corporation at the time of corporatisation will be for a period expiring on 1 July 2007. These arrangements will bring the expiry date of these licences into line with the current expiry date of the club keno licence.

As a final measure, both bills also provide for a range of consequential, savings and transitional provisions, largely to ensure that as little disruption as possible is caused as a result of the enactment of the bills. In conclusion, I believe that these bills represent a significant and positive enhancement of the operation and control of commercial lotteries in this State, and a milestone in the New South Wales gaming landscape. In particular, the New South Wales Lotteries Corporatisation Bill will open up a new chapter in the successful history of government-owned lottery operations in this State. I am confident that corporatisation will place the new body in a better position to expand its horizons into the next century in an increasingly competitive and diverse market. I commend the bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.39]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to extend the period for the Standing Ethics Committee of this House and the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics to present draft codes of conduct to their respective Houses. Under the current provisions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act the codes must be presented to each of the Houses for consideration
Page 4282
by 30 September 1996. The proposed extension is for a period of one month only, until 29 October 1996, to allow the codes to be finalised following the public exhibition and consultation process. The public response to the draft codes provided a large number of very detailed and constructive submissions from a broad spectrum of interested persons and bodies.

As an example, during the three-month public consultation period undertaken by the committee of this House, approximately 40 submissions were received, 25 of which provided substantive comments and suggestions on the draft code. I understand that the committees are now working to incorporate some of the constructive suggestions received into the draft codes. Whilst this is a further extension from the original date of January 1996, it is critical that full and proper consideration is given to these draft codes and the public submissions before they are presented to members. Once adopted, these codes will set standards for the conduct of members and will expand the jurisdiction of the Independent Commission Against Corruption to enable it to investigate alleged corrupt conduct by members of either House of Parliament if that conduct also constitutes a substantial breach of the applicable code of conduct. I understand that the codes are very close to finalisation and will be ready for presentation by 29 October 1996. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Debate resumed from 20 June.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [11.40]: The Opposition does not support the bill. In fact it has very grave concerns about it and about the whole concept of home detention. At the time when the Minister introduced the bill I expressed concern about the availability of home detention to certain sections of the community, to people convicted of certain crimes. In the intervening period I have had an opportunity to discuss a number of aspects of the bill and, more importantly, the whole concept of home detention both in this country and overseas. As a result of those discussions the Opposition is very, very concerned that the introduction of home detention will not achieve what the Minister seeks, that is, an appropriate alternative to custody. In fact, it could have severe detrimental effects on the detainees and particularly on their families. The Opposition is not persuaded that home detention is a cost-effective alternative as suggested by the Minister when introducing the bill.

Before I am accused of hypocrisy in regard to this legislation, I acknowledge that the genesis of the bill was the intensive community supervision program introduced by the former coalition Government. I acknowledge that Terry Griffiths proposed that scheme, which I understand was introduced by the probation service in the Local Court at Fairfield, Liverpool, Burwood and Parramatta commencing in June 1992. From December 1993 intensive community supervision was also available at Bankstown, Kogarah and Sutherland Local Courts. An assessment of the suitability of the scheme was conducted by the department in respect of 97 offenders who had undertaken the program.

The program was seen as part of a strategy to provide courts with a broader range of diversionary sentencing options and was introduced to provide an alternative to full-time incarceration and other community-based options. The targeted offenders were to be those who would otherwise be sentenced to terms of imprisonment of up to 18 months, and the selection criteria excluded those offenders who presented a high risk of committing violent crime. Let me also add that when I was Minister for the Status of Women the guidelines for admission to the program were drawn up in discussions with the Ministry for the Status and Advancement of Women, as it then was. I had an involvement over a period in my capacity as the Minister with responsibility for that department, as did the coalition generally.

I think it is fair to say that prior to the program being trialled two reasons were advanced as to why it should be given a chance: it would provide a genuine alternative to gaol for those who, in the community's view, perhaps did not need to be sent to gaol, and because it would be cost-effective. The assessment of the program by the department resulted in the conclusion that those objectives have been fulfilled. I would suggest to the department that, rather than supporting the contention that home detention should be proceeded with, its own assessment provides the argument for why it should not. In order to establish why I believe this legislation will cause concern, I remind the House that in his second reading speech the Minister for Corrective Services contended that this was a scheme whereby:

Particular categories of offenders could be given a last chance to avoid the rigours of full-time imprisonment without compromising community safety or the deterrent aims of the sentence.

The Minister went on to say that the Government was satisfied that the home detention scheme could divert offenders from full-time imprisonment, exert sufficient control over offenders to minimise the risk of their reoffending while under supervision, and generate savings through reduced imprisonment costs. That statement provides the genesis of the problem. I do not believe that the bill will save the taxpayers a huge amount of money, as I will explain later. I am concerned about the comment that the scheme will not compromise community safety. I believe we need to consider not only the safety of the community at large but also the safety of the home community, those with whom detainees will remain. I do not believe that the scheme will meet the aim of a deterrent to sentence.

Page 4283

After considering the bill the Opposition would query whether there is any deterrent in home detention. In his second reading speech the Minister asserted that the scheme would provide wonderful changes to the penal system in New South Wales. The evaluation report admits that the program is not open to those who are to be given a last chance to avoid the rigours of full-time imprisonment. The evaluation report shows that more than half of those admitted to the program when it was being assessed had been previously committed to full-time or part-time confinement; a number of them had been involved in the criminal justice system for some time for a range of offences, including periodic detention and some community service orders. It is significant that more than half of the offenders had been committed to full- or part-time confinement. It was not their last chance, because a number of them had already been involved in the system and had been in gaol previously. It would be more correct to say that the scheme was yet another chance for them. It is not correct to say that this is to be a program that will divert those who have never been involved in the court system before.

The scheme is clearly being made available to a range of people involved in the criminal justice system. Another significant aspect of the scheme is that almost all of the offenders had had serious criminal histories. The report stated that all but five of the offenders had a significant history of prior offending, with certain types of crimes predominating. I will briefly outline the range of serious offences with which offenders had been charged. Forty-four of them had been before the court for driving offences, including two culpable driving offences, which is a serious offence in this State. Of the offenders, 35 appeared for property offences, others for breaches of community service orders and five on drug charges. With these charges, particularly the culpable driving charges, the community demands that perpetrators be punished. To suggest that the program will be only for white collar crime, shoplifters or those who have not offended against the person in New South Wales is not a fair comment.

On occasions when I have spoken to constituents about car thefts and similar offences being victimless crimes, I have been informed that although they might be victimless crimes to those who can sustain the loss of a car, others take extreme offence at them. It is not fair to say that only those who have not committed an offence against the community will be given the chance to enter into such a program, which is how it has been presented to the community. It is disingenuous to suggest, as the Minister did in his second reading speech, that it is the last-chance opportunity for some people who do not deserve to be in gaol. As the facts show, some have already been through the criminal justice system for some time and have, in many instances, been in gaol.

Mr Debus: Should we put them all in maximum security? Would that be the best?

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I have not mentioned that at all. The Minister knows full well that is not what I believe.

Mr Debus: My proposition is just as logical as yours.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The Minister will get his chance to reply. Perhaps he should let me state the case for the Opposition. He should not get too worked up about it at this stage.

Mr O'Farrell: He is sensitive this week.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: We had better not start talking about people escaping. The first proposition, that this is a detention scheme for those who are not part of the criminal justice system and who have had little contact with the criminal justice system, is clearly untrue. My second concern is that the Minister has asserted, as has the department, that this scheme will be much cheaper than any other; but it should be stated up-front that it is the most expensive community-service scheme. It is far more expensive than periodic detention or community service orders. The department has quoted approximately $11,000 per inmate per annum on the assumption that electronic monitoring will cost about $8 per day. However, the report of the department states that it is likely the cost will go up, that it is more likely that the cost of electronic monitoring will be about $16 per day.

The report of the department also suggested that electronic monitoring should be only a part of the scheme and continue for only about half of the term of the sentence imposed. I am unsure whether the department based its cost of electronic monitoring on only half the sentence or on the whole sentence. I seek clarification of the Minister in his reply as to the basis for that figure. Assuming that the figure is based on the full sentence, on the basis of $16 per day the more realistic figure for the scheme will be about $15,500 per year, not the $11,000 asserted by the department. The scheme is predicated on a combination of electronic monitoring and personal monitoring, that is, people will be at home, their phone will ring and they will have a certain time in which to connect their electronic monitor to the phone and be recorded.

In addition, parole officers will drive past, drop in, knock on the door and say "Hello" at any time of the night or day. The department's assessment has included what it regards as a sufficient figure over and above the normal cost of parole officers. Obviously they will be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that will increase the cost of the scheme. The department's report recognises the unreliability of electronic monitoring. Therefore it would seem fairly obvious that the cost of ensuring that people are where they are supposed to be will be higher than the department has provided for. Detainees will have to be monitored personally more often than the department has allowed for.

Mr Debus: That is nonsense.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The Minister says no. The Minister says that is not the case. I remind him that the report says that will be the case because the
Page 4284
courts have indicated they are not prepared to rely on electronic monitoring. The courts have already held that a failure by electronic monitoring does not constitute a breach because they are not prepared to accept that electronic monitoring is foolproof. I understand the department has already decided, and made it clear in discussions with others, that the failure of a prisoner to register electronic monitoring will not be regarded as a breach, because of the department's reluctance to rely on the technology. I shall give the example quoted in the report that supports the contention that courts will not rely on electronic monitoring. The department's evaluation report gives an example of a breach found not proven in District Court.

The offender had initially appealed to the court on an intensive community service order, which raised new concerns about the viability of breach proceedings. The breach alleged went to the heart of the intensive community service. The evidence presented included receipt of an alarm from the electronic monitoring system, over a dozen phone calls that were not answered, a personal visit to the premises during which no response was elicited to knocks on the door, and a mobile phone call from the corridor outside the offender's flat, which was not answered despite the fact that the phone could be heard ringing through the wall of the flat. The judge, in a lucid but arguable decision, found that such evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was absent from the flat. If that circumstance occurs in this system as a matter of course, it will be very difficult to maintain the cost structure applied by the department.

It will be very difficult to run the program with the number of staff the department has suggested as the most effective to ensure that breaches are detected, the required supervision is maintained, and counselling required by the system is provided. I would not and I do not accept the figures given to the Minister by the department. I suggest that he seriously query them and whether this scheme is a cost-effective alternative. I know the Minister will quote the figures of minimum security of around $30,000 a day, but my discussions with people overseas about such programs have revealed that the figures quoted to the Minister are likely to treble. If that is so, the figure will be somewhere between $30,000 and $45,000, not necessarily the lower figure of $11,000 quoted by the department, or more accurately the $15,500. The department will argue economies of scale: the more people in the system, the more people each officer will be able to supervise because less distance will have to be travelled.

The Minister is assuming that people will behave themselves, but I do not believe that is an assumption that can be made about this system of sentencing. The second concern about the bill relates to the effect on families. From what I have been able to ascertain, and from comprehensively reading the literature, no real assessment has been made of the effect of home detention on families. Like the evidence in the assessment of the scheme by the department, most of the information I have been able to obtain is anecdotal, and it is not particularly helpful to the concept of home detention. I know that Patricia Walker, Master of Criminology, has prepared a paper on the perception of family members of someone in the scheme. It is curious that most of her favourable quotes involve mothers with their children - and I can understand that there may be less concern in those circumstances - and that there are very few quotes from women about their partners involved in the scheme. From experience overseas I understand that, in many instances, home detention creates an enormous problem.

The Minister has said that he believes the system will be quite severe, that it is not a soft option. He believes that people will be severely restricted in terms of access to work and outside recreational opportunities, and will be intensely supervised in the home. They will be subject to what will be almost a prison-like regime, with some notable exceptions which will be approved. But the Minister considers that home detention is a difficult sentencing option. I query how the Minister expects women and their children to cope with the pressures. As I said, there is not much research showing that women have been able to be warders and wives, which essentially is what they will be asked to be. In my discussions with people who have been involved with the system elsewhere - and I emphasise again that those discussions have been anecdotal because like so many aspects of this matter there is not a great deal of hard research - I have been told that people entering the system do not necessarily cope well with the pressure cooker environment of being unable to drink and to relax with the family as previously. They have to wait for the phone call and be there at the right time or lose points. The pressure could result in their taking out their frustrations on those around them.

That is not often reported, because women who report being beaten by their husbands when they are subject to home detention or who report their husband because of family pressures can suffer retaliation, perhaps after the husband is released from gaol after completing his sentence. These women also experience difficulty in having their husbands put in gaol in the first instance because of other family pressures. I ask the Minister for an assurance that there will be detailed and close monitoring of how the scheme affects family members - with objective assessment, not just the filling out of a survey form. If the Minister places women and children at risk with this scheme he should take responsibility for monitoring the risk to prevent any unfortunate consequences. Overseas it seems that women in home detention cope better; I have not heard many people support home detention for men. That is a sad statement, but it is probably the reality.

A third concern the Opposition has about the scheme is that, contrary to what the Minister has said, home detention sadly seems to have no
Page 4285
deterrent effect and does not give the prisoner a sense of having been punished. Patricia Walker stated that the only reason one young man went to counselling was that he was bored sitting round the house. I do not believe most people in the community would equate boredom with detention. Boredom is not a good motive for attending counselling and it is not a result of home detention that the community would support. That young man would have been better involved in work training or some other useful participation in the community.

When I spoke to representatives of the Enough Is Enough group, which I am sure the Minister is aware of, and showed them the bill their first question to me was, "Where is the punishment?" That is a question the Minister needs to answer. Most people would not regard the scheme as involving any punishment. Perhaps the Minister does not believe that people who commit crimes should be punished. If that is the case, he is out of touch. The community believes that criminals should be punished for their crimes. Keeping people at home to relax and watch television all day as punishment for committing the types of offences which will come under the scheme does not seem much of a deterrent from their committing crime in future.

There are a number of concerns about the way the scheme is operating. I am not persuaded by the department's assessment that a case has been made out for continuation of the scheme. I am sure the people in the department are very well intentioned about the scheme but from what I have read of the department's report and other material, including reports on overseas schemes, I am not persuaded that the scheme will provide any real or safe sentencing alternative, particularly for women and children. Another consideration is that there should be clear guidelines about the types of offences for which home detention may be imposed. The Minister stated that some offences will be excluded by regulation. I note that home detention would not be applicable for assaults and crimes of violence against the person. I commend that aspect of the scheme but I would like further clarification of the other forms of criminal activity which will be excluded from the scheme.

As I said, the Opposition does not support the scheme. If the scheme were, to use the appropriate lingo, a back-end scheme rather than a front-end scheme it might be successful. It has been trialled around the country, and most Australian jurisdictions use home detention as a back-end scheme. New Zealand and a number of American States use it in that way. I have investigated amending the legislation to make home detention a back-end scheme but Parliamentary Counsel assures me that would be outside the leave of the bill. I urge the Minister to consider using home detention as a prerelease scheme rather than as a sentencing option. I can see merit in that.

Mr Debus: You do not see that as contrary to truth in sentencing?

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Not at all. A prisoner could be ordered to serve the last three months of a sentence in home detention, if appropriate, after assessment in the intensive community supervision program. If that were done by magistrates it would not impinge on truth in sentencing in any way. The Minister knows that, so he should not sound so high and mighty about truth in sentencing. The magistrates could be provided with that ability up front, and that is what the Opposition is suggesting. In those circumstances home detention may work but it is difficult to see how it will work under the Government's proposals.

In the media, in the House and across the community for some time it has been suggested that the prison system is in disarray and unsure where it is going. The home detention scheme will create more community confusion about the Government's stand on law and order. It does not show the community that the Government has a clear view on law and order. On the one hand the Minister is pretending to toughen things up in gaols and on the other he is trying to introduce what the community will consider a soft option. I urge him to reconsider the program and to make a better assessment of the costs involved.

The Minister should consider the punishment and deterrent value of the scheme. The effect on families should be researched prior to the scheme's introduction. I am absolutely persuaded that people involved in the scheme will experience underlying currents of tension in the home, which could have a result the Minister would not be happy with, that is, it could result in women being beaten up. I urge the Minister to investigate now effective the scheme will be in ensuring that women and children are not adversely affected by partners who are incarcerated under home detention orders.

I ask the Minister to assure the people of New South Wales that the scheme will be reviewed carefully and reasonably constantly. If the scheme starts to cause problems the Minister should not wait 18 months before calling a halt to it. The people of New South Wales are sick and tired of a prison system they believe is not working effectively, and they do not want another problem added to that system. I am certain the Minister does not want to add another problem to the system. The Opposition does not support the bill and has expressed its concerns about the introduction of such a scheme. If the scheme if to proceed the Minister should be cautious in its introduction. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will respond to the concerns raised by the Opposition. More importantly, the Minister should ensure that New South Wales has a justice system that does what it is supposed to do, that is, look after prisoners appropriately and not place other citizens at risk. If the scheme is to be introduced the Minister must ensure that it is an effective and operational part of the prison system rather than merely an add-on that might look good in the media at some future date.

Page 4286

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [12.11]: I support the Home Detention Bill. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the home detention of people convicted of committing criminal offences. The scheme involves electronic tagging of prisoners, 24-hour monitoring using central computer records, random visits by departmental officers, and drug and alcohol testing. The introduction of this bill follows the trial of a similar scheme in this State, but the bill has a different statutory basis to the previous scheme. The trial scheme was implemented using section 558 of the Crimes Act, which allows sentences of imprisonment to be deferred subject to the defendant or prisoner entering into a recognisance to be of good behaviour and to take certain other steps. That is, no sentence was imposed subject to the person fulfilling the conditions of the recognisance. That is a different scheme to the one proposed in the bill, because the introduction of a person to the home detention scheme can occur only after sentencing has taken place.

Two significant differences arise from the change to the statutory basis of the scheme. The first difference is that the scheme proposed in the bill is, to use the common phrase, much tougher because those admitted to it have in fact been sentenced. If a prisoner breaches the present scheme, he or she must reappear before a court, which will then determine the penalty. The legislative scheme takes a different course because it provides for the almost automatic imposition of a period of full-time imprisonment if conditions of the detention order are breached. The second significant issue that arises from the different statutory basis is that the bill attempts to avoid one of the potential problems of this sort of scheme that is referred to in some literature as net widening. That is, judicial officers impose home detention sentences upon people who would not ordinarily be subject to full-time imprisonment but to a lesser penalty.

If the scheme is to work, it is important that home detention be regarded as an alternative to full-time imprisonment and not an alternative to a lesser penalty. That object is certainly assisted by the way it is envisaged that the scheme will operate, that is, that home detention can only be imposed on those who have been sentenced to periods of imprisonment. The general philosophical position that underlies the legislation, a position that is consistent with the policy the Australian Labor Party took to the last State election, is the diversion of minor offenders away from full-time imprisonment as often as possible. Notwithstanding the whip-them-hard-and-hang-them-high hysteria to which the community is sometimes subjected, that is clearly a desirable objective. The scheme is intended to apply only to minor offenders. Clause 6 prevents a home detention order being imposed for a number of offences, including murder, attempted murder or manslaughter; sexual assault of adults or children or sexual offences involving children; armed robbery; any offence involving the use of a firearm; assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or any more serious assault, such as malicious wounding or assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm; stalking or intimidation contrary to section 562AB of the Crimes Act 1900; and a domestic violence offence against a person with whom the offender would wish to reside, or continue or resume a relationship.

A home detention order cannot apply to certain offences to be prescribed by regulation, those offences particularly being under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Clause 7 provides that a home detention order cannot be imposed upon anyone who has previously been convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, sexual assault of adults or children or sexual offences involving children, or stalking. The bill also provides that a person who has been convicted of certain other offences cannot be made the subject of a home detention order. Those provisions will ensure that the bill will apply only to minor offenders. The logic behind that is that gaol should indeed be a last resort and should not be used any more frequently than necessary.

Gaol has a brutalising and dehumanising impact upon inmates. Those who have had some experience of the legal system have said that people often come out of prison far worse than when they went into it. That is, having served a period of imprisonment people are far more likely to commit offences. Various criminology texts contain a wealth of academic material on that topic. If people can legitimately and properly be diverted from prison, they should be. Another advantage of the scheme is its capacity to play a constructive role in the rehabilitation of offenders. Past governments of both persuasions have been notoriously unable to assist in prisoner rehabilitation. That comment is not necessarily restricted to New South Wales; prisoner rehabilitation is one of the general problems of the prison system in western society. In that context it is interesting to note some of the material about home detention. Baumer and Mendelsohn are two criminologists who are quoted in the excellent Parliamentary Library research service paper on the bill. Baumer and Mendelsohn state:

When reasonably well executed, a home confinement program externally encourages a change in the offender's life-style for the term of the sentence. For instance, a substantial number of the offenders we interviewed reported that home confinement allowed them to "dry out", review their lives, and get to know their families again. Others obtained jobs, second jobs, or reported better job attendance and performance. Many of the offenders reported that their spouses were particularly attracted to HD because they know the offenders would come home after work . . .

The potential for rehabilitation rests in the ability to design and use electronic monitoring programs to encourage a non-criminal life-style and to facilitate internalization of these changes by the offenders.

Another advantage of the scheme is that it enables a range of community ties to be maintained, notwithstanding that an offender has been dealt with by the courts. In a number of cases home detention orders will allow a family to benefits rather than to suffer. In crude financial terms a home detention
Page 4287
order means that if people are employed they are able to continue their employment and their families will not have to rely on social security. If people are working, they continue to pay taxes. Those matters clearly have a number of advantages. Home detention is clearly a cheaper alternative than full-time imprisonment. Although that is not the major reason to support the scheme, nevertheless it is an important one. The honourable member for Lane Cove made a number comments querying that advantage. I have difficulty with the argument she presented in that regard. Her first comment was that home detention was far more expensive than community service orders.

That is an appropriate comment. This is a much tougher scheme and will naturally be more expensive. I would have thought that flowed fairly simply. In support of her argument the honourable member for Lane Cove quoted various comments from the department's summary on the proposal. I place on record a section of the executive summary of the departmental report under the heading "Cost Effectiveness", which reads:

ICS has proven to be a demanding, rigorously enforced penalty. Very high levels of human and electronic contact are maintained to ensure compliance with the restrictions imposed by the court. The experienced officers in ICS capitalise on the high levels of contact to support and encourage the rehabilitative efforts of offenders. While the costs of ICS are high they are dramatically less than even minimum security incarceration. Based on experience to date and assuming a diversion rate of 84%, we project that a target ICS caseload of 135 could generate sufficient savings in the Department of Corrective Services to fully fund ICS and leave residual savings for Corrective Services on the order of $2 million.

If an argument is made upon the basis of the department's analysis and report it seems that that is the conclusion that has to be drawn. One other issue that perhaps ought to be mentioned in support of the legislation is that it can have a great deal of value to a number of special-needs prisoners or defendants, such as pregnant women, those with HIV and AIDS, and those with disabilities. They may not be able to be catered for sensibly or properly if they are serving full-time imprisonment. The scheme provides an alternative to that. A number of arguments can be presented in opposition to the legislation, although I find those arguments remarkably unpersuasive. In dealing with those arguments I turn to some of the comments of the honourable member for Lane Cove. She first put the proposition that the Opposition has a problem with the whole concept of this legislation.

In relation to that I note, as the honourable member for Lane Cove certainly did, that the original scheme that that bill develops was introduced by the Opposition when it was in government. The scheme was pursued properly and correctly by the Opposition when it was in government. The propositions in the bill follow logically from that original scheme. However, I have a problem with being told that one year the Opposition does something and next year it does exactly the opposite. There is also the argument that the provisions of the bill will have no impact at all upon deterring people from committing offences, and that the bill contains no element of punishment. I would have thought that that interesting argument flies diametrically in the face of the other argument advanced by the honourable member for Lane Cove about the impact the bill might have on families.

As I recall it, her argument was that the stress and difficulty imposed on someone who is the subject of a home detention order may inevitably cause all sorts of problems in a particular home. The honourable member cannot have it both ways. Either a home detention order is a real and significant punishment, in which case there is indeed a potential for domestic problems, or such an order is not a punishment and it has no deterrent effect at all. If that is the case, how can the honourable member claim that there may be problems at home? The two arguments cannot stand side by side; they are contradictory and, naturally enough, have no persuasive weight because of that. Another interesting aspect of whether home detention is a real punishment or whether there is any significance to it. In many ways those aspects are not susceptible to statistical or scientific analysis, so one is forced back to anecdotal comments. A large part of the material available on this topic, certainly from the United States of America, shows that those who had the option of being sentenced to home detention or full-time imprisonment preferred full-time imprisonment because they found home detention too hard.

I do not want to be heard to say that everyone would necessarily take that approach. However, that is one way of interpreting it, and it is certainly the case that some people who have been subjected to these orders in other jurisdictions have expressed that view. When criticising the bill and the Minister's second reading speech the honourable member for Lane Cove claimed that somehow or other the scheme is inappropriate because it is not dealing with people who have not been before the courts before. She said that it would be terrible to submit anyone other than first-time offenders to this sort of order. Home detention is clearly put forward as an alternative to full-time imprisonment. The number of people who appear before a court for the first time and are subjected to full-time imprisonment is minuscule. The vast majority of people who appear in the court system do not receive anything like a sentence of full-time imprisonment until they have committed a number of offences.

It is inevitable that people who have been subject to an order under section 558 and have previously appeared in court will be the subject of home detention orders because full-time imprisonment is regarded as a last resort even by the harshest sentencers in the judicial system. The vast bulk of people who end up in goal have appeared in court many times for a series of offences. To suggest that the scheme is falling apart because those who have been before the courts previously
Page 4288
have been the subject of these orders is a nonsense argument and reflects a complete lack of understanding of what is happening in the legal system. The honourable member's comments display a complete lack of research on the topic. It is absolutely appalling and, dare I say, despicable that someone who purports to be the Opposition spokesperson on this issue has got it so completely and hopelessly wrong and has such a staggering lack of knowledge on the topic.

Mrs Chikarovski: The Minister is the one who gave that impression.

Mr LYNCH: I had the opportunity to read the Minister's second reading speech while the honourable member for Lane Cove made her contribution to the debate. The Minister said nothing of the sort. The Minister did not at any stage say that this was simply a scheme designed to deal with people who were before the court for the first time. [Time expired.]

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [12.26]: I oppose the Home Detention Bill. The shadow minister has clearly pointed out the pitfalls of the bill. The object of the bill is to provide for home detention as a means of serving a sentence of full-time imprisonment for a term of up to 18 months. This bill is sending the wrong message to the community. Now more than ever honourable members must surely realise what the community is saying about law and order in this State. I assure honourable members that these soft options are not appeasing the community in any way. I recall this sort of legislation coming forward when the coalition was in government. I do not know whether it is because the bureaucrats, the public servants or the Ministers are baited, but this sort of legislation comes before Parliament on a regular basis.

Mr Debus: It is just people have to deal with reality.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister ought to deal with reality because the legislation is not a sentencing option for the offence of murder or for certain other crimes. Approximately 2½ years ago my daughter and her husband had their car stolen. The car was found at Redfern, stripped and completely wrecked; it had no wheels. They received a bill to tow the car away. Only the other night my daughter had another good car stolen. I do not know whether the same criminal was involved. However, under this legislation such offenders would be at home during the day, and at night when everyone is asleep they will be out pinching more cars.

Mr Debus: You are mad.

Mr JEFFERY: No. You are such a weak Minister.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! The honourable member for Oxley will return to the subject of the bill and address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr JEFFERY: The Premier talks tough on law and order but the legislation introduced in this House is soft on those who commit the crimes. What about the victims? It is time that we thought about them. In his contribution the honourable member for Liverpool selectively misquoted the shadow minister, who made it clear that the community does not regard home detention as an adequate sentence for certain crimes. The honourable member for Liverpool tried to twist that around. In fact, the Minister gave the impression that this bill was intended to apply to first-time offenders. As the shadow minister said all but five of the 88 offenders dealt with in the first 23 months had previous criminal histories. The Minister also mentioned the cost per prisoner; a figure of $11,000 was mentioned. That would make home detention the most expensive form of alternative custody to date. As the shadow minister said, overseas experience suggests that the cost is probably underestimated. I would like to get the right figure on that.

Mr Debus: You have the same notes, do you not?

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister's notes are inadequate; obviously, he does not live in the real world. He said that the bill provides that a person on home detention will be referred to the board if he breaches the conditions. The Minister cannot even keep prisoners in gaol; he has a walk in, walk out gaol. He cannot police day leave, so how will he police the legislation if there is a breach of conditions? What will happen if a person who is sentenced to home detention goes on a drinking binge at home, which results in exacerbating family tensions? Will that be covered by the legislation? Many women and, occasionally, men are assaulted by their spouses, although women and children usually suffer. They are too scared to take out an apprehended violence order; they are petrified. The Minister must realise, as I do, from confidential representations made to members that spouses and their families are threatened with serious offences if they dare to take out an AVO, so no application is made. Under this bill that could become a real possibility.

The safeguards should be spelt out to Parliament and to the community. How will the Minister overcome some of the problems that I am sure will arise? I will be the first person to bring to the attention of the Minister any problems that arise in my electorate. The honourable member for Lane Cove, the shadow minister, clearly pointed out that home detention should be a back-end option rather than a front-end option. I can understand the logic involved if an 18-month sentence were to be imposed, followed by six months home detention to assist a person to return to the community, but I cannot understand the use of the home detention option as a front-end alternative. The community believes it is time the Minister started to think about the victims of crime. The honourable member for Liverpool quoted the Australian Labor Party policy
Page 4289
on minor offenders. The Minister should have the job of telling people that minor offenders have bashed their cars. In Kempsey the other night 14 cars in one street had their windows smashed; one car was then stolen and burnt.

Mr Debus: The honourable member should show some logic on this matter. What is the logic between smashed cars and this bill? Can the honourable member explain that?

Mr JEFFERY: Yes, I will explain it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will cease interjecting and the member for Oxley will direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr JEFFERY: I was trying to do that, but I was rudely interrupted by the Minister. I take great delight in responding to the Minister's interjection. The logic is that car theft is not on the list of offences in the regulations that may not be dealt with by way of home detention. Opposition members have already referred to problems associated with repeat offenders. Of the 88 persons sentenced to home detention under this scheme, only five had not previously been convicted of a crime within the same category as that for which they were sentenced to home detention. So where is the punishment? Where is the deterrent? This bill is all about social engineering by the Labor Party and a desire of some bureaucrats to force the legislation through.

Mr Debus: Is the Hon. John Hannaford a member of the Labor Party?

Mr JEFFERY: It appears that the Minister is looking for cheap alternatives, and I can understand that in part. However, the community believes that a gaol sentence is appropriate for those who commit offences. Problems will arise relating to the requirement for prisoners to wear electronic tagging devices. Prisoners on home detention will be checked at random by parole officers. When the parole officer rings, the prisoner will have to place the electronic tagging device next to the phone to register his or her attendance. What will happen if a parole officer rings a prisoner and the prisoner does not hear the phone because he is zonked out drunk, or is sleeping after sitting up all night watching Greg Norman play golf on television? If the prisoner is then taken before the board for a breach of the parole conditions, it is likely that the board members will say that the prisoner was not given reasonable time to answer the phone, or the prisoner was asleep, and that the conditions of the parole have not been breached. The Minister is shaking his head, but this happens. Honourable members know what happened about the trip across the Nullarbor and on to Queensland, receiving frequent flyer points on the way.

Mr Debus: The honourable member does not seem to know about that either.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister should talk to the community.

Mr Debus: The honourable member has a blind prejudice; he does not have the faintest idea how the system works.

Mr JEFFERY: Millions of people in the community can be accused of not knowing how the system works. We are all guessing how the system works, because it is not working. It is no wonder that people are guessing what sort of system we have; we do not have a system. The community has had a gutful of soft options for law and order in New South Wales. Law and order is the number one issue in country New South Wales. I invite the Minister to visit my electorate to explain these soft options. My constituents will not wear the Minister's insults when he says that criminals should be treated lightly and that victims of crime must always wear the punishment. That is what is happening. Will people who issue death threats be able to be sentenced to home detention? That is not stipulated in the bill.

Mr Debus: Don't tempt me!

Mr JEFFERY: I am not tempting the Minister. That offence is not stipulated. The bill is weak and the Minister's second reading speech lacked information. He could not articulate what the bill is all about. I only hope that in reply the Minister can give the House more information than he provided in his second reading speech; the Opposition and the community are at a loss to understand what the Minister is talking about. I oppose the bill.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [12.36]: As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the bill has been on trial for almost four years. I am surprised that for about three of those four years the previous Government did nothing about it. Having listened to the speech of the member for Oxley, I realise why the previous Government procrastinated. Opposition members are behaving true to form; they are typical reactionaries. They think that all minor criminals should be thrown into gaol and the key thrown away. The member for Oxley said that everyone in rural New South Wales is opposed to such legislation. I dare say that is because he has psyched them up with comments similar to those he just made.

If I visited rural New South Wales and asked the constituents in the seat of Oxley whether they would support a person sentenced to 18 months gaol being given home detention if that person posed no threat whatever to society, if that person had a greater chance of rehabilitation and, more importantly, if the costs to the taxpayer were considerable, I guarantee that 95 per cent of them would respond yes. However, the member for Oxley obviously does not ask his constituents such questions. I refer to those who will not receive home detention - I do not want to go into great detail because the Minister covered this matter well in his second reading speech. The Minister outlined the various offences that will not fall into the home detention category. Basically, those who commit serious crimes and those who represent a threat to society will not receive home detention.

Page 4290

What constitutes a serious crime is really a matter of opinion. Some people may consider a crime serious while others may not. A good yardstick is that home detention will be available only to those sentenced for up to 18 months, which is hardly a sentence for serious crimes. Home detainees will be those who have committed certain driving offences and crimes that do not pose a threat to society. I want to talk briefly about the high cost of imprisonment and the savings that will result from this legislation. Savings will be achieved not only in the prison system. For example, if a home detainee is in employment and the home detention order permits that person to continue in employment - and chances are there will be no reason why the order will not permit such - then those persons who rely on income from the home detainee will continue to do so. So savings are not just achieved within the prison system; there is a great spin-off effect.

Savings will be achieved within a whole range of government services, such as in welfare services for families who ordinarily would receive welfare payments if the breadwinner was thrown into jail. We have heard a lot from the honourable member for Oxley about this legislation being a soft option. I want to confirm the Minister's comments that it is no soft option. Under this legislation minor offenders will serve their sentences confined to their homes. Unless one suffers from agoraphobia, being confined to home is no soft option. As far as I am concerned it is pretty tough. No one wants to be cooped up in their home for 18 months. That is what will happen under this bill, with the exception of leave to go to work, for job seeking, job training or community work.

Home detainees will not be able to go to the pictures, the pub, or on a picnic. Their freedom is definitely restricted under this legislation. Detainees are virtually imprisoned, but in a cost-saving and far more humane way for minor offenders than the gaol option. Furthermore, if detainees break the rules, they suffer the consequences of imprisonment. They are to be supervised by probation and parole officers. It is yet to be decided whether they will be electronically tagged, I dare say depending largely on where the detainee lives. As to this business about home detainees getting drunk, the honourable member for Oxley did not bother to say that random visits and phone calls by probation and parole officers will take place, and random drug and alcohol tests will be conducted. He conveniently withheld that information from us. There is little chance of abusing the home detention scheme at all.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for The Entrance and the honourable member for Oxley to order.

Mr MOSS: The honourable member for Oxley pointed out that if the detainee is drinking alcohol the family would have to take out an AVO against that person. I doubt very much whether he has read the legislation because he fails to understand that people have to be assessed and approved for a home detention order. A home detainee is not only assessed for suitability to cope in the home but also whether that person's presence in the home will have an effect on the family. If it turns out the home detainee is going to be totally frustrated by being imprisoned in the home, rather than affecting the family the assessor will see to it that the person serves the sentence imprisoned in gaol.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! I call the honourable member for Oxley to order for the second time.

Mr MOSS: The legislation is very thorough because before an order is made the assessment does determine the suitability of the offender. At the same time that assessment looks at whether or not the family will be hindered by the person being detained in the home. The assessment will take into account the effect of home detention on other people. Even if the assessment is positive, the court has the right to recommend that an order not be granted. So the legislation is very well thought out. Minor offenders will not automatically receive home detention because, as I said, even if the assessment is positive the court can reject it. Ultimately a home detention order can be revoked by the parole board.

For a number of reasons I support this legislation. The 4-year trial period has proved to be very successful; home detention operates successfully in other countries and there is no reason why it cannot operate successfully in New South Wales; and the cost savings to supervise a person in a home rather than in a prison are considerable. As I said, there are other spin-off effects that contribute to cost savings. More importantly, home detention is by far a more humane way of dealing with minor offenders. It certainly offers a greater chance of rehabilitation because a home detainee has more scope to undergo rehabilitation through education, counselling, job training and gaining other skills that are not available within the prison system. The legislation has my support. This is another measure, along with community service orders, that is designed to deal with sentencing in a more appropriate and more humane way.

Mr SCHULTZ (Burrinjuck) [12.46]: I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Home Detention Bill, but before I commence my contribution I want to correct a statement made by the honourable member for Liverpool. The home detention scheme was discussed by the former Government and home detention was introduced by the former Government as, I emphasise, a pilot scheme. That is in direct contrast to the statements made by the honourable member for Liverpool. Such statements are not unusual for members on the other side of the House; they seem to do it on a regular basis.

The object of the bill is to provide for home detention as an alternative to full-time custody for people convicted of a crime and sentenced to 18
Page 4291
months or less. Under the bill an offender who receives a full-time custodial sentence of 18 months or less can be assessed as being suitable for detention at home with specific approved absences allowed, such as time to attend work. Prisoners will be required to wear electronic tagging devices. Their presence at home will be randomly checked by parole officers who will phone the place of detention and the prisoner will place the device to the phone to register his attendance. In addition, other conditions may be attached to a home detention order, including a requirement to submit to drug and alcohol testing, as mentioned by previous speakers, and community service obligations. It has frequently been mentioned during this debate that certain categories of offences are excluded from the bill. They include the offences of murder, sexual assault, armed robbery, grievous assault occasioning actual bodily harm, domestic violence and certain drug offences.

Home detention is, superficially, attractive as an alternative to full-time incarceration, but a number of downsides to this bill cause me concern. The $11,000 that the Government estimates this home detention scheme will cost makes it an expensive form of alternative custody. Overseas experience suggests that the estimate of $11,000 is grossly understated. I would be very surprised if the real figure is not two or three times the estimated amount. I will be monitoring the cost of home detention. I ask the Minister for Corrective Services what research was undertaken on the stress factors associated with home detention. Can the Minister give the House and the people of New South Wales an unequivocal assurance that no wife, de facto spouse, associate or child of a household will suffer violence under the scheme? Can the Minister give that guarantee despite the remarks of the honourable members for Canterbury about prisoners being assessed in respect of all sorts of problems before they become eligible under the scheme? Of course, the answer is no.

I acknowledge that to be an unreasonable question to put to the Minister, but I ask it to make the point that despite the assessments mentioned by the honourable member for Canterbury no such guarantees can be given. Even professional people who make an assessment cannot guarantee there will not be physical violence under this scheme. That is one of the issues that concerns me. It is an issue about which I was concerned when the previous Government introduced the pilot scheme some four years ago. Given the public expectation of punishment fitting the crime, and concerns about any softening of the approach to dealing with prisoners within our corrective system, I am quite sure - as has been indicated to me by a number of my constituents - that this issue of home detention is regarded as a soft option by the mainstream community and that the community will not accept it.

I caution the Minister about making a broad-based statement that the general public want this system of detention. They do not, mainly because they consider it a soft option. Home detention has value as an alternative to imprisonment, but it is not an up-front alternative. It has value as a backdoor option. It can and should be used for rehabilitation. I emphasise the point I made midway through my comments: I am extremely concerned about the problems associated with placing persons, on a regular basis, in a confined environment, subjecting that person to random checks for alcohol and drug use and other checks relating to the fitting of an electronic bracelet to ensure that the confined person is within the home perimeter. I am concerned about that aspect because I believe it will place enormous strain on some prisoners, but not all prisoners, to the extent that domestic violence may occur. For that reason and the other reasons I have raised during this brief contribution to the debate, I oppose the bill.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [12.54]: Whilst the sentiment behind these proposals may be warranted by the Labor Party's policy platform, announced in March last year, of supporting moves by the Fahey Government to introduce home detention, the system was not implemented on a significant basis is that there were far too many queries relating to its operation, queries which would have to be answered before one could have any confidence in its full-scale implementation. On 24 February 1995 at Penrith Bob Carr addressed a meeting and told us why he should become Premier of New South Wales. In his seven-page speech there was not one reference to this issue. That is not surprising, because this measure is regarded as a soft option to the punishment of crime. Quite apart from that speech, at page 6 of Labor's corrections policy document of 1995 there are only three paragraphs on this bill, making it one of the smallest references in respect of corrective services policy. A range of other issues were dealt with in that document, but there were only three paragraphs on the issue before the House. The hypocrisy and rhetoric of the Government can be gauged from this statement at page 6:

Labor will use home detention to provide a humane alternative to gaol for:

(1) Offenders who are mentally disabled

(2) Parents with dependent children, or

(3) The aged.

Those were the only categories to be provided for, yet the bill presents a range of other possibilities. Those are flagged in the object of the bill which notes that the measure will extend to a range of other offences, but that, "It will not be available for offenders convicted of murder, manslaughter and certain other offences." I should like the Minister in reply to tell us about the range of offences to which the measure will apply. The bill contains a chronological list of Acts. For instance, under the Crimes Act a whole range of offences are set out. The community wants some specificity in the range of offences to which the bill will apply.

Page 4292

This bill shows that the Government again lied when it told the people in its detailed document of March 1995 that home detention would be restricted to three categories of persons. Now we find that home detention is to be massively expanded to apply to a number of other offences. That will be on the head of the Government. Labor told the people of New South Wales that it would be tough on law and order. It criticised the coalition regarding the Fred Many matter, yet this bill proposes a massive expansion of the application of home detention to a range of other offences that had not previously been mentioned. I think the Opposition and the people of New South Wales are entitled to know the full extent of the proposed system. I repeat, the measure might be well intentioned, but how far will it extend? I think the people of New South Wales are entitled to an explanation of the reasons for expanding the system beyond the limited categories announced in the Premier's speech on corrections policy.

The shadow minister for corrective services raised a number of points with which I agree. Principally, there are three criticisms of the bill. First is the cost factor. The Government has underestimated not only the cost of implementing the scheme but, more importantly, the effectiveness of its operation. We all know of instances of interference with electronic devices, even interference with airliners. There is no reason to believe that bright and knowledgable inmates could not devise a system or mechanism to interfere with an electronic bracelet to prevent detection where a person who has been ordered confined to a house leaves that house.

The second criticism, which I have already flagged, is that the range of offences to which home detention will apply is not known, nor is it known whether this system will provide any deterrent or punishment for crime. The third criticism is that much more research needs to be undertaken of the family issues raised by this concept of punishment. That important issue should not be dismissed lightly because maybe the family does not want to be responsible for the problem. Under home detention, one might want the family to play some rehabilitative role otherwise provided by corrective institutions. However, the family may disclaim ownership of the problem. It may have no inherent interest in circumstances where a family member has been involved in, say, a drug-related offence.

Debate adjourned on motion, by leave, by Mr Kinross.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Mr SPEAKER: Members will recall that yesterday the Leader of the House raised a matter of privilege. I have had the opportunity to read the remarks of the Leader of the House, including the wording of his proposed motion relating to an alleged breach of privilege. Having reflected upon rulings of previous Speakers, I believe it is opportune to restate Speaker Ellis' ruling as follows:

For the Chair to be satisfied that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established, one of the following elements should be involved in such a breach: disobedience to general orders or rules of either House; disobedience to particular orders; indignities offered to the character of proceedings of Parliament; assaults or insults upon members or reflections upon their character or conduct in Parliament; or interference with officers of the House in the discharge of their duties. The Chair must determine also whether the matter complained of could be said fairly and reasonably to be capable of interfering with members in the performance of their duties.

Taking into account this ruling and the remarks of the Leader of the House in supporting his proposition, which were based on matters relating to internal party arrangements which do not fully impinge on the privilege of any member of this House, the Chair is not persuaded that the essential elements of a breach of privilege are present in this case.

Mr Photios: That's a big slap over the face.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order. I therefore rule that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.


Petitions praying that the office of Governor of New South Wales not be downgraded, and that the role, duties and future of the office be determined by a referendum, received from Mr Armstrong, Mr Blackmore, Mr Brogden, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Collins, Mr Cruickshank, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy, Mr Ellis, Ms Ficarra, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Dr Kernohan, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Mr MacCarthy, Mr Merton, Mr O'Doherty, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Ms Seaton, Mrs Skinner, Mr Slack-Smith, Mr Smith and Mr Tink.

Petition praying that funding be provided for additional beds at Prince Henry and Prince of Wales hospitals, received from Mrs Grusovin.

Petition praying that Manly District and Mona Vale hospitals not be downgraded, received from Mr Brogden.

Petition praying that funding for the Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah hospitals be increased, received from Mr Beck.

Page 4293

Petitions praying that the present management operations of the Northern Region Westpac helicopter service be maintained, received from Mr Beck, Mr Fraser, Mr D. L. Page and Mr Rixon.

Petition praying that Ryde Hospital and its services be retained, received from Mr Tink.

Petition praying that the Berry bypass proposal not proceed, received from Mr Harrison.

Petition praying that Fassifern be included as a station on the Brisbane to Murwillumbah XPT service, received from Mr Hunter.

Petition praying that old-growth forests and other areas of high conservation value be protected, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the Fox Film Studio proposal for the Sydney Showground be subject to the conditions set out in the petition, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the parameters of the sewer service access charge of the Hunter Water Corporation be modified, received from Mr Hunter.

Petition praying that the attendance of a veterinarian at campdrafts and rodeos not be mandatory, received from Mr Slack-Smith.

Petition praying that the TAB facility at Shellharbour be retained, received from Mr Harrison.

Petition praying that the TAB facility at Albion Park be retained, received from Mr Harrison.


Mr SPEAKER: I draw the attention of the House to the presence of a number of leading members of local government, including mayors, and I welcome them to question time.


Motion by Mr Debnam agreed to:

That general business notice of motion No. 24 have precedence on Thursday 19 September 1996.

Mr Gibson, as Chairman, tabled the reports of the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety entitled "Staysafe 31 Review of the Road Safety Situation in New South Wales in 1994", dated September 1996, and "Staysafe 32 Aspects of Administration of Road Safety in New South Wales", dated September 1996.

Ordered to be printed.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been given notice of a matter of public importance that will come before the House after the motions for urgent consideration have been dealt with. It is under the signature of the Minister for Education and Training, and reads as follows:

The measures being taken by the Department of School Education to protect young people from child abuse.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. You have before you a motion for censure of the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women, which I understand would take precedence over the matter of public importance. Notice of the motion was given by the honourable member for South Coast.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The notice of motion reads as follows:

That this House censures the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women for her failure to protect the customers of the banks in New South Wales.

According to standing orders, that matter will take precedence.


Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Premier. Have doctors at Nepean Hospital declared war on him for his cuts to hospitals in Sydney's west? Is their declaration of no confidence in the Premier and the establishment of a crisis council proof that his claim of beds to the west is as believable as his promise to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5?

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Northcott went into a shop yesterday and the shopkeeper said to him, "I have just been listening to Peter".

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

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Northcott said, "I only listen to Kerry". That is close to a declaration. Does he not look every bit the ruthless party numbers man?

Page 4294

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. Standing orders relating to questions and interpretations by the Chair allow for a certain amount of introductory material -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the Premier to continue. The member for Gosford will resume his seat.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about health. I ran a Geiger counter over the Hansard copy of his speech on health in this House yesterday. I wanted to find out whether, in his 43-minute speech, there was a single positive idea. There was not.

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

Mr CARR: I would have settled for just one; one policy idea.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the member for Eastwood on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: How the honourable member for Eastwood has faded in memory. During the parliamentary recess he issued a total of two press releases. In three months only two press releases from the honourable member for Eastwood, and he is the best and the brightest. In a 43-minute speech on health yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition there was not one positive idea, not one.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I place him on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: What do honourable members expect from the Leader of the Opposition who, in two months, has produced no coalition agreement. He cannot get the Leader of the National Party to sign a piece of paper; how could he solve a problem in the hospital system? He cannot get the National Party to withdraw from the Port Macquarie by-election and make way for a Liberal Party candidate; how could he solve any problem in the health system?

Mr Collins: On a point of order. The question was specifically about the war declared on this Premier by doctors at Nepean Hospital. Will he address the question?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition has suggested he can provide leadership on health. Under his leadership nine members on his front bench or on his back bench are on record as calling for a new agrarian party. What would they call it? The Agrarian Socialist Duck Shooters Coalition? They are all on record; they all want a new party.

Mr Armstrong: You should have a look at your own party. You want to watch Mick Clough.

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Bathurst could teach the National Party a thing or two about defending rural interests, as could the honourable member for Clarence, the honourable member for Cessnock and, above all, the honourable member for Broken Hill. This mob cannot manage themselves; how could they manage the State? This ramshackle, on-again off-again coalition cannot solve questions such as who should run in Port Macquarie. How could it solve any problem in the hospital system? Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition who was formerly Minister for Health asked a question about hospitals in Sydney's west. This is no theoretical debate; he was a health Minister!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is testing the patience of the Chair.

Mr CARR: So too was his deputy, who does not even turn up in the House these days. Both were health Ministers.

Mr Collins: On a point of order. As the Premier should well know, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is absent from the House because he is taking part in a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association tour.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr CARR: What an irrelevance!

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

Mr CARR: Between them, the Leader of the Liberal Party and his deputy closed or downgraded a total of 30 hospitals. That was their record. This is not a theoretical debate; each of them was formerly a health Minister and they have records that can be examined. How many hospital beds did they close?

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

Mr CARR: The Rosencrantz and Gildenstern of the Liberal Party. How many hospital beds did they close?

Mr Amery: Was it 20?

Mr CARR: The honourable member asked if it was 20. No, the grand total of beds closed was 5,000.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Ermington on a point of order, I remind the House that the patience of the Chair has been tested.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. In answering the question the Premier is blatantly and flagrantly abusing the privileges and the standing orders of the House by directing his comments pointedly to members of the House and not through the Chair. He is seeking and asking rhetorical questions relentlessly. It would be appropriate for you to direct the Premier to address his answers through the Chair.

Page 4295

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the honourable member for Ermington should provide some leadership in that regard. The Premier will be heard in silence.

Mr CARR: I am sorely tempted, as the House would appreciate, to make a withering reply to the honourable member for Ermington but every time I do I get a letter of protest from the corgi lovers' society. I dare not affront them again, so the House will understand the constraints I am operating under. As I said, 5,000 hospital beds were closed by the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition when they were health Ministers. The question related to hospital budgets for Sydney's west, so let us look at those budgets as I am certain that after those preliminary remarks the House is focused intently on the factual reply I am in a position to give.

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

Mr CARR: In real terms, under the coalition the health budget for western Sydney dropped by $3.4 million: a reduction in the budget for health in Sydney's west. But that did not represent for a moment a gain in the budget for central Sydney, which fell by 0.4 per cent or $1.9 million. South-eastern Sydney's budget fell by 0.7 per cent or $4.3 million, and the budget for northern Sydney fell by 0.3 per cent or $1 million. The Illawarra's budget rose by only 0.6 per cent under the coalition, or less than $1 million, compared with an increase of nearly $10 million or 6.6 per cent under Labor. South-western Sydney's budget rose by 3.6 per cent under the coalition. That is around half Labor's increase of 9.7 per cent. The figures make it very clear. The Government is proud of delivering in its second budget an increase in the budget for hospitals and health care of $600 million more than in the Liberal's last budget.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for North Shore on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: That is the clearest comparison between the coalition's last budget, brought down two years ago by the man who now pretends to lead the coalition in this State, and our budget, which spends $600 million more on health.

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

Mr CARR: That is the contrast: a $600 million increase in health funding.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for North Shore that she is on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: No wonder the Leader of the Opposition was known as the Minister for closing beds. During the period he was in charge of the system 30 hospitals closed down.

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

Mr PRICE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. What steps is the Government taking to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding unpaid fines owed to the public purse?

Mr WHELAN: For many years the issue of fine defaulters has festered. When in government the coalition did not confront the issue; it was put in the too-hard basket. The Government has inherited from the previous Government the parlous situation where almost $300 million is owed and 400,000 individual fines are outstanding. A third of all prisoners in New South Wales gaols are there because of non-payment of fines. Rather than paying their debt to the community in cash, the community pays for their incarceration at the rate of $132 a day. Why should honest and law-abiding New South Wales taxpayers pay twice when fine defaulters pay nothing? Last year taxpayers in this State spent an estimated $10 million on merely gaoling fine defaulters, and the bill is mounting. Today the Government has a solution to the problem of fine defaulters, a solution that eluded the coalition for seven long years. During this session the Government will introduce tough new measures to do away with the easy option of fine evasion. There will be an historic change to the punishment of fine defaulters in this State. The days of driving around Sydney with a glove box full of speeding tickets and parking fines are over.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Ermington on three calls to order.

Mr WHELAN: No longer will the State's gaols be crammed with people who think they can choose the easy way out by spending a few days in the local police cell or prison rather than paying a fine. From now on people who think they can get away with speeding, dangerous driving or stealing offences will find they will be pursued vigorously by a tough new hi-tech collection body, the Taxpayers Revenue Office.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Northcott on three calls to order.

Mr WHELAN: Fine-defaulting motorists will have their licences suspended or registration cancelled. These, of course, will be restored if the fine and costs are fully paid. If the fine remains unpaid after six months the person's licence will be cancelled and civil enforcement will commence. Wages will be garnisheed or possessions, property or even land could be sold. As police Minister I can say if people are caught speeding and fail to pay the fines, not only are they a danger to others, they stand to lose their licences, registration and even their cars. In short, if they do not pay their fines their property will be seized and sold. The sheriff will come knocking on their door.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is setting a bad example to the children in the gallery and to his Opposition colleagues.

Page 4296

Mr WHELAN: When a fine defaulter has no assets the sheriff will serve the offender with a community services order. If the person does not drive or own a car the Taxpayers Revenue Office will contact the Sheriff's Office which will commence civil enforcement proceedings. Ultimately, a person who refuses to observe the terms of a community service order will face imprisonment. People will be given every chance to avoid prison but there has to be an ultimate sanction. The fine system will be restored as a tough, workable, and genuine deterrent to crime. These sanctions are harsh, and honourable members should have no doubt that they will be rigorously enforced. It is the Government's view that prison is for serious criminals. There are now enough steps in the process of fine recovery to preclude the use of prison as an ultimate sanction. This Government does not want to see any more fine defaulters like Jamie Partlic ending up in prison with hardened criminals. Fine defaulting is not a small problem. The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has found recently that almost one in 15 adults in New South Wales has at least one unpaid fine. That means that too often minor offenders can choose prison instead of finding money, performing community service or paying fines over an agreed period of time.

While fine defaulters evade their penalty the community pays twice. Fine default robs funding from essential Government services - police, schools and hospitals - but most of all fine defaulting undermines the integrity of our justice system. The Government is fed up with people who refuse to pay their fines and exploit the rash of alternatives to avoid punishment. However, before the Government brings in this tough new fine recovery system fine defaulters will be given a three-month amnesty during which they may come forward to pay outstanding fines or at least arrange time to pay them. I urge those with outstanding fines to take advantage of the three-month amnesty for their own benefit. Otherwise they could face the loss of their driver's licences or the confiscation of their assets. The Government is serious about fine defaulters.


Mrs SKINNER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Have members of the Health and Research Employees Association been awarded an 18 per cent unconditional pay rise which will cost New South Wales hospitals up to $150 million? Why has $150 million been given to the Minister's union mates when there is not enough money to stop people dying while on hospital waiting lists?

Dr REFSHAUGE: She cannot help herself. She has got it wrong again. Sorry, sorry. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Every time I hope there will be a question of substance and a value to respond to I am disappointed: she gets it wrong again. There has been an agreement between the Department of Health and -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Ermington that he is on three calls to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The agreement is in line with the Treasury's projections for wage increases over this period. It includes productivity trade-offs, as with the teachers, and it certainly has nowhere near the cost implications that the member suggested.

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


Mr O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Will hospitals already faced with budget cuts have to find $30 million this year alone to fund the unbudgeted portion of the Health and Research Employees Association pay rise? Will hospitals have to cut back on beds and staff or water and electricity to pay for the unprecedented pay rise for the Minister's union mates?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The answer is no. The questioner obviously did not hear the answer to the previous question. There is a budgeted increase for wages, as was the case under the coalition Government, as it is with this Government, on a regular basis. It has no effect on the health budget in regard to what the hospitals have to spend on their health services.


Ms NORI: I ask the Minister for Education and Training what special procedures and provisions are being adopted in our schools to safeguard children from harm?

Mr AQUILINA: The honourable member for Port Jackson has shown in this Chamber and in other places an obvious very strong personal concern about the plight and the welfare of young children. Specifically in this instance she is concerned about young children in our schools. No issue could be more important than the protection of our children from assault or abuse. As the Wood royal commission has shown, procedures in the past in a number of government agencies have been flawed. Past procedures have allowed paedophilic activity to go unchecked in too many cases. Too often procedures have not permitted us to guarantee that known child abusers are not left in charge of children.

In response to the revelations of the Wood royal commission the Department of School Education has been engaged in a comprehensive review of all policy and procedures relating to paedophilia and other forms of child sexual abuse. Today I announce that a new case management unit has been established within the department to review all known cases on record and to manage all future cases of child sexual assault and improper conduct
Page 4297
of a sexual nature between a staff member and a student. If necessary, regulations will be changed to allow the Department of School Education to review past cases which may still be relevant to present circumstances.

To assist in the management of these cases the department has developed a highly secure computerised case management system. Demonstrations of the system have been given to representatives from the Police Service, the Department of Community Services, the Cabinet Office, the Public Employment Office, the Department of Sport and Recreation and the Community Services Commission. The department is in the process of consulting with interested groups within education, including the relevant unions, on the use of the case management system. The department has also tightened criminal record checks and procedures for identifying people not to be employed to ensure that unsuitable staff are not allowed to work with our children.

The department has also revised its guidelines on mandatory notification of child sexual abuse to cover all forms of child abuse and neglect. It has also trained 40 student welfare consultants in child protection procedures, with more personnel to be trained next year. The department has provided classroom material titled "A Fair Go For All" to promote personal safety for children. This will be distributed to all primary schools for use in the early years of schooling. The department has been asked by the national meeting of education Ministers - the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs - to develop a national strategy to prevent paedophilia and other forms of child abuse. The department has also revised procedures for managing allegations of improper conduct of a sexual nature so that they are handled by trained and experienced staff in the case management unit.

I am pleased to say that the recent salary agreement included a commitment by the Teachers Federation to cooperate with the Government on measures to improve child protection. I am also pleased that at the recent appearance at the royal commission of Dr Ken Boston, the Director-General of the Department of School Education, at which he outlined the progress the department had made on child protection, Justice Wood commented favourably about the steps being taken. He said:

The matter does seem to be moving forward on various fronts and I'm grateful for your assistance and also for, no doubt, whatever push you've given to the reform process since your last appearance.

As Minister I am proud to be associated with these reforms in respect of children in our schools.


Mr MILLS: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What were the true circumstances surrounding the closure and padlocking of a ward at Westmead Hospital?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will wait until the House comes to order. I call the member for Bega to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Not only did the Leader of the Opposition ask about this chained and padlocked ward at Westmead Hospital yesterday, he had photos of it which he displayed to the media so that everybody could see the chained and locked ward at Westmead Hospital. The one thing the Leader of the Opposition got wrong was who ordered the locking and closing of that ward. I have here an interesting document that was signed by Ron Phillips. Why did he sign the document to close a ward at Westmead Hospital? He had a very good reason.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will remain silent. I cannot hear the Minister.

Dr REFSHAUGE: It was a paediatric ward and a paediatric ward was being built right next door.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order. The Deputy Premier has mentioned a document but he has not identified the document. I ask you to direct him to table it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Obviously the Minister is at liberty to identify the document if he wishes.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member obviously wants me to read out parts of the document. I am very happy to do that. Ron Phillips, the member for Miranda, who then the Minister for Health, said, "Close that ward at Westmead." He was right to say that because it was a paediatric ward and it was to be transferred to the New Children's Hospital at Westmead when that hospital was completed. He also ordered that the paediatric emergency department at Westmead be closed and moved to the Westmead Children's Hospital. That was a very good decision; we supported it all the way. He also ordered that the paediatric outpatients section be closed and moved to the New Children's Hospital. I think the Leader of the Opposition has been listening to the honourable member for North Shore. She is the one who usually gets it wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. He has got it very wrong. No wonder Ron Phillips left the country. He signed the document and put the chain on the ward. What a joke! As the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy - I presume he is still the deputy at the moment in this so-called coalition - have recently said, beds are not always the best measure of health services, and by a small measure they are right.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is service provision that is most important, but the Opposition keep on bringing up the number of beds. What happened to Westmead Hospital under the former Government? From the time the Leader of the Opposition became the Minister for Health until the time that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition finished his term
Page 4298
as Minister for Health there was a loss of more than 50 adult beds at Westmead Hospital. I report to the House that the number of beds open and available at Westmead Hospital today for patients is greater - not by a large number, but by 12 - than when the former Government left office. It closed beds. The Government is are opening beds in the west and making sure that patients can get services. The other allegation made by the Opposition was about Liverpool Hospital. The Opposition asked why patients are not put in the empty wards?

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is a very good reason not to put patients in there. Building is still going on. The patients would have to wear hard hats and asbestos clothing. The staff would have to wear boiler suits and would have to get their occupational health and safety insurance increased, because the building is still going on.

Mr Collins: That is a nonsense.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Leader of the Opposition calls it a nonsense but he has not even been out there to have a look. Members of the Opposition regularly brings lies to this Parliament. It is about time they realised that the health care of the people of New South Wales is much more important than the political games they play, particularly when they are based on lies.


Mr ARMSTRONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the 9,000 people of Condobolin and district will be without access to surgical treatment or obstetrics when the only procedural doctor leaves the town shortly? Will the Minister act immediately to provide this and many other country communities with an adequate level of medical access now being denied to them because of a chronic shortage of doctors?

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: I welcome the Leader of the National Party to the new board of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. I hope he will play a constructive role there, as he does when he talks to me regularly about health issues in his electorate. There is certainly a recognition of the lack of medical practitioners working in rural areas. That issue has bedevilled developed countries for decades. At the moment it is being looked at on a national level by a committee that I was instrumental in establishing. I recognised that other States also have these problems and we needed to look at not only the doctor work force but also the professional health work force throughout rural New South Wales and rural Australia. That committee is still taking evidence and, hopefully, will report to the next meeting of the Australian Health Ministers Council later this year. The problem at Condobolin that the Leader of the National Party described is a problem that will get a lot worse.

Mr Kinross: Fix it.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for Gordon says "Fix it". I can tell him why the problem will get a lot worse. The Federal Government has just decided to restrict the number of new general practitioners allowed to practise in Australia. That restriction on numbers will have a significant impact on rural health services. No-one would deny that the number of GPs in Australia is probably larger than that in many developed countries, but the distribution of those GPs and other medical specialists is poor when one bears in mind the needs of rural New South Wales. I know the Leader of the National Party and his colleagues share those concerns with all members on this side of the House. The problem will get a lot worse because of the Federal Government's recent decision to restrict the number of doctors allowed to practise as general practitioners and the number of doctors that will be allowed to graduate from Australian universities. I ask the Leader of the National Party to join with me and other members of the medical profession to complain loudly to his Federal colleagues - Tim Fischer, who I am sure would understand this issue, and John Howard - because of the devastation it will cause to rural health services.


Mr GAUDRY: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What decision has the Minister made regarding his temporary ban on the commercial collection of shellfish on the Tweed River?

Mr MARTIN: May I say first how disappointed Government members are that no-one from the Opposition has been appointed to speak on fisheries matters. It is sad that the group on the other side of the House, which is in such disarray, cannot pick someone to speak on this important subject.

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

Mr MARTIN: I commend the honourable member for Newcastle for his longstanding commitment to the fishing and oyster industries. The Government has acted swiftly in response to the outbreak of food poisoning last month on the Gold Coast in Queensland. The Government has acted with maturity and calm to ensure public health and safety, which are always its premium considerations, were guaranteed. The Government has also worked effectively in recent weeks to promote the interests of the hard-working oyster farmers on the Tweed to ensure that they are given every possible assistance to address their current problems and future challenges. The Government's current concern
Page 4299
flowed from a serious health problem when reports were received that 17 guests at a reception on the Gold Coast in late August suffered severe gastroenteritis. It was further reported that of approximately 20 guests at this function, those unaffected had apparently not eaten oysters. This lead to an obvious concern that the shellfish were to blame.

In the days after the outbreak this concern intensified with further reports of food poisoning and claims of links with oyster consumption. This has caused a major drama on the north coast of New South Wales. A report on the apparent health of northern rivers has been published. Because of this publicity immediate links were made by some of the local community who said that the two issues, water quality and oysters, were at fault. There has also been an attempt to extend this isolated issue of apparent oyster problems to local tourist operations and the local seafood industry. That has been a major problem and honourable members must regret witnessing the evidence of the damage that is occurring to these people. After receipt of advice from Andy Derwent and Kerry Jackson, dedicated officers of New South Wales Fisheries, and in response to mounting health concerns I decided to close the river only to the collection of oysters. That is to protect public health and to preserve the good name of the oyster industry.

The industry cooperated fully with this decision, although it was not pleased about its plight. The decision will safeguard public health with more rigorous tests to be conducted in an atmosphere of calm. I assure the House that the decision was not taken lightly. I emphasise that the river remains open to fishing and tourist activities. The oyster's unique biology means that other seafood or fish products will not be affected because oysters pump 14 litres of water an hour through themselves. I assure the House that these New South Wales oysters are first class. They are the finest in the world. I would like to be more descriptive on this issue, but sadly those on the other side of the House would not understand what I was saying. I can assure honourable members that we will do what is right to overcome the problem. Last week we addressed the problem on the north coast. Oyster farmers there have given a commitment to implement the quality assurance program, which will be a condition of the reopening of the river. The concerns being expressed are genuine because the spat now being caught will be ready for eating in the year 2000.

At 2 o'clock today I received from the University of Sydney a report that the university has isolated a Norwalk virus. Initially that was thought to be an unlikely outcome, but that virus has been shown to be the cause of the problem on the Tweed River. There have been no further reports of health problems since 1 September, though the report from the university showed that the affected people had suffered from the Norwalk virus. The Government will continue its work in cooperation with the oyster industry to protect the safety of our people. Those efforts will ensure better markets for the future because they will provide a guarantee of a higher quality product.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members who wish to ask questions will comply with the standing orders of the House.

Mr MARTIN: The problem in the Tweed River has concerned all parties. We will not leave anything to chance. The river will not be reopened for oyster farming until a quality assurance program is in place, the water at all sites from which samples have been taken is clean, and the wholesomeness of these oysters is assured. Because of today's report, I believe that time is at least two weeks away. We will ensure that these oysters are without a doubt first class. Honourable members can rest assured that all other oysters marketed throughout the State are world class, that they are clean, wholesome and can be eaten with great relish.


Ms MOORE: I address a question without notice to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. In light of the proposed $500 million Federal cuts to public housing, what is the Minister's position on increasing rents for public housing tenants, especially in the expensive inner city, and on selling public housing stock?

Mr KNOWLES: The Housing Ministers Conference on Friday hopefully will reveal, at last, the Commonwealth's position on public housing reform. Clearly, the existing proposals put forward by John Howard will have a dramatic effect on the way in which public housing, indeed all rental housing, is provided and managed across Australia.

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

Mr KNOWLES: This issue has been running for the best part of six months yet there is absolutely nothing on the record from the honourable member for Gosford on it. His has been an appalling abrogation of responsibility. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe of the upper House has not uttered a word or issued a statement on it. Quite clearly, the Opposition has no policy or position on this issue. In response to the question, I inform the honourable member for Bligh that we are going to Darwin to defend the rights of public housing tenants. We will not allow public housing tenants, people who are in need of social and equitable support from their governments across this country, to be ripped apart by some ideological view being put forward by Peter Costello and John Howard as they seek to rip between $500 million and $1.2 billion from the national housing vote. If those measures are applied in this State, we will have the highest rents of any State in this country, with some of the biggest social problems.

Page 4300

If the currently proposed measures are allowed to be implemented, more than 40 per cent of public housing tenants in this State will pay more than 40 per cent of their incomes for rental. That is substantially higher than John Howard and Jocelyn Newman mention when they say they want to set a benchmark of 25 per cent of income for rental. The honourable member for Gosford seeks to interject. He might like to explain to the House how the Commonwealth proposes to juggle this little equation: a cap on existing tenants of 25 per cent; a cap on new tenants in public housing of 25 per cent; a levelling up of the public and private rent by subsidies; at the same time pulling a minimum of $500 million out of the public housing system. That simply does not add up. There is a smoke and mirrors game going on here. Jeff Kennett, I and representatives of other States are beginning to expose the sham of this Federal proposal.

There is no doubt that if John Howard gets his way, if he is able to force through the Federal Parliament the most fundamental changes in public housing and social housing reform in 50 years, ripping up Ben Chifley's charter to provide an underlying safety net for people in need of social accommodation, mark my words that that will mean increased rents. People are to be taken off the public housing waiting list and forced into the private market, with the offset supposed to be the little voucher that they get from the Department of Social Security. Tell me what will happen if an aged pensioner or young homeless person gets a voucher from the social security office and pops down to the local real estate agent in Sydney in a climate where there are low vacancy rates.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Gosford that he is on three calls to order.

Mr KNOWLES: Again the honourable member for Gosford attempts to interject. Where does he stand on the question of increased rents and increased levels of homelessness when there is in the short term a downturn in the residential construction industry? The Government has signed up for an interim agreement. That brings groans from Opposition members. They should ask the Hon. Patricia Forsythe about the matter. She may be aware of the ramifications of this Federal policy. This Government, in order to get some money into the system to be matched by Treasury under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement, has signed up for an interim agreement for one year only. That will mean, of course, a dramatic downturn in the residential construction industry. Historically, under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, there has been a five-year agreement, with a three- or four-year roll-over for funding. As a consequence the Department of Housing, which provides 6 per cent of residential construction starts each year, is now neutered to an annual funding program which will see its housing starts wound back from 4,500 proposed this year to something like 680.

Honourable members opposite should go out to their small business friends, such as Remo Nogarotto from the Housing Industry Association, and ask them what they think about ripping 3,500 construction starts out of the New South Wales economy at a time when growth projected in the construction sector is on the decline. If they think they can get Remo Nogarotto or Ron Silberberg to go on record, I will buy them a drink. Privately, they tell me that everything we are saying, Kennett is saying and Queensland is saying is 100 per cent accurate. That is why the Australian today revealed that the rift between Costello and Newman is starting to show up. Honourable members opposite are not listening. The honourable member for Bligh is trying to listen to what I have to say. At least I get from that honourable member a question on this important policy issue. I would not expect one from those opposite.

Peter Costello, the Federal Treasurer, has turned a housing reform into a savings measure. Instead of trying to equalise private rents and private rent subsidies with public housing sector subsidies, he is trying to rip $1.2 billion each year from the public housing sector. That is a disgrace. Each of the members opposite - whether they have a large public housing component or a large private rental component in their electorates - will find out very quickly that the level of subsidy proposed, whether it is on Jocelyn Newman's model or on Peter Costello's model, will not provide sufficient rent for people to do anything other than pay increasing amounts of their weekly incomes in rent. When Opposition members start denying people the means to put dinner on the table, or boots on their kids' feet or to pay rent, they will have to answer those people and their problems.

Whilst John Howard is ripping the guts out of the public housing sector and the social housing sector across the nation, members opposite are silent. Not one statement on this matter has been made by Patricia Forsythe in the upper House. I challenge her to put her position on the record. I would be delighted to know what members of the Opposition think. In the meantime the housing ministers will go to Darwin on Friday to defend the rights of public housing tenants. That is a good thing for any government to do; it is especially important for a Labor Government to do.


Mr NEILLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister inform me and the House what changes there are likely to be to Telstra services to rural New South Wales?

Mr AMERY: I thank the honourable member for Cessnock for his question and for his concern about the impact on rural New South Wales of Government services. It would be of assistance to also receive some press releases from the National Party on matters affecting rural New South Wales.
Page 4301
The Telstra sell-off, for example, would have a lot to do with rural New South Wales - more so than rodeos and horse-riding trails which the shadow minister for regional development seems to always talk about. The sale of Telstra will obviously concern rural communities because they will stand to lose if the Federal Government goes ahead with the sell-off.

There can be no doubt that the partial privatisation of Telstra will mean increased costs and a loss of service for consumers in rural areas. It is now an open secret that Telstra has plans to end the cross-subsidisation of rural services and move to a user-pays system. The revelation that a secret committee within Telstra, the Mercury steering committee, has plans to slash the number of operator-assisted service centres across New South Wales has to be viewed with alarm by country users. Operator-assisted service centres provide Telstra customers with 011 operator-assisted calls, 0176 pay phone services, wake-up and reminder calls, and international and reverse charge services.

[Interruption]

If we do not have reminder calls, who will call the honourable member for Murwillumbah to tell him that question time is over? He will certainly miss that service. The centres also provide assisted calls to ships, to remote land mobiles and to aircraft. The issue of mobile phones is a very contentious one at present in rural New South Wales. Telephone services are of particular relevance to rural and remote areas. Towns such as Lismore, Grafton, Armidale, Tamworth, Broken Hill, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Moree and Taree will face major job losses when the Mercury steering committee recommendations are implemented. The plan is to reduce the number of service centres in country New South Wales from 17 to as few as two.

More than 1,250 jobs will disappear from regional New South Wales - something about which country members would no doubt have some concern. The wage bill to regional economies as a result of the loss of those jobs is something like $40 million. The majority of these jobs are held by women. The Mercury plan also suggests centralising the services in metropolitan areas - which is contrary to what the State Government is doing in trying to decentralise services to the country. There are even proposals to export jobs in the operator-assisted service to the Philippines. Rural New South Wales faces not only job losses and a loss of service but also an increase in the cost of the phone service. The cross-subsidy enjoyed by rural New South Wales appears likely to disappear with the Mercury steering committee recommendations.

Telstra's new shareholders will obviously - and perhaps some would say rightfully - insist on maximising their profits. The most alarming recommendation from the Mercury steering committee, however, suggests that if the State Government wishes to retain the operator-assisted service centres in country areas State taxpayers will be asked to subsidise Telstra's costs. Telstra will unload its responsibility to provide a service to country people on to the State Government. The National Party members opposite, by their support of their Federal colleagues, will impose increased costs on the people they claim to represent in this House. The National and Liberal parties will go to the Port Macquarie by-election offering a loss of service, a loss of jobs, and increased costs for phone calls. As I have said, this is one issue the Government will be pleased to push in the Port Macquarie by-election. I would like to hear comments from members of the National Party about the loss of jobs, the loss of services in some 20 offices around the State -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far to much interjection.

Mr AMERY: It is about time Opposition members stopped waffling on about the loss of one job here and two jobs there. They should concentrate on the serious issue about the loss of regional jobs in New South Wales.

Questions without notice concluded.


At 3.37 p.m. the House proceeded to the Legislative Council Chamber to attend a joint sitting to choose a Senator in the place of Michael Baume, resigned.

At 3.45 p.m. the House reassembled.

Mr SPEAKER: I report that at a joint sitting this day William Heffernan was chosen as Senator in the place of Michael Baume, resigned.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Hartcher agreed to:

That this House welcomes the Dalai Lama to Australia as the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people and a voice against injustice and oppression.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.45]: I ask the House to consider urgently the coalition of the New South Wales parliamentary Liberal-National Party. Real confusion exists in the Parliament as to who speaks on behalf of the Opposition and in what context. It is essential that the issue be clarified to maintain the efficient running of the House, the reasons for that being apparent. Currently the management of the Legislative Assembly is being upset by the confusion and uncertainty caused by the very public acrimony that exists between the Liberal Party and
Page 4302
the National Party. It is clear that the coalition parties hate each other. The honourable member for Southern Highlands provides a typical example of the problems created between the Liberal Party and the National Party that have affected the whole of the parliamentary program.

Not only is the Parliament affected, but honourable members should understand - and I am sure that the Leader of the National Party will be interested in this - that parliamentary remuneration legislation contains provisions relating to the remuneration of leaders and deputy leaders of parliamentary political parties. That factor will bring the National Party back into the hearing zone, so that National Party members understand exactly what is happening. The Leader of the National Party has said that there is no coalition agreement. I ask the Parliament to pass a resolution that the Opposition publicly release the agreement evidencing the existence of the coalition. The Leader of the National Party, the newly appointed board member of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, says that there is no coalition agreement, that it is effective in name only. Nine of his confrères in the National Party say that there is no coalition agreement and that the party would be better in isolation.

Mr Hartcher: Name them.

Mr WHELAN: I will name them if the House gives me the opportunity to do so.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai states his point of order I remind him that prior to the conclusion of the last sitting the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee examined the issue of points of order in relation to motions for urgent consideration and it was decided that much more flexibility would be allowed in the debate to establish urgency.

Mr O'Doherty: I thank the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee for examining that issue because it requires clarification. Clearly, the substance of this motion is to do with urgency. The Minister is not debating the substance of the motion; rather, he is debating the matter itself.

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

Mr WHELAN: The matter I have raised needs to be debated urgently because this is the first available opportunity the House has had to discuss the issue. Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling that the matter I raised yesterday was not one of privilege. That is contrary to the time given yesterday to the matter raised by the honourable member for North Shore. More than six hours of debate yesterday was devoted to the health issue and in the past two days there have been seven or eight questions asked of the Minister for Health. The honourable member for North Shore, however, contends that her motion should be accorded urgency.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. It is clear that the Leader of the House is toying with the House and, most important, with you.

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

Mr WHELAN: The granting of urgency to my motion would give the House an opportunity to understand that the marriage of convenience between the two main Opposition parties is a sham arrangement for financial and personal status. I would be able to prove to the House that it is nothing more than a green card coalition - a marriage of convenience. Members of the Liberal Party and the National Party should acknowledge that there has been a divorce. Honourable members understand a decree nisi has been issued. Opposition members should render the divorce absolute. Why do Opposition members not admit that the coalition does not exist? There are many reasons that the matter I have raised should be brought on for urgent consideration. It is important that the Parliament consider this matter not only today but throughout the spring sitting of Parliament.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [3.48]: I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Leader of the House should suggest that his motion be accorded urgency over the issue of health services, given the community disquiet and unhappiness about the way in which the health system is being run. It is urgent that my motion be debated because as we speak people are being denied access to hospitals in growth areas such as Liverpool, the Nepean, the Hunter and the Illawarra. It is urgent that this matter be discussed because staff and patients at the Liverpool Hospital plan to hold a rally tomorrow to protest against insufficient funding.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The honourable member for North Shore has to debate the urgency of her motion, not the substance of it. If the House chooses to vote that the motion of the honourable member for North Shore be accorded urgency so be it, but the honourable member must now give reasons that her motion should be accorded urgency. She has a very difficult case in that 6½ hours of debate and seven questions have been devoted to the health issue in the past two days.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the honourable member for North Shore.

Mrs SKINNER: For the benefit of honourable members I read out my motion:

That this House calls upon the Minister for Health to urgently restore the health budget and to provide for the growth areas to ensure equity and fairness in health funding.

If that sounds familiar to Government members, it is because that is the wording of a motion moved at yesterday's Government caucus meeting.

Page 4303

Mr Whelan: Who locked the door in 1994?

Mrs SKINNER: Who in the Government caucus moved this motion? Was it the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women? Will she vote for this motion today?

Mr Beckroge: On a point of order. I shall not delay the House, but it is obvious that the honourable member for North Shore is not addressing her speech to the reasons her motion should be accorded urgency. I ask you to draw her remarks to the substance of the debate. That is the rule of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The standing orders are precise on the matter.

Mrs SKINNER: This matter is urgent because members of the medical council and staff at the Nepean Hospital plan to meet tomorrow night to form a crisis committee to fight the Carr Government's failure to look after the hospital. I refer to the document placed on the noticeboard at that hospital titled "War is Declared". Those staffing the Nepean Hospital consider this matter so urgent that they have declared war.

Mr Whelan: The honourable member has no credibility.

Mrs SKINNER: The honourable member has never had credibility; that is the problem. The first motion is that there is no confidence in the Minister.

Mr McManus: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mrs SKINNER: I take exception to the fact that members from growth areas of New South Wales are attempting to interrupt this debate. They are extremely embarrassed about how the electorate will perceive the fact that they voted in favour of the Minister who has failed to make available sufficient funds to enable hospitals to provide services to patients across this State. They are embarrassed because they have had to indicate support for a Minister -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will address her remarks through the Chair and will abide by the standing orders.

Mrs SKINNER: The matter is urgent because yesterday honourable members were forced to vote along party lines for a Minister who has lost all credibility in the community. This debate would provide an opportunity for those honourable members to say, "Yes. We want the money restored. We want it distributed on an equitable and fair basis to the growth areas of this State." I refer to south-western Sydney, Liverpool Hospital, the Wentworth area, Nepean Hospital, Westmead Hospital, hospitals on the central coast, and hospitals in the Illawarra and in the Hunter.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The honourable member has to prove that her matter is urgent. That does not involve a geography lesson for members of the Legislative Assembly. The honourable member has an opportunity in the one minute remaining to indicate why the matter is urgent. It is clearly not urgent and the honourable member is not making out her claim that the matter should receive priority. She has continually defied your ruling and she is getting away with it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The member for North Shore will abide by the standing orders, or resume her seat.

Mrs SKINNER: It is simple. This matter is urgent because the meetings are to be held tomorrow. We cannot wait to debate this issue any further. The doctors are so concerned that they have called a meeting for tomorrow. The rally will be held at Liverpool Hospital at 12.30. I will attend. They are so concerned that the purpose of the meeting tomorrow night is to declare war. I thought honourable members opposite might be able to offer the olive branch to dissuade the doctors from a declaration of war. I thought that a debate might provide honourable members with an opportunity to vote for the motion. This matter is urgent and not a moment can be lost. How many more patients will be denied beds before the Government acts. [Time expired.]

Question - That the notice for urgent consideration of Mr Whelan be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Carr Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Tripodi
Mr Hunter Mr Watkins
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Woods
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr Lynch Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Page 4304

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz
Mr Debnam Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr MacCarthy
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr

Mr Iemma Mr Downy
Mr Shedden Mr Phillips
Mr Sullivan Mr Rozzoli

Question so resolved in the affirmative.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.00]: I move:

That this House calls upon the New South Wales Opposition to publicly release the agreement evidencing the existence of a coalition in this State.

There is real confusion in the community. Opposite sit members of two parties which clearly hate each other. It is not good enough for members opposite to say there is a strong relationship between the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Naremburn agreement was due for release before Parliament resumed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lane Cove is testing the patience of the Chair.

Mr O'Farrell: On a point of order. I refer you to Decisions of the Chair, particularly to rulings by Speaker Rozzoli in 1990-91 which relate to the verbatim reading of speeches. I am sure that you observe -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister is referring to copious notes.

Mr WHELAN: If members were not allowed to read speeches in this House there would not be a speech from anyone opposite; no-one would speak. The Naremburn agreement was due to be released before Parliament resumed and we are still waiting. We are waiting because the Leader of the National Party was rolled in his party room on the detail of the agreement. Parliament should be privy to the formal agreement. As recently as yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition refused to say when the agreement would be signed.

Other coalition sources have said that there is a strong chance that no formal agreement will be settled before the 1999 election. It is simply not good enough. The Opposition needs to get its act together. If the coalition parties cannot organise an effective Opposition, how can they possibly expect to run the State? The fractured state of the coalition also reflects the political ineptitude of and lack of leadership by Peter Collins, the Leader of the Opposition. In June this year the Leader of the Opposition made this absurd claim:

The NSW Coalition has actually been the strongest, most unified Coalition in Australian political history. It will continue.

How can anyone believe one word he says? How stupid he now looks. I should not fail to mention the Leader of the National Party who about the same time said:

The Coalition partnership between myself and the Liberals leader Peter Collins is rock solid.

The fraud has been exposed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. Four members from either side of the House are listed to speak to this motion. If other members wish to contribute to the debate they should seek the call.

Mr WHELAN: The real picture is that the coalition has decayed into nothing more than a marriage of convenience, a sham arrangement for financial status and personal advantage. It is a green card coalition. The implications of this sham should not be understated.

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

Mr WHELAN: The shadow ministers opposite and the coalition have certain privileges in this House: the right to reply to ministerial statements, unspecified speaking time on bills, the right to lead for the Opposition in urgency and no confidence motions, matters of public importance and general notices of motion relating to their shadow portfolios. But those rights and privileges are all affected by the current status of the Opposition parties. Be under no misapprehension: the Opposition is in a total state of disarray and disorder. This is not speculation. I will give some examples. Listen to what the members have said. There can be no more damning indictment of the state of the coalition than the words of the Leader of the National Party, Mr Armstrong, who said:

Page 4305

There isn't a Coalition agreement . . . As far as the mutual trust that we've worked on since the last election, that has gone too.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The Minister is quoting from a document. In accordance with the standing orders and Decisions from the Chair I ask that he identify the document.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will identify the document.

Mr WHELAN: It is a quote taken from the 2BL program AM.

Mr Hartcher: When?

Mr WHELAN: Recently. I have identified the document and I verify it. The quote continued:

The Coalition . . . is effective in name only.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. The Minister has not identified the document. The Minister said it is taken from a radio broadcast. I ask that the Minister identify the document he is quoting from.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understood the Minister to be quoting from an extract from a radio broadcast. He has verified that and that is all that is required under the standing orders.

Mr Armstrong: Further to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not hear the Leader of the National Party further on the point of order.

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the National Party cannot deny what he said on the radio.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat.

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the National Party cannot deny what he said on the radio, he cannot reverse his words. He said the coalition is dead.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order so long as it does not pertain to the substance of the previous point of order.

Mr Armstrong: Can the House have the date of the broadcast?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the National Party not only said that, he also said:

We're pretty dirty about this . . . it's a bugger when you're travelling with amateurs.

The member next to you, the Leader of the Opposition, is the amateur he was referring to. He continued and said:

Politics is supposed to be about winning. We have two parties who are supposed to be in coalition. I think it is gossamer thin, absolutely gossamer thin. Operating in an unattached situation would allow the National Party to hone its special policies -

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. Will the Minister indicate whether he is still quoting from the same broadcast?

Mr WHELAN: I will give the Leader of the Opposition a transcript, I will give him the video. I will give him the transcript from 2BL on 19 August 1996 so he can see for himself.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Has the document been verified?

Mr WHELAN: Yes.

Mr Armstrong: Further to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the point of order. The Minister is in order. The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat.

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the National Party is not alone. His view is shared by the honourable member for Monaro, Peter Cochran, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, the honourable member for Lismore, the honourable member for Barwon, the honourable member for Dubbo and the Hon. D. J. Gay in another place - and he shows what a great party they have. In the Daily Telegraph of 5 June the Hon. D. J. Gay, who ran the National Party campaign for the Southern Highlands, said he invented a device called - wait for it - the Gay poster puller for the easy removal of Liberal Party campaign posters. What a great coalition, what a great team they are! National Party members are walking around the Southern Highlands electorate ripping down Liberal Party posters. That is what they describe as cooperation; that is what they call support. On 1 August the honourable member for Murrumbidgee said:

Many of us have suspected for years that the New South Wales Liberals would deal with anyone if they thought they could damage the National Party.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. In accordance with the standing orders and previous rulings, I ask the Minister to identify the document.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will identify the document.

Mr WHELAN: I am making passing reference to quotes in papers and also on the radio. The honourable member for Monaro said "We can no longer be abused" -

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. There is no provision in the standing orders that allows a member to identify documents by saying that he is making passing references to various quotes from papers and on radio. The documents must be clearly identified and dated.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr WHELAN: Nine members of the National Party have indicated unequivocally that the coalition is finished. They have said that, whether it is a coalition or a strong relationship, the coalition is as
Page 4306
dead as a dodo in New South Wales. Why was there a difficulty about making a decision on the policy issue of who would go on to the board of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games? Why has the Opposition not fulfilled the promise of tabling the so-called Naremburn agreement? Tim Fischer wanted to be a party. It could be called the Boree Creek agreement. When the people of New South Wales are putting submissions to the Opposition they should know whether there is a genuine coalition, not competing interests, people who clearly hate each other, people who cannot get on with each other. The Liberal Party and the National Party are trying to shore up their finances. They have manipulated the agreement to gain an advantage under the Parliamentary Remuneration Act.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lane Cove will remain silent.

Mr WHELAN: The National Party is relying on a provision in the Act which says that the leader of a party of 10 or more receives additional money. The Government is looking at this provision. The National Party is relying on that sham and the Leader of the National Party is not the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. [Time expired.]

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [4.10]: On behalf of the coalition I propose to move an amendment to the motion, namely:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "House" and inserting instead the following "calls upon the New South Wales Government to release to the House all documents for power-sharing between the left faction and the right (Terrigal) faction and the right (non-Terrigal) faction".

We have had analogies this afternoon about marriage, separation, decrees nisi, et cetera. At least on our side of the House it is a monogamous relationship; on the Labor side it is a ménage à trois. We want to get the details. Since the election of the Labor Government the following newspaper headlines have appeared. Appropriately, on 1 April 1995 the Sydney Morning Herald carried an article headed "Right-wing brawl first test for Carr". On 4 April that newspaper published an article headed "Bitter fight to control Right faction". It is really interesting. It shows the membership of the Left, the Right and the Right Terrigal group, with a picture of a smiling Eddie Obeid. On 3 April 1995 there was an article headed "Carr's Right faction rejects deal on Cabinet deadlock". The Australian Financial Review of 1 April 1995 published an article headed "Right may give up seat in Cabinet". Other articles were headed "Carr faces facts: Labor abandons united front in Cabinet scramble".

Mr Clough: On a point of order. In the various factions identified by the Leader of the Opposition he has completely ignored the dinosaur faction.

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

Mr COLLINS: Other articles are headed "Factions face-off in fight for prized Newcastle seat" and "Mate v mate in the right-wing State". That article, which appeared on 27 May, gets to the nub of the matter. On 4 July 1995 there was an article headed "Shunned Arena can't forgive Carr". In "Social Alternatives" Volume 13, Nos 3 and 4 of October 1994 there was an article headed "The Sexism of Labor's Factional System: It's Alright, Maaate". I am sorry to take the time of the House, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the House for consuming its valuable time. The Independents have -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. I would like a copy of the amendment from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The amendment will be handed up to the Chair.

Mr COLLINS: I am delighted to provide that, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the Minister. I would have been very pleased to give him a copy earlier. The article I referred to last states:

. . . if Labor is to be the party that represents those who are likely to be most disadvantaged, then it must alter its internal arrangements of power. The present factional arrangement most advantages the organised, the articulate, those with close relations to decision makers in party and governmental processes: in other words those who have the correct political capital to trade in the political marketplace.

That is what the Labor Party is all about. The article I really love and which I had to keep till last is one from the Bulletin of 26 April 1994.

Mr Souris: Who wrote it? Richo?

Mr COLLINS: It was a different Richardson, Nick Richardson. The lead-in is, "Faction fighting erupted once more in the New South Wales Labor Party this month. Nick Richardson puts the latest stoush in historical context and checks damage to party and pugs." There is a great photograph of the Leader of the House with the caption "Beast with two heads". I had better table this.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that he cannot table it.

Mr COLLINS: I thought I might be able to help the Minister refresh his memory.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Burrinjuck will cease interjecting.

Mr COLLINS: I could go on: there is a great little document called "Abuse of Power: NSW Labor in 1993, Confidential, Internal A.L.P. circulation only".

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. It is completely out of order for the Leader of the Opposition to speak on an amendment which has not been circulated. The amendment is out of order because it calls on the Government to release to the House all documents relating to a certain matter. It is clearly not proper for that to occur. My motion refers to making information public. The amendment is out of order.

Page 4307

Mr COLLINS: On the point of order. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The same rules apply to these things which are in the realm of party policy. They apply to both or they apply to neither. On our side -

Mr Whelan: I agree.

Mr COLLINS: That is good. Let us not have these spurious objections. I could go on. I have four minutes left, but I would need a major extension of time to deal with the document about abuse of power. It is all about factional politics in the Labor Party. It makes great reading. I would be happy to provide it to anyone who would like a copy, especially anyone in the Labor ranks. I return to the motion moved by the Minister to waste the time of the House this afternoon. The Minister has claimed that the people of New South Wales are really confused. We can understand why they are confused: there are now four identified factions on the Labor Party side, the ménage à trois plus one. We have only two parties on this side and we are in coalition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition to continue speaking on the motion while I have taken advice from the Clerk. The Leader of the House has raised a moot point. It seems that the amendment is impractical in that it calls on the Government to carry out an action which could not be carried out. If it called upon a political party to bring forward documents it would be in order but the amendment calls on the Government to bring forward documents. As Ministers comprise the Executive, the amendment is impractical and I rule it out of order.

Mr COLLINS: Thank you Mr Speaker. Tomorrow the Opposition will be able to give notice of a separate motion incorporating the change you propose. Members of the Opposition will have a lot of fun speaking to that motion. Government members are confused about the relationship of the coalition. The House will now witness something very historic. It is a momentous occasion. We bring this to the House this afternoon for the benefit of the Minister for Police, who is so confused. My colleague the Leader of the National Party has prepared something here which states, "We are in coalition." That is our status: we are in coalition.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. Following the argument put to you by the Minister for Police, his motion is out of order. The Minister's argument is that the New South Wales Government cannot be called upon to do something which is the responsibility of a party. The New South Wales Opposition is not a party; it is a series of individuals who voluntarily have formed separate political parties. In accordance with the logic of the argument put by the Minister the New South Wales Opposition cannot be called upon to make public its own internal arrangements. Accordingly, if your ruling is to be consistent, the motion moved by the Minister must be ruled out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Bulli.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I move to have this agreement incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member does not have the call.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [4.20]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Police. This confusion and uncertainty must be cleared up once and for all, because, frankly, the situation at the moment -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members will resume their seats. The honourable member for Bulli has the call.

Mr Whelan: My point of order relates to a procedural issue. The Leader of the National Party said he was going to table the document evidencing in writing the coalition's status in New South Wales. He is now trying to take it out of the House. He cannot do that. That document must be tabled. He has already given an undertaking to the House that it would be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I indicated that the member was not at liberty to table it until he spoke in the debate.

Mr McMANUS: The Opposition is in total disarray. If there is no coalition, a number of National Party members in this House should be sitting on the crossbench with the Independents. If there is no coalition in this House those National Party members are not entitled to remuneration, cars or other benefits that go with being a member of the Opposition in this State. They will have to clear up the situation. From what I have seen today, clearly there is no coalition. A number of members of this House have similar backgrounds: the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Vaucluse, the honourable member for Monaro, and myself. We all have military backgrounds.

With that military background the first thing we understand is that we must have leadership. There is simply no leadership on the Opposition benches. Over the last couple of weeks in the media a number of the troops have been in disarray and have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to support the Leader of the Opposition. The generals of the Opposition are cuddling each other to death and the troops of the Opposition are kicking themselves to death. That clearly indicates that the Opposition army is in absolute disarray and is absolutely useless as far as being a part of government is concerned. On 20 August the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying:

There isn't a Coalition agreement this morning. As far as the mutual trust that we've worked on since the last election, that has gone too. The Coalition this morning is effective in name only.

Page 4308

That statement was made by the Leader of the National Party, who today tried to sign a little piece of paper -

Mr Whelan: An envelope!

Mr McMANUS: An envelope, to convince the people of New South Wales that they have some sort of coalition, teamwork, and unity, some sort of army to fight the Labor Party. They are a total disgrace. On 19 August an article in the Australian stated:

"We're pretty dirty about this," an angry Mr Armstrong said last night. "It's a bugger when you're travelling with amateurs . . ."

Who was he talking about? He was talking about the man who sees himself as the Premier of this State. He is talking about the Leader of the Opposition. What sort of coalition is this when one leader now wants to cuddle up? What is happening is that the Leader of the National Party realises that he does not have the numbers to form a little bunch on his own. He realises that if he leaves this bunch of cretins on the other side he will have to sit on the crossbenches with the Independents. He will lose his car. The same thing will happen to all the other cretins behind him; they will lose all the benefits that they get from the people of New South Wales.

The honourable member for Monaro did the same thing. He was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 August as saying that he wanted to move a motion to split from the coalition. He criticised the Leader of the Opposition for failing to fight harder for the National Party before the State Executive. Is that a coalition, a unified team that is trying to become the alternative government in this State? They are a bunch of absolute cretins. They are useless to the people of New South Wales, to their own party and to the New South Wales Parliament. I have 10 pages of open criticism by members of the coalition of their own leader.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [4.25]: I concur with what the Minister for Police and the honourable member for Bulli have said. This was said to be a decree nisi. Perhaps it is a marriage of convenience that is experiencing a separation. Three months are usually allowed to attempt to get back together, and the coalition has had its three months. They have now produced an envelope on which is written, "We are in coalition." They say it is a love-in, but is it? On 19 August on radio 2BL the Hon. Duncan Gay stated:

. . . I don't think I've seen a stupider decision taken by an organisation in a long time.

He was referring to the National Party's opposition to the Liberal Party. On the same program the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated:

. . . the Liberal Party simply lost the political plot . . . the Liberal Party if it is a payback, is more determined then to settle scores than win government . . . this morning we have two parties who are supposed to be in Coalition, I think it's gossamer thin, absolutely gossamer thin.

Things did not improve because in newspapers and on radio all around the State coalition members haemorrhaged from the blood-letting. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 August the Hon. Duncan Gay was quoted as saying:

I am bloody angry. There are a lot of us who have been staunch coalitionists who feel betrayed.

On 20 August, on radio 2GB, the Leader of the Opposition stated:

. . . I think the language [National's] is excessive and I think the rhetoric is excessive and it's about time they settled down.

Before I quote the pinnacle strategist for the National Party, the honourable member for Myall Lakes, I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

That this House calls upon the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Liberal Party to table the envelope signed in the Parliament today giving evidence of the existence of the coalition.

The honourable member for Myall Lakes said:

. . . sheer bloody mindedness and not conducive to the harmony of the coalition . . . I am very angry. The Liberals' decision is illogical. They see the Nationals as a bigger enemy than Labor, which in a way is a back-handed compliment because we are the grassroots people. What the Liberals will do is to bring `suits from the city' who have no idea about the country areas or their requirements.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order. I seek a direction that the amendment moved and handed up by the honourable member for Auburn be made available to all honourable members.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have organised the copying of the amendment with a view to its distribution.

Mr NAGLE: Others were making statements that the Liberal Party had a born-to-rule mentality. The significance of those statements is reflected in the question asked yesterday by the honourable member for Myall Lakes about Auburn council and the pecuniary interests register of disclosure. The only people on that council who have anything to disclose are members of the Liberal Party. So he has moved in on the Liberal Party in Auburn council.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order. My point of order relates to relevance. The honourable member may make passing reference to what was said, but he cannot address the substance of a matter that is not within the ambit of this debate.

Mr NAGLE: The division extends to the rank and file of the party. Members of the National Party have moved into the centre of Sydney and are condemning their own by asking questions of Labor Ministers concerning their own people on local councils. That is the sheer bloody mindedness of members of the National Party. They are going in to get square with the Liberal Party by asking questions concerning members of the Liberal Party who are also members of a council in western
Page 4309
Sydney. Some National pulled me aside in the corridor one day and said to me, "It is all your fault." I said, "What do you mean, it is all my fault?" That person said, "If only you had allocated your preferences in the seat of Southern Highlands to the National Party, we would have been able to win the seat and the Leader of the Opposition would have been crippled for ever."

Mr Kerr: On a point of order. The honourable member is not entitled to make a personal explanation at this point in time.

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

Mr NAGLE: That person said that the Leader of the Opposition would have been destroyed for ever if the Labor Party had given its preferences to the National Party in Southern Highlands. That is the degree of contempt that the National Party has for the Liberal Party. The motion moved by the Leader of the House condemning the bad performance of the so-called envelope coalition should be supported by all honourable members.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [4.30]: I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House and the amendment moved by the honourable member for Auburn. Probably more than any other member of this House on the Labor side, I have monitored and been affected by the performance of the National Party in country New South Wales. The National Party in country New South Wales is irrelevant. People take no notice of the Nationals. They are fast becoming known for their failure to represent rural interests in this Parliament, so much so that I believe it to be factual that nine members of the National Party wish to form another party. They invited me to join that party. I issued a press statement saying that the only party that can help rural New South Wales is the Australian Labor Party. Next week I will have been a member of that party for 50 years, and I will die as a member of the Labor Party.

The Nationals have abandoned their country New South Wales constituencies. I believe the Leader of the National Party in this Parliament has asked the Minister for Agriculture one question in 18 months. I was so staggered today when he asked a question that I interjected spontaneously, and my interjection brought from you, Mr Speaker, a warning that my interjection was unacceptable. What prompted my interjection was the fact that the Leader of the National Party actually asked a question about a country hospital in his electorate! That was so much against the character of the National Party that I forgot myself temporarily. In country New South Wales, the Nationals are a joke. They do not represent the best interests of country people. Later on this afternoon honourable members will discuss another issue, and during that debate I will enlarge on what I have been saying.

When the Labor Party was in Opposition in 1994 it sought to help constituents of the National Party who had slavishly given their vote for National members as well as their assistance over many years. The Labor Party sought to assist those constituents by introducing in this Parliament the Farm Debt Mediation Bill. The Nationals strenuously opposed that bill. Their opposition was so vehement that one could not understand why they were abandoning their constituency. From that day on I have received a constant stream of complaints, particularly from constituents of western New South Wales that are represented in this place by National Party members. Those National Party constituents have complained to me time and again that they cannot get the representation that they have been seeking from their National Party members. I repeat that the Nationals have abandoned country New South Wales.

Today I raise an issue that arose in the term of the Greiner and Fahey governments, when the banks threw some people off their farm. That farm has enjoyed an increase in productivity because of good rains, but the people who have made their representations to me estimate that they are $1.4 million short of what they consider to be their just payment by the bank when they were thrown off their property. The Minister for Agriculture and I are examining that matter now, and I have suggested to the Minister that perhaps the introduction of legislation could in some way redress that wrong.

I return to my original remarks. There is no representation for country people by the National Party. I understand why nine members of that party wish to form another party: they want to put some teeth into the party that is supposed to be looking after the bush, and they want to start afresh. Earlier I referred to the fact that I was asked to join the new party. I would not join that lot of, shall I say, inefficient members of Parliament if my life depended on it, because they are looking for an excuse to re-establish themselves. The people of New South Wales have to pay for the cars, special conditions, staff and other expenses incurred by members of the National Party whilst they parade as members of the coalition. But if nine members of that party wish to start a new party, the National Party has only six members left in this place. The rules of this Parliament require that a party must have a minimum of 10 members to be regarded as a party. The Nationals are a fraud. They are lacking in numbers. The motion moved by the Leader of the House and amendment moved by the honourable member for Auburn should be supported. [Time expired.]

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.35], in reply: The Government accepts the amendment moved by the honourable member for Auburn. Clearly, the coalition is dissolving before our very eyes. We all know that this so-called
Page 4310
marriage of convenience is dead once and for all. There are irreconcilable differences between the Liberals and the Nationals, whether those differences relate to the electorates of Port Macquarie or Southern Highland or the election to the Senate of Bill Heffernan, in respect of which members of this House attended a joint sitting in the upper House today. Those differences between the National Party and the Liberal Party are real. Those differences show that there is no coalition in New South Wales.

The differences between the coalition parties have affected the people of New South Wales because they are not getting value for money from the Opposition. Members of the Opposition are spending all their time on petty squabbles about power and money. Instead, they should be concentrating on the policy issues faced by this great State and the problems that the Federal Government is causing for this State. Today the Liberals and Nationals signed what they called a new agreement. That agreement is not worth the value of the envelope it was written on. There is no proof of any decency in that relationship. There is no positive indication that the Liberal Party and National Party can overcome the differences in credibility and political philosophy that is destroying the coalition in New South Wales. When nine members of the National Party are saying publicly that the coalition is dead, how many other members of the National Party and Liberal Party want to put an end to whatever arrangements they have had? There must be a countless number.

The attempts by coalition members to try to poach Labor members representing rural New South Wales electorates such as the honourable member for Bathurst, as he has indicated to the House today, demonstrate how desperate they are to get out of this so-called coalition. The stunt of signing an envelope in the Parliament to indicate that there is a coalition is not good enough. If members opposite are prepared to take the money and the perks and to get into the lurks of the office, they have to undertake the scrutiny that goes with that. When one scratches the Nationals, one finds they know all about one thing. They know all about lurks and perks. That may be why members of the Liberal Party are feeling uncomfortable about the alleged relationship between themselves and the National Party: they do not like the principles upon which National Party members are delivering their party to rural New South Wales, which has rejected the National Party. In a division during the historic sitting of this House to deal with the Firearms Bill members of the National Party sat on this side of the House and members of the Liberal Party sat on the other side of the House with members of the Government. That is how much agreement there is between them. On that issue they were totally divided. [Quorum formed.]

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the motion as amended be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Tripodi
Mr Hunter Mr Watkins
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Woods
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr Lynch Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz
Mr Debnam Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr MacCarthy Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Iemma Mr Downy
Mr Shedden Mr Phillips
Mr Sullivan Mr Rozzoli

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Page 4311

Mr ELLIS (South Coast) [4.53]: I move:

That this House censures the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women for her failure to protect the customers of banks in New South Wales.

On 27 June, nearly three months ago, I called on the Minister for Fair Trading to institute an urgent inquiry into alleged malpractice, fraud and deceit in certain bank transactions. The Minister has not acted. There has been no inquiry and there are no plans of which I am aware to establish one. In the meanwhile, almost a thousand victims of the banks' unconscionable practices are haemorrhaging financially and emotionally. People are losing all their life savings, their property, their dignity and their hopes for the future, while the Minister avoids taking any action. The Minister either does not care about those people or is incapable of understanding the gravity of the situation. I spoke with the Minister on this issue on the evening of 27 June after raising this matter in the House. She assured me that she would have a member of her department contact me. As no contact has been made by a member of the Minister's department, I can only assume that the Minister has reneged on her undertaking. To give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, I put that down to indifference and incompetence, because the alternatives are more disturbing in their implications.

Mr Clough: On a point of order. Standing orders provide that honourable members may not read their speeches. It is obvious that the honourable member for South Coast is reading his speech.

Mr Cochran: On the point of order. It has been the convention of the House that a relatively new member is given the opportunity to read speeches. I consider it appropriate for the honourable member for Bathurst to show a greater degree of tolerance for a newer member of the House than he has.

Mr Clough: Further to the point of order. Standing Order 2 indicates that in all cases not provided by the standing orders the House should follow procedure as outlined in May's Parliamentary Practice. Page 365 of that publication makes it clear that the honourable member for South Coast does not have the right to read his speech.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is obvious that the honourable member for South Coast is merely referring to copious notes.

Mr ELLIS: To give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, I put her lack of action down to indifference and incompetence, because the alternatives are disturbing in their implications. The alternatives are: that her department has not put in train her directions, in which case managerial and leadership abilities must be questioned; that the Minister does not care or does not want to know, in which case she is acting with complete disregard to her duties and responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown; or that the Minister is protecting vested interests, which raises a whole new ball game. I tend to opt for incompetence, based upon the Minister's deeds and words. Nevertheless, an explanation of the Minister's lack of action is required.

The Minister has shown herself to be an embodiment of the principle of dynamics of promotion, which anyone with any management experience would recognise immediately, that is, she has been promoted to her level of incompetence and she has exceeded the bounds of her abilities but she will not give up her job, as decency would dictate. That is a well-known factor in leadership. The Minister may well laugh, but many people in the community are haemorrhaging. The Minister should know that, because she should now be working on a particular case the progress of which I should like to hear. While the Minister may have been a good lance corporal, she makes a lousy field commander. She does not have what it takes.

Mr Clough: On a point of order. I believe that the honourable member for South Coast is still reading his speech and I refer you to the point of order I raised earlier.

Mr Cochran: On the point of order. The Speaker, who was in the chair until just a moment ago, ruled that the honourable member for South Coast was entitled to make reference to copious notes, which he is now doing. On the advice of the Speaker, the honourable member is within the order of the House.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The honourable member for Bathurst timed his point of order a little badly in that the honourable member for South Coast made two asides immediately prior to the point of order being raised. There is no point of order.

Mr ELLIS: The comments I was making prior to the point of order being taken are not contained in my notes, and the honourable member for Bathurst would have no idea what I am about to say. He has succeeded, however, in taking up the time of the House. The Minister for Fair Trading does not have what it takes to fill her role. How else could she explain her recent decision to fob off this issue without taking note of any of the evidence I had to offer on 27 June? Since my speech on that date the Minister has taken no action, she has made no contact with me and she does not know what information I have. There should be an inquiry into this matter. I recall speaking to Government members about this subject. One Government member in the Chamber at the moment told me that he had material in his drawer relating to 150 cases and that he had been fighting the banks for years. That honourable member is dying to have something done and has been fighting to have something done.

I ask that an inquiry be held. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Fair Trading to protect the wellbeing of the people of New South
Page 4312
Wales. If an inquiry into the banking industry does not come within the responsibility of the Minister then it is her responsibility, as representative of the people of this State, to pass the matter on to the Federal Government if need be. The Minister cannot deny her role. I have evidence and I can provide the details. I have evidence that money has been taken from one account without authority and moved elsewhere. Later today I will move a motion to have the cases forwarded to the fraud squad. If the Minister is fulfilling her role she must be aware that some cases are already in the hands of the fraud squad.

Mrs Lo Po': I am not the Minister for Police.

Mr ELLIS: No, but you are the Minister for Fair Trading and you should be familiar with the Fair Trading Act.

Mrs Lo Po': The fraud squad under fair trading? When did that happen?

Mr ELLIS: If such matters are brought to the Minister's attention or to the attention of the Department of Fair Trading they should be referred to the fraud squad. Is the Minister familiar with the Act? The Commonwealth Trade Practices Act refers to the Minister's responsibility to pass the matter on to the Commonwealth if she is aware of such practices. Section 51AA of that Act describes unconscionable conduct as falling within the meaning of the unwritten law of the States and Territories. I do not know if that means anything to the Minister, but if it does she is not working on it. If the Minister is aware that such acts are unconscionable she is obliged to intercede on behalf of the citizens of New South Wales. If the Minister is not so obliged, who is? The New South Wales Trading Act contains relevant provisions dealing with transactions related to goods and services, as the Minister should know. That does not mean servicing a Holden Monaro; it includes banking services and refers to unconscionable conduct. The Minister should be aware of that.

If the Minister has difficulty understanding what the word "service" means, the Parliamentary Library has a dictionary and she should look it up. The Act is administered by the Minister for Fair Trading, who has refused to accept responsibility for addressing these issues. Three months ago I received a letter from her attempting to fob off the problem and get me to fulfil her role. In the letter she wrote she referred me to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission and other parties. The Minister is unaware that section 42 of the Fair Trading Act - which is administered by her - prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct. If the Minister is aware of such conduct, she is obliged to do something about it. I have evidence to show what has been done, but the Minister has not contacted me. I met the Minister in her office three months ago after calling for an inquiry. I asked her if I should bring the information I had to her and she said she would arrange for someone from her department to make contact with me. That was more than three months ago.

Mrs Lo Po': They did make contact with you.

Mr ELLIS: A person telephoned me and asked what he was to do. I said that I was waiting for someone to come and collect the information and that was the end of the conversation. No-one came to collect the information. The young man who rang me did not know what was what; he had received a note about it.

Mrs Lo Po': I did what I said I would do.

Mr ELLIS: If that is the way the Minister handles matters, I am pleased that she has brought that fact to my attention.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will cease interjecting.

Mr ELLIS: The Minister said that she made contact with me. A young staffer rang and I have a note that he asked, "What am I to do about it?" I explained to him what was involved and that was the end of the conversation. No-one else has contacted me to obtain the information I have. Misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct comes under section 43 and false representation comes under section 44 of the Act for which the Minister is responsible. If the Minister is not responsible, who is responsible? I am not responsible. If a crime has been perpetrated under another Act, as an inquiry would reveal, the Minister is obliged to refer the matter to the relevant State or Federal Minister. If someone takes someone else's property without that person's permission or knowledge it is stealing, pure and simple. Stealing is taking goods in deceitful ways or in secrecy. If someone breaks into a house and steals property the owner will report it to the police who have a duty to investigate the matter and bring the offender to justice. That is the law as it stands.

The removal of funds from a bank account without authority is also wrong. I do not believe the law permits a bank to take money from an account without one's knowledge or permission and deposit it elsewhere. As in the example of someone breaking into a house and stealing, if a bank is suspected of wrongdoing, regardless of what the bank calls it, that has to be investigated by the Minister for Fair Trading and, if the case is proved, it must be prosecuted accordingly. Unfortunately, the Minister for Fair Trading does not have a clue about the provisions of the Act. She was informed in no uncertain terms about the matter but she failed to follow it up. In fact some cases have been referred to the fraud squad and are currently under investigation. If the Minister had displayed some leadership and initiative she would have the matter in hand and be able to offer an immediate explanation.

Mr Whelan: Someone gave you a poisoned chalice.

Mr ELLIS: Not really. I think I have the support of the State in requesting that the Minister fulfil her role and do her duty. If it is not the
Page 4313
Minister's responsibility she is obliged to set up an inquiry to investigate the allegations. The Minister has made no contact with me to determine whether the accusations I have made and the information I have are correct.

Mr Watkins: You should have picked up the phone and rung her again. You should have been a good local member.

Mr ELLIS: I raised the matter in the House and it is up to the Minister to act. The Minister told me in her office that she would arrange for someone to contact me. She arranged for a young staffer, who did not know what he was expected to do, to call me. I told him, but nothing happened. The honourable member is sticking up for the Minister. What is he doing for his constituents who are being ripped off by the banks in one way or another? I have knowledge of 300 cases and I would say they include constituents in the electorates of every member in this House.

Mr Clough: Give us a few examples.

Mr ELLIS: That will be raised in another forum on another day. That is being addressed. I refer the House to the case of one fellow who, in 12 months, had $6,000 in debt administration fees; legal fees of $24,000 and transfer fees of $27,000. In a 12-month period the fees totalled $53,000. He has been writing to the bank for three years to get the bank to explain to him where the money went. I cannot believe that that matter does not require investigation.

[Interruption]

It is extortion.

Mr Watkins: Did you take him to the bank to ask for an explanation? That is your job.

Mr ELLIS: No, it is not my job. It was in another member's electorate.

Mr Watkins: That is your job.

Mr ELLIS: No, it is not my job; it is the Minister's job. I represent the constituents of the South Coast. I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister and one case is being investigated by the Department of Fair Trading. During the course of the last conversation I had with that department an officer said that at present the department has reached a stalemate and has sought information from the bank, which is checking with its legal department. After four months the Minister's department has not received the information it requires. If a government department cannot get that information, what hope does an individual have of getting it? The only hope an individual has is through the court.

Mr McBride: You do it. You should do something.

Mr ELLIS: Yes, I am. I am asking for an inquiry to be set up. If honourable members were acting on behalf of their constituents they would support this motion.

Mr McBride: You are elected to represent your constituents. You should do something for them.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for The Entrance will cease interjecting.

Mr ELLIS: The honourable member should check on his constituents. [Time expired.]

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [5.08]: It does not pay to be kind. On 4 June I listened to the honourable member. He came to my office and told me the story about the Egans and I felt sorry for them because they were in some sort of trouble. Let me inform honourable members that the Egans entered into inappropriate financial arrangements. The matter does not come under my jurisdiction; it is a business arrangement. However, because I felt sorry for the honourable member, I listened and I thought that the honourable member had compassion. While the honourable member for South Coast was raving on, I remembered he was the member who wrote to the Deputy Premier, Andrew Refshauge, asking if the Minister could issue a press release that the member sent, and everybody roared laughing. I thought that was a bit unkind but I know now why they did - because the member seems to be a sandwich short of a lunch when he talks like that. Let me tell the House what happened. I listened to this man; I felt sorry for him. It was not my jurisdiction.

Mr Cochran: On a point of order. The Minister is required to address the member as the honourable member for South Coast, not "this man". I find her language offensive and she should address the member properly.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The honourable member for Monaro is correct; the member should be addressed by his correct title.

Mrs LO PO': I will quote from the Trade Practices Act on State legislation:

In some States, there was also legislation for the incorporation of State government bodies which operate as banks. With the sale of the State Bank of New South Wales in December 1994 -

that is, by the Fahey Government -

the Bank of South Australia in June 1995 and the announced sale of the Bank of Western Australia, only one bank, the Queensland Industry Development Corporation, remains under State Government ownership.

I do not own the banks, they are not my responsibility. If the honourable member for South Coast has a problem, he should go to Canberra to his dopey mates and get them to sort it out because it is not my problem. I made the mistake of being kind to the member because he is pathetic and I thought I was doing a favour. He can forget that for the rest -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for South Coast has made a contribution in the debate and has a right of reply.

Page 4314

Mrs LO PO': Do not come to my door any more asking me to be kind to you. I will show you my boot.

Mr Cochran: On a point of order. The Minister is using threatening language to the honourable member for South Coast. I ask she withdraw it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The language was not threatening. There is no point of order.

Mrs LO PO': Showing your boot is a country saying that the honourable member for Monaro should understand. It is not a threat. No wonder the Leader of the House said, "I thought you were joking." We all did and asked why is this man bringing a Federal issue into the State jurisdiction. The honourable member for South Coast has to learn what the responsibilities are of members here and what the responsibilities are of his friends in Canberra. The honourable member for Gladesville is exactly right - the member for South Coast is a pathetic excuse for a local member. He brings up something once, gives it to me and then is finished with it. Then because it fell on his head he now asks me to do his electoral work for him. I do not intend to do it. The honourable member for Myall Lakes is trying to counsel the honourable member for South Coast and tell him he has it terribly wrong. I will wait. Listen to the honourable member for Myall Lakes, he is right. I might never concede this again but on this issue the honourable member for Myall Lakes is right. Let me talk about consumer protection. I will quote from a document by the Trade Practices Commission:

in agreement with the State and Territory agencies, the Commission gives priority to consumer protection to matters of national significance or which adversely affect large numbers of people. It will be most concerned with . . . financial services . . . unconscionable conduct.

This, I tell you, is a Federal issue. The honourable member for South Coast was seduced by my kindness. I was kind to him and I seduced him into believing it was a State matter. It is not a State matter. He is the victim of my seduction; my kindness seduced him.

Mr Turner: That was definitely a threat.

Mrs LO PO': You should be so lucky. My department has been actively involved since June in the matter. It is my understanding the bank agreed to take no further action against the Egans until it met with me. I am meeting with the bank people tomorrow. The honourable member for South Coast gets up here and censures me for doing nothing. I have done more than the honourable member has done, and the Egans are not even my constituents. The member opposite dropped the ball. I am meeting with the bank people and I am trying to negotiate on behalf of the Egans. I do not have to do it.

I am doing it because I want a resolution. It is a Federal matter. I am doing it because I am kind and I want the Egans looked after, more than the honourable member for South Coast. He brought it into the House, dropped the ball, and then said "The Minister is not helping me." He is a pathetic member of Parliament. He has no credit to his name because he brought it here and dropped it.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted.


Mr ELLIS (South Coast) [5.15]: I bring to the attention of the House and the Minister for Police banking transaction fraud cases. Over the last several months I have had extensive dealings with groups who have described themselves as bank victims. I have fielded inquiries numbering in the hundreds from all over New South Wales and with each exposure in the media more inquiries flow in. These people have placed before me statements and documentation which describe disturbing practices by banks precipitating quite substantial losses by the client.

These losses amount to million of dollars, often involving loss of property and assets and leaving the victim virtually penniless or grossly in debt. Each case I look at leaves me very concerned that the banks appear to be acting with impunity and counter to what the reasonable person would consider fair or legal practice. In some cases the facts present as significantly more sinister. The Martin inquiry into banks in 1991 also found irregularities constituting fraud, referring those to the police for investigation. I have six such cases where fraud appears to have been perpetrated on a client by a bank, and these have been referred to the fraud squad.

In one such case the fraud squad intimated that there was possible evidence to sustain a prosecution and that investigations would take about 10 weeks. After that period lapsed the complainant again rang, only to be told the investigation had been deferred. This has happened a third time, and so far as I am aware remains unattended to. The case, which has been through the courts, involved the admission by the client's bank that 80 cheques written by the client had gone missing. The alleged missing cheques, valued at more than $200,000, have since been photocopied by a bank insider showing they do exist.

Particularly interesting is a cheque of transfer for $15,000 from a client's trading account to his No. 2 account in the same branch of the bank but has a different bank stamp imprint dated June 1994. The cheque was actually written in August 1994, some two months after the date imprinted by the stamp. I am sure members opposite do not see any problems with that but it was stamped by a completely different bank two months before the cheque was even written. The bank stated in court that these cheques cannot be found.

Page 4315

The $15,000 was deducted from his trading account but never credited to his No. 2 account. In another case the victim wrote to the Premier and the Treasurer in December 1995 and voiced concerns of fraud by his bank. The Premier wrote back on 28 March 1996 advising him to refer the documents to the police Minister. The case involved the sale of his property by the bank to a buyer with associations to the banking industry and with purchases of other properties similarly disposed of.

On the basis of the frequency of such allegations I am sure many other cases warrant further investigation for either fraud or corrupt practice. The fact that such cases have emerged and are continuing to emerge warrants action. Of concern to me is that nothing seems to be happening as a result of these referrals, including those from the Martin inquiry, five years ago. I believe the public is entitled to not only answers in relation to the practices of the banks but also an assurance as to the integrity of the fraud squad. If the police have had such cases put to them then it is reasonable to expect a report on their outcome or progress. These cases cannot be considered in isolation. Certainly some could be dismissed as civil matters but at the same time there is an equal chance that fraud and corruption are involved.

It is clear that there is an emerging pattern which points to the need for an inquiry by people with the resources and expertise to examine the matter objectively and thoroughly. I call on the Minister for Police to establish an inquiry into banking transactions - if that is the only way the matter can be cleared up - that contain serious irregularities, to determine the existence of fraud in those cases, and to examine those cases pending with the fraud squad. I am happy to provide the information I have at hand and to direct the Minister to other possible cases. The cases are certainly not new but in light of the exposure of corrupt practices in certain sectors the allegations surrounding the banking industry should not be dismissed out of hand as the early allegations of police corruption were.


Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.20]: I raise a tragedy that occurred in my electorate. Kathleen Fox, aged 66 years, was struck by a vehicle while crossing the road to her home in Kinnara Avenue, Wyoming, on 13 May 1995. She was later declared dead on arrival at Gosford Hospital. Her friend Joan Bailey was killed outright in the same incident. Formal identification was carried out by Kathleen's husband, Edwin Fox, who is in the public gallery now. Edwin later took the ashes of Kathleen, his wife of 38 years, to the Irish town of Trim, where she grew up, to visit his former wife's family and inter her ashes at a memorial service.

Death is always a tragedy but the processing of Kathleen Fox's death by the Police Service and the courts has further heightened and prolonged the tragedy for Kathleen's husband. It was a process of slow torture. The basic rights of Edwin and his deceased wife were ignored while those of the driver were respected. Edwin deserves to feel aggrieved, disappointed, angry and dissatisfied with the system that dealt with Kathleen's death. His anger and disappointment were increased by the decision of the magistrate that the driver of the vehicle involved be charged with negligent driving and driving without P-plates.

On Thursday, 22 August 1996, 15 months after the incident, the driver, a juvenile, was convicted and fined $600. The court was told the section of road was dark, the driver was travelling at or below the speed limit and the ladies were part of the way across one lane of the road between Birralee Hospital and Wyoming shopping centre. The court was also told that the driver glanced in his rear vision mirror as he approached the Pacific Highway. In that instant the ladies were hit and killed. It was argued by the defendant's Queen's Counsel that the driver could expect other road users, including pedestrians, to act reasonably under the circumstances. I suppose that means that the deceased should have taken more care when crossing the road.

A number of issues associated with the case need review. The first is the processing of the case by the Police Service. From 13 May 1995 to 11 September, four months, Mr Fox was totally frustrated in his attempts to obtain from the police any progress in the case. Information obtained from the police was inadequate, conflicting or both. In frustration, on 11 September 1995 he contacted me personally seeking assistance. There was an immediate response but quickly the obfuscation, prevarication and contradictions returned: information was "unavailable"; information had been "inadvertently" sent elsewhere; the information was "not available"; and when the information was tracked down "viewing" of the information was refused. Finally the police, in writing, refused Mr Fox all relevant reports and documents.

Another issue is processing of the case by the court. Once the matter reached the court in October 1995 it took another 10 months before being resolved. Equally important as the processing by the police and the courts is the community attitude to pedestrians killed on our roads. They are treated as contingent to the use of our roads by vehicles. Currently one-third of people killed on the roads are pedestrians. Yet, notwithstanding their vulnerability compared with those in cars, there is no community awareness or concern in the event of a tragedy except by the victims, their family and friends. That the majority of those killed are the aged seems to mitigate the gravity of the issue. If two school-age children had been killed there would have been community uproar over the tragic loss of young lives; but because the victims were two retired people the matter was quickly forgotten.

Page 4316

The matter has been referred by Mr Fox to the police royal commission, not through a sense of vindictiveness or attrition but in the hope that there will be a step forward to change the attitude of those responsible for the processing of such tragedies - a step forward that will give equal importance to the rights of the aged in particular and pedestrians in general in sharing the road, a step forward that will result in a change in community attitudes and behaviour that hopefully may save some of the lives of aged pedestrians. Such a step forward may lighten the burden of grief now carried by Mr Fox. I raise this issue both to honour the death of Kathleen Fox and Joan Bailey and also to acknowledge Mr Fox's love for and dedication to his wife. I hope that a thorough review of this case by the Minister for Police and the Attorney General will improve community attitudes to the rights of the aged.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [5.25]: I listened intently to the speech by the honourable member for The Entrance and I was very moved by it. Although belated, my condolences go to Mr Fox on the loss of his wife.


Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [5.26]: I raise a very delicate matter. Private members' statements are normally used for referring to the problems of constituents. I cannot name my constituents in this case because a young child is involved and it is a matter of some delicacy. Allegations were made against a five-year-old boy of impropriety towards a female school companion. After investigation the matter was not proceeded with, and rightly so. However, the parents of the boy are very concerned that their child now effectively has a record with the Department of Community Services, having been investigated for molestation charges against a young girl.

I am only a lay person but even from the outset the allegation of penetration by a five-year-old boy just could not have been substantiated and in my view should never have been allowed to get to the stage it reached. The parents of the young girl made an allegation to the school headmaster. He brought the young boy into his rooms and called representatives from DOCS. Interviews were carried out without the parents of the child being present. That in itself is extremely disturbing, particularly when the DOCS guidelines for investigations state, inter alia:

Where the allegation of abuse does not involve a family member or family friend, it may be more appropriate to see the parents/caregivers first.

I concur with that. My constituents are pillars of our society. After interviews were carried out it was decided that there was nothing to substantiate the allegation and the investigation summary noted that my constituents were informed that their child was interviewed at school that morning. The parents were distressed that they were not with their son that morning and that they were not informed that the interview was to take place. One can understand how angry and devastated they were at the allegation being made against their child. In an effort to ameliorate the situation the parents of the young girl wrote to DOCS stating, inter alia:

It is our opinion that your people totally overreacted to the notification with their lengthy interview . . . pushing for counselling . . .

Even the parents who had made the complaint said that the reaction was right over the top. DOCS has agreed that it was an innocent situation but the problem is that a substantial report is on file, which will be there forever, about this young person. Sure, there will be privacy and other protections associated with it, but it is nevertheless there. That is something they are very upset about. Representations were made to the department but they got nowhere. Three letters were written to the Minister seeking to have him or his representatives talk to my constituents, and asking that the matter be totally expunged from the record. I have been informed that this is not possible because it would breach the Archives Act. That may be the case, but there is something wrong with the system when a scenario, such as I have abridged because of its delicacy, has been allowed to occur.

At this stage the young person involved probably does not understand all of this, but has the potential in future to be affected by something that may arise through some check. One does not know what will happen in the future or what lengthy checks may be undertaken. His parents, being loving, are aghast that this issue may affect their son in the future. The Minister should exercise whatever discretion is necessary to expunge this allegation from the records. The Minister's department has advised that there was nothing to the allegation and the parents of both children have agreed that there was nothing. Certainly there was great irregularity in the manner in which the whole investigation was carried out. When I spoke of the parents not being there, that was but part of the investigation.


Mr PRICE (Waratah) [5.31]: I raise a series of complaints regarding a strata unit development in my electorate, at 6 Harvard Close, Jesmond. These units were built 23 years ago, they are single storey in structure with attached garages in most cases, although a couple of them have free-standing garages. The units are adjacent to State Highway 23. About two years ago the residents noticed severe disruption to the concrete paving, and some of the outbuildings were moving - some rising, some falling. The residents called their local insurance company through the strata group and had the usual inspection and report. The insurer refused to deal with the matter, stating that the damage appeared to be a result of subsurface clay shrinkage.

Page 4317

The insurance company considered this to be such a serious problem that it refused to reinsure the units. It was only following agreement that this subsidence would not constitute part of a future claim that the company again reinsured the property. Subsequently the problem became worse. I was contacted by Mr Hawkins of 2/6 Harvard Close, representing Mrs Hutchens of unit 6, who expressed great concern and presented me with a petition from the residents indicating that the Roads and Traffic Authority had been advised, as the residents had been advised, that perhaps the tree planting adjacent to the property had caused some problem with the level of water availability in the subsoil. State Highway 23 was constructed four years ago and was opened about three years ago, well after the Newcastle earthquake of 1989.

As part of the investigations preconstruction inspection reports were sought; the impact of the earthquake was canvassed and for a long time people received no answers to their inquiries. My first representation to the RTA brought a response from an insurance loss adjuster, but the matter lapsed until recently when I made further representations. Given the requirement of most city councils for extensive landscaping of major road projects, it was interesting to learn that in spite of a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation recommendation against it, a long line of black wattle trees were planted at the top of the cutting within a few metres of these units. The root systems of black wattles require substantial amounts of water and they literally drain out the subsoil moisture for a significant distance around their plantings.

Last weekend I inspected these units. In one case I found that the back wall of a unit rocked with the pressure of my hand on it; there were cracks in the wall that I could easily place my hand in and grab the studs; there was extensive cracking, which was visible from anything up to 20 metres away in some garages and other structures; floor levels had collapsed in the concrete floor sections; concrete paving had risen and fallen up to three inches; and there had been substantial damage consequent upon these movements. Today I am happy to report that with the cooperation of the Minister for Roads and his officers, the RTA has determined that there may well be some fault on its part and has expedited the inspection, and hopefully remedy, of this problem. It is a salutary lesson that whilst landscaping may be great people have to be careful about how it is done and the extent of it. [Time expired.]

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [5.36]: I reply on behalf of the Minister for Roads. Following directly from representations made by the honourable member for Waratah, the Minister asked the RTA to undertake further technical investigation of this matter. The Treasury managed fund is the RTA's insurer and it was approached by the RTA to undertake this work. The investigation was carried out on Monday and the report will be finished shortly. While the Minister probably does not wish to pre-empt the outcome of that report, I am advised by the Minister that I can say that the matter should be resolved quickly. I am sure that the Minister will undertake to keep the honourable member for Waratah advised with a view to resolving the problems of Mrs Hutchens as expeditiously as possible.


Mr SMITH (Bega) [5.37]: I bring to the attention of the House, and explain in some detail, the circumstances that surrounded the death of Mark Helmers, a 33-year-old man, in Sydney on 22 July 1996. Mark was living in Eden when he was taken ill, but originally came from my home town of Bombala. I know Mark's family extremely well. Considerable publicity surrounded the last few hours of Mark's life because there was a six-hour delay from the time he left Bega by helicopter before a hospital in Sydney could be persuaded to treat this critically ill man. Mark's doctor contacted 10 major Sydney hospitals to admit him. Finally the Prince of Wales Hospital agreed to take him after considerable haggling and pleading. This situation was widely portrayed in the media at the time. It has horrified residents living in the south-east of New South Wales, and rural people generally.

Rural people have always been of the understanding that whilst they cannot expect all specialist medical services to be available on their doorstep, emergency help is always available at major metropolitan hospitals in times of crisis. This faith has been utterly shattered by the Government, which has cut funding in the most critical areas. A doctor involved in this debacle stated in the media that budget cutbacks have stripped the hospital system of the ability to cope with fluctuating demands for services, and that resources have been stripped to the bone. A subsequent report into this incident is purported to state that there were no shortcomings in the treatment or the level of intensive care available. This report has not been made public.

I regret to advise that despite assurances given by the Minister for Health, who stated that Mark received "the best possible care" and that "patient care was not risked at any stage", clearly this was not the case. The death of Mark Helmers is not, unfortunately, solely attributable to the delays in finding a hospital bed in Sydney. Mark was admitted to Pambula hospital on 17 July at 5.45 p.m. by two friends who found him unconscious at home. Staff at the hospital decided that Mark's was a drug- or alcohol-related coma, and their initial treatment apparently was along the lines of letting him sleep it off. It was not until some 24 hours later when the results of blood tests clearly indicated that his condition was not related in any way to drugs or alcohol that the seriousness of his condition was finally realised.

Page 4318

During that 24-hour period at Pambula hospital Mark regained consciousness for a brief period and complained of severe head pains. His pleas for help were ignored. This young man died a slow, painful and undignified death. His basic needs were not met. Family and friends were distraught at the condition in which he was left. They were not notified when, after 24 hours at Pambula hospital, he was transferred to Bega hospital. No satisfactory explanation was offered to the family, then or since, as to the reasons these delays in treatment occurred, why the family was not kept informed, and why information provided by Mark and his family was ignored.

On behalf of the Helmers family, I have contacted the Minister, the Premier and the Health Care Complaints Commission, but to date no explanation has been forthcoming, although the commission advised me just last week that it will investigate this complaint. I am not interested in this Government's posturing over hospital waiting lists, or the ridiculous claims that waiting lists were halved in the first 12 months of the Carr Labor Government. I am sure that most people recognise that statements such as "no child shall live in poverty" and "the recession we had to have" are just nonsense. I suspect no-one, not even the politicians delivering them, would expect that those statements were in any way true or accurate.

What concerns me vitally is that one of my constituents, a close friend, has died, the family is in mourning, and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. The health system of New South Wales utterly failed Mark Helmers. It failed his family, and it failed my electorate. I will not accept an internal health department inquiry designed from the outset to cover up or sweep under the carpet what has been a complete and utter breakdown in the New South Wales health system, a system that everyone bar the Minister knows is in crisis. I demand that the Minister have a full and public inquiry into all circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Helmers. [Time expired.]


Mr RUMBLE (Illawarra) [5.42]: This evening I raise the urgent necessity for the maternity ward of Shellharbour hospital to be kept open. I stress that the ward will be closed for two weeks because anaesthetists allege a safety issue is involved and that there are no paediatricians or obstetricians on duty for the two-week period. In the meantime there will be a two-week review of the whole of the procedures of the ward by medical experts from Sydney. I stress that this problem has been ongoing because certain people in the health field do not want to deliver babies in Shellharbour hospital; they prefer to make the deliveries at Wollongong Hospital. This issue has nothing to do with shortage of funds; it has everything to do with doctors carrying out their duties at Shellharbour hospital.

It is an open secret that certain specialists do not want to go to Shellharbour; they wish to remain in Wollongong. On 13 September 1996 a public meeting was held at the Albion Park Community Centre. Among those attending were my colleague the honourable member for Kiama and I. The meeting carried a unanimous resolution expressing the concern of residents and of their complete and determined support for the retention of the obstetrics ward and its return to catering for deliveries. The meeting further stated:

We believe the hospital is a community-based district hospital in a rapidly growing area and should provide family-oriented services - this includes the current obstetrics ward and a future children's ward.

Therefore:

1. This meeting calls on the Illawarra Area Health Service to guarantee the future of a fully functioning obstetrics ward at Shellharbour and, if needed, to take a strong position with the relevant specialists to provide this.

2. This meeting calls on all the relevant specialists to support any fair and reasonable solution proposed by the Illawarra Area Health Service and to support the future of our hospital and Obstetrics Ward.

3. This meeting insists that the proposed Review Team of specialists includes a Consumer Representative and that the Review Team hear the concerns of the community through another public meeting to be organised by tonight's organisers.

4. This meeting endorses, supports and congratulates the nurses at Shellharbour Hospital for their actions in support of this campaign.

5. That no licences be issued to private hospitals either for new hospitals or for extensions to existing hospitals.

The five points of that motion were unanimously supported by the public meeting. I should like to point out that Shellharbour is a growing area, with many young families. One matter that came to my attention at the public meeting was that when the obstetrics ward at Port Kembla hospital was closed, the community was told that deliveries would take place at Shellharbour. When the previous Government closed Kiama hospital the people were told that there was an obstetrics ward at Shellharbour hospital and that their babies could be delivered there. Now certain people within the medical profession are campaigning to encourage the public not to use Shellharbour hospital but instead to go to Wollongong Hospital for deliveries.

A committee of Shellharbour hospital has been actively supporting the reopening of the children's ward, which was opened 10 years ago but was closed soon after. Following closure of the ward there has been an ongoing campaign to have the children's ward reopened. Residents are most upset at the mention of any proposal to close the Shellharbour hospital maternity ward. I stress, especially for the benefit of honourable members opposite, that the problem does not relate to shortage of funds; it relates to getting the doctors, particularly specialists, to go where their services are needed and not where they wish to perform their services.

I suppose an analogy could be drawn with the delivery of services in the Sydney metropolitan area. Doctors would prefer to operate at hospitals within
Page 4319
the central reaches of Sydney and not at hospitals in the western suburbs. The people of the Wollongong region want doctors to come to Shellharbour hospital, where they are needed, and not just concentrate on delivery of their services in the Wollongong region. I ask the Minister for Health, as a matter or urgency, to do all he can to ensure that the Shellharbour hospital maternity ward is kept open for the people of Shellharbour and that certain people in the medical profession do not get their way, that the residents prevail and have the services they demand. I strongly support the proposition.


Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [5.47]: I shall speak about the Irrigation Freehold Tenures Amendment Bill and the lack of effort to implement it, despite promises to that effect. First of all, I apologise for not informing the Minister that I would raise this matter in the House. However, I was to speak on another matter involving the State Transit Authority, but when I informed the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism of this, he told me before I got to the podium that the whole matter had been fixed. I was very happy about that. I have great respect for any Minister who can tell his bureaucrats what to do instead of those bureaucrats telling him what to do - and few Ministers in any government can do so. I thank the Minister for having dealt with a vexatious matter which was not of his doing but related entirely to a bureaucracy problem.

The matter I raise relates to the Irrigation Freehold Tenures Amendment Bill. The days of operating irrigation areas as comfortable, socialist enclaves are over. The market is now prevailing, and is doing so satisfactorily. A peculiar aspect of the wine industry is that wine producers depend upon wine makers for their sales. In the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area at the moment the sales of wines are incredible, as they are throughout Australia. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area produces about 24 per cent of all wine produced in Australia. Currently, about 100,000 tonnes of grapes are crushed each year, and by the turn of the century the area will be crushing about 150,000 tonnes of grapes. That is a lot of wine. Wine makers are doing very well, but, because of the archaic way in which irrigation areas were set up, companies cannot own land in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. That is causing a great deal of angst because the community has lost investment that was probably worth over $100 million. According to the President of the New South Wales Winemakers Association, Mr Darren DeBortoli, restrictions hindering development have cost the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area more than $100 million in foregone development. Restrictions often convince companies to invest in other parts of New South Wales, which is what they are doing. Unfortunately, most of the small developments around Mudgee, Cowra and other towns in the area - wherever one can find some water and a sandhill to plant a few grape vines - do not have a great future because of economies of scale.

Mr Aquilina: Cowra chardonnay is one of the best in Australia.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: Members of the Government are under a great delusion. Do they not know where the grapes come from? They come from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. Those from other parts of New South Wales could not possibly sustain any product. They need the bulk and they get it from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. On 9 March 1995 the Minister for Agriculture, who was then the shadow minister, said that Labor would halt the policy of the former Government to sustain water quality and to keep prices down. He said he would stop the privatisation of irrigation areas. All of that has happened. He said Labor would consider loosening rules on corporations holding land in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area if elected to government on 25 March. I wrote to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation on 4 October 1995. I wrote to the Minister for Agriculture on 9 October 1995. The Minister for Agriculture answered my letter; I cannot say the same about the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. About eight or nine months later the Minister for Land and Water Conservation said that the Government was considering its position in relation to these legislative proposals and that it was likely that the matter would be determined early in 1996.

It is now almost 1997, and nothing has been heard. I subsequently wrote to the Premier. In his reply dated 4 March 1996, the Premier stated that the matter was not within his area of responsibility and that he would refer the matter to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. That is about as far as we have got. Wine growers make up the whole show. If the irrigation areas are allowed to expand and develop corporations and companies must be allowed to buy land in the area. Legislation was introduced prior to the election in March last year, but unfortunately it was defeated by the Independents. They claimed that people would make big profits by selling land to large corporations owned by the Packers, the Bonds, and others. That is not the problem. The wine makers who live there want to be able to buy land in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area.


Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [5.52]: I would like to report to the House on the latest crime-fighting initiative in the Cabramatta electorate. Last Monday the Minister for Police attended an official ceremony in Freedom Plaza at Cabramatta when the newly introduced closed-circuit television monitoring system was unveiled. That system has been the subject of many statements I have made in this House. Implementation of the process has taken about 18 months. It is an important initiative to complement the traditional forms of policing that are already available within my electorate. For too long those who live in Cabramatta, visitors to the electorate and retailers have put up with the highly
Page 4320
visible trade in narcotics. They have been afraid of different forms of crime, including opportunistic street crime. There has been great momentum within the Cabramatta electorate to find other ways to deal with the problem. That level of fear is debilitating for any community. People choose to do their shopping in other suburbs, resulting in local businesses suffering. People do not move around the town freely. Parents worry about their children using public transport, and commuters worry about their daily journeys to and from work. The problem certainly needed to be addressed.

Earlier this year, at the invitation of senior New South Wales police, I travelled to Brisbane to inspect models that had been established in the Queen Street Mall and Fortitude Valley areas. I was extremely impressed with the system for several reasons. The police reported a 60 per cent reduction in street crime within the first 12 months. That is quite remarkable. The most important aspect of the introduction of the cameras was a renewed sense of public confidence in street safety. When the public has that sense of confidence people begin to utilise public space more freely. The flow-on effect is that people once again start to patronise their local businesses and their local entertainment venues. Having more people on the street at any time of the day or night also assists in developing a sense of community safety.

As the local member I was keen to have this kind of innovative policing introduced to Cabramatta so that the long task of rebuilding community confidence in our town could commence. I commend the cooperative efforts of those people involved in establishing the system, notably Fairfield City Council, the New South Wales Police Service and the State Government, which contributed $327,000 to the funding of the system, which was launched on Monday. The ceremony was attended by the Minister for Police. Within half an hour of the cameras becoming operational, police reported five arrests as a result of camera detection. Before coming into the House to speak on this matter I spoke to members of the local patrol. There have been about 20 arrests, including 15 for drug-related crimes that have led to 36 charges. The local patrol has advised me unofficially that it is very happy with the system and holds great hopes about the kind of facility it will be able to use in coming months to address the town's problems.

The introduction of this system represents a second chance for Cabramatta. It is an opportunity to start addressing the crime problem and rebuilding public confidence. I look forward to being able to work with my local community and local businesses to make sure that a positive image is developed that will bring the tourists back to Cabramatta and will establish Cabramatta in the tourism bid in the lead-up to the Olympics. Cabramatta is certainly a unique, vibrant and diverse town, which has for too long suffered a negative media image. The new system is an opportunity to turn the tide. I look forward to giving the House regular updates on progress in the area.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.57]: I extend my congratulations to the honourable member for Cabramatta on her consistent crime-fighting campaign in her electorate. She came into this Chamber with a commitment to ensure that crime in the Cabramatta area would be tackled, and tackled rigorously. She has been relentless and persistent in her campaign. I know that she and all other honourable members regret the fact that these sorts of measures are needed to fight crime. It is a tragic indictment of modern society that we need to resort to measures such as cameras in the streets of some of our major towns to eliminate crime. That is very much a leaf out of George Orwell's 1984. I believe all of us had hoped that we would never get to the stage in this day and age of having Big Brother watching. But extreme situations require extreme measures, and that is very much the case in Cabramatta. I congratulate the honourable member on the steps she has taken to ensure that her constituents have the security to which they are entitled in the streets of their community.


Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.59]: On 1 November 1995 a 1910 antique Scat car, being driven by a Mr Len Pellew and carrying a passenger named Mr Reg Thornton, was rammed from behind by a Holden Commodore being driven by a young Sydney man. As a result of the accident Mr Thornton was thrown from the car. He hit his head and was killed. The driver of the other car was charged with culpable driving causing death and on 13 June 1996 appeared in the District Court at Wollongong, where he pleaded guilty to the charge. It was established during the hearing that the convicted man had had 17 convictions since he obtained his licence in 1983, that his licence had been cancelled four times and that at the time of the accident he was driving on a cancelled licence. The prisoner is aged 29 years. The judge imposed a sentence of 18 months periodic detention.

The widow of Mr Reg Thornton has requested that I raise this matter in the Parliament and seek the intervention of the Attorney General to establish whether an appeal could be lodged by the Director of Public Prosecutions against that sentence on the grounds of its lack of severity. That a human life has been so tragically taken away is wrong, but that the convicted person should, given his extraordinary driving record, receive such a sentence - which Mrs Thornton regards as lenient - is a further injustice to Mrs Thornton and to many other people who are concerned with the maintenance of law and order in this State. Mrs Thornton is devastated by the loss of her husband of 50 years, who had been a driver for 47 years and had long been involved in the maintenance of antique cars. Mr Thornton in his years of retirement had indulged his hobby of driving antique cars around New South Wales.

Page 4321

Mrs Thornton points out that not only has she lost her friend of 50 years of marriage, which was to her a wonderful partnership, but she does not drive and her family is scattered across New South Wales. Mrs Thornton has only two sons and the loss of her husband has greatly restricted her access to her family. Mrs Thornton does not seek vengeance; she seeks justice. She is seeking a review by the Attorney General of this case to establish whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should appeal against the sentence. I would like to share with the House Mrs Thornton's final tribute to her husband:

To Reg

To see a human being reveal exceptional qualities, one must be able to observe his activities over many years. If the idea motivating them is unique in its magnanimity; if it is quite certain he has never looked for any reward, and if in addition he has left visible traces on the world, then one must state, without fear or error, that one is in the presence of an unforgettable character.

May God bless him. We will meet again.

It is an ongoing concern in this State that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. It is not for us to query the decision that is reached in every court, or to question the wisdom of the judiciary. But there are times when it is appropriate to review decisions that have been made by the courts. It has been pointed out that the day the judge imposed the sentence he had an extremely heavy workload; something like 18 cases had to be disposed of that day. It would have been extremely difficult for the judge to grasp the enormity of the consequences of this tragic motor vehicle accident for the family of the victim. If all members of the House accept the fact that the interests of the victims should be taken into account when sentences are imposed, this is one case in which that principle has gone off the rails. I am not asking for vengeance. I am simply asking for justice for Mr Thornton's widow and for her family and to have this case reviewed by the Attorney General with the view to a direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against the sentence.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.04]: I have listened with concern to the comments of the honourable member for Gosford and I acknowledge the tempered way in which he presented this tragic case. Issues such as this are never easy, and it is very difficult for us as members of Parliament to know all of the circumstances surrounding a particular case and to understand why a judge may arrive at a particular decision. However, I am sure that the Attorney General, who is very humane and caring, will note the comments made by the honourable member for Gosford and undertake to investigate this matter further with him. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Gosford has already communicated some of his concerns to the Attorney General by way of correspondence. If that is not the case I am sure that the honourable member for Gosford will be pleased to follow up the representations he has made in the Chamber today directly with the Attorney General to seek a positive response from him.

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [6.06]: I wish to bring to the attention of the House my concerns about a problem that exists within the Peterborough special school in the electorate of Kiama. At this time a critical point has been reached in relation to the administering of invasive procedures, including urinary catheterisation, the giving of injections such as insulin and the emptying and changing of colostomy bags. Currently parents of young people attending the Peterborough school are caught up in a ban by members of the Teachers Federation on performing these procedures and a more recent ban by the Public Service Association on teachers' aides performing those duties. It is argued, and it is hard to dispute the argument, that the procedures involved are medical procedures and should be carried out by properly trained nurses.

On 22 August I attended a meeting with parents and teachers who advised that such procedures were being carried out temporarily by district nurses but that this arrangement could not be confirmed as being permanent. I was told by the principal of the school that the arrangement operated on a weekly basis and that the parents and teachers did not know from one Friday to the next whether the nurses would be available to carry out the service the following week. On that occasion I made contact with Mr Ian Southwell of the Illawarra Area Health Service, who gave an undertaking that the existing arrangement with the district nurses would be kept in place until the Parliament resumed and I had an opportunity to raise the subject with the relevant Ministers.

Obviously, all honourable members agree that young people affected by disabilities of one sort or another are entitled to attend school where they are given the best possible education so that they will have the best possible chance in life. If they are doubly handicapped by a medical problem necessitating daily injections or catheterisation, this must also be recognised as a right. I am advised that a similar problem is beginning to occur within the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Wollongong at the Para Meadows special school. It would appear that the problem could be arising in a number of similar institutions around the State.

Ideally, nurses should be employed at all special schools to attend to such matters as catheterisation, tube feeding, tube suction, medication including insulin injections and day-to-day first aid procedures, and to assist in other therapy areas. This situation should be addressed in the medium term, not only at the Peterborough school but possibly at Para Meadows and other similar institutions around the State. In the short term, however, I request that the Minister for Education and Training urgently liaise with the Minister for Health to ensure that district nurses continue to provide necessary assistance to schoolchildren affected by the need for daily
Page 4322
treatment of one sort or another. At present two young people at the Peterborough school are in need of help, one who requires urinary catheterisation once a day and one who requires insulin injections. I am advised that the two procedures can be coordinated to occur at the same time and take something like 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

I have spoken to my colleague the honourable member for Wollongong about this matter and we agreed to express our concerns jointly and to call for urgent remedial action. I believe the needs and, indeed, the rights of young people who are profoundly disadvantaged by intellectual disability cannot be sufficiently stressed. As a society we have a responsibility to provide them with the best chance in life by teaching them as much about education and living skills as possible. It should also be stressed that young people with the added disability of a medical problem on top of everything else are entitled to expect that treatment will be available for them at school as a right. As I said earlier, ideally nurses should be available on a permanent basis to ensure that if there are excursions and so on the young people who require medical attention during the day have every opportunity to receive that attention and are not deprived of the opportunity to go on an excursion. However, in the short term those procedures should be carried out by district nurses.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.11]: I have listened intently to the concerns raised by my friend the honourable member for Kiama, who is a most compassionate person and who feels very strongly about these issues. I note that he also raised the concerns of our colleague the honourable member for Wollongong. Earlier today the honourable member for Kiama was kind enough to alert me to the fact that he proposed to raise this issue and I endeavoured to obtain a specific response for him. I have been concerned about this matter for more than six months and there have been ongoing discussions in relation to the issue.

The Department of School Education is aware of the need for support for students with disabilities who are enrolled in government schools and who require health care procedures. The department has had discussions on the issue with the New South Wales Department of Health, the Public Service Association and the Nurses Association. Those discussions will continue and there will be subsequent discussions with area health services. A joint statement on the provision of support at school for students requiring health care procedures is currently being developed and preliminary drafts are already available. Discussions have also taken place with the New South Wales Ambulance Association on the provision of training for special category teachers' aides in relation to a range of health care procedures in schools. Management rather than invasive procedures is regarded as the key element of this training.

I am aware that every effort is being made to ensure the continuation of effective procedures to support the health care needs of students with disabilities in New South Wales government schools, including those matters raised by the honourable member for Kiama, and to provide appropriate training for special category teachers' aides. It is expected that these issues will be resolved within the next few weeks and that training courses will commence shortly thereafter. I give an undertaking to the honourable member for Kiama that the special arrangements with district nurses will continue so that they can continue the work that is currently being carried out.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Mills) left the chair at 6.13 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [7.30]: To recap where we left off, I remind the House that the honourable member for South Coast does not know what his jurisdiction covers. He certainly does not know what mine covers. This issue is a Federal matter. I was hoping the honourable member for Myall Lakes had counselled him in the interim to let the honourable member know how far off base he was, but we will see what happens. The issue of credit availability and regulation and, in particular, the manner in which credit providers deal with their customers has been of great importance to the Government.

The passing of the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Act in the late session of Parliament without amendment by the Opposition is indicative of the importance that all members of this House place on the issue of protecting consumers from unfair practices by all credit providers, including New South Wales banks. It may be useful to remind honourable members that this new credit Act reflected a need for progressive legislation in the credit area to protect all consumers. Up until the passing and implementation of this legislation, which will occur on 1 November this year, only 20 per cent of consumers were provided with any protection from unscrupulous lenders.

The new Act is based on a truth-in-lending principle. It aims to give consumers and credit purchasers accurate and relevant information on which they can make an informed choice of products. In addition, it seeks to inform potential debtors and guarantors of their rights and obligations under the contract. In Australia the major legislation for governing the management and operations of the banks is contained in the Banking Act 1959. Until the State Bank of New South Wales was sold off
Page 4323
under the Greiner-Fahey Government it was exempt from this legislation but now, as with all other lending authorities, its operations and management are regulated by this Act, which is not a State Act.

I will recap what happened with the Egan family, whose case was first raised on 4 June this year by the honourable member for South Coast. At the time I congratulated him on his compassion in raising the issue. I wish to reiterate my comments made at the time, namely, that it is a tragedy to see people such as the Egans lose all their life savings because of inappropriate financial arrangements. Sadly I also have to point out, as I pointed out then, that the loans in question were for a business venture and, as such, are not regulated by the credit legislation administered by my department. So I put the case again - I had nothing to do with the matter. These people made a business decision which had gone wrong, but it is not regulated by my department. However, out of kindness I listened to the honourable member for South Coast - for the first and last time.

Rather than walk away from this case, I requested my department to attempt to mediate or assist to resolve the issue. To this day my department has kept the State Bank at arm's length from these people. They are not being shunted off because officers of my department intervened by using their mediation skills. They did not use any legislative skills; there are none for us to use. My department has been actively involved in the matter since June. It is my understanding the bank agreed to take no further action against the Egans until the bank meets with me. Here we go again - I have no jurisdiction. This is a matter for the Opposition's friend Mr Howard and his crummy mates. The honourable member for South Coast dumped it on me because I am conscientious and I care. I did something about it and now because I have not solved it the honourable member for South Coast moves a censure motion. I am wondering if I will be censured tomorrow because of starvation in China; it is about as relevant.

I am pleased to advise that tomorrow at 4 o'clock I will be meeting with Mr Ron Logan, the head of the risk management branch of the State Bank, and Ms Margot McKay, head of public affairs, when I will be advised of any progress in the case. So I, not the local member, am still trying to protect the Egans. The honourable member for South Coast has dumped on them, just dropped them like a hot rock. He presented their case to the House and walked away and then accused me of not solving their problems. He has done sweet nothing. It is clearly the responsibility of the Reserve Bank of Australia to ensure the stability of the Australian financial system and ultimately the wellbeing of the customers of all credit providers.

In addition, the banking ombudsman has national responsibility for resolving complaints against banks. So there is absolutely nothing that has been said here tonight that says I have any jurisdiction or responsibility for this matter. I acted out of the goodness of my heart and because of that I am being censured. In my role as the Minister for Fair Trading I am limited in the degree to which I can provide direct assistance to families like the Egans whose financial arrangements fall out of the State Government's responsibilities. I do not know how many more times I have to say this. It is not the responsibility of the State Government that the Egans, or anybody else, got themselves into a business arrangement that fell apart. It is not our responsibility. If the honourable member for South Coast really wants to be a good local member he should sheet it home to his Federal mates, ask them to do something constructive and help the Egans and everybody else.

Mrs Beamer: Tell Costello to have the inquiry.

Mrs LO PO': Yes, exactly. This is a Federal matter. The honourable member for South Coast has a lot to learn. Learn this tonight, old son: this is a Federal matter, it is not a State matter.

Mr Kerr: You are sexist.

Mrs LO PO': I am not sexist. I am treating him as an equal. If he does not like it he can leave.

Mr Ellis: You said you were going to seduce me earlier on.

Mrs LO PO': Talk about thick as bricks. It has already been done, old son. My kindness seduced you into thinking I could do something. I regret my kindness. That is what I was saying. You did not even get that right - marble from the neck up. In this case I have done everything within my power to assist these people. I assure the House that I will continue to do so in relation to all matters that fall within the consumer credit code. I will continue to take a persistent and vigorous role in defending and protecting consumers of New South Wales, regardless of whom they trade with. But let us get one thing straight - this is a Federal matter.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [7.38]: We have just heard the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women give a vigorous defence and actually compliment the honourable member for South Coast, describing him as her son, a young man who is trying to protect the interests of people who have been ripped off by the State Bank. Leaving aside the Minister's vigorous arguments that it is a Federal Act - that is irrelevant - there is no question that her position is the State Minister for Fair Trading. To walk away from people of New South Wales who have been taken to the cleaners by the State Bank under the terms that have been enumerated by the honourable member for South Coast does not do justice to this Minister. The Minister has an obligation to all consumers. If a Federal Act has been breached, then the Minister should be championing the rights of the New South Wales consumer. If it is a State Act that has been breached, she should take action, but her actions to
Page 4324
date have been breathtakingly slow. She has finally been cajoled into doing something by the honourable member for South Coast bringing the matter before the House. After months of inaction she has finally done something. She protests that she does not have the power or jurisdiction to do it, yet she has defended herself by saying that the department is now actively involved, and that she will meet with the bank next week. Yet she also says that she is not responsible. She cannot have it both ways. She is either responsible or not responsible.

Mrs Lo Po': You do not know kindness when you see it.

Mr J. H. TURNER: We have had sexist remarks. You are either pregnant or you are not. You are not half pregnant in this. It is either your responsibility or it is not.

Mrs Lo Po': I am not pregnant at all.

Mr J. H. TURNER: I was speaking colloquially. That example has been used many times in discussion. The Minister is saying, "It is not my responsibility but I am doing something about it." She cannot do that; she either accepts the responsibility of her office or she does not. It is clear that she has done little or nothing in regard to the matters brought forward by the Minister for South Coast and others.

Mrs Lo Po': The member for South Coast, not the Minister.

Mr J. H. TURNER: You are quite correct. I have elevated him because of his outstanding performance tonight. The Minister should understand that her responsibilities as Minister go far beyond saying that it is not a State Act. If New South Wales consumers are being ripped off she has a responsibility to act, whether the legislation concerned is Federal or State. It may be a Federal Act but the Minister has a responsibility as a member of State Cabinet charged with protecting consumers to ensure that the matter is followed through. I understand from the honourable member for South Coast that this has not happened, that she and the department have sat on their hands until she was finally prompted to do something about it. There is no question that now that the honourable member for South Coast has brought the matter forward the Minister is belatedly doing something. I hope that it will bear fruit for the people who have been obviously ripped off. I have seen a couple of the bank statements in question. I was disturbed to see that banks simply wrote on bank statements that they were deducting thousands of dollars for transfer costs, legal costs and debit administration fees. The Minister's department has not acted for months and months.

Mrs Lo Po': It is a Federal matter.

Mr J. H. TURNER: We should get a bowl of water for the Minister: all she wants to do is wash her hands of the matter. It is not good enough for a State Minister simply to say, "Federal Act, Federal Act." She should do something. Why does she not hop into the Federal coalition Government, the other side? The Minister keeps claiming that it is not her responsibility. She is Minister for consumer affairs and she should fix it. [Time expired.]

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [7.43]: It is not often in this House that we get a free kick right in front of the posts. To use more football parlance, the honourable member for South Coast has been sold a hospital pass on this. If I may give him a little advice as a member who has just been elected to this place: if you are going to get some advice, get it from somewhere other than the National Party. The matter he has brought before the House tonight could have been handled by him in his own electorate. I get hundreds of such cases coming from the electorates of National Party members surrounding my area. I negotiate with the banks directly on their behalf. If the matter concerns farm debt I almost always let the Minister for Agriculture know the circumstances and take him on board. The banks are under no obligation to reply to any representations the Minister for Agriculture or I make. The Minister for Fair Trading is 100 per cent correct in saying that the matter is covered by Federal legislation.

Mr Schipp: It would not have worried you in opposition.

Mr CLOUGH: The honourable member for South Coast, had he known a little more about it, would have attempted to solve the problem himself within his electorate. I am interested to hear the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. He has heard me make a similar speech on one or two occasions. I wondered where all the National Party people giving him advice were when the Farm Debt Mediation Bill was introduced. He has heard these remarks before. It might save time if I got Hansard to repeat it.

Mr Schipp: I am interested in what you say from here on defending the Minister.

Mr CLOUGH: Good. The Farm Debt Mediation Bill was passed by the Parliament on the initiative of the then Opposition, the Labor Party. It was opposed at all stages by both the Liberals and the Nationals. They even went to the extent of having Mr Cullen, the Australian Bankers Association representative, advising the Minister responding to the bill. I believe the honourable member for South Coast is a diligent member and he has woken up to the fact that banks are ripping people off, getting at them when they cannot defend themselves.

Earlier today I mentioned cases outside my electorate involving the banks. I have no doubt that the matters brought before the Chamber tonight by the honourable member for South Coast are valid, but I obviously object to his tactics in this matter. He has attempted to censure a State Minister of the Crown who has no responsibility for the application of the Act concerned. Had he tried to remedy the
Page 4325
situation in his electorate by contacting the banks and then gone to the Federal Government he would have at least had something to argue about tonight.

All over Australia banks are ripping people off left, right and centre. There is no question of justice being done with the banks. Banks are autocratic and levy whatever charges they want, and there is no appeal against them. In 1994 interest charges as high as 44.5 per cent were imposed on people I represent in this Parliament. If they could not pay off the money they owed there were penalties every six weeks. I do not doubt for a second that the honourable member for South Coast was correct in saying that exorbitant charges were raised on statements with no explanation whatsoever.

The banking industry in Australia is the most rapacious industry known. We are told time and again that massive profits are being made. The National Australia Bank made $1,000 million profit for the first six months of the year. Yet it was turfing farmers off their land at a time when the drought had reduced values to a minimum. Today good rains and crops coming on have meant that the properties have tripled in value but the banks are not compensating the former owners. My advice to the honourable member for South Coast, if I may give it, is: when you get these problems try to fix them up yourself. Moving censure of a Minister is not only a silly way to go about it; in this case it will be singularly unsuccessful.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [7.48]: I shall first address some of the remarks by the honourable member for Bathurst to put them in context. He spoke about the farming and the banking community. Unlike the Minister for Fair Trading, he did not say, "This is a Federal matter. I do not want to be involved -

Mrs Lo Po': He did say that.

Mr KERR: If I might be allowed to complete my sentence, the honourable member for Bathurst did not say, "This problem has nothing to do with me because it is a Federal matter." He referred to his history of being involved in this sort of matter in his own electorate. He was involved with the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Tamworth and the bankers in drafting legislation to provide relief to the farming community. The advice he gave to the honourable member for South Coast was to first deal with the banks. That is exactly what the honourable member for the South Coast did. He met with the State Bank, together with the honourable member for Gordon and other members on this side of the House. He sat down and dealt with them and further heeding the advice of the honourable member for Bathurst - although he was not aware of that at the time - he then made contact with the Federal Government in relation to this matter. During private members' statements in this House he drew attention to the problems that he had. The honourable member for Charlestown was at the table and gave an undertaking to convey those problems to the Minister, which was done. Tonight we have seen a Pontius Pilate act by the Minister, without the hygiene. The Minister has said that she has nothing to do with this. I think her words were, "It's got as much to do with me as the famine in China."

Mrs Lo Po': Exactly.

Mr KERR: Exactly, said the Minister. Yet this same Minister said that in a few days she will be sitting down with representatives of the State Bank. Will that be to discuss the famine in China, Minister? The Minister might look at the agreement for the sale of the State Bank. Does the Minister know how many representatives the State Government has on the State Bank board at present? Silence from the Minister.

Mr Schipp: On the board, a group of five.

Mr KERR: A group of five.

Mrs Beamer: So we regulate; we have the administration of them.

Mr KERR: If the honourable member remained silent she would learn, because the agreement -

Mrs Lo Po': She is dead right.

Mr KERR: If I can continue. So China comes a little closer in relation to this matter. The Minister did become involved with the Egans and she talked as though the honourable member for South Coast simply dropped them. The Minister nodded her head.

Mrs Lo Po': Absolutely.

Mr KERR: Absolutely, the Minister said. It might be of interest to this House and this Minister to know that the honourable member for South Coast is seeing the Egans two or three times a week; that is hardly dropping them. The Minister has misled the House in that regard. This censure would be justified by the poor performance of the Minister tonight because it has been an extraordinary performance. The Minister has referred to this being a Federal matter, yet today in question time the Minister for Agriculture spoke about Telstra. Did the Minister for Fair Trading take a point of order that he was wasting the time of the House because Telstra is a Federal matter? No. I hope she will convey that fact to the Minister for Agriculture; it may save the time of the House in future. The Minister might look at Hansard to see the number of times that Federal matters have been raised in this House, because they affect the people of New South Wales. This Minister is the Minister for Fair Trading. She has mentioned the credit legislation that is coming forward and confirmed that her department is involved with people like the Egans. [Time expired.]

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [7.53]: I support my colleague the Minister for Fair Trading. I am amazed at the audacity of the Opposition in
Page 4326
moving this censure against this Minister who has done more for consumers in this State in her short time as Minister than it did in seven long years. I am absolutely appalled that members opposite would censure the Minister based on their lack of understanding of the banking industry. That is what it comes down to. I have read the motion and if certain things were changed it would be a credible motion. I intend to fax the motion to the Opposition to amend it to read, "That this House censures the Treasurer, Peter Costello, for his failure to protect the customers of the banks of Australia." That is exactly what this is about. The Opposition wants to censure the Minister for Fair Trading for something about which she has no power to regulate, no power to review.

What has the Minister for Fair Trading done in this issue? She has spoken to the honourable member for South Coast with the constituents in question. She has involved her department out of the goodness of her heart, with no jurisdictional need to do so. She has said, like other honourable members including the honourable member for Bathurst, that there are people in the bush who need help to deal with the tyranny of some banks. The Minister went to them and asked what she could do to help. That is what the honourable member for South Coast could have done. I am absolutely appalled at the Opposition's lack of knowledge regarding the banking industry. The 1959 Federal banking legislation applies to all banks operating in Australia. A banking ombudsman can deal with it. This is an attempted censure on a Minister who has done more in 18 months than the former Government did in seven years.

For the edification of the honourable member I will go through what the Minister has accomplished. The Building Services Corporation was subjected to massive changes. When Labor came to government there were $5.8 million worth of grievances. The Opposition ignored those grievances. The Minister has brought in changes to tenancies in residential areas and mobile parks, and afforded greater protection for tenancies while recognising that the rights of landlords also needed to be recognised when they had the tenant from hell. That has been accomplished by this Government. This Minister has spent $1.3 million to provide financial counselling for people in financial difficulties. That is the most that has ever been spent on that item and it was a massive increase in budget.

A review of licences was carried out to give assistance to qualified electricians and plumbers, and legislation was brought in by this Minister. The building insurance scheme was in need of a massive review, which was acknowledged by the previous shadow minister. Changes have been made to increase protection to consumers. Conveyancing laws have been changed. This Minister has changed many things. The honourable member said that the Minister should intervene in Federal Government matters. There is probably one solution to intervening in Federal matters. Honourable members can decide to have legislation that makes us a republic: the republic of New South Wales. Then we will have total control over banking institutions. We can have a new flag, a new anthem and we can have the republic of New South Wales. That is the way we would gain control over the financial institutions.

[Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cronulla has had an opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Mrs BEAMER: If the Opposition wants control over the financial institutions of Australia, Australia will have to become a republic and then pass legislation relating to those institutions. We cannot pass that legislation in this House because this is a Federal Government matter. What the honourable member said is totally preposterous. The Minister for Fair Trading has made achievements in areas which were ignored by the former Government. The pawnbrokers and second-hand dealing legislation meant that we afford protection for people who have been ripped off in their homes and that they can receive proper guidance in relation to second-hand goods legislation. [Time expired.]

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [7.58], in response: I have listened carefully to what honourable members have said. From the outset I have said that I have no jurisdiction over banks, they are controlled by the 1959 banking legislation. Although that is a fact, I actually have put my department in touch with the bank and it has stayed proceedings. I ask the honourable member for South Coast, are the Egans out on the street? No, they are not! They are not out on the street because my department mediated with the bank. My department had no power to do it but it mediated with the bank without any legislative backing. They did that because the honourable member asked me, and I asked them. The fact that the Egans are not out on the street is because I acted, not because I ignored them.

The honourable member for South Coast seeks to censure me for doing exactly what he asked me to do. The Egans are not on the street; they are in their home because my department mediated for them. Further, though up to this stage officers from my department have been meeting with the bank, tomorrow I am to meet with the bank. I will talk to the bank about the Egans and others. However, I have no jurisdiction, and the banks know that I cannot give them directions. The honourable member and I could write letters until our eyes turn green, but the banks could ignore those letters because this State has no legislation that enables me to exercise controls over banks. This is a Federal matter. I am finding it really difficult to get my point across to the honourable member. When I was teaching I came across kids like him.

Mr Ellis: I am glad I did not have teachers like you.

Page 4327

Mrs LO PO': It would have been at my cost, but you would have learned. The Commonwealth Banking Act 1959 applies to all banks operating in Australia except the so-called State banks owned by State governments and trading mainly in their own State. I repeat, that Act applies to all banks operating in Australia. So the banks are subject to the Commonwealth Banking Act of 1959. Apparently the honourable member for South Coast is fascinated by section 41 of the Fair Trading Act. It relates to services, but only services that do not have their own form of mediation. There is a Federal banking ombudsman, and Telstra has an ombudsman whom clients of that organisation can approach to have their grievances dealt with. Section 41 seems to impress the honourable member, but it applies where the body complained about is not subject to special legislation enabling that body to deal with the problems of aggrieved persons.

I repeat, the banks are covered by the Federal Act, and those who have a grievance with the bank should talk to the banking ombudsman. The honourable member for Badgerys Creek is correct: Peter Costello is the person to whom the honourable member for South Coast should be talking. The honourable member should be writing stacks of letters to Peter Costello; driving to Canberra with the Egans and introducing them to Peter Costello so that they can tell Peter Costello how the State Bank, in the honourable member's terms, has ripped those customers off. That is where the solution to the problem lies. What I have done is all I can do. All I have been able to do is mediate with the banks so that they will not put bank customers out on the street. The honourable member for South Coast asked me to do that, and I did. Now he seeks to censure me for doing so. He should not ask me to do anything else for him.

Quite clearly, the honourable member is a raw recruit to this House. He did not expect to be elected but was jet propelled into this place. Now he is making a goose of himself by taking poor advice. He would not recognise good advice when it is given to him. He is happy to take poison chalices from his colleagues. Now he seeks to censure me, the only person in this Parliament who has given him any real assistance. Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg! That generosity has dried up. If he has any more problems with the bank he should approach his mate Peter Costello, knock on his door, put on his sad face in the company of the Egans and try to get the problem fixed. I have done as much as I can. I am happy to have helped the Egans, but I can do no more. Let me say it one more time for the dummy: it is a Federal matter.

Mr ELLIS (South Coast) [8.04], in reply: What a performance!

Mrs Lo Po': Thank you.

Mr ELLIS: I give credit where it is due, and I very much appreciate what the Minister has done for the Egans. About a month after bringing to the attention of the House the plight of the Egans I became aware of many more similar cases. Every week I received two or three representations from all parts of the State, even from the electorate of the honourable member for Bathurst and from the electorate of the Minister. These people are making approaches to my electorate office and asking that someone speak to the bank on their behalf. I have already met Mr Stewart James, the Managing Director of the State Bank.

I have also met Ron Logan, the bank representative that the Minister is to meet tomorrow. I spoke with him three times this week. When I met the managing director accompanying me was a member of the upper House. When I raised these matters with the managing director he said I should go and see the group of five to whom the Minister referred. On that State Bank group, which deals with all troublesome accounts prior to the sale of the bank, are two representatives of the State Government. At the managing director's suggestion, made to me at the meeting with him, I wrote to Ron Logan. If the Minister asks him tomorrow, he will confirm what I say. I asked Ron Logan if I could meet with the group to discuss the victims that I have on my books. A letter came back from Mr Logan saying that he would approach the two representatives of the State Bank. I have that letter in my office.

Mrs Lo Po': What are their names?

Mr ELLIS: I did not ask Mr Logan for their names. I asked him to address the group of five, via the chair. I have met Mr Logan in my office upstairs. In fact, I would have spoken about six times with him. Though he wrote me a letter saying that he would approach the two State Government representatives, he then sent a further letter saying that my request had been denied. I spoke with Ron Logan during the week and asked him why it had been denied. He said that there were no problems with the other three members of the State Bank group but that the two State Government members had rejected the suggestion. The State Government is still involved with the State Bank, as it will be in regard to accounts that were troublesome prior to the sale of the bank. Is the Minister not aware of that? Does not the Minister communicate with her representatives?

Mrs Lo Po': Ring Peter Costello.

Mr ELLIS: Those representatives have nothing to do with Peter Costello. However, I have a letter that was sent to me last year from Prime Minister Keating's office in which he noted that he referred the matter back to the State. He said in that letter that the pre-1994 troublesome accounts are still the responsibility of this State and that that is part of the conditions of sale. We cannot alter one bank's trading practices without affecting the practices of other banks. The Minister for Fair Trading is in a position to put pressure on the State Bank through her representatives on the group of five with a view to persuading the bank to be more sympathetic.

The Minister spoke about one case which she dealt with tremendously well. The Egans very much appreciate what the Minister did. The Minister asked whether I communicate with Pat Egan. Yes, I speak
Page 4328
to him once a week, when we talk about the hundreds of other cases in which, apparently, the Minister has no interest. Though the Minister was sympathetic in that one case, apparently she is saying that she is not sympathetic to the plight of the hundreds of others who are aggrieved. The Minister has access to the Ministers of other States, giving her the opportunity to feed problems into the Federal arena. I am sure almost every Minister for Fair Trading or Minister in a like portfolio would agree with the Minister for Fair Trading and would put pressure on each State Government, State by State. I am aware also of State Bank groups in Queensland and South Australia that have been victimised.

The Minister directs these two government representatives on the State Bank group. They are the representatives of the Minister. The State Government is still responsible for any debt exceeding $60 million that may still occur. This Government is still responsible for that amount, whatever it may be. So the group of five has an important role to play to try to address the hundreds of account holders whose problems occurred prior to the State Bank sale. There is a very important role to be played by that group of five to try to address the hundreds of cases which pose problems. The Government must try to address the problems related to other banks as well. The practices of one bank cannot be changed around without it affecting and carrying over to other banks. Does the Minister suggest that the Bank Act of 1959 does not make any reference to unconscionable conduct? That means that the Act -

Mrs Lo Po': The Commonwealth Bank Act is the Commonwealth Bank Act.

Mr ELLIS: Yes, but the bank that the Government still has input into has a responsibility to the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women. There have been hundreds of cases involving unconscionable conduct. The Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women went to town doing work for the Egans. She should do the same for the hundreds of other people in this State who fall under her jurisdiction. It is not up to me to do that. I am dealing with cases in the electorate of the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women and in every other member's electorate. Why should I have to do that? Those people come to me - they do not go to the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women.

Mrs Beamer: Name one!

Mr ELLIS: I will. I will examine Badgerys Creek also, because I have dealt with cases in that electorate. The honourable member for Bathurst, who is very supportive, knows what the banks are about - he has said so. People have gone to him for help. They have come to me also, and I have been able to help them. This person has had problems since 1981, when the State Bank was under the administration of the Wran Government. This activity has been going on under governments of both persuasions. Not any one particular government has created this problem. The banks have set themselves above the law. Both State and Federal governments should be able to address this issue. If a hole appears that does not clearly come under the control of Federal or State governments, I cannot see why the Minister of the day cannot address that problem. Some banking practices come under the State Act. In the letter the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women sent to me she said that the department had limited funds and had to be selective about the matters it addressed.

Mrs Lo Po': Show me the letter.

Mr ELLIS: I will do that. In the letter she said that the department has to watch its funds and has to be selective because of a lack of funds. I cannot think of many problems that more affect the people of this State. Everybody almost daily has dealings with banks. If people cannot trust banks, who can they trust? Until six months ago I trusted banks. I had no problems about trusting banks. I think most people would say the same. People expect that banks will deal with them fairly. People in this State are being ripped off; they are haemorrhaging day by day. The Egans are not the worst case I have come across. One of the decisions that was handed down in the courts this year was in favour of the applicants. Four days before the court handed down that favourable decision the 47-year-old husband died. Until two months ago, when I got involved, the State Bank was sending demands for over $200,000 for legal fees to the widow of only a few months. These are the things that are going on out there. Now people have to go back to court to request the court to tell the bank to pay the money. The banks have to be taken to task. I do not want this to be a political bunfight. Every member of this House should be fighting for these changes, but the matters are within the province of the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women. [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz
Mr Debnam Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kinross
Mr MacCarthy Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

Page 4329

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Ms Moore
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Windsor
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Dr Macdonald
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr Carr
Mr Chappell Mr Iemma
Mr O'Doherty Mr Shedden
Mr Phillips Mr Sullivan

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [8.24]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amending the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 deals with two quite separate but important issues. The bill rectifies deficiencies and removes uncertainty on these two matters. They are in need of urgent attention. The first issue relates to the resolution of disputes about goods left behind at the end of a residential tenancy agreement. The second matter concerns compensation payable to certain caravan park and manufactured home estate residents who have to vacate their sites through no fault of their own. Clause 1 of the bill relates to a proposed amendment to follow section 79 of the Residential Tenancies Act and takes account of circumstances in which there is a dispute about goods unintentionally left behind at the end of a tenancy.

The section at present gives a right to a landlord to apply for an order by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to allow goods left by the tenant to be disposed of. The tribunal can make orders allowing the removal, destruction or disposal of the goods, their sale and manner of sale, orders about notices to be given to the tenant and orders about the proceeds of sale. There is no such right given to a tenant to make an application. It was originally envisaged that only landlords would need to go to the tribunal about goods left behind by the tenant. In fact section 79 was deliberately included to facilitate the easy removal and disposal of former tenants' unwanted possessions by the landlord.

However, after seven years operation of the Act it has become evident that there are circumstances in which a tenant may also have to have access to the tribunal about goods left behind. This would not have been contemplated when the Act was first drafted. The legislation has been in operation for seven years and deficiencies have been found, and the Government is now fixing up the deficiencies. A landlord, rather than apply to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for an order about goods left on the premises, can follow a procedure set down in the regulations, and I understand that this is the method adopted by most real estate agents and landlords when dealing with items left behind in the rented premises.

The regulations, which were amended in August last year, outline a series of steps to be taken by the landlord in dealing with property previously in the possession of the tenant but left behind at the end of the tenancy. This property is described as "uncollected goods" under the regulations. Sometimes though, an order of the tribunal will instead be sought, particularly when there may be some doubt over whether the premises have actually been abandoned. The landlord or agent may not want to take on the responsibility of handling the disposal of someone else's belongings without first getting the authority of the tribunal. While these processes are available for landlords and agents to take charge of situations in which unwanted property has to be dealt with, there are some circumstances in which a tenant may have a legitimate reason to go to the tribunal about his or her belongings, particularly if they have been left behind unintentionally.

The bill provides for a new section 79A to cater for these circumstances. Now, it might be said that tenants do not deliberately leave behind anything of value when they move out of rented premises and it is usually only junk that the landlord is left with. While this may often be the case, there are certainly circumstances in which access to the tribunal by tenants would enable difficult disputes about personal property that may be of great intrinsic or sentimental value to a tenant but which has no value to the landlord to be satisfactorily resolved. It would be a tragedy for documents, certificates, medical records, references and photographs to be thrown on the rubbish tip and lost forever when a short hearing in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal could have prevented it.

Page 4330

Of course, I recognise that on some occasions the parties can work it out themselves without having to involve anyone else, but when the relationship just ended has not been a happy one it can be a very difficult problem. Also, there have been occasions on which possession of premises may have been taken from a tenant after a tribunal order when the tenant was away at the time. The tenant may have been up the street, at the shop, in hospital or getting advice from the chamber magistrate when possession was taken and so have had no opportunity to gather belongings together. They would certainly not have chosen to leave things like their clothes, medical necessities and examination assignments behind.

While landlords have every right to regain possession of their premises as quickly as possible when following the correct procedure, there is no reason for items which can have no possible value to them to be denied to the tenant. It is not right, for instance, that a mother with a young child cannot get access to baby clothes, nappies and bedding still inside the premises. That is the reason for this amendment: simply to facilitate a process whereby disputes of this nature over the delivery of goods back to the owners of them can be resolved quickly and cheaply. The intention is to avoid unnecessary heartache and hardship wherever possible.

The 1995 regulation does not permit the landlord to seek payment for the cost of removal and storage when only some of the goods are claimed and the value of the remaining goods is sufficient to cover the cost of removal and storage. Section 79A will enable disputes which arise when landlords refuse to hand over some of the goods in these situations to also be heard by the tribunal. That gives more weight to the regulations on this issue. The Residential Tenancies Consultative Committee has agreed to this amendment. The committee comprises representatives of tenants, real estate agents and private property owners and there is no objection by any of the committee members to the amendment. This is significant as it is not always easy to get agreement between landlords and tenants on issues of this nature.

It is important to stress that there is no change being made to the landlord's rights on the handling of this issue. What is being proposed is merely to provide through the new section 79A for a dispute resolution process in those circumstances where a tenant should be able to access the Residential Tenancies Tribunal about the return of personal property. The amendment will also allow persons with an interest in the uncollected goods to apply to the tribunal. Sometimes the property left by the tenant does not actually belong to them and may have been hired from an electrical appliance rental company or perhaps borrowed from a family member or neighbour. These people also need to be given access to the tribunal in instances where their property is included amongst uncollected items purported to have belonged to the tenant.

I now move on to the other part of this amending bill that deals with compensation payable to certain residents of caravan parks and manufactured home estates. In a very delayed response to a need to do something about residents of parks and estates being given notices of termination without any reason, the previous Government rushed through an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act in December 1994. Schedule 3 was added in an attempt to do something for those permanent residents of sites in parks and estates where they were living in their own moveable dwellings on rented sites. While we support the notion that these people should not be able to have their agreements terminated without good reason and that compensation should be payable, there are serious deficiencies in schedule 3 which cannot be left unattended.

The purpose of the amendments in this bill is to fully achieve what the previous Government failed to do when it introduced schedule 3. The present schedule 3 is about as watertight as a sieve with the bottom out of it. We have taken some care with it and got it right. Those residents in parks and estates who have to move and relocate their dwellings will be able to rest easy that they will not only be eligible for adequate compensation but will have a means of pursuing the park owner for promised compensation not paid. The deficiencies or uncertainties in the current schedule 3 are as follows. It is not clear that residents are entitled to compensation when their tenancy is terminated by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal as opposed to the situation when a resident vacates after getting a notice of termination and the matter does not go to the tribunal.

It is not clear that compensation can be paid before or after the resident leaves the park or estate. It is not even clear that it is the landlord or park owner who is required to pay the compensation. Under the current provisions residents who receive a notice of termination are not entitled to the same compensation for reconnection of their dwelling to services as are those residents who relocate by agreement to another site in the park or a nearby one owned by the landlord. It is not even clear that the Residential Tenancies Tribunal has the necessary power to make orders about compensation arising under schedule 3. Lastly, there was no mechanism set in place to deal with disputes between residents and park owners over the payment of compensation by negotiation.

Each of these glaring weaknesses in schedule 3 has been addressed in this bill. The Act will now fully protect residents who have not breached their agreement in any way, yet are faced with the enormous cost of relocating their dwelling to another location. Clause 2 of the bill makes it clear that any compensation payable is to be paid by the landlord. Clause 4 makes it clear that the same criteria exist for calculation of compensation payable to a resident whether a notice of termination or notice to relocate to another site has been given to the resident.
Page 4331
Compensation is clearly payable whether a resident moves after getting a notice or waits until the tribunal makes an order. Compensation includes reconnection costs to services in those circumstances where the resident is to continue living in the dwelling on another site.

Clause 4 also gives the Residential Tenancies Tribunal specific power to fix compensation payable to a resident under the schedule so this previous doubt has been removed. The same clause provides a specific process for applications to the tribunal about compensation after a resident vacates a site, which is something missing from the current schedule. That will allow a resident who has negotiated or been promised compensation in advance but does not receive it or only receives part of it to take the matter to the tribunal for resolution. The fact that such a provision is not in the schedule at present leaves residents very exposed if they move out prior to being paid compensation. We have plugged up this hole.

These amendments tidy up what was a hastily prepared response by the previous Government to the serious issue of security of tenure for those thousands of permanent residents of caravan parks and manufactured home estates who live in their own dwellings, as principal places of residence, on rented sites. These occupants of this alternative form of housing now have genuine and fitting consumer protection. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Chikarovski.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [8.37]: I was saying seven and half hours ago in relation to the issue of family members and access that clause 8 requires that the offender must obtain consent to the home detention from the person in whose residence he or she will reside. However, what will happen if that person declines and the offender starts forum shopping? For example, what vetting procedure will be undertaken to ensure that a person who has committed a drug offence, an offence that is clearly not excluded in the Minister's second reading speech, is not able to run his or her operation from the home of an accomplice? The honourable member for Liverpool made some comments about first-time offenders. Culpable driving is an example of an offence which this provision could cover, and I seek a response from the Minister in respect of that issue. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

The increase in the inmate population since 1988 demands greater cost-effectiveness in the use of resources.

Is that a clear acknowledgment that the cost of building extra prisons must be balanced against safety? Given the substantial threat to personal safety posed by the bill, the community would not accept that without a full examination of the repercussions of the bill. The overview of the bill states that home detainees will be subject to constraints such as a prohibition on alcohol consumption. How will such a prohibition be enforced? Clause 13 sets out the conditions governing home detention. Will there be some sort of quasi police force such as the one flagged by the Minister for Police earlier today for fine defaulters in what was in effect a ministerial statement. Will members of that body be able to demand payment of a fine or else, and in relation to this bill will they be able to order a person subject to home detention to stop drinking or else. I am interested to know how the conditions will be enforced.

Mr Debus: They will.

Mr KINROSS: Where are the resources for the enforcement of the conditions? I understood that this specific program of the Department of Corrective Services had suffered a cutback in real terms in the budget. Therefore, I would like to know how many officers it is envisaged will be involved in policing the restrictions imposed upon home detention. The Opposition opposes the bill because in its view there has not been sufficient examination of the scheme either here or overseas. I was surprised by the comment of the honourable member for Liverpool that those who had experienced home detention in the United States of America found it harder to cope with than full-time imprisonment. I am not sure what he meant by that. The public perception of the scheme is that it is anything but hard. Given the Government's platform, the public perception is there are too many easy options for criminals and that law and order is deteriorating. It behoves the Minister to explain how law and order will not further deteriorate as a result of the introduction of the proposed home detention scheme.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [8.42]: The purpose of the bill is to provide a legislative base for home detention as an alternative to full-time imprisonment for a period of up to 18 months. Home detention is not an alternative to community service or to periodic detention. It is an alternative to full-time imprisonment and a person must be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 18 months before being considered for the home detention program. The scheme has been trialled in this State since 1992 and it has been successful. The program has been positively evaluated, but the previous Government failed to introduce the necessary legislation and does not now support this important legislation.

The bill provides yet another sentencing option. Home detention will not be used in all cases but for certain offences it will be a appropriate form of punishment. Only some offenders will be eligible for the scheme. Home detention will not be available to those serving sentences for murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, or for other specific offences. It will not be available to offenders with other particular histories. It will not be available to people who have
Page 4332
been found guilty of sexual offences or who have had domestic violence orders made against them within the past five years.

Crime statistics in this State reveal that prisoners convicted of murder and sex offences are least likely to reoffend and those with a history of committing minor crimes, who will be catered for under the home detention scheme, are most likely to end up in gaol again. Nearly 50 per cent of all prisoners in New South Wales re-offend within 12 months of being released. Obviously imprisonment is not working for those prisoners; it is not a punishment that is achieving its goal. Those prisoners are ending up back in gaol and it is costing the community much more. Women will benefit from the home detention scheme. The figures reveal that 50 per cent of women in gaol are first offenders. As I have said those women will benefit greatly from the scheme. They will be able to look after their children and to perform duties within the home, while at the same time repaying their debt to society. Another benefit of home detention is that home detainees will be able to undertake rehabilitation and counselling, go to work and, as I have mentioned, be involved in child care. Initially the surveillance of home detainees will be high. Probation and parole officers will be responsible for the surveillance and detainees will be monitored regularly through electronic surveillance, home visits and random telephone calls.

Drugs and alcohol, which were mentioned earlier in the debate, will be randomly tested. Another advantage of the home detention scheme is that it can work on an incentive basis and on the principle of behaviour modification through reinforcement. Incentives may involve the reduction of supervision and the gaining of more privileges. Before being entitled to acceptance into the scheme prisoners will have to be assessed by the Probation and Parole Service. That assessment is provided to the court for consideration and it can be either accepted or vetoed by the court. That does not mean automatic acceptance into the home detention scheme. Earlier the honourable member for Gordon asked whether the consent of other residents in the home was needed. The scheme has worked in other places, in Hawaii and other States of the United States of America and in other States of Australia.

In 1990 I was working in Darwin, where the home detention scheme was in place. I had a client who was involved in the scheme. Instead of remaining in gaol for 12 months he was screened and became actively involved in rehabilitation. He was working and getting on with his life. The scheme is not a soft option. It is an option that involves a lot more than merely being locked up in gaol. Home detention provides people with a chance; it provides them with a new start to life. The scheme involves rehabilitation instead of merely locking people up because the authorities do not know what to do. Prisoners will respond to this attitude by reoffending on their release from gaol. This proposal shows an active approach to imprisonment whereby people may start their lives again. It also is a very cost-effective scheme which will benefit the community. It has been proved successful and I commend it to the House.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [8.50], in reply: I thank honourable members who contributed to the debate, several from the opposite side in tones of more or less inexplicable hysteria. I do not include the honourable member for Lane Cove in that description. I point out that the scheme has been on trial since 1992 and was supported by previous Ministers Yabsley, Griffiths and Hannaford. There has never been a more thoroughly tested and evaluated program of sentencing introduced into the Parliament. Its operation is heavily circumscribed and it is relatively non-controversial. It seems that there is somewhat confused tactical manoeuvring on the other side of the House, perhaps in the hope that after several years have passed one or two home detainees may be produced at the time of an election to suggest that somehow or other the Government is soft on law and order.

Given the bipartisan support of the scheme until tonight, I regard it as a vote of confidence in the Probation and Parole Service of the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services, and I choose to give the Probation and Parole Service a vote of confidence. As the honourable member for Lane Cove acknowledged in her contribution to the debate, she was Minister for the Status and Advancement of Women when guidelines were formulated for the original intensive community supervision program that acted as a trial for the scheme being introduced by the bill. She specifically and in writing approved the guidelines that were then established for the trial.

Mrs Chikarovski: That is right and I acknowledged that.

Mr DEBUS: The honourable member did. The honourable member also during the debate, while rejecting the idea of so-called front-end home detention, supported the idea of so-called back-end home detention. That is to say, she supported the idea that people coming to the end of their custodial sentence might be transferred into some form of home detention. There is a significant paradox in that because the coalition Government did the opposite. It rejected the idea of back-end detention and, as has been evident during this long-lasting pilot program, accepted the idea of front-end home detention.

Mrs Chikarovski: We changed our mind.

Mr DEBUS: Yes, but it strikes me that there is yet another inexplicable aspect of the change of mind. If the Opposition is concerned about how individuals may behave while they are on front-end home detention, why does it not have similar concerns about how they behave when they are on
Page 4333
back-end home detention? If so-called front-end home detention is in some way or other - it is not very well explained by honourable members opposite - a soft option, why is back-end home detention not similarly a soft option? These are not questions I have to answer, as I have not engaged in the kind of inconsistency that the Opposition has shown. They are merely questions that I pose.

However, the Government gratefully acknowledges the support of the Opposition for the concept of back-end home detention. It is clear to me that the honourable member for Lane Cove is relying in her analysis of the scheme - I would not dignify the diatribe of the honourable member for Oxley with a word such as analysis - on some kind of survey of overseas literature. Perhaps she has spoken to the odd person. But she must understand that a very wide spectrum of home detention schemes operates overseas, a Heinz-like variety of home detention programs. Generalised conclusions that may be reached from some sort of overview of this wide variety of programs are not likely to say much about how the program established by the bill will operate. To understand the program one should go to the research and evaluations that have been done on the long-running pilot program which used to be in the hands of members opposite.

The home detention scheme relies primarily not on electronic monitoring but on close personal contact with the offender by probation and parole staff. To answer a question asked by the honourable member for Gordon, there will be around 10 detainees for each supervising officer, a high staff-to-offender ratio. That is where the cost is. To answer some of the questions raised by the honourable member for Lane Cove, the costs remain similar throughout the program because the major costs are in supervision, not the electronic monitoring equipment.

It seems inexplicable that members opposite cannot understand that the inevitable cost of the scheme will be vastly less than the cost of keeping the people involved in minimum security. Without question it will be much less. I forget the exact figure for the cost of minimum security at present but it is something like $30,000 a year for each individual. The honourable member for Lane Cove mentioned alleged difficulties about the proof of breach of a home detention order. Her concerns are quite misplaced. As the bill makes clear, breaches of home detention orders will be referred by the probation and parole staff to the Offenders Review Board as breaches of parole are referred to the board now. The standard of proof required in a hearing before the Offenders Review Board is that of the balance of probability; it is not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. So the difficulties raised about the proof of a breach of a home detention order are scarcely relevant.

The evaluation of the pilot program revealed that about five of 97 offenders, 5.1 per cent, were charged with another offence during the 18-month period. Altogether there were 11 breaches of the conditions of the intensive community supervision scheme reported to the courts, including five instances of new offences. In seven of these cases the result was a further deprivation of liberty, one by means of periodic detention and six by full-time custody. In 18 months five people out of a touch under 100 re-offended. It seems to me that any reasonable person would agree that those figures show, firstly, that in a properly administered scheme of this nature there is a low level of breach of the home detention orders; and, secondly, that when breaches occur the offender can be effectively punished.

In response to numerous anguished cries from members opposite I advise that the legislation and draft regulations already specify offences for which this form of detention is not available in more detail than any other sentencing option that has ever been introduced in New South Wales. Assault occasioning bodily harm disqualifies an offender from participation in this scheme. A more serious concern expressed by the honourable member for Lane Cove, properly, is about the circumstances of families, especially women and young children of offenders who are sentenced to this form of detention. It is important that I should spell out the action that can and will be taken to prevent a home detainee from committing domestic violence.

Clause 6(g) excludes a person convicted of a domestic violence offence against a person with whom the offender would wish to reside, or continue or resume a relationship, from participating in the home detention scheme. All probation and parole officers assigned to the home detention program will have received core training in domestic violence issues and specialised training in the added stresses that home detention may place on domestic relationships. These guidelines, approved by the former Government, are beginning to have an effect. Family members residing with the offender will have 24-hour access to the offender's supervising officer. Clause 6(b) excludes a person convicted of sexual assault of adults or children or sexual offences involving children from participating in the scheme at all.

The consent of other persons living at the offender's proposed place of residence is required as part of the assessment of an offender's suitability for home detention. All co-residents will be interviewed by a probation and parole officer and the impact of home detention on their lives will be explained. To avoid any possibility of intimidation, the regulations will specify who can give consent for children under the age of 16. The guidelines to be followed in such cases are being developed by officers of the Department of Corrective Services, together with the Department of Community Services. Research has been carried out by Patricia Walker which, again, the honourable member for Lane Cove referred to during her contribution to the debate. Patricia Walker was an employee of the Probation and Parole Service who was engaged in some academic work. She made an agreement with her academic supervisors and the department to carry out more surveys of families who had participated in the intensive community supervision scheme. One only need read what she said: 30 families were surveyed and 25 responded. Of the 25 families that responded,
Page 4334
23 said that they would recommend this form of punishment to others. They said that some disruption was involved in their family life but that was better than gaol as far as they were concerned.

Mr Slack-Smith: Naturally. I'll bet they did.

Mr DEBUS: What do you mean naturally? It is the families that said this, not the offenders. The honourable member for Lane Cove is concerned about the families. They also indicated that the advice of the probation service assisted them. I will confine myself to one other general subject. The proposition most beloved of those opposite is that home detention is a soft option. It is not! Severe constraints are placed on the liberty of offenders; they are subjected to intensive supervision, to electronic surveillance, and the level of monitoring to which they are subjected is obviously both disruptive and intrusive. As well as close scrutiny there will be, under this scheme, an emphasis by the supervising officers - one officer for every 10 people - placed on offenders with a view to making behavioural changes and to persuading them to accept responsibility for their actions.

During the evaluation of the pilot program, when numbers of people were offered the option of home detention and the conditions of the detention were described to them, they refused it and opted for full-time gaol. It is not the case that people necessarily regard this form of sentencing as a soft option. This is a sensible and moderate reform. I remind honourable members that it has been supported by not only myself but previous Ministers, Hannaford, Griffiths and even the dreaded Yabsley. In all those circumstances I feel entirely sanguine in commending the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Ms Moore
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Woods
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Iemma Mr Chappell
Mr Shedden Mr Collins
Mr Sullivan Mr Phillips

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 27 June.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [9.16]: The Opposition is pleased to support this bill, which is designed to complement the Federal Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act of 1959, to which the Federal Government made alterations relating to air carriers' liability insurance, providing for significantly increased amounts relative to that liability and making sure that that liability is both non-avoidable and mandatory. The legislation before the House is necessary because the State Government has constitutional responsibility for intrastate air travel, as distinct from interstate and international air travel The need for such legislation was highlighted by the tragedy involving the Monarch airliner which crashed in 1993 with the loss of seven lives.

The Opposition joins the Government in extending condolences to the families of the victims of that crash and expresses its sincere concern at the inadequacy of the arrangements in place at that time to meet commercial requirements that should have been met by insurance companies, and would have
Page 4335
been met had there been mandatory and non-avoidable insurance provisions. So the Opposition supports the Government on this legislation, which will make commercial carriers insurance mandatory and non-avoidable, as well as increase the carriers' liability from $180,000 to $500,000 per passenger, by way of the regulation which was effected Federally in October 1994.

No operator should be allowed to operate in this State or in any other State without meeting appropriate air safety requirements. In the event of an accident, even when there has been a failure to meet safety requirements, the insurance company must have a non-avoidable obligation to pay mandatory insurance. The Monarch Airlines crash of 1993 revealed the difficulty in that regard and the need to ensure that the carriers themselves are required to have full and appropriate insurance. In effect, no operator will be allowed to carry passengers for hire or reward without having appropriate insurance cover. The Opposition supports the Government's approach, and accordingly commends the legislation to the House.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [9.20], in reply: I thank members of the Opposition for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 27 June.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [9.21]: The Opposition supports the legislation. The Totalizator Agency Board was established in 1964, and it is now ready to expand. In 1964 the TAB was an unknown quantity. But now it is time to add to the services offered by the TAB such services as entertainment, drink-vending machines, pay telephones, race books and other goods associated with the racing industry. The bill will provide for those facilities. It will also allow investors to utilise credit balances in telephone or other credit betting accounts. Currently only cash transactions are available.

The bill will also provide the TAB with the opportunity to realise potential sports betting on a two-outcome contingency. The current legislation requires dividends to be calculated on the basis of a dollar unit. When fractions are included the resulting commission rate could mean that such betting is uncompetitive and unlikely to be successful. Finally, the introduction of the 2KY punters club, with a host making investments on behalf of members, has proved popular with TAB investors. Although legal advice provided to the board indicated that the format was legal, the Crown Solicitor's Office was not satisfied, and these amendments ensure the legality of the scheme.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [9.23]: As a person who has a great interest in racing and who likes to have a bet, I am pleased that the Minister has introduced the bill and I compliment him on the provision of punters' clubs. Many pensioners and others like to have a flutter on the races, and the clubs will enable them to further extend that interest. I am pleased also that the Minister is extending the services of TABs in other areas on a commercial basis. When the Government sells off the TAB to private enterprise, it will become even more attractive to the market and be of commercial benefit. Although the amendments to the Act appear to be minor, they offer a lot to racing. In country areas in particular TAB agencies provide great enjoyment for the local community. In my electorate I have a large proportion of elderly, retired people, many of them quite lonely. When they move to the coast they often get involved with a punters club, betting on Saturday and midweek races - whether it be dogs, horses, harness races or even football.

On the subject of football, I believe that the Sydney Swans will beat North Melbourne in the grand final and the other team I follow, Manly, will also win its grand final. At one time I turned away from Manly because when the coalition was in government the honourable member for Manly used to often vote against the government, but I have returned to supporting Manly and I believe they will win the grand final. At the time that I played for Lemnos in Victoria, the Swans were known as South Melbourne. I can boast that I received the Doug Palmer trophy for being the best and fairest player for the under 15s. Doug Palmer was the coach of South Melbourne in those days. The introduction of the punters clubs will provide elderly people on the coast with a wonderful opportunity to have a bet and, at the same time, to meet new people and develop friendships by being part of a punters club. I compliment the Minister on introducing this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment to totalisator off-course betting as we know it and it is important in country areas. I am pleased to support the bill.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [9.26], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support of the Totalizator (Off-course Betting) Amendment Bill. Before I continue I congratulate our new Chamber attendant, Jo Grimaldi, who is the first female Chamber attendant in the history of the oldest Parliament in Australia. I believe that the occasion should not go unnoticed because it is something new. It is an innovation that has taken some time to happen, and I am glad to see that it has occurred with our most valued Chamber attendants.

Since the introduction of the Totalizator Agency Board in 1964 the expectations of customers have changed to require a greater level of service facilities. Many people would remember the opposition to the introduction of the TAB and the concern that people would go overboard with
Page 4336
betting. It is interesting to note that some of the critics failed to refer to the existence of the SP bookmaker around the corner. For better or worse, those who judge people on what should or should not happen in society tend to forget about the illegality that is associated with gaming and wagering, and that illegality will always exist.

The proposed legislation will allow agents operating TAB outlets to provide ancillary customer services, such as soft drink and hot beverage vending machines, and pay telephones, and the sale of associated racing products, with the board's approval. That is something that is long overdue, and I thank the Opposition for its support of the legislation. It is part of the way of life in country towns for people to go to the TAB. But to have to leave the premises for those rudimentary things is stupid in this day and age, and the legislation will overcome this anomaly. The ancillary services, of course, will have the approval of the board, and I am sure the board will deal with those matters in a responsible manner.

At agencies investors will also be able to utilise credit facilities through existing credit balances within a credit betting account. I clarify that point, as I did in a previous speech. Concern has been expressed that the Government is extending credit betting. That is not the case. Investors will be able to use their own money in their accounts. As I said earlier today in my second reading speech on the lotteries legislation, the Government and I have continued to express opposition - as did the former Government - to a form of credit betting that gets people into difficulties. This provision simply allows an investor who has money in his account to utilise what was his in the first place.

The bill contains a requirement to calculate dividends based on a $1 unit of investment. This could result in two-outcome contingency betting not being competitive. The bill will correct that position by allowing the minimum unit to be increased and dividends calculated to the nearest lower 5¢, regardless of the unit of investment. I make that point as there has been concern and misunderstanding in that regard. It is the board's intention to have a minimum $10 unit of investment for two-outcome contingency betting. The legislation will also satisfy the requirements of the Crown Solicitor to erase any doubts that the board's involvement in punters clubs is legal, a matter that has been alluded to in debate tonight. No alternative procedures within the existing legal framework could be found to satisfy the legal objection of the Crown Solicitor, and amendments to the legislation are required to allow continuation of the practice.

Tonight I also raise a matter with regard to the Totalizator Agency Board. In late 1994 the TAB commenced a trial in hotels and clubs in the far north coast area of the State of a new system known as Betlink, a system that is now familiar to many honourable members. The Betlink system enables a TAB service, utilising a personal computer or a purpose-built terminal linked to the TAB, to be offered to patrons in licensed premises when the costs of establishing a fully computerised PubTAB or ClubTAB facility would not be justified. I assure honourable members that the establishment costs of a Flight machine are considerable. Following the success of the north coast trial I approved of a further trial being conducted in the Illawarra region. That trial commenced on 18 September 1995. The results of the Betlink trials were favourable and the TAB subsequently recommended that Betlink be extended throughout the State. I was, however, mindful that a number of issues would need to be resolved prior to the extension of the system.

While I have approved of the extension of Betlink throughout New South Wales under certain conditions, I am also aware of concerns that this would result in the rationalisation of some TAB agencies. In recent times the TAB has embarked on a scheme to extend its services in hotels and clubs by way of the Betlink system. I might add that many of those who have had something to say to me about the closure of TAB agencies also made representations for facilities to be extended to licensed premises, whether those premises be hotels or clubs. To some extent, the extension of those facilities to licensed premises has eroded the revenue base of TAB agencies that are now under threat. I as Minister have been placed in a very difficult position, as have previous Ministers over the past 10 years or so. I do not condemn local members for making representations on this issue, because their job is to speak for their constituents. A local member will often speak against the closure of a TAB agency, while having asked some years before for the extension of facilities to licensed premises, often because of trading difficulties.

Whilst I was supportive of the initiative to extend TAB services in licensed premises, I was also concerned that the extension of Betlink throughout the State would lead to a rationalisation of some TAB agencies and I became aware of concerns expressed by certain agents and TAB customers. This bill represents a realisation that TAB agents were put into a different world when the Totalizator (Off-course Betting) Act was enacted in 1964. TAB agencies were required not to be located near schools or churches - all sorts of conditions were placed upon them. Over subsequent years the whole system has changed. The TAB needs to be able to provide service to its customers. I also have a real concern that the closures of too many agencies may in the long term be detrimental to the interests of the racing industry and, of course, the Government.

I therefore took the general view that a moratorium should be placed on future closures pending corporatisation of the TAB. Exceptions to this decision will be considered only when: first, an agent wishes to voluntarily relinquish the agency; second, special economic circumstances prevail that clearly render the agency unprofitable; and, third, a full financial and socioeconomic appraisal confirms
Page 4337
that the local community supports the closure, that an alternative PubTAB, ClubTAB or Betlink is financially viable and socially acceptable, and that existing returns to the Government and the racing industry are not diminished by the decision to close the agency. With regard to the third item, I will consider instructing my department to arrange for independent consultants to undertake the financial and socioeconomic appraisal if and when required.

As I have already said, TAB agencies were introduced at a different time and they have been eroded. On Sunday night I attended the TAB agents' seminar. TAB agents are certainly much happier than they were some time ago. I do not suggest that they are happy with everything that is being done but at least they are getting a hearing with me in both the ministry and the department. It is pleasant this evening to be able to extend to TAB agents some latitude in the provision of other services. At the same time, it is recognised that there is a difficulty in the very fast-changing world of gaming and wagering. Whilst there have been concerns about closures, the ministry and the department are on top of that issue and are trying to provide fairness and equity. Once again I thank everyone involved in this legislation. The changes contained in the bill will not overcome all of the agents' problems but will go some way towards clearing up difficulties faced by agents in an ever-changing world. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Bill received and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [9.40]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill was introduced in the other place on 12 September and the second reading speech appears on pages 29 and 30 of the Hansard proof for that day. The bill is in the same form as that introduced in the other place. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

No. 1 Page 5, Schedule 1[2], lines 32-35. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(7) This section does not apply to a child:

(a) who is the accused or defendant in any of the proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c), or

(b) who is or was accused of committing the offence that gave rise to proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(d).

No. 2 Page 6, Schedule 1[2], line 7. Omit "in the Children's Court".

No. 3 Page 6, Schedule 1[2], lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) This section applies to a child in any of the following proceedings:

(a) proceedings in which it is alleged that the child has committed a personal assault offence, and

(b) proceedings in relation to a complaint for an apprehended violence order against the child, and

(c) civil proceedings arising from the commission of a personal assault offence by the child, and

(d) proceedings before the Victim's Compensation Tribunal arising from the commission of a personal assault offence by the child.

No. 4 Page 6, Schedule 1[2], line 10. Insert "or tribunal" after "court".

No. 5 Page 6, Schedule 1[2], line 14. Insert "or tribunal" after "court".

No. 6 Page 6, Schedule 1[2], line 23. Insert "or tribunal" after "court".

No. 7 Page 9, Schedule 1[5], lines 7-8. Omit "an accused child in the Children's Court, the court". Insert instead "a child to whom section 405DA applies, the court or tribunal".

No. 8 Page 11, Schedule 1[6]. Insert after line 4:

(2) In any criminal proceedings in which the evidence of a child is given by means of closed-circuit television facilities or any other similar technology (by virtue of section 405DA), the Judge must warn the jury not to draw any inference adverse to the accused person or give the evidence any greater or lesser weight because of the use of those facilities or that technology.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

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

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.


Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendment.

Page 11, Schedule 2[17]-[19], lines 17-24. Omit all words on those lines.

Page 4338
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [9.42]: I move:

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

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [9.42]: The Opposition will not oppose the amendment but wishes to put on record the fact that the exercise has become a bit messy. The Minister amended his own amendment to section 611, making it necessary for the legislation to be brought back to this House. That section provides for a charge for items such as Optus cables and the installation of gas pipes on council land. The Government attempted to introduce a change from an annual charge to a levy or an annual fee. That was designed to release large companies from rate pegging. It is an indictment of the Labor Government that it would support big business by relieving companies from rate pegging. The Government did not realise, when it sought to make the amendment set out in the amending bill, that it would be caught by Commonwealth legislation.

That legislation provided for companies that were to be charged for putting up cables or putting down pipes to be exempt under Commonwealth legislation from having to pay a levy or an annual fee - the amendment proposed by the Minister for Local Government in the amending bill. The Government finally woke up to that fact when the legislation reached the upper House and it had to amend its own amendment to what appears in section 611, which provides for an annual charge. The Opposition will not take away the right of councils to impose an annual charge and believes that that is probably the appropriate procedure.

I believe that in instances such as the Optus charge there should be a hypothecation of the funding received by councils under an annual
charge, to ensure that Optus cables, for example, are put underground. That is a user-pays system and people who do not want Optus cables outside their premises should benefit from the Government's bungle. If anything is to be gained from this exercise it is probably that the consumer might receive some benefit. It is obvious that the Government has no idea how to introduce legislation, because it has been obliged to amend its own amendment and to bring the legislation back to this House.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.


Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): I lay upon the table of the House a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the joint sitting to fill a vacancy in the Senate.

Ordered to be printed.


Mr WHELAN: Before moving the adjournment of the House I welcome the presence in the public gallery of Captain Richard Macdonald and Mrs Hilary Macdonald, Captain Flett and also the guests of the honourable member for Fairfield.