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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


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) [10.00], on behalf of Mr Carr: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Historic Houses Act 1980 to reflect more accurately the role of the trust in managing and maintaining not only houses of historic importance but other buildings, structures and sites, as well as to provide measures to streamline procedures. The Historic Houses Trust currently manages 12 properties, including house museums such as Elizabeth Farm and Vaucluse House; two museums of social history, the Hyde Park Barracks and the Justice and Police Museum; and two sites of significance to the administration of the State and the country, the Museum of Sydney on the site of the First Government House and Government House. In its 16-year existence the trust has acquired an international standing in the conservation and interpretation of buildings and places of historic importance, and is the recipient of numerous heritage and tourism awards. It has successfully combined research and scholarship with innovation and popular appeal.

The philosophy of the trust is to maintain a range of properties representative of different historical periods, architectural styles and social associations: not just house museums in which we see a period recreated, but museums in which particular themes and issues are the focus. The 1980 Act uses terminology that is too narrow and limiting for the needs of the trust. None of the museums of the trust, none of the cultural institutions within the arts portfolio for that matter, are stuffy buildings in which objects sit in glass cases, merely labelled for the benefit of research alone. They are living places that emphasise community involvement, in which visitors enjoy and learn through activities, seminars and workshops, and theatre and dance performances. Exhibitions may be seen at more than one venue. Publications are widely read and appreciated, and professional advice is made available. The approach of the trust to the presentation of its property means that visits are entertaining and may involve a range of educational activities.

Students and teachers come away knowing more about the people who lived and worked in these places, understanding the significance of the buildings, the furniture and the objects they contain. When the Historic Houses Act was originally drafted the trust was responsible for only two properties. Since then it has met the manifold challenges presented to it, including its most recent project - management of Government House - in an exemplary fashion. Proposed section 7 substitutes new principal objects for the trust to reflect its role in managing, maintaining and conserving historic buildings or places and other property of the trust. It also recognises that the trust has responsibility not only for historic houses and house museums, but also for certain other buildings, sites and museums of historical significance. The Act currently requires ministerial approval for each alteration or improvement to trust properties, which is cumbersome.

Proposed section 10 of the Act will require that the trust develop conservation plans for each property to be approved by the Minister for the Arts. The proposed amendment will allow alterations or improvements consistent with approved plans. By obtaining approval for a comprehensive conservation plan for the entire property, including details of how repairs and construction are to be appropriately carried out, the work can be dealt with as the need arises. The Historic Houses Trust, consistent with worldwide museum practice, disposes of objects such as household items that are no longer suitable or appropriate to its collection. The current Act requires that the Governor must approve of the disposal of any of the property of the trust. Proposed amendments to section 11 will allow, with the approval of the Minister, for the disposal of items such as furniture and household objects which the trust no longer requires. The trust will continue to obtain the approval of the Governor to dispose of any of its real property, that is any of the various properties it manages, as distinct from the items in its collection of objects.

Presently the legislation allows for the Minister administering the Public Works Act 1912, the Minister for Public Works and Services, and the Minister administering the Heritage Act 1977, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, to each nominate a trustee. When the trust was established in 1980 the input of these administrations was crucial. The trust has operated for 16 years and has developed expertise and an international reputation in specialist areas. It is adequately equipped to assume full responsibility for its operations without the need for formal representation by other portfolios on its governing board. The Department of Public Works and Services, the Heritage Council and the Heritage Office play an important role in
Page 4572
advising and guiding a wide range of government agencies without formal representation on their governing bodies. The usual consultative channels will continue to be available to the trust as with any government body. These two trustee positions are no longer required to be reserved for public servants.

Proposed section 6(1) provides that the responsible Minister nominate all nine trustees, but that at least one person have a background in history and one have a background in architecture. This will allow for representation from members of the wider community with professional expertise, and is consistent with other legislation in the arts portfolio. The reform of the composition of the board of the trust has the full support of my colleagues the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and the Minister for Public Works and Services. The amendment will effect necessary improvements to the Historic Houses Trust enabling legislation. A revised Act will provide the trust with the necessary foundations to build upon its fine record in the management of some of the most significant treasures of the State. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr O'Farrell.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [10.07]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill proposes reforms to the New South Wales Heritage Council, the first in a series of fundamental reforms to the New South Wales heritage system foreshadowed in the Government's major heritage initiative - the New South Wales heritage policy released in May this year. In particular this amendment changes the composition of the New South Wales Heritage Council to reflect longstanding community and industry concerns that greater emphasis should be placed on skills-based representation on the Heritage Council and that a more diverse skills base should be available to allow the Heritage Council to broaden its focus to include Aboriginal heritage, moveable heritage and natural heritage.

The heritage policy will improve the management of the State's heritage by concentrating the activities of the Heritage Council on protecting major items of State heritage significance; broadening the focus of the council through a more active involvement in the areas of Aboriginal, moveable and natural heritage; introducing a fund for major conservation projects for items of State heritage significance; streamlining approval processes; and emphasising community education and promotion. It is my desire that the Heritage Council becomes a more pro-active body, better able to respond to the community's varied demands in these areas. As a first step in facilitating these reforms an amendment of the membership of the Heritage Council is required to ensure a skills-orientated composition, as opposed to the current representative - or as-of-right composition - of council members. I can advise the Parliament that there has been widespread industry and community support for the policy reforms, and this has been translated to support for these specific proposals. For the record I would like to quote the Executive Director of the New South Wales National Trust, Ms Elsa Atkin, who has recorded her support of these changes. Ms Atkin says:

I fully support your view that members of the Heritage Council should be selected primarily for their relevant knowledge and skills rather than as representatives of organisations and interest groups.....I enthusiastically support your emphasis on the educational role of the Heritage Council.

In addition, an organisation that might historically be regarded as being at the other end of the philosophical spectrum on matters relating to conservation is the Property Council of Australia, formerly and perhaps better known as the Building Owners and Managers Association. The New South Wales Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, Mr Mark Quinlan, has advised:

The Property Council welcomes the Government's intention to increase the skills base of the Heritage Council and ensure its continuity of membership. I am sure that these amendments will allow the Heritage Council to be even more effective in preserving the State's heritage for the benefit of all the community.

These comments reflect the community's attitude towards my heritage reforms, and I wish to take the opportunity of recording the Government's thanks to those organisations and individuals who have expressed strong support for our proposals. No longer is it appropriate for all heritage decisions to be made from an antagonistic perspective. This Government is working to ensure a proper and worthy dialogue between the competing interests in the heritage debate - a dialogue based upon working together, not fighting against each other from behind closed doors. I would like now to briefly outline and explain the amendments.

The Heritage Council currently has 12 members including the chair. It is proposed to retain the position of chair and five members being representatives of the National Trust of Australia, the Royal Australian Historical Society, the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the Royal Australian Planning Institute jointly, and the Labor Council of New South Wales. Two ex-officio members will also be retained, the Government Architect and the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Four members are proposed to be transferred from the as-of-right component of membership to skills-based appointments. They are: the local government representative; a person with qualifications in the
Page 4573
conservation of environmental heritage; a person with qualifications to represent the property rights of citizens; and a person with knowledge of the building, development and property industries.

As a consequence the skills-based component of the Heritage Council will comprise six new members who in the opinion of the Minister possess knowledge and skills in the following areas: Aboriginal heritage, the building development and property industry, corporate promotion, environmental heritage, local government, moveable heritage, natural heritage, property rights of citizens, and rural interests. It is not intended that each of these areas necessarily be represented but that these be the range of areas of expertise that the Minister can draw on when making appointments to the council. These changes will allow the Minister greater flexibility in considering the areas of expertise which are appropriate to be represented on the council.

I mentioned earlier the need to broaden the focus of the Heritage Council. To date, the council has largely concentrated on the built heritage of the State and not on the areas of Aboriginal or natural heritage. A whole-of-government approach is required to pursue, clarify and resolve the issues involved to progress them and their ongoing management. This process can only be assisted by my ability to appoint members to the council with skills in those two areas. Moveable heritage is another area which has received relatively little attention. As a consequence the newly established Heritage Office will work with the Ministry for the Arts to formalise their relationship and establish the responsibilities for each agency. The appointment of a person with skills in this area to the Heritage Council would be of great benefit in taking forward the management, conservation and promotion of the moveable heritage of the State.

Much of our heritage, of course, lies outside the urban areas of the State, and it is important that I am able to appoint a member with background and experience in rural issues and problems. Such representation has long been requested and I consider it appropriate to be able to appoint such a representative who can represent statewide rural interests. The efficiency of the planning approvals process is an area which the Government has specifically targeted as needing streamlining. Unnecessary red tape, approval duplications and time delays must be removed for the benefit of the State's economy. The Government's reforms in the heritage policy area will ensure this occurs, while improved safeguards for heritage will also be introduced. The revised membership of the Heritage Council is crucial to the success of these reforms.

The Government's heritage policy also identified heritage promotion and education as a critical element in the ongoing protection of the State's heritage and proposes that the private sector play an increased role in this area. To achieve this the Government has proposed that a person skilled in corporate promotion be appointed to the council and be responsible for promoting corporate sponsorship of our heritage. The amendments proposed to the Act will enable me to make such an appointment. The other areas of expertise from which the six members can be chosen - namely, environmental heritage, local government, property rights of citizens and the building, development and property industry - reflect their representation on the existing council. The inclusion of these skills in the manner proposed will enable a choice of membership from a wider range of people skilled in these areas than is currently possible. A final planned appointment to the Heritage Council is, of course, the Director of the Heritage Office.

Overall, these changes will achieve a greater variety of skilled membership for the council while at the same time retaining balanced representation by appropriate organisations, maintaining continuity of experience. This will ensure that essential skills and experience are available to the council and that relevant bodies continue to be represented. Alternate members and deputies will continue to be appointed to represent all members when they are ill or unable to attend.

In terms of tenure, the Heritage Act currently enables me to appoint members for a period of three years and states further that members will be eligible for reappointment. There is no limit on the number of terms for which members are able to be appointed. I propose to amend the Act to enable the appointment of members for up to three years with a maximum of two terms. This will give opportunity for appointment of council members for shorter terms than three years, if that is considered to be appropriate. It will also enable part of the membership to be appointed for a shorter period so that terms of the whole council do not expire at the same time, as currently happens. This change will enable greater continuity for the ongoing work of the council and an ability to respond to major heritage issues as they emerge.

It is proposed to include provision for the appointment of a deputy chair in the Act. Currently, while the chair is absent there is no provision for a deputy to exercise the statutory authority of the chair, such as the execution of an immediate stop-work order. This will allow the appointed deputy to exercise this responsibility. Another amendment is that the quorum, which is currently seven, will need to be changed to eight to reflect the increase in membership of the council from 12 to 15.

I consider that these changes reflect current community and industry views and will enable the more effective and efficient operation of the Heritage Council in the implementation of the Government's new heritage policy. The heritage policy and indeed these amendments have received support from the major heritage groups such as the National Trust and the Australian Heritage Commission as well as the Property Council of Australia. It is important that this bipartisanship that
Page 4574
has been demonstrated is maintained and improved upon. These changes will, of course, promote this spirit of cooperation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.18]: I move:

That this House rescinds the sessional orders "Consideration of Urgent Motions" and "Minor amendments to the Standing Orders" and agrees to and adopts amended standing orders in accordance with the Report of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee dated 21 June 1996.

I understand that quite a few members will speak to this motion. I therefore propose that the House deal with these amendments seriatim so that honourable members can concentrate on one issue before them rather than have the House engage in a series of discussions of wide generality. I do not want debate to be restricted to those issues that relate, for instance, to Standing Order 92 if honourable members want to discuss other relevant standing orders. I do not want to lessen the import of considerations that might be raised by honourable members. In relation to a later debate, the same position will apply. Agreement between the parties will be put aside so that issues of contention can be debated fully in a committee-style debate.

Motion agreed to.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow members to speak more than once in the debate and for each amendment to be moved as a separate motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.18]: I move:

Replace the Standing Order to read:

92. The resumption of the debate may be set down for a later hour of the same day, tomorrow or a future day by the Speaker, on request of the Member having carriage of the matter. In the absence of the Member having carriage of the matter, the Speaker shall set down the resumption of the debate as an Order of the Day for tomorrow.

The standing order is self-explanatory, though there may be some difficulties associated with the Speaker taking the role of the member having carriage of a matter. Other members may have some views on that issue.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [10.21]: I express the concern which the Minister for Police has mentioned. It is difficult in this debate to move amendments which encapsulate the thrust of suggestions on how the standing orders might be improved. Carriage of business should be left in the hands of members on the floor of the House. It is not appropriate for the Speaker to assume that role. I would suggest that the motion be amended using words similar to the following: "In the absence of the member having carriage of the matter, the member adjourning the debate or speaking at the interruption of the debate" - which are the two ways in which debate could be interrupted - "shall request the Speaker to set down the resumption of the debate as an order of the day for tomorrow."

Debate can be interrupted either by adjournment or by effluxion of time. Either the member adjourning the debate who has the call at that time or the member who is speaking at that time and whose debate is interrupted - they being the two members with a vested interest in the matter continuing - could request the Speaker to set the matter down as an order of the day for a future date. That would overcome the problem which the Minister for Police has correctly observed and would leave control of business in the hands of honourable members on the floor of the House. Those few extra words would overcome that technicality in a cleaner and better way.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.23]: The honourable member for Hawkesbury has confirmed that a problem does exist. I have thought of another problem with this process. It might be more appropriate for another member of the same party, rather than the Speaker, to adjourn debate on behalf of another member. I accept the point made about the Speaker moving the adjournment motion. Even though that wording is in the proposed standing order, I do not know how I could have agreed to allow the Speaker to become part of the proceedings of Parliament. I do not see it as the Speaker's role to be involved in adjourning or otherwise. I accept the honourable member's point about that. But what happens in relation to an Independent who is part heard on a matter and is not in the Chamber for the adjournment? Who is going to adjourn a matter on behalf of an Independent?

For argument's sake, what would happen to an issue raised by a member in private members' statements or to a conscience issue which might have no support amongst the member's party? An adjournment would mean that the debate is to be continued. The other issue is that the member moving the adjournment will have priority but may not even want to vote for the proposal. I do not know the answer to those problems. Maybe debate on this motion should be adjourned so that we can return to it after more discussion. I am interested to hear what other members say about it.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [10.26]: In response to the comments of the Minister for Police, under the present adjournment procedure the member seeking the adjournment has the right of precedence, but another member can resume the debate, and that is done quite often. It is a procedural matter. The proposed standing order does not really change that situation. If debate is interrupted pursuant to the standing order which provides for such interruption, the member speaking
Page 4575
would have precedence automatically because his or her contribution has been interrupted. If an Independent is speaking on a conscience matter - which brings in the two elements referred to by the Minister - the House cannot take away from that member the right to continue to debate the matter whenever it arises in the normal course of business. The Minister's fears may not necessarily be realised. If the standing order is amended that way, it will be clean and simple.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.27]: Would the honourable member for Hawkesbury agree that the last sentence be changed to read, "In the absence of the member having carriage of the matter, any other member shall set down"?

Mr Rozzoli: You may not be granted leave to do this.

Mr WHELAN: I realise that. Under existing Standing Order 92, resumption of the adjourned debate may be set down for a later hour of the same day or a future day by the member having carriage of the matter. My interpretation of that is that the member's motion being debated would lapse if the member is not present in the House. The motion would not return to the order paper. We are talking about throwing out a member's part-heard motion. We are trying to find a middle ground to enable such a motion to survive. That is why I suggested, given that a member might be absent from the Chamber, that the word "Speaker" be deleted and that the words "any other member shall set down the resumption of the debate" be inserted. Perhaps inserting the words "the Opposition Leader of the House on behalf of the Opposition and including all Independents" would overcome that problem. I perceive the difficulty but I cannot find a solution. If someone could find the answer, Hansard would be very grateful and so would I.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [10.30]: The member speaking at the time that the debate is either adjourned or interrupted is the only person who can be guaranteed to be in the Chamber at that particular time. The Leader of the House, the manager of Opposition business and the Whips may not be in the Chamber, taking into account every contingency, but the person speaking to the debate obviously has to be in the House and has a vested interest in the debate continuing following an adjournment or interruption. To my way of thinking, the member speaking is the ideal person to set down the resumption of the motion as an order of the day for tomorrow.

Mr Whelan: I take it that the honourable member is talking about a deemed adjournment, that is, an automatic adjournment.

Mr ROZZOLI: Yes, except that the member goes through the process of asking the Speaker to set the motion down as an order of the day for tomorrow.

Mr Whelan: Whoever is there?

Mr ROZZOLI: Whoever is there and speaking.

Mr Whelan: I am happy to try that.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to rephrase that comment.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.31]: The honourable member for Hawkesbury has come up with a possible solution that I am happy to accept. His suggestion is that the matter be deemed to be adjourned, that is, there be an automatic adjournment, and that the person who has last spoken to the debate take the place of the mover of the motion to adjourn the debate. As the Deputy Clerk has been taking notes, I suggest that the House now adjourn debate on this motion in order that the proposed amendment to the standing order may be redrafted.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.32]: It may well be that the Whips could be so authorised, if the member speaking is a member of a political party. Of course, that would still leave the difficulty in relation to the Independent members of the House.

Mr Whelan: Opposition Whips are the Whips of the Independent members.

Mr HARTCHER: Obviously, the leave of the Independent members would be required. That may help to provide some form of mechanism to ensure that the adjournment is organised.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.32]: I prefer the solution suggested by the honourable member for Hawkesbury. It is up to the House to determine whether it wants to proceed further when the matter comes up for reconsideration. The House can at a later stage decide not to proceed with the motion that has been adjourned automatically. The point made by the honourable member for Hawkesbury is valid.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.33]: I move:

Add as the 7th paragraph:

(7) If the closure under this Standing Order is agreed to at the second reading stage and there have been no Minister's amendments circulated the Speaker shall forthwith put to the vote the third reading of the Bill.

Clearly, this relates to a guillotine of the second reading debate. It is proposed that the closure motion encompass the third reading of the bill. I would imagine that Opposition members will oppose this amendment - that is their entitlement.

Mr Hartcher: You opposed it when we put in -

Page 4576

Mr WHELAN: The House is debating proposed changes to the standing orders set down by the coalition Government. The only reason that the previous Government did not include this provision in its standing orders is that it did not come up with the idea.

Mr Hartcher: We didn't have the numbers.

Mr WHELAN: This amendment will not serve any extended purpose. There are very few third reading debates in this Chamber. When the guillotine is moved, it is not necessarily exercised. On occasion it has been moved and exercised. When the guillotine is moved the Government should be given the opportunity to cease the debate. The Government could achieve that outcome at the end of a third reading stage by simply gagging the debate, gagging speakers, moving that the question be put and so on. This amendment is designed to tidy up the procedure; to remove the difficulty associated with members having the ability to speak on a third reading. Honourable members in this Chamber have not exercised their right to speak on a third reading debate for a long time. The Government is seeking to bring the standing order into line with practical usage.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.34]: If we do have to have a guillotine - and I suppose that it is inevitable that the Parliament will have some guillotine mechanism - there is no basis for its extension, as the Government is proposing at this time. The guillotine has historically operated in relation to the second reading debate and in relation to the Committee stage. The Government now proposes - however softly the Minister may be advocating the argument - to extend the guillotine to the third reading of the bill, a totally new dimension. The rules about third reading debates are quite specific. Members cannot debate the matters that were discussed at Committee stage or aspects that should have been discussed in the second reading debate. Members can only debate that which is allowed for the third reading, the fundamental principle as to whether the bill should proceed. That is surely a separate issue, which the House should retain to itself the right to argue.

If the historic precedents are correct - and it is rare that that is argued by the House - why should the Government wish to remove the right of a third reading debate? The House should retain that right for the odd occasion when it is felt, after all the debating has taken place, that the principle as to whether the bill should go forward is at stake. The Opposition opposes the Government's attempt to add yet another bow to its quiver to deny members their fundamental rights. I recognise that the Leader of the House may from time to time wish to ram the business through the House. He will probably wish to do so at the end of the year. By December bills will be piled up all over the place and the Minister will want to ram legislation through the House, one bill after the other. The House will sit until 8, 9, 10 or 11 o'clock at night ramming through all the bills, and the guillotine will fall with monotonous regularity - as regularly as it fell in the Place de la Révolution in 1789.

The issue is not one of fundamental importance; I know that the Minister is not one who likes to lop heads off - it is only the left-wing heads he ever aims at. The Opposition does not agree to this amendment because it would extend the guillotine to an entirely separate dimension, that of the third reading. Opposition members will fight to maintain the right of the Parliament to parliamentary debate. That is why the passage of legislation is taken through separate stages: the introduction of the bill, so that members know what is coming; the second reading, and the argument about the principles of the legislation; the argument in Committee about a bill's details; and the third reading, the question as to whether, honourable members having heard all the arguments, the bill should go forward. Normally honourable members do not choose to exercise the right of debating the third reading, but the need to do so does arise from time to time. The only occasion on which I can recall a third reading being debated was when the Labor Party, then in opposition, chose to debate the third reading of the 1991 industrial relations legislation because its members still thought, after all the argument, that the bill should not go forward. The Opposition wants to maintain the right for a third reading debate and will resist the imposition of this standing order amendment.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [10.39]: This is the silent but deadly approach to parliamentary debate.

Mr Whelan: Is it the death of democracy?

Mr KERR: No, it is not the death of democracy, but it is a further restriction on democracy and freedom. The Government seeks to further inhibit the right of members. The Minister has basically said that his amendment would lead to a neater procedure, that it would be an administrative convenience. One cannot justify Parliament on the grounds of administrative convenience. Parliament is about having people express their points of view. This House rarely has a third reading debate. I have spoken on a third reading debate, because the occasion warranted it. As the honourable member for Gosford just mentioned, the Labor Party exercised its right to a third reading debate in relation to industrial relations legislation. There may be other legislation of as much importance to the Labor movement as industrial relations reform and the Labor Party may wish to debate its third reading. This proposal would deny the Government's own party the right to speak on that occasion.

Chickens always come home to roost. As the Minister for Police said, Standing Order 100 allows members of Parliament to further exercise their right without inconveniencing the workings of Parliament. The third reading is a further safeguard for honourable members, including Independent members, to raise their voices, but only when certain
Page 4577
strict criteria have been met. This amendment is a further encroachment on the freedom of members of Parliament. I conclude my remarks by saying that political parties will probably welcome this amendment because it makes life easier when in government and stifles dissent. Stifling dissent is always a neat administrative action.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [10.40]: I oppose the amendment to Standing Order 100. It is a change to hear the softly-softly expression of the Leader of the House that this change should be made. When he was in opposition he would go red in the face and rant and rave that government proposals were a denial of democracy. Yet today he says this amendment is a necessary change and should be passed. Some issues raised in this House proceed to a third reading debate. The message to the community must be clear that the Parliament has a strong objection to this amendment because it denies all honourable members their right to vote on the third reading of a bill. I recall issuing press releases stating that the coalition opposed not only the second but also the third reading of a bill.

I ask the Leader of the House to advise of any other parliament under the Westminster system that would have the audacity to propose such an amendment to the standing orders. The Minister has a thick hide. If he felt so strongly about this matter, he should have proposed this amendment when he was in opposition, but he was not game to do so. He is trying to extend the guillotine beyond its purpose. The Minister should realise his mistake and withdraw his amendment to Standing Order 100. It would be a sad day for democracy if the House were to rewrite Standing Rules and Orders by throwing it out the window. If I ever believed the coalition were trying to ram something through the Parliament, as a member of the National Party I could have my say in the joint party room. We know what is right and wrong. It is about time the Minister took the lead and withdrew the amendment.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.43]: The Fiftieth Parliament was characterised by attempts at parliamentary reform, which were documented in the charter signed by both major parties. The charter of reform attempted to wrestle power from the Executive and government of the day and return it to the House into the hands of all honourable members. This amendment smacks of intellectual dishonesty and should be withdrawn. A well-known quote says that death of democracy will not be at the hands of an assassin but the result of a thousand cuts. The House is witnessing that process today with this amendment. A series of amendments within this motion attempts to dismantle the gains achieved through the charter of reform. The charter was not an attempt to favour Opposition or Government, but rather to try to favour the rights of individual members of Parliament to bring into this place the views of their constituents and to amend legislation at any point. I oppose this amendment. Amazingly, the Minister remains straight faced. By reversing a number of gains made in the last Parliament this Government now has a record of which it cannot be proud.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [10.44]: I join the honourable members of principle on this side of the House in opposing this amendment. This amendment further whittles away the rights of members of Parliament to raise concerns and properly use the forum of debate in this Chamber. This amendment denies also the rights of 40,000 or more voters that honourable members represent in this House. Members of Parliament have the right to represent the views and concerns of the public in this House. As the honourable member for Manly said, this Executive Government is displaying extreme arrogance in its approach to these proposed amendments and in its progressive whittling away of the rights of honourable members.

In the past session this Government's use of the guillotine was not as a last resort on the odd occasion; rather it was used frequently at the end of session when the Leader of the House, through poor planning of his legislative program, tried to ram legislation through. Now in the early part of this session the Leader of the House has not organised enough business to keep the House working for a full sitting day! It is inevitable at the end of the session that there will be a backlog of legislation and the guillotine will come into play when the Leader of the House wants to push matters through. If the Leader of the House could plan and manage his program in a more appropriate manner, there would not be a need to rely on the guillotine. The Leader of the House is seeking to use the guillotine progressively and frequently to deny appropriate debate on important issues.

This amendment is simply a product of the arrogant approach by the Leader of the House and his Government to use the guillotine excessively. If the guillotine is invoked at the end of the second reading, I challenge the Minister to allow debate at the Committee stage and on the third reading. In the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill during the last session the Opposition indicated that it wanted four amendments to be debated; it did not propose hundreds of amendments, as were debated in the upper House. The Opposition wanted the right to debate four simple amendments in detail. Notice was given of the amendments, but when the guillotine was invoked all honourable members were denied the chance to debate certain parts of the bill which warranted debate. That debate would have reflected community attitude. The Minister is denying members of Parliament and members of the public their rights and entitlements. He does not want proper debate in this Chamber and does not want the Government to be open to scrutiny. The Minister should withdraw the amendment, but I do not think he is up to it. The standing order should remain, that is, at the third reading honourable members should have the right to debate and dispose of the bill if they so wish.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [10.48]: I join with Opposition members in opposing this change to the rights and privileges of honourable members of this House. I remind the House that this is not the first time that the Leader of the House has exhibited a betrayal of principles. The Minister for Police made his career at the 1980 State Labor Conference
Page 4578
when he led the powerful Liquor Trades Union in its defection from centre unity. Just as he betrayed centre unity -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Though this debate is being conducted in a flexible manner, the honourable member should not stray from the debate.

Mr O'FARRELL: Your ruling, Mr Speaker, demonstrates the difference between you and the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House will not countenance the Opposition making points in this Chamber. Earlier when I made a joking interjection about the death of democracy, he said that we would not be allowed to have our say. Under the current standing orders debate on the third reading of a bill is restricted to certain issues and is not free ranging, as is the second reading debate. This amendment to the standing orders will deny the right of Opposition and other honourable members of this House who occasionally may wish to speak on the third reading of a bill - and they may be members of the Minister's party such as the honourable member for Wyong, the honourable member for Badgerys Creek and the honourable member for Waratah.

The Leader of the House said that members of the Opposition will be able to have their say. He also jokingly said, "but they won't be heard". As members of this House we represent our electorates and we are part of a tradition that is hundreds of years old. The honourable member for Hawkesbury - whose knowledge of these matters is certainly superior to that of the honourable member for Auburn and in whose presence I dare not quote dates - knows the traditions, Mr Speaker, as you also know the traditions. What has been handed down under the Westminster tradition is a system of government, a system of analysis of bills, a system of rights and privileges that has worked for hundreds of years and has provided us with peace and democracy. The Leader of the House wants to overturn the status quo, just as he did in 1980 - not for the benefit of all but for the benefit of a sectional interest. In 1980 that sectional interest was the Minister's own; this occasion it is that of the entire Government.

As did my colleagues, I oppose the proposed change because I believe that the third reading debate can be important. In the Minister's contribution he said that this procedure had rarely, if ever, been used in this place. We were reminded by the honourable member for Gosford that it was used in 1991 by the Labor Party when opposing the Fahey Government's industrial relations reforms. It seems that there is one rule for the Labor Party and that the Government is determined to create another rule for the Opposition. As the honourable member for Manly said, it is interesting to note the changes that have occurred in this House since the last Parliament. The honourable member for Manly knows that I do not agree with what occurred during the last Parliament, but decisions were made to protect the rights and privileges of members of this House. We have seen a constant whittling away of those rights and privileges since this Government came to office. I hope it will be a lesson for the honourable member for Manly and for other Independents, the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for Tamworth, that if they should ever again find themselves in the same position - and I for one hope that that does not happen - they do not succumb to the sorts of principles that the Labor Party espoused when in opposition but will not follow in government.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.52]: We should now talk about 1996, not 1980.

Dr Macdonald: Tell us about the dark days of 1996.

Mr WHELAN: The document entitled, "Parliament of New South Wales, Legislative Assembly, Standing Rules and Orders" is dated 12 December 1994. It was the coalition Government's document, and honourable members opposite should turn to page 25 and read Standing Order 100. All the soothsayers who foretell doomsday and the end of democracy should be interested in that standing order. Paragraph 4 of Standing Order 100 reads as follows:

The carrying of this question is an instruction to the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to put to the vote every question necessary to give effect to the notification. No further debate, amendment or reply is permitted.

It was all right for the former Government but it is not all right for this Government to attempt to streamline debate and avoid countless divisions on the same issue. The standing orders do not allow for debate; no amendments are permitted. I am attempting to streamline the procedure so that time is not wasted on continuous divisions while honourable members sit in their places. If this amendment is not passed it means that those opposite are prepared to waste not minutes but hours while honourable members sit in this Chamber and do nothing except vote in countless divisions. What advantage is to be gained from voting on eight or nine occasions on the same issue? There is no purpose in it, no purpose at all. The Government wants to achieve its aims by streamlining debates; the former Government wanted to make its achievements by simply gagging debate. This measure will streamline administrative procedures and the Government is determined to proceed with it.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [10.54]: The Leader of the House has forced me out of the starting blocks by his accusation that failure to pass this amendment will involve wasting the time of the House. It has been suggested, even by members of the Minister's own party, that he cannot run this House. Last night the House rose early. Honourable members can imagine what is behind this move: at the end of the year legislation will be banked-up and the House will have to sit for long hours to pass that legislation. By amending Standing Order 100 the Minister is attempting to speed up the process of democracy as we know it. He realises that at the end of the year he will run out of time and will be unable to get all the legislation passed - legislation that he cannot get through the House now because of his lack of knowledge.

Page 4579

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In order to streamline the debate I will allow members to speak on a second or third occasion, but I suggest that they introduce new material, rather than rehash material that has already been introduced by other members.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. I thought I was being generous in allowing a wide-ranging debate about standing orders. If honourable members want to talk about New South Wales politics in the 1980s -

[Interruption]

I anticipated a serious debate on the issue. If we do not have a serious debate, we will have no debate at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given guidance to members. I will rule members in order so long as they do not rehash material that has already been debated.

Mr JEFFERY: I did not raise the matter of the Minister's inability to run the House during my first contribution.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will confine his remarks to the debate.

Mr JEFFERY: It is clear from what the Minister has said that he is concerned about a possible delay in getting legislation through the House at the end of the year, and it is quite obvious that democracy will be thrown out the window. Honourable members have the right to divide the House on the third reading of a bill. I suggest that the Minister withdraw the proposed amendment.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
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
Ms Harrison Mr Sullivan
Mr Hunter Mr Tripodi
Mr Iemma Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Woods
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Photios
Mr Chappell Mr Richardson
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rixon
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Downy 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 MacCarthy Mr R. W. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Mr Merton
Ms Moore Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Knight Mr Kinross
Mr Shedden Mr Phillips

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.03]: I move:

Replace paragraph (2) to read:

(2) The notice must be given within 3 clear sitting days after the sitting day at which the ruling was given.

The amendment adds the word "clear" to remove the ambiguity that some honourable members believed existed. The change will clarify and make more certain the time limit within which notice must be given.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.04]: The amendment is a sensible proposal. I will not take up the time of the House. The Opposition agrees to the proposal.

Motion agreed to.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.05]: I move:

Replace "Business of the House" with "Business with Precedence" wherever occurring.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [11.05]: I understand that the Opposition does not oppose this motion. However, I speak against it because I
Page 4580
believe the amendment misinterprets the intention of the standing order. Business with precedence has a distinct meaning in the standing order. Various items of business are regarded as business to which precedence should be accorded. They include the Address-in-Reply debate, the disallowance of statutory rulings, various dissent and no confidence motions, leave of absence motions, formal business, et cetera. To replace carte blanche the words "Business with Precedence" with the words "Business of the House" alters the intention of the standing order. The standing order provides that the House will proceed with the business of the House. Those matters are determined by the House to be its business. Business with precedence is only part of the business of the House. At a particular time on a sitting day business with precedence is automatically dealt with for most purposes. I believe that it does not need to be spelt out further. However, it may not be appropriate to deal at that time with other business that may have been accorded precedence. I suggest that the motion be withdrawn pending further consideration because the amendment misconstrues the intention of the original standing order.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.08]: I draw the attention of honourable members to Standing Order 127, which contains the words "Business with Precedence". The amendment is a minor change to Standing Order 110 to make it accord with Standing Order 127. The inclusion of the words "Business of the House" in Standing Order 110 was an oversight when the previous changes were made to the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.10]: I move:

Paragraph (2) - leave out "three", insert instead "two"

Leave out paragraph (4)

Paragraph (5) - leave out the words "If more than one notice is given:"

The effect of this amendment will be to make provision for two notices of motion to be given instead of three so that the procedure will be similar to the re-ordering of Government business. The question will be put if only one notice of motion is submitted, and the question will be put on the second notice if the House does not agree to debate the first motion. At present the House has to decide which motion should have priority. If the House agrees to debate the first motion, the second motion does not have to be discussed.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.11]: Once again the soft words spoken by the Minister for Police conceal the import of the amendment he has moved. He is saying that the House can have only two notices of motions for urgent consideration before it and cannot consider three. As the honourable member for Davidson is numerate in these matters I am sure he could point out whether that is a 50 per cent reduction or 33 per cent reduction in the number of motions that will be permitted to come before the House. Notwithstanding that, this House has Government members, Opposition members and members on the crossbenches. A Government member, an Opposition member and one of the crossbench members might all wish to submit notices of motions for urgent consideration. At present that is allowed for, and that has happened. Only this year the three respective parties gave notice of three motions. The Government is effectively saying that one of those notices has to go to save five minutes on a priority debate and, possibly, a further five minutes on a division. That is a saving of 10 minutes in relation to a matter that does not occur regularly.

The excuse given by the Minister in his best mantra fashion - I was about to say "Stalinist fashion" as someone else used that expression, but I believe Joseph Stalin would not want to adopt that word - was that the amendment will streamline the business of the House. Honourable members will hear those words spoken often in this debate and in debate over the next few months. This streamlining of the business of the House will result in members being denied the right to speak. It will restrict what can be said by members in this Chamber simply so that the Government can save time - at most, a precious 10 minutes each month. As I said earlier, three notices of motion have been submitted only once during this session and the Government lost a whole 10 minutes of its time. However, the Government wants to ensure that it has total control of the House, so it is effectively reducing the number of notices that can be given on any occasion to two. The Minister might use the softly, softly approach, but nothing will change. This standing order was devised by the Minister for Police in conjunction with the former member for South Coast.

Mr Whelan: Correct.

Mr HARTCHER: The Minister says that that is correct: he and the former member for South Coast devised this standing order. It suited the Minister at the time. It was his wording.

Mr Whelan: Correct again.

Mr HARTCHER: The Minister says that that is correct again: it was his wording. But now it is not convenient. He is now a Minister in the Government and it is no longer convenient for members to have democratic rights. It was very convenient in 1992, but times have changed since then. The Minister for Police finds democracy cumbersome after the passage of four years. To use the wonderful words of the Lord Protector of England, the Minister finds democracy burdensome and irksome. The House is witnessing a Cromwellian approach to Parliament, although the Mace has not been taken from the Chamber. Nonetheless, the restriction, the cutting down -

Page 4581

Mr Whelan: I doubt if democracy is going to go.

Mr HARTCHER: Nobody pretends that democracy will go, but the expression of democracy will go if members in this House are denied the right to raise matters for urgent consideration. How will it be done? Will the Minister say to members on the crossbenches, "You can move one motion a month"? Will the Minister say to the Opposition, "You can move one motion every two months"? The Government will not be exercising any self-denial. The usual motions of congratulations will come from the Minister and his clones on the frontbench, motions acknowledging what a great job they are doing on whatever the issue of the day may be. Yesterday the Minister for Land and Water Conservation moved such a motion dealing with the forestry debate. There will be no self-denial by the Government, but Opposition members will be denied the opportunity to give notices of motions for urgent consideration. That says it all. I will not repeat myself.

Mr Gibson: You will make up for that.

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for Londonderry is the last member who should interject. I am pleased he went to a Christian Brothers school because his points of order follow a religious formula. He says, "I do not want to interrupt the honourable member", and "I do not want to take up his time" and, after having just taken 30 seconds of an honourable member's time, he then says, "I will just take another 30 seconds." The Opposition strongly opposes this amendment. This standing order was devised by the Minister, and he is now seeking to amend it merely to restrict the rights of members.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [11.15]: I join the honourable member for Gosford in opposing the amendment that has been moved to Standing Order 120, but for reasons additional to those that he has so eloquently spelt out. I should like to briefly remind the House of the historical background to the consideration of urgent motions. Those honourable members who were members of Parliament many years ago will remember that urgency motions used to be debated during question time. It was regarded by many people as an artificial erosion of the rights of members to raise matters in question time. Through various means the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee has sought to guarantee a better deal for members when asking questions. I remember, and I am sure the Minister for Police will also remember, when only two, three or four questions were asked during the 45 minutes allocated for question time. The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee considered that to be unconscionable. Efforts were made to protect the sanctity of asking questions during question time. It was therefore necessary to deal with motions for urgent consideration at a time other than during question time.

It is difficult to provide for the consideration of urgent motions and preserve the rights of members. I can remember the Minister for Police arguing eloquently in the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee for the preservation of the rights of Opposition members to raise urgent matters. At that time the Minister for Police did not consider that there was any great imperative for the Government to raise urgent matters; that was regarded by him as being almost strictly the prerogative of the Opposition. But motions for urgent consideration are now moved predominantly by members of the Government. Although that practice is permitted under the standing orders, it is, nonetheless, a somewhat dubious practice when one remembers the reason for providing for the consideration of urgent motions. I place on the record my view that the whole concept of the consideration of urgent motions and the way in which it has been handled in this House is fundamentally flawed. It is for the House to determine whether a motion is urgent enough to require debate on a particular day. The principle has been enshrined that at least one motion for urgent consideration will be debated each day, come what may. But it should be the prerogative of the House to vote down each motion for urgent consideration that is raised.

Mr Whelan: That is what the change to the standing order will do.

Mr ROZZOLI: It will not do that. The Minister suggests that the number of notices of motions for urgent consideration on one day should be restricted to two. If the House does not agree to debate the first motion the second one will get a guernsey. If the House agrees to debate the first motion the second motion will immediately disappear. In other words, as soon as someone takes the initiative -

Mr Whelan: Would you say that again? What is your impression of the amendment to the standing order?

Mr ROZZOLI: Leaving aside the question of whether the House should permit two or three notices to be given, it is my impression that if the House agrees to debate the first motion the second motion will disappear and only one motion is dealt with on that day. If the House does not agree to debate the first motion the second motion will be debated without a vote being taken as to whether it is urgent. So one motion for urgent consideration will be debated, provided notice of such a motion is given on that day. That should not be the intention of the standing order. The House should be able to say that none of the motions are urgent - whether the number is two, four or 50 - and the House will not waste time debating them.

I have raised that matter previously in a point of order. However, the point of order was not upheld and most members have disagreed with me. Each motion for urgent consideration should be voted on if the previous motion has been voted
Page 4582
down. Once the House has decided a motion is urgent, that is the motion for urgent consideration for the day. If the House decides not to debate the first motion for urgent consideration the standing orders, as changed by the sessional orders, should permit a vote on the second notice of motion, because the House should have the prerogative of deciding not to debate either motion.

I support the retention of the right of members to submit three notices of motion. If the number is reduced to two the Government and Opposition will be able to block out forever and a day the chance of any Independent member moving a motion for urgent consideration. That is striking at the fundamental rights and privileges of individual members. I have a fierce regard for those rights. Whether a member comes from the Government, the Opposition or crossbench, he or she should have exactly the same rights as every other member. The House may take a little more time to deal with the additional notice. However, to preserve the individual rights of members that is a small price to pay for the luxury of leaving at three the number of members who may submit notices of motions for urgent consideration instead of reducing it to two.

The formulation to the standing order was deliberated upon at great length and the number was set at three so that each group in the House could submit a notice of motion for urgent consideration. I suggest that it is the prerogative of the House to vote upon each motion until it has determined that one is urgent. When that decision is made, the other motions will be knocked out. The House will have heard the three speeches advocating priority, and it will have selected one motion from the three. That can only be done by a process of elimination. I repeat that on a particular day the House should have the prerogative to vote down debate on all motions if it believes that none are urgent.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.22]: In his contribution the honourable member for Hawkesbury referred to the ability of the House to vote down debate on both notices of motion. My understanding is that the standing orders, should they be amended, will give the House the right to vote out both notices of motion after the five-minute priority speeches. I refer the honourable member to Standing Order 120(5), which provides:

If more than one notice is given:

(a) The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 5 minutes so the House may establish the priority of such matters.

(b) At the conclusion of 5 minute statements the Speaker shall put the question on the first notice "That the motion for urgent consideration of the Honourable Member for . . . be proceeded with".

The House makes a decision whether it will debate the motion. If debate on the motion proceeds, that is the end of the matter. The motion for urgent consideration is debated and the normal procedures ensue. If debate on the first motion is voted down by the House the Speaker then puts the question again in relation to the second motion. The House may then vote down debate on the second motion. The House probably has three choices: to debate the first motion, to debate the second motion or not to debate either motion. That is the procedure, and the problem referred to by the honourable member for Hawkesbury is resolved.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister were to defer his comments until after the honourable member for Manly and others have made contributions, he could then reply to all the contributions.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.24]: I support the Opposition. I have not heard a cogent argument why the number of notices should be reduced from three to two. If one subscribed to the conspiracy theory, one could say that this amendment is an anti-Independent move that entrenches the political duopoly in this House. I clearly oppose that. Apart from that, the amendment erodes members' rights. I do not know how the amendment will affect the process itself. If a number of members wish to move motions for urgent consideration, what process will be used to determine which debate is to proceed? At present the Speaker determines which matters of public importance will be debated. If several members wish to give notice of motions for urgent consideration, and the Speaker indicates that he will hear only two, a great scrum will develop around the table and it will be a matter of which members are first to get to their feet.

The amendment will work against the democratic rights of members of the House, particularly those on the crossbench, who will be squeezed out in this process. The amendment is a little like the new New Zealand electoral system, which is anti-Independent. No Independents will ever get voted in to the New Zealand Parliament now because of the new system. It is good for minor parties but not for Independents. I do not know whether the Government intended these consequences, but the amendment is anti-Independent, and it will work against the democratic rights of members of this House. How on earth will the Speaker determine which two notices of motion will be dealt with by the House?

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [11.26]: I also oppose the amendment. In doing so, I appeal to the democrats who sit opposite. It is an interesting that the democrats within the Labor Party are out of power. I refer to members such as the honourable member for Londonderry, the honourable member for Heffron and even the honourable member for Waratah. Together with the honourable member for Maitland, he stands up for the rights of the common man across the Hunter but is not prepared to stand up for the rights of minor parties. What is the difference between Mr Speaker adequately representing his constituents by allowing them to have a voice in his office, and him representing their voice in this House and in this Government?

Page 4583

What is the problem about the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for Tamworth, with whom I strongly disagree, trying to have the same say in this House? I am thankful that on this occasion the Minister has not even used that wonderful language he has used in previous debates about streamlining processes. I am sure Soviet history would reveal that Joseph Stalin said similar things. I do not understand how the Leader of the House, who is supposed to support Mr Speaker in his running of this Chamber, can move this amendment four years after he instigated a change in the standing order to give the four Independent members an opportunity to submit notices of motions for urgent consideration, as both Government members and Opposition have the opportunity to do.

I would support the amendment if it meant that the Government would no longer move sham motions and that the period was genuinely used by those in opposition, whether party or Independent, to raise issues of concern to them. I share the concern expressed by the honourable member for Manly about who will decide which two notices will be dealt with. Is the Minister able to tell the House the process that will determine whose notices will be dealt with? I am concerned that Mr Speaker is being dragged into the vortex of party-political issues of this House. The honourable member for Hawkesbury knows that there are many occasions on which Speakers have great difficulty staying above party politics and ensuring that they see the person who jumps up first, and not the person from their side of the House who jumps first.

The present Speaker has been at great pains to exercise great caution. The honourable member for Hawkesbury certainly did so with distinction for seven years. Indeed, he may have given the present Leader of the House the call too many times during the period he was Speaker. I am concerned that no explanation has been given about how the process will work. My friends the Independents do not always speak with one voice. What happens when the three Independents submit notices of motions for urgent consideration, the Opposition submits a notice, and Governments gives notice of its usual sham motion.

Mr Gibson: It is called democracy.

Mr O'FARRELL: The honourable member for Londonderry talks about democracy. This is a man who played that great egalitarian sport, who was prepared to go toe-to-toe, shoulder-to-shoulder and, I suppose, knuckle-to-knuckle at times in the defence of his team-mates. The Independent members are not my team-mates, but they are my colleagues. Why are they not being defended on this occasion? The honourable member for Londonderry should be on the front bench, but I suspect he is not because he is prepared to stand up for people's rights; he is not prepared to buckle under the dominant view expressed by the Leader of the House. I urge him, the honourable member for Heffron, who admirably defends children's rights in other places, and the honourable member for Waratah, who, together with the honourable member for Maitland, defends the common man in the Hunter, to support the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Bligh and even the honourable member for Tamworth.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [11.30]: I would like to return to the point I was discussing earlier with regard to the right of the House to vote down all motions. I seek an assurance from the Minister that before the end of the day the Government will move to implement the sessional order which currently provides that the standing order is not given effect.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.31]: I assure the honourable member that will happen if this motion is passed. I am pleased that the honourable member for Londonderry, the honourable member for Waratah and the honourable member for Heffron have been referred to, because they were with me in Opposition when the then Government - formed by this democratic Opposition - decided that it would take away the right of every member of this Chamber to move urgency on either a local issue or an issue relating to confidence in a Minister, a bureaucrat or a government. The former Government had no misgivings about denying the then Opposition that opportunity, and the naivety of the Independents allowed that to happen.

For three years the Labor Opposition was rendered impotent because the coalition Government denied it the opportunity to raise matters of substance. There was no opportunity for matters of urgency to be raised, and the only procedure that could be adopted was to give notice of a motion, but that could take forever to be reached. There were no private members' days in those days. Honourable members should not tell me that the Labor Party is undermining the democratic principles of this House. Those procedures were removed by the Liberal-National Government, in concert with the Independents. The honourable member for Manly voted to get rid of the opportunity for the Opposition to move urgency. For three years the then Opposition had no opportunity to move a vote of no confidence in a Minister or the Government, or to bring a Government bureaucrat to book about the carriage of his or her department.

The Liberal-Coalition Government changed the standing and sessional orders to suit itself. Consideration of urgent motions are not working in its current form because it develops into a backyard brawl. The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee resolved to conduct a trial of urgency motions in an effort to reach agreement on the procedure. But as soon as members discuss personalities in debate, it develops into a backyard brawl. If we can get away from that and discuss policy issues, perhaps the backyard brawls will not
Page 4584
continue. The notices of motion for urgent consideration will be voted on and the House will decide, irrespective of whether they are moved by Government, Opposition or independent members, which motion it will debate. The urgency procedures of this Chamber have not been rorted by the Government; the Government has not moved urgency motions as often as the Opposition has. Honourable members have been given the opportunity to move urgency in this Chamber, and they have had the opportunity that was previously unavailable, to move matters of public importance or adopt other forms of the House.

Dr Macdonald: How will you determine which of the notices will proceed?

Mr WHELAN: The House will determine that, as it does now.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [11.36]: The response by the Leader of the House was so spurious that he should be reminded of some history. Under the old rules, when the Labor Party was previously in Government, urgency would be moved in order to prevent question time taking place. The Minister should remember that when Unsworth was Premier and he was chairman of the small business committee, at the beginning of question time he would announce a matter of urgency on the committee report, and that would be the end of question time.

Mr Whelan: That was quite good.

Mr KERR: Yes, it was quite good, because the Minister for Police does not believe in the Westminster system; he believes in the axminster system.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Mr Moss
Mr Aquilina Mr Nagle
Mrs Beamer Mr Neilly
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus 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 Sullivan
Mr Hunter Mr Tripodi
Mr Iemma 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 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 Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy 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 MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Face Mr Cruickshank
Mr Knight Mr Kinross
Mr Shedden Mr Phillips

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Amendment by Mr Rozzoli agreed to:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words after "matter", with a view to inserting instead "In the absence of the Member having carriage of the matter, the Member adjourning the debate or speaking at the interruption of the debate shall request the Speaker to set down the resumption of the debate as an Order of the Day for tomorrow.

Motion as amended agreed to.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Replace "Sessional Order" in paragraph (9) with "Standing Order".

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.47]: I move:

Add to paragraphs 6(b) and (d) the words "all Members speaking against the motion (no confidence in Speaker)"

Add as paragraph (8):

(8) The provisions of this Standing Order shall apply to a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.

Page 4585

The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee should consider changing the standing orders when a Minister is condemned because at present a Minister has only the ordinary right of a member to reply to such a serious motion. When a motion of condemnation was moved against me recently I had only two and a half or three minutes to reply because of a series of interruptions.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [11.49]: I wish to amend the motion. Without meaning any disrespect I shudder to think who drafted it, because it is not well worded. I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "Member" and inserting instead "leading the debate in opposition to a motion of no confidence in the Speaker".

The reason I suggest that is because the words "Member speaking against the motion (no confidence in Speaker)" are totally non-specific. Four or five members may speak against the motion of no confidence in Mr Speaker and therefore the amendment as currently drafted is meaningless. I am sure the intention of the amendment is that paragraphs 6(b) and (d) refer to the member who leads the debate in support of Mr Speaker, that is against the motion of no confidence. That should be spelt out and I move that amendment accordingly.

Also, although at present the standing order does not refer to the Speaker, the title should be "No confidence in Minister or the Speaker". Then there would be no need for the added paragraph, "The provisions of this standing order shall apply to a motion of no confidence in the Speaker." I consider also that the use of brackets is very unsatisfactory. If there is a change to the title, which strictly speaking is not part of the standing order, and if the Government is prepared to accept my amendment, the standing order would embrace fewer words and would be clearer and more specific, which I am sure the Minister for Police would appreciate.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.51]: The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee discussed this matter. At that meeting the Opposition expressed the view that the Speaker may wish to reply on his own behalf. I accepted the argument put by the Leader of the House, and I think by other members of the committee that that did not happen and that historical precedents were against it. I suggest that it is inappropriate to include reference to Mr Speaker in the standing order relating to no confidence in a Minister. There should be a separate standing order relating to Mr Speaker. Otherwise it would seem that Mr Speaker equates with a Minister and could be automatically considered as being part of the Government.

A standing order that related both to a Minister and to Mr Speaker would suggest that Mr Speaker is not independent or does not represent the House. It would suggest that Mr Speaker is the same as a Minister. I would consider it most inappropriate that the same procedure be followed for both a motion of no confidence in Mr Speaker and a motion of no confidence in a Minister. If the Minister for Police is prepared to agree he might so indicate, because the importance of the standing orders is that they actually convey a message to the House and the people.

As you above all would acknowledge, Mr Speaker, it is important that the House acknowledge in its formal procedures that the Speaker is not simply a creature of the Government but is responsible to the House as a whole and to every member of the House. The standing orders should not imply that a motion of censure or no confidence in Mr Speaker will only come from one side of the House. That is not the way the parliamentary system runs. That would essentially deny the whole idea of the Westminster system, which requires that the Speaker be independent, or as independent as is possible, given that Speakers are drawn from political parties. As far as possible the Speaker should be perceived as independent, and the standing orders should reflect that, rather than simply portray him as another member of the Government.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.54]: I am persuaded by the points made by the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Gosford, and so I seek to adjourn the motion relating to Standing Order 123 and the motion relating to Standing Order 124, which deals with a similar matter. I note also that there is a typographical error in the business paper in the motion relating to Standing Order 124. It should read, "censure", not "no confidence". That will be attended to, not as a change in the standing orders but as a change to the sessional orders in the first instance. We will deal with the motion of no confidence in the Speaker separately, and likewise a censure motion against the Speaker will be dealt with separately in the first instance by a change to the sessional order. The motion in relation to Standing Order 124 should go back to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee for consideration of a final draft. It will not be too difficult an issue now that the House has decided how to handle it. It should be done as quickly as possible. By leave, I will withdraw the motion relating to Standing Order 123 and I will not proceed at this stage with the first motion relating to Standing Order 124.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Replace "at that sitting" in paragraph (2) with "the sitting day at which the notice was given".

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.55]: I move:

Replace "gazettal" in paragraph (1) with "tabling".

Page 4586

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [11.56]: I understand that the Opposition will not formally oppose this amendment but I would like to record my concerns in that gazettal provides for a specific date upon which a regulation comes into effect. A regulation becomes law from the date of gazettal and remains law until such time as it may be disallowed by the Parliament. The gazettal date, therefore, is a fixed date, and 15 sitting days after that is also a fixed period of time. If "gazettal" is replaced by "tabling", the capacity of the House to move disallowance of the regulation will not come into being until tabling. If the tabling is delayed, the date on which the regulation becomes law, before the Parliament has a chance to consider it, may be extended beyond the absolutely minimum time that is now provided. The Leader of the House might enlighten me, but I see no benefit in changing to "tabling". On the contrary, I see some disadvantage in removing "gazettal", which provides a set time frame.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.57]: I am persuaded by the point made by the honourable member for Hawkesbury. When this matter was discussed earlier I was convinced that it was purely a procedural and technical matter.

Mr Whelan: It is contrary to the Interpretation Act.

Mr HARTCHER: I will say no more.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.58]: The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee resolved to proceed this way. Our standing orders cannot be in conflict with the Interpretation Act, and that is the reason for the change.

Motion agreed to.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Replace "Motions" in paragraph (8) with "Business".

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Leave out paragraph (3) - A petition must not "(3) Either directly or indirectly, ask for a grant of public money".

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.59]: I move:

Amend the Standing Order to read:

136. A Member, being the Chairman of a committee, may be asked a question relating to the affairs of the committee.

This might be called the Ian Armstrong amendment. Honourable members may recall that in the House the Leader of the National Party asked a question of an honourable member. It was never the intention under the standing orders that members should have the ability to ask other members questions, except when those members were chairmen of committees and Ministers. Under the Interpretation Act, Ministers are responsible for their legislative programs and may be asked any question relating to their portfolios. A member who has been chairman of a committee may also be asked a question in the House. The honourable member for Manly was asked a question by the previous Government when he was Chairman of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. It is appropriate to continue that status.

Mr Jeffery: It woke him up.

Mr WHELAN: It woke him up and also the coalition Government because he was never asked another question.

Mr Jeffery: He handled it well.

Mr WHELAN: I recall that day. So good was his answer that I encouraged the honourable member who asked the question to ask a supplementary question. Parliament never intended honourable members to ask questions of other honourable members. Questions are for Ministers, who are responsible for government business, or those who are chairmen of committees. Chairmen of committees now have the opportunity at 1 p.m. on Thursdays to present reports to the House. This gives honourable members the opportunity to ask the chairman questions relating to the affairs of the committee. In my view it is not proper for honourable members to ask questions of other honourable members. If the standing order were not to be changed, we could have the situation of members asking other members questions and the government of the day could rig question time so that there is no time for legitimate questions. For example, the honourable member for Hawkesbury could ask the honourable member for Gosford questions requiring a lengthy reply. That is not the purpose of question time. Question time is the time when Ministers in any Westminster Parliament are asked questions.

Mr Jeffery: You are wrong.

Mr WHELAN: Members opposite should cite an example where members of other parliaments ask questions of other members. It has happened elsewhere, but because it represented the same rort that exists here, standing orders were changed to ensure it did not happen again. This Parliament is merely following suit. The ambiguity of the standing orders that apply in this House permitted the Leader of the National Party to ask a question of another member.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.02]: The argument put forward by the Leader of the House shows his fundamental misunderstanding of the history of this Parliament. Standing Order 136 is old and relates to the time when Parliament did not have
Page 4587
a party system - it was probably a more genuine debating Chamber than it is now - and members often sponsored bills and motions. The idea advanced by the Minister that question time is purely a government exercise has never been part of the Westminster system. Question time is for members of Parliament to ask questions about public affairs and administration by a Minister or about matters on the agenda for Parliament. Questions can be asked of chairmen of committees because committees are creatures of the House, or questions can be asked about the progress of a particular motion, its purpose or when it will be debated.

The intent of Standing Order 136 covers all those situations. That standing order has a venerable history and has applied for many years. Historically, the party system evolved and question time became purely a contest between the Government and the Opposition. A charter of reform was signed by all honourable members - perhaps not with the same degree of enthusiasm - and its purpose was for the Parliament to be the master of its destiny, not simply existing to debate business that the Government presented or to have questions asked of the Government. The Legislative Council is not a House that relates to the Government and the people; it is the House of the people that controls the Government.

Once the charter of reform was signed, Standing Order 136 became all the more relevant. Each Thursday was private member's day, which provided the opportunity for the introduction of private member's bills and motions - procedures that were lost in the early 1920s and 1930s. It is more appropriate then ever that Standing Order 136 be acknowledged and reinforced so that the House can be master of its destiny and members can be involved in the procedures. On one occasion the Leader of the National Party asked a question perfectly in accord with this standing order, as ruled by you, Mr Speaker, in the impartial exercise of your majesterial power. Having lost the point of order the Leader of the House reacted like the bullyboy who upsets the gambling table: he moved the gag. He was not prepared to allow the question to be asked and answered. In a further bullyboy approach of upsetting the gambling table when losing at cards, the Minister and the Government seek to amend the standing order once again to make it relate only to the Government.

If amended, Standing Order 136 will relate only to Ministers and chairmen of committees. Who are the chairmen of committees? Members of the Government. Effectively the House once again will be denied the right to be master of its destiny. Honourable members will be told they are here to debate legislation, and to ask questions of the Government, which Ministers will deign to answer if they are so inclined, and on Thursdays honourable members will be given a couple of hours as a sop, but honourable members cannot run their own agenda. The proposed amendment to Standing Order 136 is not insignificant. The Minister for Police asks where this happens in the Westminster system. It happens in virtually all parliaments because they all take their Standing Orders historically from Westminster, which is where Standing Order 136 comes from. This provision was contained in the Standing Orders and Procedures of the Federal Parliament for many years and was changed only when the Keating Government was being asked embarrassing questions by the then Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, the honourable member for Bennelong, about aircraft noise and his private member's bill to evenly distribute aircraft noise across metropolitan Sydney.

This amendment is a significant change because it relates to the very structure of the House and to the very principles of the charter of reform. Either the House is here to respond to the Government or it is the master of its destiny. If honourable members wish to ask a question on a matter pertaining to business of the House, they should read the motion and the standing order. It does not say that the honourable member for Gosford can ask the honourable member for Hawkesbury any question. Standing Order 136 says that a question may be asked that is connected with the business of the House of which the member has carriage. It is always related to what is happening in the House. The Opposition strongly opposes this attempt to once again gag parliamentary debate.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [12.08]: I also oppose the amendment proposed by the Leader of the House. Under Standing Order 136 it is possible for a member, not being a Minister, to be asked a question relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House of which the member has carriage. Today on the notice paper item No. 3 is a private member's bill of the honourable member for Manly to prohibit or restrict smoking in enclosed public places. Honourable members should have the opportunity to ask questions of another honourable member who introduces a private member's bill, either on notice or without notice, and Standing Order 136 should cover both instances. Even members of my party may want to question me on a private member's bill I have introduced, and legitimately so. Government members may want to ask questions, and it is for the member who has carriage of the bill or motion before the House to answer them.

Recently the honourable member for Manly answered quite well a question about one of his bills, although I must admit that he went white when the question was asked. That is the essence of this motion: honourable members should not give notice of motions or bills if they do not know what those motions or bills are about. I am concerned that the Leader of the House is trying to restrict the rights of members of Parliament. The Speaker has an obligation to uphold the rights of members. I am not
Page 4588
simply talking about parties, about the Government or the Opposition, but about the rights of members. This proposed change would remove important rights of ordinary members of Parliament. I support the comments of the leader of Opposition business, and I strongly oppose the motion.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [12.11]: I shall briefly record my opposition to the motion. The principle for asking a question in the Chamber is primarily to seek information or action. Of course, private members are asked questions primarily to seek information about a bill, motion or public matter for which they have carriage. If honourable members put their minds to it they could think of many examples of that; the honourable member for Oxley referred to one example. I shall use a hypothetical example that could have occurred over the past 12 months, given the ongoing debate about euthanasia.

What would have happened had an honourable member given notice of and introduced a bill relating to euthanasia, a matter which may have been the subject of a free vote? Given the changing nature of the euthanasia debate, honourable members almost certainly would have been justified in asking questions of the member who had carriage of that euthanasia bill to find out whether he or she intended to change it in any way or whether it had been impacted upon by changes in the public debate in New South Wales, in any other State or at the Federal level. There is clear justification for using that mechanism and asking a member a question. It is inappropriate for that avenue to be denied absolutely by changing the standing order. Therefore, without any hesitation, I oppose the motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.13]: There is ample opportunity on a motion or on a private member's bill, particularly in Committee, for a member to pose a series of questions to the member who has carriage of that motion or private member's bill. The proposed change will bring the House into line with the true intention of Standing Order 136. On only one occasion during my 20 years in the House has a private member asked a question of another private member, that is, not a chairman of a committee. On that occasion the standing order was abused. If the standing order is not amended, abuse of it will continue until the House reaches the point at which Opposition members are asking other Opposition members five questions during question time, with those members making political statements. There are no guidelines. At present restrictions are placed on Ministers only. Standing Rules and Orders do not envisage that private members be given the right to answer questions in the Chamber. The House would be entering new territory. The primary purpose of question time is to enable the Government to be questioned. There is ample opportunity in the procedures of the House for private members' resolutions or motions to be criticised, analysed and discussed.

Question - That the motion 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 Moss
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Sullivan
Mr Hunter Mr Tripodi
Mr Iemma 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 Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Photios
Mr Chappell Mr Richardson
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rixon
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy 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 MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Scully Mr Kinross
Mr Shedden Mr Phillips

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Page 4589

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.21]: I move:

After "Notices of motions", insert "called on by the Clerk".

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [12.22]: This is an extremely curious amendment. I do not want my remarks about the Clerks to be seen as derogatory, and I have spoken on numerous occasions about the important role that the Clerks play in the continuity of parliamentary culture and the corporate memory of the Parliament. However, as I see it, this amendment will introduce into this House a completely new procedure. To date the Clerks have played no role in calling on notices of motion. The Clerks read the orders of the day because they are part of the ongoing business of the Parliament. The practice has been for Mr Speaker to refer to the business paper and to call on notices of motions in the order that has been determined by the Government. I cannot see any reason for this provision. In fact, I believe it will change the time-honoured provisions by which the business of the House is conducted. Opposition members have not been provided with the reason that this provision should be included.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much discussion in the Chamber. Much of the business involved with these amendments is being undertaken on a minute-by-minute basis and those involved need to have clarity of thought, without interference from conversations being conducted in the Chamber.

Mr ROZZOLI: This amendment does not appear to serve any purpose. It is not of any benefit to the Parliament and it is a departure from the traditional forms of this House. I suggest to the Minister for Police that this motion should be withdrawn.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.25]: This amendment to Standing Order 149 will enable the Clerks to call on notices of motions, as is done with orders of the day. This is simply a housekeeping device to enable the House to establish clearly the business that is about to be dealt with.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [12.25]: In defence of the Chair, this is an insult to the Chair because it suggests that the Chair does not know what the business of the House is. The Clerk cannot be the beneficiary of any knowledge to which Mr Speaker is privy. I cannot see any procedural gain from agreeing to this motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.26]: The Government signs the daily program. The Clerk should be able to call on notices of motion according to the prescribed wishes of the Government.

[Interruption]

I am attempting to amend Standing Order 149 to enable the Clerk to call on notices of motions.

Motion agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.27]: I move:

Replace the Standing Order to read:

197. Members shall not be permitted to call a division on any question or call attention to the want of a quorum during the currency of Private Members' Statements. If a division is called prior to 10.00 a.m. on any sitting day, the division shall be deferred and conducted at 10.00 a.m. or, if an item of business is being conducted at 10.00 a.m., after that item is concluded.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.28]: I do not know why this amendment has been moved to Standing Order 197 as the sessional orders have been changed to provide that the House commences sitting at 10 a.m. The self-contained standing order which relates to private members' statements already provides that there should be no division or quorum in that period.

Mr Whelan: That is the afternoon. This motion relates to the morning.

Mr HARTCHER: In that case the first sentence of the amendment should stand, but why do we require the second sentence if sessional orders provide that the House is not to commence until 10 o'clock? No quorum or division can be called before 10.30, so the second sentence is not only superfluous but also contradictory to what is already in the sessional orders.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.28]: The sessional order relating to divisions and quorums during private members' statements provides:

That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Orders 51 and 197 be amended by replacing "9.30" with "10.30".

If the sitting hours of the House change, the sessional order will remain the same. This amendment will create a new standing order which will apply to the calling of divisions and quorums in the morning. I do not think there is any major difficulty about that. This amendment confirms what is already in place. The current sessional order provides that no division or quorum can be called before 10.30 a.m. If we amend Standing Order 197 the sessional order will provide that no division or quorum can be called before 10 a.m.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [12.29]: I agree with the comments made by the honourable member for Gosford about the second part of the motion. The restriction on divisions and quorums should be included in the standing order relating to private members' statements. In fact, it should be dealt with in the section relating to private members' statements. When a member or anyone else refers to standing orders he or she should see all the details regarding private members' statements set out in one section. If it is deemed necessary to duplicate those provisions in Standing Order 197, I have no
Page 4590
objection to that. However, I believe that honourable members should be able to see all the provisions in the standing order dealing with private members' statements.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Rozzoli.


Debate resumed from 20 June.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the honourable member for Strathfield I draw to the attention of the House that this is the member's initial speech and he should be afforded the usual courtesies of the House.

Mr MacCARTHY (Strathfield) [12.30]: In the Parable of the Talents, God directs us to apply our talents to their best use in His service and the service of our community. I believe that, whether consciously or not, most of us in this House have been led here in response to that direction - to apply our gifts of advocacy, of organisation and of analysis to maximise the wellbeing of our constituencies, our State and Australia. That is the role that I believe I am here to undertake on behalf of the electors of Strathfield: to listen to what the people are saying, analyse the essential features and then re-present or represent them here in this House and elsewhere, and organise to get their wishes achieved.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for your approval in enabling me to make this my maiden speech on the Status of Children Bill. The purpose of the bill is to improve the system for determining a child's parentage which currently exists under the Artificial Conception Act 1984 and the Children (Equality of Status) Act 1976. The bill does this in several ways. First, it brings the provisions currently in the Children (Equality of Status) Act 1976 relating to parentage presumptions and parentage testing procedures into conformity with the Family Law Act 1975. It also updates those parentage presumptions which apply in relation to children born as a result of artificial conception procedures in line with current medical technology. These presumptions are currently in the Artificial Conception Act 1984.

The bill consolidates the provisions of these two Acts, leaving one Act instead of two, a worthwhile end in itself. It also makes consequential amendments to a number of associated Acts. Importantly, the bill will also promote consistency in registration of findings of parentage across Australia. The bill had its origins in the time of the previous coalition Government. It results from an agreement by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and complements recently adopted Commonwealth legislation.

This bill is necessary because society has changed and reproductive technology has advanced in recent years. What were once seen as reasonable assumptions about the status of children may no longer be valid. There is a need in dealing with the rights of children to ensure that the tests that apply in the Family Court of Australia apply in all State courts: there should not be confusion. The rights of children should not be the subject of legal claims driven by lawyers. Children should not be exploited by adults for the purposes of determining the interests of parents rather than the rights of children. Whatever the circumstances of their conception, all children should be of equal status before the law. I welcome this bill because it acknowledges that fact.

The bill also helps the law catch up with unforeseen social impacts of a rapidly changing technology in the field of human reproduction. It brings simplicity and certainty to issues which once were beyond doubt but now are sometimes unclear. For example, the legislation contains a presumption that the mother of the child is the woman who gives birth to the child. In the past, that presumption was axiomatic. However, modern technology can mean that the birth mother may not be the genetic mother. I have great pleasure in joining my coalition colleagues in supporting this bill.

Mr Speaker, If I may prevail upon your indulgence, and that of honourable members, I wish to depart from the provisions of the bill and raise other issues relevant to the electorate of Strathfield and to me personally. Mr Speaker, at the outset I wish to thank you for your assistance, and that of the Clerk and his staff, in guiding me, as a new member, in the forms and procedures of Parliament. I also wish to thank honourable members on both sides of this House, but particularly in the Liberal Party, for the genuine warmth of the welcome extended to me, and for the helpful advice from which I am learning day by day.

I am only the second member for the seat of Strathfield, the first being my friend and colleague, now Federal member for Lowe, Paul Zammit. Paul's energy in representing his constituents, particularly those from non-English speaking ethnic group backgrounds, is legendary in the inner west of Sydney and indeed beyond. It is an honour to succeed Paul, and I wish him and Rita well in their new role. Of course Paul was previously the member for Burwood, the seat which Strathfield replaced. I wish to mention two former members for that seat. Gordon Jackett took over the seat in 1965 and served with distinction and dedication for 13 years. He provided me with wise counsel in my early years in the Liberal Party and was a guest at my wedding. Gordon is now living in retirement in Blackheath, and I send him my best wishes and those of many of my constituents who still remember his service to our community.

I have no personal memory of the late Dr Leslie Parr. However, as a 12-year-old boy, I won a school prize donated in his memory and I came to know the respect in which the community held him. In recent days I have read the condolence motion speeches about him in this House, including those
Page 4591
by members that I knew personally, such as Wal Lawrence, who taught me at Sunday school. Their opinion is good enough for me - Dr Parr was a great man. People like Gordon Jackett and Leslie Parr set a great example in this House, one that I hope to follow.

I am honoured to represent the people of Strathfield in this House, and I thank them for the confidence that they have expressed in me. I must thank particularly a dedicated team of volunteers, led ably by my conference president, Paul Rogerson, who is in the gallery today, and branch presidents Paul Wakim, Carl Bull, Kahalil Tartak, Ainslie Thomas, Tony Barany, Ralph Buono, Brian Hennell, Georgia Wright and Lucy Stone - good Liberals all - who worked very hard to get me here.

Strathfield is an electorate rich in cultural diversity, and no-one can hope to win the seat without the support of large numbers in the ethnic communities - the Chinese, Italian, Lebanese, Greek, Tamil and Korean, to name but a few. I wish to thank many community leaders who helped me to get to know their communities. These include Peter Wong, Angela Pong, Henry Pan, Joe Baini, Chris Syrios, Chris Christogeorge, Danny Lim and Sivananthan Krishnar, and others too numerous to mention. But I save till last my best friends who encouraged me over 15 years to continue to fight to get where I am, Bill and Helen Angelis.

I also thank my family. My wife Lea has supported me in all I have done for the 22 years of our marriage. Without her I could not have achieved my ambition to be here. My children, Emma, Alix and Ellie - the best children a father could want - have been very understanding when my duties have taken me away from home when perhaps I should have been there. My mother has also been a great source of strength to me. It was she who guided my intellectual growth and moulded my values in the Christian tradition.

Having just mentioned my own family, may I place on record my intention to do all I can in this House to support and promote the role of the family. The family is the very basis of a civilised society but, unfortunately, it is currently undervalued and underutilised. For a while, it seemed like it was ideologically unsound to mention family values, but I have great hopes that the recent election of the Howard Government will help us to reverse this trend.

Mr Photios: I am a recent convert.

Mr MacCARTHY: And a very good one too. Daughters are wonderful. I am proud to enter this House as a member of the Liberal Party, having joined the Strathfield Young Liberals as a teenager almost 30 years ago. We are not the oldest party in Australia, but we are the only party that genuinely seeks to represent all interests, and we do it well. In the Liberal Party, we do not care if you are the son of a manual worker, as I was, or the child of a wealthy landholder or businessman. We do not care if your parents were born here, or in Europe or Asia. We do not need quotas to bring women of talent into Parliament. We represent everyone, and we aim to create an environment in which all have an equal opportunity to achieve their potential. In return, we ask nothing except a loyalty to Australia.

This is the philosophy for economic advancement and social cohesion; it is the philosophy that Australians believe in and generally vote for. Let it not be forgotten that it was this side of the House - this philosophy - that received popular endorsement in 1995. We received the majority of votes on a two-party preferred basis. The fact that we have a Labor Government was due to a statistical accident, or should I say disaster, not the will of the majority of voters.

The dominant issue confronting the people of Strathfield, and indeed all the inner west, lately has been the unprincipled attack by Labor on local health services. Not content with taking away a hospital project at Croydon, which would have seen a brand-new, state-of-the-art, 250-bed hospital opened this year, Labor is now embarked on an attack on Concord hospital. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, Concord hospital has lost 100 beds, and its highly respected general manager, Alan Kinkade, has been removed, presumably because he was too effective in defending the hospital. Earlier I mentioned a former member for the seat of Burwood, the late Dr Leslie Parr. I am told that in the time of the Cahill Government, back in the 1950s, Dr Parr coined the saying that Labor's policy was to "sock the sick." Cahill Government or Carr Government - the difference in the sound is just the letter "l". But there is certainly not an `ell of a difference when it comes to health: Labor's policy is still to sock the sick. Labor has once again proved, as it did under Wran and Unsworth, that it is simply incapable of running an effective hospital and health care system. It is no wonder the name of the Minister for Health is regarded as offensive language in the inner west, where I live; it is no wonder that in the by-election four months ago today the people around Croydon deserted the Labor Party in droves, with two-party preferred swings of 6 per cent to 9 per cent in booths neighbouring the site of the abandoned hospital.

Mr O'Farrell: It was a slap in the face for the Premier.

Mr MacCARTHY: No, it was not a slap in the face for the Premier, because the Premier did not show his face in the by-election. He was not to be seen; his poster was not to be seen. People would have liked to slap his face. In every way it was a repudiation of Labor. Another key issue confronting the electorate is the problem of heavy traffic in residential streets. Parramatta Road is a virtual parking lot in peak periods, another dreadful legacy of Labor's Wran era, in which years of planning for a new freeway were scuttled by a short-sighted, ideologically blinkered government. The congestion in traffic forces motorists travelling east-west to
Page 4592
detour through streets never designed to take heavy traffic. The problem is exacerbated by north-south traffic congestion. Progressive improvements to ring-road 33, the latest of which will be at the Hume Highway-Centenary Drive intersection, will alleviate this to some extent, but more needs to be done.

Motion by Mr Hartcher agreed to:

That the honourable member for Strathfield receive an extension of time.

Mr MacCARTHY: The State Government must accept responsibility for through traffic and not foist it onto an increasingly cash-strapped local government and the ratepayers. Next I want to mention the problem of crime. I do not pretend that Strathfield suffers any more than many other electorates in this regard, but suffer it does. Where have we come to when many ordinary Australians feel compelled to lock themselves into their homes, behind heavy steel bars? Why are schoolchildren frequently threatened and assaulted, even murdered, by street gangs? Why are drug deals often carried out in broad daylight in car parks and on street corners? What sort of an environment is this in which to raise our children? Last Saturday I attended a meeting of over 30 people from just one small street in Burwood. Almost every house on one side of that street has had a break-in or an attempted break-in during the past four to six months. The residents are only too aware that there are insufficient police in the area to maintain an effective deterrent against this kind of crime. I will be maintaining pressure on the Government to provide the extra police resources that my constituents are demanding.

Still another problem requiring urgent attention is that of urban flooding. Stormwater systems in the inner west are the product of a past age. Increased urban development, or should I say overdevelopment, is causing excessive rainwater run-off which, coupled with deteriorating infrastructure, results in regular flooding. Councils do not have the income base to rectify the problems quickly. What we need is an injection of State funds to identify all problem spots and address them as a matter of urgency. As Gordon Jackett mentioned in his maiden speech 31 years ago, my electorate is known as the electorate of schools, having some 30 major schools and colleges within just a few square kilometres. In my youth I attended four of them. These schools generally enjoy a high reputation, so much so that many have long waiting lists. Recently, as honourable members are aware, the media reported in detail on the unsatisfied demand for places at Strathfield and Burwood girls high schools. I will be taking a keen interest in educational issues in my time in this House, not only because of the educational focus of my electorate, but because I recognise the importance of a sound education as a means of promoting that equality of opportunity I spoke about earlier.

I bring with me to this Parliament a concern about access to public facilities. There are five railway stations in the electorate of Strathfield. Only Strathfield station has suitable access for the disabled, the elderly and parents with young children in prams and strollers. It is a disgrace that in the renovations soon to be commenced at Homebush and Croydon stations, each costing several hundred thousand dollars, and in the recently completed pedestrian bridge over the railway line at Burwood, for example, no provision was made for ramp or lift access. I commend the Minister for Roads for providing these facilities in the pedestrian bridge being built over the highway at south Strathfield, but I ask why his example is not followed by the Minister for Transport. On the subject of access, Mr Speaker, you will be aware that I have been trying since day one, four months ago, to set an example by obtaining a new electorate office with easy access for all, in contrast with the steep stairway access to the office I inherited. So far, two excellent alternatives have had to be abandoned because the Government has not provided enough money to pay fair market rent for ground floor premises near bus stops and the station in Burwood Road. However, I intend to persevere, until I succeed in giving all my constituents the access they are entitled to expect.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, may I thank you and honourable members once more for your courtesy and for the assistance extended to me as a new member. I have much to learn, much to live up to, and much to do. I ask for the prayers of all honourable members that I might be of the best possible service to the people of Strathfield as their voice in this Parliament.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Humpherson.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 12.47 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


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 Beck, Mr Blackmore, Mr Brogden, Mr Chappell, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Collins, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy, Mr Ellis, Ms Ficarra, Mr Fraser, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Mr Jeffery, Dr Kernohan, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Mr MacCarthy, Mr Merton, Mr O'Doherty, Mr Peacocke, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Ms Seaton, Mrs Skinner, Mr Slack-Smith, Mr Smith, Mr Souris, Mr Tink, Mr J. H. Turner and Mr R. W. Turner.

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 4593

Petition praying that police numbers in the Manly-Warringah and Pittwater areas not be reduced, and that Avalon, Collaroy and Mona Vale police stations not be closed or downgraded, received from Mr Brogden.

Petition praying that the Carr Government be censured for breaking its promise to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5 Motorways; that those responsible for breaking the promise resign; and that all such future proposals be independently audited before they are announced, received from Mr Souris.

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.


Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.26]: I move:

That notice of motion of general business (general notices) No. 44 have precedence on Thursday, 26 September 1996.

This motion should be given priority because tomorrow will be the last opportunity to debate it before the Australian Rugby League and Australian Football League grand finals this weekend. This House should recognise the contribution of both these football codes ahead of their respective grand finals. It is important that the public of New South Wales knows that the Carr Government has turned its back on rugby league. The Premier, having seen no sporting events in Atlanta, has shown that his only interest in sport is the Swans. The Premier has bathed in the Swans' glory this year. He has written a reference for Tony Lockett. He has even been down on his knees praying for Plugger's groin.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [2.27]: To assist the Leader of the Opposition, I indicate that he can move his motion tomorrow.

Motion agreed to.

Mr COLLINS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Has the Ombudsman upheld complaints against four police who failed to properly investigate an alleged bashing of Irishman Michael Stack by a bouncer employed in one of the police Minister's pubs? Will the Premier instruct the Minister for Police to table the Ombudsman's report, which has resulted in departmental charges against one officer and which the Minister has withheld for nearly six weeks?

Mr CARR: I am not privy to the status of the Ombudsman's investigation.

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

Mr CARR: There sitting opposite is the coalition's marginal seat specialist! He has never won a marginal seat; he only loses them!

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

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Parramatta is confirmation of his campaigning skill.

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

Mr CARR: He was in charge of the Liberal campaign for Parramatta and of marginal seats in the last campaign.

Mrs Skinner: He's hit the button.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order. The House will come to order.

Mr CARR: Wow! The Opposition is a cheerful lot! I recall that during the great debate about whether the coalition would stand a candidate in the Port Macquarie by-election the honourable member for Murrumbidgee said that the Liberal Party frontbench was the most mediocre bunch of politicians in the Commonwealth!

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

Mr CARR: While I am talking about things that were said during the dispute over Port Macquarie, I ask honourable members not to forget that after all the ruckus that tore asunder the closest coalition in Australia, the Leader of the Opposition has decided not to run a candidate in the Port Macquarie by-election. He is on the phone to the members of the Liberal executive saying, "Don't run. It's too tough. We can't win."

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

Page 4594

Mr CARR: That is his message.

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

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition has had two months of coalition members feuding, fighting, wrecking furniture, pulling curtains down and flinging cutlery across the room. Now we are told that both the Liberal Party -

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The answer must be relevant to the question. The House has now heard a dissertation on Port Macquarie, the Liberal Party State executive and various other issues. I ask that you draw the Premier's attention to the standing order to make his answer relevant to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw the Premier's attention to the question that was asked.

Mr CARR: Mr Speaker, your ruling is very helpful -

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr CARR: It is helpful because in light of all the temptations that Opposition members present it is useful that I be drawn back to the subject of the question. I was going to say something about the honourable member for Northcott, but we can save that for later.

[Interruption]

I saw him eating a can of baked beans. He has a can of baked beans with him over there.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Northcott feels that he has been misrepresented, he will have an opportunity to make a statement at the appropriate time.

Mr CARR: My objection is that he will follow it up with a Magnum ice-cream. The question is a complete insult -

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will return to the answer.

Mr CARR: The question is an insult to the Ombudsman, Irene Moss. The matter has been raised in Parliament and it is now the subject of a criminal trial. I am advised that the Ombudsman has been kept abreast of the Police Service inquiry. The honourable member, as a former Chairman of the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman, knows that the Ombudsman is independent of the Police Service and of me.

Mr Tink: Table the report.

Mr CARR: I know that Opposition members are slow and the wires and other conduits do not always work the way they do with other people but, as I said earlier, I am not privy to the Ombudsman's investigation.

Mr Tink: Why not?

Mr CARR: Because the Ombudsman is independent of government. If the honourable member is concerned, he should approach the Ombudsman directly. I have not received any correspondence from the Ombudsman in relation to this matter.

Mr Hartcher: How come you have a prepared answer?

Mr CARR: I have received no correspondence in relation to this matter. The Ombudsman is completely independent of government. If the Ombudsman is unhappy with any action or inaction on the part of the police, honourable members know that she has the power to present a special report to this Parliament outlining her concerns. It is not up to me, the Minister or anyone in this Government to determine whether the report is presented to the House. That is solely the right of the Ombudsman. Opposition members ought to familiarise themselves with the legislation, but of course they will not do that because they are too focused on Port Macquarie.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Burrinjuck to order. I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party to order.

Mr CARR: Opposition members should resolve their differences and determine once and for all whether the State will have the joy and pleasure of an official Liberal candidate running in the Port Macquarie by-election.


Mr NAGLE: I direct my question without notice to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. What action is the Government taking to clean up the Kings Cross area?

Mr CARR: Last October in this House the Minister for Police detailed crime and corruption in the Kings Cross area. He revealed problems relating to prostitution, organised crime, poverty, drugs, corruption, extortion, thuggery, gambling, hooliganism and the trade in stolen goods - a sorry catalogue of crime and degradation.

Mr Photios: It sounds like the Mercantile Hotel.

Mr CARR: It sounds like the Sutherland branch of the Liberal Party! It is amazing what the Internet produces on the Sutherland branch of the Liberal Party; the Nazi propaganda that spews out would turn one's stomach. The police royal commission has illuminated many problems in Kings Cross. The Government has engaged eminent solicitor Mr John Mant to work with the Kings Cross 2000 committee, local government, State government agencies and community members to investigate problems in Kings Cross and to suggest positive solutions. I am pleased to report today on
Page 4595
the Government's program to make Kings Cross a safer place. The Government wants to reclaim the streets for the ordinary people because that is a basic civil right. Let me reveal to the House the outstanding success so far. In Kings Cross between January and August 1995, 1,233 people were arrested. As a result of the Government's crackdown, for the same period this year 1,437 people were arrested, representing an increase of 200 arrests. Kings Cross licensing police report a 355 per cent increase in detected breaches.

The Government's aim is to clean up Kings Cross and reclaim the streets for the people. Today I can detail a comprehensive package designed to resurrect Kings Cross, to rehabilitate this run-down and degraded precinct and to make it a safe, clean part of Sydney. The Government has boosted police strength to 138 authorised positions, with another nine officers to come under Operation SCORPIO. There are now additional 24-hour police foot patrols targeting crime hot spots in the area. These patrols have been successful in reducing bag snatching and assaults. All police officers in Kings Cross are now available for foot patrol duty. In other words, the Government is putting police back on the streets to make them safe for ordinary people.

In addition, major crime is being attacked. A task force has been established to target drugs, fraud, violent offences and money laundering. Some arrests have already been made and the assets of suspected criminals have been seized. To help prevent crime and catch criminals, the Minister for Police and South Sydney City Council are working on proposals to install closed-circuit television in the area. A consultant has been employed to develop that measure. To make streets safer, dog squad patrols using german shepherds and rottweilers have been operating since last October.

[Interruption]

Surely the honourable member for Ermington will not interject at the first mention of dogs. I say to him in language that he should understand, "Heel! Heel! Heel, boy, heel!"

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ermington will remain silent. The House will come to order.

Mr CARR: Police on foot patrols are now able to be more effective in combating and deterring crime. Two weeks ago six arrests were made after police dogs sniffed out hard drugs. That is proof positive that the strategy is working. Last week, dogs were able to track down three housebreakers hiding in the local area. In addition to these anti-crime measures, local police are acting to ensure that policing is better and more effective. The Kings Cross patrol has formed a professional standards council to improve integrity and ethics. That is a good example of police acting in response to the royal commission recommendations to improve the service in which they operate.

There has also been a crackdown on licensed premises. From 1 October legislation passed by the Parliament as a result of the police royal commission and the licensing blitz will come into operation. That will make it virtually impossible for criminals, persons of ill repute and their associates to be involved in Kings Cross clubs or restaurants. Using the latest computer package available from law enforcement agencies in America, it will be possible to trace the ownership of all nightclubs. Checks will be conducted on all strip clubs to ensure that they are not in the hands of criminals or their cohorts. When it is found that such people are associated with the business, the license will be cancelled and the premises will be barred from being used as a club for up to two years.

To protect the public, the police will also have the power to close strip clubs for up to 72 hours when there is a risk to public health and safety. Any operators ignoring these orders can be jailed for up to six months. There will also be better supervision of the so-called animal buses that take customers from bar to bar and intimidate law-abiding citizens. The Government has asked the Commissioner of Police to crack down on offensive behaviour. The Minister for Transport is also examining the provision of Nightride buses for Kings Cross. This means that in the early hours of the morning the streets of Kings Cross will no longer be clogged with stranded visitors looking for transport home. This range of initiatives, together with others being worked on by the Government and by South Sydney City Council, is aimed at delivering a Kings Cross with safe streets, and doing it in time for the Games in the year 2000.

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

Mr CARR: The Government will initiate a main street style program to provide incentives for owners to restore and renew the shopfronts in the area. The Government will push for better street lighting and encourage more open-air, on-the-street restaurants. The Government has already acted to break the link between crime and drugs, and those elements of the pawnbroking industry that deal in stolen goods. Last year Parliament passed the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Bill, which was designed to attack the problem of theft at its roots. That Act comes into force in April next year. Pawnbrokers will no longer be able to turn a blind eye to obviously suspect characters and goods. They will have to keep much better records than previously required, records that will create a clear audit trail for police investigating stolen goods. I have today written to the mayor of South Sydney detailing the Government's plans. To ensure more effective operation of State and local government authorities, the Government will establish government agency controllers to oversee operations across government sectors.

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

Page 4596

Mr CARR: The Government is committed to cleaning up Kings Cross. Its actions will fight crime, protect the public and encourage a bright tourist future.


Mr TINK: My question is addressed to the Premier. Was Chief Inspector Burke, patrol commander of The Rocks police station, which is located directly opposite another of the police Minister's pubs, heavily criticised by the Ombudsman for failing to direct a full investigation into the Michael Stack bashing? Will he ask the Ombudsman to investigate the nature and extent of any relationship between The Rocks police, the police Minister and the police Minister's pub?

Mr CARR: If the honourable member has a matter that he wants to refer to the Ombudsman, it is his right as a citizen and as a member of Parliament to do so.

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

Mr CARR: If he wants to deliver to my office any material that represents a complaint, I will see that it gets to the Ombudsman forthwith.


Mr NEILLY: Mr question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. What is the current status of the national firearm strategy?

Mr WHELAN: In April the nation was stunned by the senseless slaughter of 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, and responded as one. The new Prime Minister assumed the leader's mantle and committed his new Government to tough uniform national gun laws. New South Wales was the first State to fall in behind the Commonwealth. The Government offered its legislation to the other States as model legislation. It supported the Prime Minister all the way. But the tables have turned. New South Wales is now being starved of funds by the Commonwealth. It is being hamstrung by the Commonwealth Government's administrative shambles and dubious deals. As of last night the Commonwealth Government had not given the approval needed by New South Wales to obtain funds for the firearms buyback scheme. Despite our best offers, the success of national laws and the New South Wales buyback scheme is now in jeopardy.

Through the Medicare gun levy the Commonwealth has taken $500 million to fund the buyback scheme. The Commonwealth has now refused to properly fund administration of the new laws. That leaves New South Wales to pick up the tab, with New South Wales taxpayers, therefore, being double taxed. The Commonwealth overturned the process by which the strategy's advertising campaign was to have been awarded. On 10 September the Commonwealth ministerial committee on government communications met to choose an advertising agency and public relations consultant for the national gun control public education campaign. The Australian Capital Territory Attorney-General and I were invited to that meeting as guests.

The committee was chaired by the Minister for Administrative Services, David Jull, and included four other senior Liberal Party members: Graeme Morris of the Prime Minister's office; Petro Georgiou, MP, former director of the Victorian Liberal Party; Senator Nick Minchin, a close Howard adviser; and the Commonwealth Attorney-General, who is a committee member but did not attend the meeting. He was represented by his senior adviser. Two million dollars was on the table: $1 million for advertising and $550,000 for public relations; $450,000 had already been spent on evaluating the various proposals. Honourable members should be under no illusion: the success of the national gun laws is dependent upon an effective public education campaign.

The process by which the advertising agency was chosen was nothing short of extraordinary. The Commonwealth chose a campaign prepared by DDB Needham. DDB Needham was chosen only after a senior staff member of the Attorney-General's office told the meeting, "Darryl prefers DDB." The Commonwealth Government's $500,000 dollar research program found that DDB Needham's proposal ran third out of three. Two of the five people on the committee favoured the DDB Needham proposal - Senator Minchin and Mr Williams' representative. The Commonwealth Government's selection process said that the DDB submission barely met the requirements of the brief, tested extremely poorly with target audiences, was full of contradictions and was flawed. Despite this, DDB won the job. The agenda records the principal member of the DDB Needham team as Ted Horton. He was a key member of John Howard's campaign team who reportedly worked for 18 months on the Liberal Party's election strategy.

The Commonwealth Government based its selection process on research and evaluation and then chose to ignore it. The people of New South Wales are now being asked to pay twice - once through the Medicare levy and now through State funding - for the administration of the Commonwealth Government's commitments. The Commonwealth Government cannot give New South Wales $4 million to ensure the success of the new gun laws, but it can find a couple of million dollars for its mates. The cut in promised funding from the Commonwealth Government has outraged the eastern States and the Northern Territory. Queensland has threatened to withdraw entirely from the national gun laws if the Commonwealth Government does not make good its original promise. If Queensland and the Northern Territory do not implement the new laws Australia will have no national gun laws. I am afraid that the
Page 4597
Commonwealth Government, having once provided leadership, is now prepared to sacrifice its national strategy for a few million dollars, and that is despite the Prime Minister's assurance on 17 July of a "characteristically generous contribution".

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

Mr WHELAN: In New South Wales I had set aside $3 million for public education. The Commonwealth Government's offer leaves me with a total shortfall of just over $4 million. I am left with no funds to promote the amnesty and buyback in New South Wales. The situation is so serious that State and Territory police Ministers met on Monday. At my suggestion the Ministers resolved that the Premiers and Chief Ministers would discuss the funding issue at the leaders forum on Friday. Despite the problems caused by the Commonwealth Government the implementation of new gun laws in New South Wales is on track. I have been advised by the Police Service that it is ready to meet its obligations in relation to the implementation in New South Wales of the surrender and compensation scheme. The compensation for and surrender of firearms will commence next Tuesday.

Given that dealers have large numbers of readily identifiable prohibited weapons in stock, we will start with dealers. Commencing on 1 October the police weapons disposal section will visit dealers to verify their claims and collect firearms and parts. The surrender scheme for the general public, which will follow soon after, will coincide with the Commonwealth Government's education campaign. Additional resources are planned for country areas to assist with anticipated higher surrender rates. Tomorrow the Police Service will brief shooters' groups. The Valuer-General's Department is providing assessment expertise for compensation for loss of business by firearms dealers. An inquiry hotline has also been established. The target date for commencement of new licensing and registration procedures is 1 January 1997. I urge the Commonwealth Government to give New South Wales the money that it has promised.

[Interruption from gallery.]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The attendants will remove those who are causing a disturbance in the gallery.


Mr PHOTIOS: Mr Speaker -

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

Mr PHOTIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. How does the Minister explain the fact that when one tourist was bashed and murdered at Bondi he eventually flooded the area with police, but when one person was seriously bashed in his pub the police failed to investigate the matter? Is the difference that the Minister owns the pub and that police officers know it?

Mr WHELAN: I wish Opposition members would ask me a serious question. The bashing and ultimate death of Brian Hagland would have to be one of the saddest tragedies that has occurred in New South Wales. I am now being criticised for asking the Commissioner of Police to investigate that matter. The Commissioner of Police made an operational decision to deploy police in and around Bondi, to supplement -

Mr Photios: The issue is investigation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ermington has asked the question. He will listen to the answer in silence.

Mr WHELAN: - the gross inadequacies left by the previous Government. If Opposition members want to know what potential there is for police deployment I urge them to read the report entitled "Police Board of New South Wales Sub-Committee on Response Policing in Operations (SCORPIO)", which I tabled in this Parliament last week. That report reveals what the Government intends to do about the deployment of police throughout New South Wales. I make no apology for supporting the decision by the Commissioner of Police to deploy additional police officers throughout Bondi. All Ministers in this Government take advice. I take advice from the Commissioner of Police. If the Commissioner of Police advises me that more police are needed in any part of Sydney - whether it be at The Rocks or outside the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is where the honourable member for Ermington belongs - I will be only too happy to accede to his request. That is the position in relation to operational policing. I have just been advised by the commissioner's executive officer that she is currently making inquiries as to the status of the Ombudsman's investigation. I, as Minister, have received no correspondence from the Ombudsman concerning the matter. After the honourable member for Ermington asked the question -

Mr Photios: Are you prepared to table it?

Mr WHELAN: Of course I will table it. I am compelled to table the Ombudsman's findings. As the Premier has already indicated, the Ombudsman can make a report to the Parliament of her own volition detailing police action or inaction. Opposition members should know - I am surprised that the dumbwits opposite do not know - that the Ombudsman has the powers -

[Interruption]

I do not want to offend Opposition members, but the powers of the Ombudsman are similar to those of a royal commission. The Ombudsman carries out investigations independently of the Police Service. Sometimes she cooperates with the Police Service, but she operates independently of
Page 4598
government, which is what is provided in the Act. If Opposition members want a copy of the Ombudsman Act they should go to the bills and papers office on the eighth floor of Parliament House and ask for a copy. They could be educated; they could become millionaires in knowledge if they acquired a copy of that Act and read it.


Ms MEAGHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women. What advice can the Government give to investors or prospective investors in Golden Vintage, a vineyard investment managed by Australian Vineyard Management Limited?

Mrs LO PO': Several months ago my attention was drawn to a full-page advertisement in the Australian Financial Review, and I -

Mr Collins: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is entitled to table the document.

Mr Collins: She should seek leave to table it.

Mrs LO PO': I did.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the Minister seeking leave to table the document?

Mrs LO PO': I seek leave to table the document.

Leave not granted.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the Minister propose to lay the document on the table?

Mr Collins: On a point of order. Is the Minister seeking leave to table the document or is she not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister has laid the document on the table, which means any member may peruse it.

Mr Collins: We reserve that right.

Mrs LO PO': This advertisement sought investment in a fund called Golden Vintage under the banner headline, "Own a Vineyard with $3,584 and claim a tax deduction of $26,334." The advertisement solicited funds to establish a vineyard and make wine.

Mr Collins: On a point of order. You have ruled emphatically on the use of props in this House. There has been some change in the conduct of this House since you so ruled. Members of the Government are passing around a large paper that has just been put on the table of the House. By doing so those honourable members are contravening your earlier ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As I understand it, the document has been laid on the table for the purpose of members' edification. They can look at that document at their will, which is what is happening at the moment. I take the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, that if the Government holds on to the paper for the whole of question time that obviously precludes others from using it. I suggest that once Government members in that area have perused the document it should be returned to the table.

[Interruption]

Mrs LO PO': I do not know what the Deputy Leader of the National Party thinks I am going to say. It falls to the Department of Fair Trading to monitor, investigate and act in matters relating to the publishing of false or misleading advertising, which is against New South Wales law. The extravagant nature of Golden Vintage's claims was certainly of interest to my department. As Minister for Fair Trading my constant refrain has been, "People beware! If an offer seems too good to be true, it invariably is." I am sure honourable members will join with me condemning false and misleading advertising which seeks to separate hardworking folk from their savings. I do not include all members in that statement. Only some would be concerned about that. The advertisement in the Australian Financial Review on 14 May promised a tax deduction of $26,334 for an investment of only $3,584 with the prospect of part ownership of a lucrative vineyard.

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

Mrs LO PO': The honourable member for Davidson does not have to interject merely because the Leader of the Opposition asks him to do so. He can do his own thing. Many would have treated such an offer with scepticism but others might have been tempted to part with their money, not least because of the impressive list of upstanding citizens cited in the advertisement as directors of this investment vehicle. Heading the list of directors is the Hon. Ian Armstrong, the Leader of the National Party. My department has now provided advice on the advertisement.

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

Mrs LO PO': I do not know why the Deputy Leader of the National Party is so concerned.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party to order for the third time.

Mrs LO PO': An examination of the advertisement by departmental legal officers shows that it, ". . . contravenes s42(1) of the [Fair Trading] Act . . ." Furthermore, the legal advice notes:

Page 4599

. . . a person reading the advertisement would have thought that by paying $3,584, that person would acquire an interest in a vineyard and a tax deduction of $26,334 . . .

However, a careful reading of the prospectus would totally change this view . . .

It also notes that the credit provider used by the Leader of the National Party's company, Condor Investments Limited, is not currently recorded as holding a licence. The legal advice recommends action to warn the company in respect of unlicensed trading. Under current legislation it is up to the victims of false and misleading advertising to take civil action against the principals of offending companies. I am happy to offer my services to people who believe they have been duped by this advertising.

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

Mrs LO PO': I assure those people that the Department of Fair Trading will give them every advice and assistance in their quest for justice and redress. In the meantime officers of the Department of Fair Trading are initiating proceedings to seek an injunction against the company that will prevent any further publication of this nature and require it to publish another advertisement correcting the misleading impression created by its false, deceptive and illegal advertisement.


Dr MACDONALD: My question is directed to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Can the Premier guarantee that all logging has ceased in forest areas put into moratorium by his announcement on Monday and that no timber will be extracted from these areas because of timber shortfalls caused by inaccurate resource estimates or any other reason?

Mr CARR: Obviously the accuracy of resource estimates is very close to the heart of the comprehensive forest policy announced by the Government on Monday. It is something that the relevant Ministers will be monitoring very closely indeed.


Mr MOSS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. What is the Government doing to safeguard infants travelling in taxis?

Mr LANGTON: I appreciate the opportunity to confirm that the Government is indeed taking action to safeguard the lives of infants travelling in taxis. In 1995 a major report prepared by Dr Michael Henderson, who is one of Australia's foremost safety experts, produced some very disturbing results. The report was entitled "Children in Car Crashes" and found that in car accidents more than 68 per cent of unrestrained children sustained injuries rated as moderate or worse, compared with a figure of 18 per cent for children using restraints. In other words, children travelling unrestrained in cars are over three times more likely to be moderately to severely injured than children in restraints. It is important that I make that clear, because I am advised that in the past couple of weeks one stupid member of the coalition has attempted to promote a belief among members of the press gallery that child restraints in taxis are unnecessary.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister needs no assistance. If he wants to name the member, he will.

Mr LANGTON: All right, it was Patricia Forsythe. It would not be the honourable member for Ermington, because the only questions he asks are directed to the Minister for Police. He has not asked me a question about transport all year. He is too busy getting his photograph in the social columns of the Sunday newspapers. I think he was called a party animal the last time he appeared. Members of this House will be aware that since 1 March 1988 it is compulsory under the Motor Traffic Act for infants under 12 months of age travelling in a private vehicle to be protected by an approved child restraint.

When the previous Government redrafted the Motor Traffic Regulations it made a significant error that exempted taxis from that requirement, and as a result infants under one year of age travelling in taxis received no protection whatsoever. Of course, there was no basis for that exemption. It is simply ridiculous to claim that infants are safer in taxis than in private vehicles, but it is not ridiculous for parents to ensure that their babies are as safe in taxis as they are in any other vehicle. It was important to close the loophole that was allowed by the previous Government.

The Government's decision to make child restraints compulsory in taxis is popular and is supported by the NRMA, Kidsafe, the Child Accident Prevention Foundation and the Motor Accidents Authority. I have a petition from Kidsafe signed by more than 300 early childhood nurses, parenthood educators, midwives and doctors calling for the exemption to be removed. They say they have had to stand by and watch children discharged from hospital - some of whom were there because they had been injured in road accidents - travel home in taxicabs, totally unrestrained. The petition states:

Uniform standards on child restraints in all vehicles will ensure the safety of our greatest asset - that is, our children.

We advocate a uniform law throughout Australia which provides that children must be correctly restrained in any motor vehicle, including taxis.

We again ask that you consider the issue of children's safety in motor vehicles and support our call for the provision of child restraints in taxis.

Page 4600

The previous Government ignored that call. This Government has listened and has acted. The New South Wales Taxi Council was advised by my colleague the Minister for Roads in August 1995 that the exemption would be removed. At that time the Taxi Council argued that it would need time to gear up for the change, and it was granted a moratorium until 1 October this year. Taxi operators have known for more than 12 months that this requirement was coming. I can state unequivocally that the exemption will not be extended beyond 1 October.

From 1 October taxi drivers will be held responsible for a breach of the Motor Traffic Regulations if they carry a child under 12 months of age who is not in an approved child restraint. Sydney taxis are already fitted with anchorages to enable parents to provide their own child restraints, whether they have been purchased or rented cheaply through a hospital. If passengers do not have child restraints they will be able to hire taxis with child restraints. That may require advance booking, but I have already announced that the Government will not permit any additional user charge to be applied. I met with the Taxi Council last Monday and it has made a commitment to the provision of child restraints in taxis.

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

Mr LANGTON: The Taxi Council advised me that it is as keen as the Government is to improve the safety of passengers on our roads, irrespective of their age. Thankfully, on average over the past 10 years only one child per year has been injured while travelling in taxis - but that is one too many. This Government will not stand by and ignore any chance to safeguard the people - and particularly the children - of New South Wales. I congratulate the Minister for Roads on his action, and I condemn members opposite for their failure to protect New South Wales infants for so long.


Mr MARKHAM: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What were the circumstances surrounding the death of a platypus in an illegal fishing net in the Hunter Valley last week?

Mr MARTIN: I thank the honourable member for his timely question and for his commitment to fisheries and habitat matters. I regret to inform the House that at lunchtime on Friday, 20 September, officers from my department received a most distressing call from a person based at the Tocal Agricultural College near Paterson, in the Hunter Valley. That person informed the district fisheries officer that earlier in the day a dead platypus had been discovered in a set fishing net in Webbers Creek, a tributary of the Patterson River. It was a most traumatic find for the person from the agricultural college and an even more depressing duty for my officer to remove the dead animal from the net.

Upon his inspection the district fisheries officer found the set net and the dead platypus - an adult male - which had drowned after becoming entangled. Other species were also in the net. Netting is banned in this tributary because of its sensitivity and because of the vulnerability of existing fish stocks. The district fisheries officer reported that dead fish were also caught in the net, which was amateur in its construction and in the way in which it was set. Unfortunately it bore no identifiable markings. I have ordered a full investigation into this despicable incident. The Minister for the Environment has asked the National Parks and Wildlife Service to take appropriate action to discover the identity of the person responsible. This matter is of great concern to Government members.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lane Cove will remain silent. I call the honourable member for Myall Lakes to order for the second time.

Mr MARTIN: I am informed that this is the second time a platypus from the local colony has been killed, and police in the area are taking an interest in this matter.

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

Mr MARTIN: After discovering the platypus, the district fisheries officer made a thorough inspection of the area for tyre tracks or any other identifiable marks that may help locate the person involved. The local community is outraged. Illegal nets are occasionally set in our fragile waterways, mostly by greedy, unconcerned amateur anglers who want to stock their freezers to overflowing. In this case the person involved was probably looking for bass, which is the most popular sporting fish in the area, a species that the Government is seeking to put back into the eastern-flowing waterways. The vast majority of recreational anglers in this State would join me in condemning this incident. Those involved in this incident have no conscience about the betterment of our fisheries.

The discovery of this dead platypus is telling evidence of what can happen when illegal nets are set. The penalty for harming a platypus is a $3,000 fine or six months in gaol, and there is a $10,000 fine or a six-month gaol term for killing a platypus. There have been no reports of a platypus killing in the last two years, but this callous act reminds us all how terrible and inconsiderate people can be. I thank the honourable member for his question.


Mr O'FARRELL: I direct my question without notice to the Premier. In November last year did his Government crack down on stress leave claims by requiring that employment be a substantial contributing factor to the stress. Will the Premier advise how the accusations against his close friend and adviser Ken Cripps relate to his employment, and justify his entitlement to stress leave on pay of $4,000 a week?

Page 4601

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Northcott is a genius! He has not absorbed the distinction between stress as a workers compensation claim and stress in sick leave. Stress claims under the workers compensation legislation have nothing to do with people entitled to take sick leave because of stress.


Mr WHELAN: I wish to give a supplementary answer. I have a notification from the Acting Director-General of the Ministry for Police addressed to me which says:

I wish to advise you that no report has been received from the Ombudsman relating to an incident at the Mercantile Hotel.

I have also received a copy of a facsimile addressed to the Premier, which says:

Dear Premier

RE: ASSAULT AT MERCANTILE HOTEL

Further to the request from your office I confirm that the Ombudsman has not released a report interim or otherwise to the Minister or Premier. The Ombudsman has released a letter to the South Region Commander noting the Police Report of investigation and requesting advice on proposed disciplinary action.

The complainant has been advised accordingly.

Honourable members opposite got it wrong.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr TINK (Eastwood) [3.21]: My motion is urgent because on 15 May 1996 the Minister for Police told Parliament he had asked the Commissioner of Police to establish what happened with the police investigation of the alleged bashing of Irishman Michael Stack in the police Minister's Mercantile Hotel and to report back to Parliament. Urgency would allow me to show that not only has the Minister broken his undertaking, but he has also failed to table two reports of the Ombudsman into the police investigation.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The honourable member for Eastwood has to make out his case. He cannot debate the substance of the motion. He will have major difficulties debating the substance of the motion in view of the fact that the letter from the Ombudsman clearly states that no report, interim or otherwise, was received by me.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the honourable member further.

Mr TINK: Urgency would allow me to show how complaints against Chief Inspector Bourke -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The member is now debating the substance of the motion. As he has said, if he is granted urgency he will debate the substantive issue. This is the second occasion on which he has offended the standing orders. He should be asked to resume his seat and sit down.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the honourable member further.

Mr TINK: The police Minister has sat on a report of the Ombudsman condemning the inaction of police over an assault in one of his hotels. What does he have to hide?

Mr Whelan: Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand why the Minister is standing. I ask the Minister and the member to resume their seats. Standing orders are quite explicit: the honourable member for Eastwood has five minutes in which he should not debate the substance of the motion, but explain why his motion should have precedence over that of the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism.

Mr TINK: This motion is urgent because the report of the Ombudsman is held by the police department.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. I have indicated to the House, and the honourable member should have been listening, that the Ombudsman, not me, advised the Premier that it has not released a report, interim or otherwise. The honourable member is deliberately misleading the House, and he cannot do it.

Mr Gibson: On the point of order. I am reluctant to rise, but the standing orders of this Chamber are quite clear: the honourable member must establish why his motion is more urgent than the other. He is not entitled to debate the substance of the motion. Recently I have had to take points of order about the standing orders every day. If the Opposition wants to participate in debate it has to get it right, which means that it has to learn the standing orders. Otherwise, the whole parliamentary procedure breaks down.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has made his point quite clear. I have already ruled on that point of order, and I uphold it.

Mr TINK: The other motion for urgent consideration -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. Numerous illuminating rulings of former Speaker Rozzoli say that the comparison -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will wait until the House comes to order. The Chair cannot hear the Minister's point of order whilst there is interjection.

Mr Whelan: Former Speaker Rozzoli ruled that in debating which notice of motion for urgent consideration should proceed, members cannot allude to the other motion before the Chair. You are bound to uphold that ruling, Mr Speaker.

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

Mr TINK: I have a copy of the report here, and I invite the Minister to table it.

Page 4602

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call on the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism to explain why his motion should have precedence.

Mr Tink: You are not going to give me leave to table it?

Mr Whelan: No.

Mr Tink: You are not going to give me leave to table it? Table it!

Mr Whelan: It is a report of the Ombudsman. It is the Ombudsman's report.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the honourable member for Eastwood if he carries on like that any further. The Minister will remain silent. I remind the honourable member for Northcott that he is on three calls to order.


Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [3.26]: This matter is urgent because this magnificent historic game is on this Saturday.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister when he is in full flight, but he has already embarked upon the substance of the motion about the game being on next Saturday and about the game itself. The issue that he must address is why his motion is urgent compared to the motion of the honourable member for Eastwood. In accordance with your ruling, Mr Speaker, that is the only issue he is able to speak on.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the Minister further.

Mr LANGTON: I had barely started. I do not know what he thought I was going to say. My motion is urgent. The game is on Saturday. We have to take this immediate opportunity to wish the Sydney Swans all the best. This is an historic occasion because it is the first time that a team based in New South Wales has ever been in an Australian Football League grand final. It is a little different from the rugby league grand final, in which St George will thrash Manly.

Mr O'Farrell: On a point of order. As reluctant as I am to raise this issue, the Minister has been in this House long enough to know the standing orders, which, as the honourable member for Londonderry pointed out not long ago, are quite clear: in debating a matter for urgent consideration the honourable member should not go into the substance of that matter or, indeed, foreshadow debate on a motion that will come forward tomorrow.

Mr LANGTON: This matter is urgent. The game is on Saturday. The House must take this opportunity to wish the team all the best.

Question - That the notice for urgent consideration of Mr Tink be proceeded with - resolved in the negative.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [3.30]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the outstanding achievements of the Sydney football club in 1996;

(2) recognises the excellence of captain Paul Kelly, Tony Lockett, Paul Roos and coach Rodney Eade in gaining individual all-Australian selection; and

(3) wishes the Sydney football club every success in the centenary season grand final on Saturday 28 September 1996.

This is a magnificent achievement and an historic occasion. It is the first time that a team based in New South Wales has made the Australian Football League grand final. And what a time to do it - in the centenary year of the AFL. It has done a great deal for Sydney, for New South Wales, for our domestic and international profile, and for the people of New South Wales. It has created a sense of pride and has united a whole range of communities across New South Wales. The success that the Sydney Swans has enjoyed this year has had Statewide benefits. The increase in the number of people who have come to Sydney both from rural and regional New South Wales as well as from interstate to see the Swans this year has contributed enormously to tourism.

For example, it was estimated that last weekend some 10,000 people came from Melbourne to Sydney to see the Swans play Essendon. Calculated on an average of $150 per head for an overnight stay, up to $1.5 million was injected into the Sydney economy last Saturday alone. Taking the season, and including people who came from other parts of New South Wales to watch the game, the Swans' success has really been a major driver of tourism growth in Sydney. Already Sydney has eight of the top 10 tourist attractions in Australia; 17 of the top 20. In fact, the top four tourist attractions in Australia are Sydney shopping, Darling Harbour, the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge. The awareness of Sydney, both within New South Wales and interstate, brought about by the success of the Swans is revealed in the increase in bed nights in Sydney and the increase in sales in shops and supermarkets throughout Sydney. Tourism is everybody's business because a tourist has a hair cut, buys food and goes to all sorts of shops. Every business in the community can benefit from tourism.

We need to get 100 per cent behind the New South Wales team on this historic occasion on Saturday. We cannot lose the opportunity to market Sydney. The State is already in the Olympic spotlight but we cannot become complacent. Every available opportunity must be taken Australia-wide and internationally to promote Sydney and New South Wales. I also inform the House that just last Friday the largest tourism magazine in the world,
Page 4603
Leisure and Travel, for the first time named Sydney as the best city in the world, ahead of Florence. This is an opportunity we have to grasp. Anybody who has been involved in marketing knows that awareness of a product is not enough to make people buy it. The product has to be promoted and awareness must be used to build an advertising campaign. The Swans and the Olympics have created that awareness for our State, so let us grasp this fabulous opportunity to boost our tourism industry.

We must not ignore that it has been estimated that over the next 20 years 20 per cent of employment growth in Australia will be in the tourism industry. We have an opportunity throughout New South Wales, particularly as traditional primary industries decline in regional and rural New South Wales, for tourism to bolster the economy and create employment in some of our towns. The motion recognises the excellence of Paul Kelly, Tony Lockett, Paul Roos and Rodney Eade in gaining individual all-Australian selection, which is unprecedented. Last year the team was very fortunate to have its captain, Paul Kelly, elected as the Brownlow Medal winner but never before have so many players from a Sydney team gained all-Australian selection. It is a magnificent effort and shows the great spread of talent in the team, as has been demonstrated on the field.

Next Saturday will be a great day in Melbourne. It is one we can all be proud of, regardless of the result. We can be proud of the effort put in by the Swans this year, and of the Sydney Swans management team, which has been extraordinarily professional in running one of the best sporting outfits we have seen in a long time. Of course, everyone knows that success on a football field is dependent on good management at the club and board levels. That obviously is the case at the Swans. Their chief executive, Kelvin Templeton, also should be congratulated on his magnificent effort. I particularly feel proud about next Saturday. I have been playing Australian rules football since I was about eight or nine years old. In fact, my first visit to Melbourne was as a nine year old with an Australian rules team. I was fortunate enough to proceed on to the seniors and play Australian rules for St George - though not much of it in the first team.

I am proud to say I am patron of the St George Australian Football Club. I also played junior league in the St George area. I attended Marist Brothers at Kogarah and played for the Marist Brothers old boys. When I finished playing both junior league and Australian rules for St George I coached junior rugby league in the St George area. Last Friday week I was pleased to be at the annual presentation night of St George junior rugby league at St George Leagues Club, one of my favourite clubs. I was able to be there to wish the best to all the successful junior league players for their great efforts. Putting on my Minister for Transport hat, I must also say that the combination between the Swans and the transport authorities this year has been a fabulous success, whereby the public could purchase tickets for the Swans' games that also included rail and bus travel to the game. That was a huge success, with many scores of thousands of tickets being sold this year. I am delighted that the transport authorities have been a part of that.

I wish the Swans team all the very best on this extraordinary historic occasion next Saturday, the centenary season grand final. It is the first time that a New South Wales Australian football team has been in a grand final. I will be there on Saturday cheering them on and I will also be at the Sydney Football Stadium on Sunday cheering on the mighty dragons.

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [3.38]: I lead for the Opposition in this debate which, obviously, will be of a bipartisan nature. The Opposition will not disagree, of course, with the sentiments expressed by the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Certainly we congratulate the Sydney football club on its outstanding achievements in 1996. Going back to 1982 when the Sydney Swans, as they then preferred to be called, first came to Sydney - previously they were the South Melbourne club with a proud tradition in Aussie rules football - there were a lot of detractors not only in Sydney but, of course, in Melbourne.

In that year the Australian Football League, or the Victorian Football League as it was then known, took a very courageous step towards a truly national competition. It was following the lead taken by the New South Wales Rugby League, I think in about the same year, when it too expanded its horizons and included teams outside the Sydney metropolitan area. The Victorian Football League was doing exactly the same thing - moving outside Melbourne and taking its code interstate for the first time.

In the papers and magazines last week a lot was written about those early days and some of the people who were associated with the Swans during that period. If I remember correctly, it was first a privately owned club, and that was a first for the time. It also enjoyed some successes in the intervening period. This year has been one of resounding success for the Swans. The club management, players and supporters should all be congratulated on the remarkable and outstanding achievements.

The Opposition also acknowledges the excellence of Rodney Eade as coach in helping captain Paul Kelly, Tony Lockett and Paul Roos gain selection in the Australian team. The Opposition wishes the club every success in the grand final this Saturday. My background is not with Aussie rules; rather, it is with soccer. Of course, being a totally, narrow-minded Sydneyite for many years, rugby league and rugby union have also played a part in my life. My first experience of a live Aussie rules game was in 1990 when I saw Geelong play Essendon at Glen Waverley before a
Page 4604
capacity crowd of about 73,000. The game was a revelation. Ever since that game I have maintained that Aussie rules is not a game for television: it must be seen live to experience how great it is. I have managed to see a few games at the Sydney Cricket Ground since then; I have watched the Swans play and I have watched it on television more often than not. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, Aussie rules is a truly national Australian game.

The Australian rules game is typical of the way sport is heading in this country. Regardless of the code, sport has a truly national focus. Whether it is Aussie rules, rugby union, rugby league or soccer, Australia has a national focus on sport. It is important to have that national focus and to move away from regional and city allegiances. The Australian Football League should be congratulated on the job it has done. These days sport is not just about playing the game. As the Minister said, sport is big business with add-on products. The Swans have done an excellent job in marketing the game in Sydney. The Swans have captured the imagination of the Sydney sporting public. It has often been said that Sydney crowds love a winner. Certainly the success of the Swans on the field this year has contributed to their popularity. It is by no means a reflection on the other sports, but the Australian Football League does a very good job to promote the game.

It is true that Sydney is a cosmopolitan city. The people of this city love all sports and all the football codes, whether rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules or soccer. That was brought home to me a couple of weeks ago when I attended the first final at the Sydney Cricket Ground. I managed to share a few sherbets with a Swans supporter, who was an expatriate Victorian. This was the Saturday after the mighty Cronulla Sharks - we will not say any more about them today - beat Western Suburbs. I said to this Swans supporter, "We will get the quinella tonight. The Sharks won last night and the Swans will win tonight." I was not prepared for his reaction, but I should have known because he was Victorian. He said, "Who are the Sharks?" That is truly representative of the difference between the people of this State and city and our Victorian cousins. Victorians are focused on one particular game of football. New South Wales is far more broadminded because we like all sports and we follow all teams, and if they are winners we love them.

The Opposition congratulates the Swans, their management and the team at the Sydney Cricket Ground under Kelvin Templeton on the job they are doing. I should like to put in a plug also for Mr Steve Brassel, who I have known since his days as a racing writer in Sydney. Earlier this year he gave me a Swans tie and told me that the Swans would be in the grand final this year. I just said, "We will see, Brassel." He obviously knew more than I did. The Opposition wishes the Swans every success on Saturday against North Melbourne. I am sure all honourable members are confident that the Swans will bring the premiership flag to Sydney. We look forward to seeing that flag flying proudly over the Town Hall, Parliament House or the Sydney Cricket Ground. Certainly the Opposition joins the Government in wishing the Sydney Swans every success in the AFL grand final at the Melbourne Cricket Ground this Saturday.

Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [3.45]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism, an Australian rules devotee and pioneer. The Minister was a player for St George. I did not reach the grades at St George, but I started with the under-9s and progressed through to the 17s for the mighty Penshurst Panthers.

[Interruption]

They still exist - ask the honourable member for Georges River. In supporting the motion I endorse the comments of the Minister for Transport about Paul Kelly, Tony Lockett and Paul Roos. At this time of outstanding achievement for the Sydney Swans it is important to place on record the contribution of two other people who had quite a bit to do with the Swans. Tom Hafey, a Richmond and Collingwood legend, coached the Swans in the mid-1980s and gave the team the credibility it needed soon after it moved to Sydney. Whilst the Edelstens were partying on in their gauche pink Porsches and playing their pink pianos, Tom Hafey took the Swans to two series finals and gave the team its much needed credibility by rebuilding it after the thrashings it received in the early years. Tom Hafey's contribution should be placed on record, not to be forgotten.

After Tom Hafey left the club things got pretty bad. It was not until Ron Barassi and the Australian Football League produced a rescue package that the Swans finally established themselves in Sydney. The selections Barassi made from the draft and the players he brought to the Swans, together with the discipline he instilled in the team and the will to win, formed the foundation that Rodney Eade then built on to progress through to the minor premiership and ultimately to the grand final. It is unfortunate that the mouth from the south, the loud-mouthed Premier of Victoria, reopened the old wounds about the club being just a Melbourne transplant. Indeed, in the early years, that is exactly what the team was. One of the reasons for the Swans failings during its first decade in Sydney was that the team did not really become part of the Australian rules football set up in Sydney and did not pay much attention to spreading the message of the great game to schools and reaching out to be part of the strong competition that existed in the city, particularly in the St George and Sutherland regions. That did not happen until the 1990s and the arrival of Barassi.

It is unfortunate that the Premier of Victoria sought to reopen those wounds and dismiss the outstanding achievements of the Swans by describing the club as merely a Melbourne transplant. They are far from it. They have won the
Page 4605
hearts of the Sydney sporting fraternity. They have expanded into schools. They have done a lot to develop junior Australian rules football talent in the Sydney competition. That work will form the basis for the Swans getting a lot of Sydney-based talent in the years to come when many of the senior players retire. I wish the Swans all the best for Saturday. I hope that they repeat the efforts of earlier this year when they gave North Melbourne an awful pasting at the MCG.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [3.50]: I support this bipartisan motion, although I acknowledge that one of the table officers is an AFL accredited umpire. Last week he managed to get the result wrong in the Sydney final when Pennant Hills went down. However, I am pleased to advise the House that the Pennant Hills under-18s took out their local flag. I am pleased to participate in this debate, in which honourable members have set out their football credentials. Having been Catholic educated, I played both rugby and Aussie rules at school. With someone of my size it was not long too before they worked out that gravity meant that I could not be a ruckman; I ended up playing in the forward position. I am not sure whether the Minister for Transport was there but I ended up playing full forward at university. I did not have the groin problems that Tony Lockett had. Speaking of groins, I think it is no coincidence that Tony Lockett's groin miraculously recovered the week the Dalai Lama visited Sydney, and for that I am truly thankful.

Many honourable members are Australian rules supporters. Last Tuesday night a dinner in support of those who had participated in the tipping competition was hosted by the Hon. Ian Macdonald in the dining room. The Premier, who was due to present awards at that dinner, did not turn up. Thankfully, the Leader of the Opposition was there and able to fill in, demonstrating once again the bipartisan support in the Chamber for Australian rules. I take umbrage at the comments of the honourable member for Hurstville about the Victorian Premier. It is a common factor of Australian rules that people hold their loyalties passionately. It is no surprise that Mr Kennett regards the Sydney Swans as a great threat to the premiership cup leaving Victoria.

Mr Langton: When we win on Saturday he will try to take it back.

Mr O'FARRELL: It is also no surprise that Mr Kennett would try to bait the Premier over which books the Premier will be reading during intervals at the grand final. That is a question of note; I am surprised that the Premier has chosen not to participate in this debate, knowing full well his great support for Australian rules. I understand that he can now name at least one position on an Australian rules football team, and I think that is full forward. I look forward to seeing the Premier come back with the Australian rules football team, hopefully carrying the pennant.

I agree with the honourable member for Sutherland that John Howard correctly pointed out at the grand final luncheon in Melbourne yesterday that Australian rules is the one truly national football code in Australia. However, I disagree with some of the honourable member's comments. The AFL took tough decisions over the past decade to ensure that Australian rules teams were transplanted from Melbourne to Perth, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide. The competition has been very successful. If the Sydney Swans are successful on Saturday it will not be the first time that the AFL premiership cup has left Victoria because, as the Minister for Transport knows, it has previously rested in Western Australia.

Like the honourable member for Hurstville, I acknowledge the efforts of those who have gone before: Rodney Eade, Tony Lockett, Paul Kelly and others. One person who has not been mentioned is Ron Barassi. It is interesting to note that this is Rodney Eade's first year of coaching the Sydney Swans. Ron Barassi put in a tremendous few years coaching the Swans. It is no coincidence that the Swans are meeting North Melbourne on Saturday. Ron Barassi, a Melbourne legend, took North Melbourne to its first grand final in the 1970s. That team was very successful under coach Barassi. Hopefully the groundwork done by Ron Barassi with the Sydney Swans will pay off. I mention also Mike Willesee and Geoffrey Edelsten. Geoffrey Edelsten may not be popular, but when the Sydney Swans first came to Sydney, when it was not fashionable to support them - at least until he became involved - he pumped in a significant amount of money, and the benefits of that are now being seen. The Opposition happily supports the motion moved by the Minister for Transport.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [3.55]: I feel somewhat at a disadvantage in that I cannot stand here and laud my past football exploits. I have tried most sports but unfortunately I have not tried football. I am delighted to support this bipartisan motion relating to the Sydney Swans. I first attended a game in 1982-83, when it was unfashionable to do so. I became hooked on the game and have followed it over the years. It is often said that Sydney loves a winner and Melbourne loves sport. That is not entirely fair or true. Sydney is full of people like me who have supported the Sydney Swans on and off for more than a decade and who are now enjoying the fact that the Sydney football team has finally reached it full potential.

When the Sydney Swans play North Melbourne at the Melbourne Cricket Ground this Saturday, that fact alone will record an historic event in the history of the sport of Australian rules in this city. It records an historic event in the history of the Sydney Swans Australian Rules Football Club, formerly the South Melbourne Football Club, prior to its groundbreaking move across the border. Saturday's clash is the ultimate demonstration of the rivalry that exists between this great sporting metropolis and the city of Melbourne. The prospect
Page 4606
that the premiership flag could be snatched from our southern neighbours by a Sydney team that has captured the imagination of all genuine sports lovers must be almost too hard to contemplate for all Victorians - and of course it is a great joy to Sydneysiders.

Undoubtedly, the spirit of the Swans players and coaching staff will see them perform heroically on Saturday. Sydney will be rightly proud of their efforts, win or lose. Congratulations should be extended to the players, the coach Rodney Eade, and the club's administrators and officials for their efforts this year. I take this opportunity to congratulate QBE Insurance on its sponsorship of the Swans. The Government does all it can to promote sport but obviously it has a limited budget. It depends on private enterprise for sponsorship, such as the generosity of QBE. QBE has stuck with the Swans through thick and thin. It has sponsored the team for about six years so it has been there through the hard times. It is great to see a sponsor finally being recognised as the Sydney Swans have gone all the way to the top.

To win the minor premiership was an outstanding achievement in its own right. To have the opportunity to win the flag is a rare privilege, and the best wishes of all Sydneysiders should be extended to the team as it takes the field on Saturday. It is fitting that the performance of the Swans coach, Rodney Eade, be recognised as exceptional. Rodney Eade has already tasted success in grand finals as a player with Hawthorn and with Brisbane and North Melbourne in the reserve grade. In an ironic twist he coached North Melbourne to that reserve grade premiership against the Swans. Let us hope that he can reverse that result this weekend. The team is blessed with a number of outstanding players in the shape of Tony Lockett, Paul Kelly and Paul Roos, to name a few. Full forward Tony Lockett, or Plugger, is only the fourth player in the history of the league to pass 1,000 career goals. The many honours that he has won during his career include the games highest award, the Brownlow medal, in 1987 and best and fairest for the Swans in 1995.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the role of the New South Wales Academy of Sport. For some time the Swans team members have been assisted with their weight and fitness training programs by staff at the New South Wales Academy of Sport at Narrabeen. Earlier, it was said that Ron Barassi had not been mentioned. The living legend, together with another figure instrumental in the Swans rise to prominence, Ron Joseph, saw the merit in a program operated by some of the country's best sports scientists. Obviously that program is now paying handsome dividends. Congratulations to the New South Wales Academy of Sport.

Whether one is a devoted supporter or merely a curious first-time onlooker, this Saturday will see the union of all Sydneysiders and all New South Welshmen and women alike spurring on the Swans as they attempt to make history. A victory by the Swans will once again be a demonstration of the great sporting spirit of this city and a fitting prelude to four years of highlights in the lead-up to the 2000 Olympics. On behalf of the people of New South Wales I, too, have tremendous pleasure in congratulating all members of the Swans club on their exceptional performances to this point. Nothing encourages children to take up sport more than a sporting hero. The Swans have certainly provided heroes for children all across our State. Go the Swans!

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow two further members to speak to the motion.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [4.00]: In 1989 I hosted a lunch for the Sydney Swans because many of them were shire residents. Sutherland shire members attended that lunch, in particular, the honourable member for Sutherland. The Hon. Nick Greiner, who also attended the lunch, was number one ticket holder at that time. Even in those days the Swans sponsor was QBE Insurance. I believe that the Swans and people in this State should be grateful for the sponsorship of that insurance company.

The luncheon continued until 2.15 p.m., but the Premier, who was enjoying the festivities, showed no desire to move into the House. That demonstrated how well attuned he was to the administration of this State. He knew that he was fully briefed in regard to the questions that might be asked of him in question time. He did not fear the then Opposition. I pay tribute also to the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader which I think has always provided a great deal of publicity for the Swans. As the Minister for Sport and Recreation said earlier, shire residents were proud of the fact that the leading players took part in the game on Saturday. It is important for the children of our State to have role models in the sporting arena - people they can look up to. Sydney can be very proud of the Swans. Go the Swans!

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.03]: I reiterate the point made earlier concerning role models for junior sports people, no matter what their chosen sport. The Sydney Swans, outstanding sportsmen, have demonstrated the rewards of hard training and dedication. They have obtained the highest recognition in their field and are now fighting for the flag. It would be wonderful if they could achieve that goal. The game last Saturday night was one of the most exciting sporting events that I have witnessed for some time. As David Williamson and Tom Keneally said, it could not have been scripted any better. I was at the far end of the Sydney Cricket Ground when Lockett kicked the goal. The clock showed 25 minutes and 37 seconds. Approximately 27,000 people this side of the half way mark did not know that it was full time. However, it became evident when it was full time as everyone ran enthusiastically across the field. It was a great day.

Page 4607

I have been the patron of the Western Suburbs Australian Football Club Limited for many years. One of the great advantages in having been a member of Parliament for so long is that I have been able to assist sporting clubs. I have assisted that club which won the grand final last Saturday. I played full back in the under-12s and under-14s - a very slow full back I might add. I enjoyed that time. I then moved on to play rugby league and rugby union. As local member I was able to obtain some small grants for that club. The club raised money to develop Wagener oval, which is located close to Ashbury Public School. I was able to convince various Ministers in both Labor and Liberal governments that this was a worthwhile cause.

Wagener oval, a lovely playing ground, has been maintained over the years by working bees from Western Suburbs Australian Football Club. Wagener oval afforded us one real benefit. Greg Stafford lived in Whitfield Avenue, which borders Wagener oval. He spent many days playing football on that oval. It will be a proud day for Greg Stafford when he plays on Saturday. I believe he is the only member of the Western Suburbs Australian Football Club who will have played in a grand final. It is a great honour for him. Greg's parents were well known to me. John, his father, died a few years ago and his mother, Greta, who moved from Ashbury, is living elsewhere. The Staffords are well remembered in the Ashfield electorate for their contribution to the community.

Greg is doing a sterling job representing his father and mother, the rest of his family and the Western Suburbs Australian Football Club. I take this opportunity to congratulate him and the rest of the Swans. Reference was made earlier to the flag. If the Sydney Swans win I do not think it would be untoward if we had their flag flying outside Parliament House. I look forward to seeing the flag flying here on Monday. However, I suggest that we should not wait until Monday and that we should fly the flag on Saturday afternoon so that everyone can rejoice at what I hope will be an outstanding victory.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [4.05], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their support for the motion. If a unanimous vote by this House gives the Swans that extra bit of motivation that they need to get up on Saturday, we will have done our job. Perhaps the unanimous support of this House is what is needed. Last Saturday they won by one point, and that was enough. If this motion makes a one-point difference next Saturday, and it is the winning point, it will be great.

Motion agreed to.


Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [4.06]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance the promotion of open and accountable local government by the improvement of public access to council meetings. The overriding principle of the Local Government Act 1993 - which has been endorsed by both sides of the political arena - is that councils should be open and accountable to the communities they represent. That is a fundamental feature of open and democratic local government - a feature that this Government strongly supports. It is impossible to expect the community to play a fully democratic role in local decision-making if people are excluded from deliberations. Secret decision-making can undermine public confidence in local government and needlessly fuel suspicions.

Section 10 of the Local Government Act sets out a number of circumstances in which a council may close its meetings to the press and the public. These are: when a council is discussing matters concerning particular individuals; personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer; commercial information which, if disclosed, would prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, confer a commercial advantage to a competitor of the council or reveal a trade secret; proposals for the sale, purchase or rezoning of land if disclosure would give an unfair financial advantage to any person; proposals for entering into a contract if disclosure would give an unfair financial advantage to any person; any information subject to legal obligations of confidentiality; legal advice concerning litigation or which would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege; matters affecting the security of councillors, council staff or council property; and a motion to close the meeting to the public.

As can be seen, the Act prescribes the circumstances in which a council meeting may be closed to the public. However, in recent times it has become clear that some councils are breaching the provisions of the Act in the way that they are closing meetings, breaching the spirit and intent of the Act or taking advantage of the width of the wording of section 10 to shield deliberations of controversial matters from the public gaze. This matter was brought to my attention during the passage of the Local Government Amendment Bill 1995. The Hon. Richard Jones from the other place urged the Government to amend section 10 to ensure that councils could not abuse it. He said that, in his opinion, a number of councils were misusing the section to unreasonably exclude the public from important deliberations. He tabled a number of detailed amendments seeking to achieve a complete rewrite of section 10.

After discussions with the office of the Parliamentary Counsel it was decided that the amendments could not be accepted, but I indicated to Mr Jones MLC that I was sympathetic with the intent of his amendments and that I would conduct this review. I am now complying with that undertaking, in addition to fixing what is an obvious problem in the Act. The Local Government Act
Page 4608
clearly intends as much council business as possible to be discussed in open council meetings. While some issues must obviously be discussed in camera - a matter to which I referred earlier - the public policy objective must be to balance that need against the public's right to know what is going on. The measure gives the public access to the deliberations of their council either by attending council meetings or reading the reports published by representatives of the media present at those meetings. Some examples of recent cases where councils have either inappropriately or unlawfully closed meetings are as follows.

One council excluded the press and public from a meeting when it was naming streets within its area. Another council was faced with what was thought to be a public health and blue-green algae problem in its water supply. All council meetings were apparently closed to the public whenever this matter came up for discussion. How public was the public health problem in this particular case? In my view that closure represents a breach of section 10 of the Act. One council, the subject of an investigation and report by the Ombudsman, decided to close a meeting because of possible legal implications concerning poultry farm odours and failed to follow the statutory procedures for closing the meeting in any event. This revealed a complete ignorance of section 10 and the imperative of open decision-making.

Another council went into camera at the end of a meeting and excluded the press and public to discuss 17 issues of local importance because they "could" affect council's legal and financial dealings. While some of the 17 issues may well have required discussion in camera, it is questionable to say the least whether such discussion was required in relation to others. For example, a pecuniary interest complaint, a report on the feasibility of a container terminal, the termination of a grazing lease, the deregistration of a family day care centre, the demolition of an unauthorised structure, the selection of a consultant to undertake a traffic study, the acceptance of tenders for motor vehicles and the general manager's annual performance review were all discussed in private. On the face of it, that represented at the worst a breach of section 10 and was at least an exploitation of the wide wording of the section to shield council's deliberations from public view.

I have been told that some councils often exclude the public when they discuss controversial coastal developments including public land. That is obviously an attempt to avoid public scrutiny and criticism. The Government, and I am sure the Opposition will agree, is determined to ensure that councils do not exploit any ambiguities in the wording of section 10 of the Act to improperly exclude the public from their meetings. Some of the current practices are obviously unacceptable and point to a need for the relevant parts of the Act to be reviewed and reformed. For that reason I have instructed my department to prepare a discussion paper outlining possible amendments to the Local Government Act and its regulations that cover council meeting procedures. It is important to clarify that councils have an overriding duty to conduct their meetings in public. Meetings should be conducted in private only in very limited and specific circumstances. It also concerns me that some councils are apparently neglecting their obligation under the Act to specify the reason they have decided to discuss business in a closed session. Section 10(3) of the Act specifies:

The grounds on which a meeting is closed to the public must be specified in the decision to close the meeting and recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

I want to make it clear that I will take action to ensure that all councils comply with their legal obligation in that regard. I do not that claim that the issue affects every council in the State. Only a limited number of councils transgress in that regard and find it necessary, somehow or other, to go into closed sessions for what are obviously spurious reasons. Because councils are now scrutinised more widely by their communities, the fact that a council has a closed meeting becomes public knowledge very quickly. People become very suspicious as to why their council should suddenly decide to have a closed meeting about an issue about which the people believe they should have some knowledge. Closing meetings on a continuing basis throws suspicion on the council itself and also on local government at large. I am not only concerned about the exclusion of the public from these meetings; I am also concerned about the image of local government and in ensuring that there is no undue suspicion about why certain councils have closed meetings.

As I have said the Ombudsman is concerned about this issue and we have held discussions about it. In a letter to me dated 9 April the Ombudsman raised matters which should be given consideration. I have no doubt that when the document is released for public discussion an opinion will be given on those issues. The first suggestion is the imposition of a statutory obligation on the mayor to ensure that an audible tape is made of all discussions occurring while a council is in closed session and that the tape be retained for a specific period following the meeting. The second suggestion is that a means of discouraging unwanted resort to the closure power is the imposition on councils of an obligation to give prior public notice in general terms of the intention to debate a matter in closed session and inviting public submissions on the proposal prior to the meeting in question being held.

Another suggestion is the imposition of an overriding public interest test similar to the qualification contained in a number of exemptions in schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act to bring the grounds for a closure more into line with the exemptions in schedule 1 of that Act. Another is the imposition of an obligation on councils to make the reports and transcripts of these closed meetings available to the public following the passage of a
Page 4609
specified period of time, unless some sort of exemption is granted. The fifth suggestion is the creation of a statutory right of review to an agency for persons seeking access to reports and transcripts or tapes of those parts of a meeting held in the absence of the public or, alternatively, the creation of a specific fast-track right to access reports, tapes and transcripts under the Freedom of Information Act. Many items certainly need to be considered by councils and the public. I seek the support of the House to ensure that the message goes out loud and clear that this Parliament does not countenance councils unnecessarily going into closed session to deny the public and the constituents the right to proper knowledge of the dealings of council.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [4.16]: The coalition lends its full support to the matter of public importance raised by the Minister. It is true that the promotion of open and accountable local government will always be improved by allowing public access to council meetings. Whether we are talking about local, State or Federal government, the community is looking for greater access, consultation and participation to improve the level of knowledge about the work of the different levels of government. I have immense respect for local government. It is often said to be the grass roots level of government, the one that is closest to the people in delivery of services. I have spent 15 years serving as a councillor on Hurstville City Council and some of that time as mayor. I am proud of that achievement.

The level of interaction between the community, various community organisations and local government can be very rewarding. A great deal of time and effort is involved in being a good councillor. I believe that most councillors and councils are now doing the right thing. I agree with the Minister that some councils have not yet entered into the spirit of the rewritten Local Government Act. I pay tribute to all the Ministers who were involved in reforming the Local Government Act 1919. The reform was initiated by the Hon. Janice Crosio. Most of the work was done by the honourable member for Dubbo when he was the responsible Minister. That work was continued by the Hon. Ted Pickering. I am sure the reform will be continued by the present Minister for Local Government.

The Local Government Act 1993 encouraged openness, transparency, ethical behaviour in all dealings, more awareness of conflicts of interest and pecuniary interests and the establishing of codes of conduct for councillors and senior officers. Regular reviews of how councils are implementing the new Act are necessary. Performance indicators are required so that councils are able to gauge their performance one against the other, and the Department of Local Government is able to gauge the performance of individual councils. Continual monitoring is achieved by good self-monitoring. One would hope that councils are doing that rather than waiting for the State Government to do it. Nevertheless, as local government is a creature of State government, the Government has a responsibility.

A new culture is emerging in local government. That culture is one of service to the local community, inclusiveness, greater public consultation and participation throughout all council divisions. My involvement with the Australian Local Government Women's Association for 16 years and my travel to various regional centres throughout New South Wales have made me aware that many councils are facilitating processes for their residents by setting up one-stop shops. Customer service is at the forefront of their functioning, and the roles of facilitators and mediators in disputes have increased. On the whole councils are catering to the needs of communities, particularly those with high proportions of people of non-English speaking backgrounds. Councils are catering more for the needs of the disabled and the aged. They are catering to the needs of those requiring child care, a necessity for working parents. The new financial reporting process that was introduced with the new Local Government Act makes councils more accountable.

The method and format of annual reporting means that reports must be easily understood and written in plain English. Some reports I have seen could easily be understood by people with no knowledge of the functions of local government. Some councils are dragging the chain, but it is the duty of the Department of Local Government - by its positive attitude, by example and by encouragement - to improve service delivery. At the end of the day the community will have far more respect for local government if it adheres to the ideals referred to in the debate on this matter of public importance. The President of the Local Government Association took umbrage at the idea of this provision being thrust upon councils. He was quoted in the Sun Herald of 15 September as saying that openness should not be limited to councils. He said:

If there is going to be a burst of openness let's have Cabinet opened up.

Peter Woods is rather reactionary about various matters, but I agree with his sentiment that openness should not stop with local government. State and Federal governments should open procedures so that people, particularly members of the House, understand what is going on. Constitutional recognition has been pursued by local government for many years. Perhaps if local councils adopt the spirit of the Local Government Act as it is finetuned with the passage of time and take note of the spirit of this debate, they may achieve constitutional recognition sooner than they normally would.

I congratulate the Department of Local Government. In my travels around the State I have heard senior officers, general managers, mayors and councillors speak well of the responsiveness of the Government, and it is satisfying to know that there is bipartisan support for the positive attitude of the department in giving directions to local government. The Institute of Municipal Management has done a great job through positive encouragement by its
Page 4610
senior staff. General managers within local councils have adopted a cultural change. That cultural change must come from the top, and senior staff in various divisions must be encouraged to be more accountable and open. One would hope that new councillors who were elected at the last council elections will seek guidance from those senior officers.

The Local Government Association has done a good job in issuing regular bulletins and holding workshops and seminars, as has the organisation to which I belong, the Australian Local Government Women's Association. The mission statement of that association is change through education. Members of the association travel around the State every six weeks and make contact with regional councils, which find it hard to gain immediate access to information. Councillors have to travel to Sydney, but often their limited budgets preclude them from doing so. I congratulate all of those organisations. Indeed, I congratulate the Minister and thank him for attending our conferences and acknowledging the fine work of the association.

Local issues are often controversial. As the Minister has said the public should have full access to council meetings and to every process involved in considering development and building applications, which seem to be the most controversial matters. Full participation is needed all along the line. Council should try to undertake letterbox drops to inform the community about ward and council inspections. That would enable residents to become involved in site meetings and other activities. Many councils are doing a great job in handling controversial issues such as traffic management. Hurstville City Council and Kogarah Municipal Council involve residents in local area traffic management studies. Those studies involve full public consultation. Those councils also involve residents in consultation on community service delivery, targeting the needs of the community for child care services, aged services, transport matters, services for the frail, or projects within their central business districts. The area administered by Kogarah and Hurstville councils is divided by a railway line, and it has been a mammoth job to guide the development of that area and to coordinate residents on both sides of the line, as well as the councils.

Hurstville City Council has taken on board the spirit of the Act and run with it. Mayors, councillors and general managers of councils that have embraced the new philosophy should network among their colleagues, particularly those in country areas. Some country councils have adopted the new Local Government Act a little faster than others. Matters such as the national competition policy worry many of them, but access to meetings, the availability of tapes of council meetings and good notification are welcomed. [Time expired.]

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [4.26]: One of the principles underlying good government at State, Federal and local level is openness of decision making, which is often dealt with under the rubric of transparency of the decision-making process. The logic behind that principle is that residents have a right to know the processes by which decisions that will affect them are taken. The principle also encourages participation in decision-making processes. If those processes are open it is far easier for local residents to participate in them and become part of the process. There is an ever-increasing move in that direction.

A number of local councils in the Sydney area have adopted concepts such as precinct committees, which are very much a part of the participative method of government. Local council meetings obviously go hand in hand with that concept. It is also appropriate that local council meetings be open to the public. If they are not, residents have no redress and no understanding of the basis on which decisions are made. Their ability to oppose decisions is, therefore, significantly hamstrung.

With the change in the Local Government Act 1993 and the emphasis by councillors on non-operational matters, closed council meetings probably play a smaller role than they did previously. For example, prior to the 1993 Act councils could deal with individual employees. There is a compelling reason for decisions relating to employees to be taken behind closed doors because the rights of the individual are affected and the decision will have impact on his or her privacy. That can no longer be used as justification for closed council meetings. I served on Liverpool council for eight years and I know that it cannot be taken for granted that particular categories of matters may legitimately be decided behind closed doors. The most obvious relates to personal matters, which it would be inappropriate and improper to broadcast throughout the entire council.

The moral is that there must be a balance between the principle of openness and the circumstances in which council meetings are not open. Section 10 of the Local Government Act attempts to achieve that balance. Chapter 4 of the Act, which relates to that balance, is entitled "How Can the Community Influence what a Council Does?" The Act has been drafted in such a way as to place the emphasis upon keeping council meetings open. Situations in which meeting should be closed have been regarded as exceptions to that general principle. The difficulty that has arisen in relation to section 10 and its implementation seems to be twofold. First, a number of categories referred to in section 10(2) are very broad and are capable of wide interpretation. Second, in a number of cases - perhaps not by the majority of councils - those provisions have not been adhered to. An example is Cessnock City Council, which was subject to a report by the Assistant Ombudsman, Greg Andrews, in relation to decisions the council took to go into closed session.

The council moved a motion and chose a form of words that did not fit within section 10(2) of the Local Government Act. That is an example of the provisions of the Act not being followed. Whilst a
Page 4611
purported attempt was made to bring the wording within the scope of the Act, it simply did not happen. A number of proposals could be raised to deal with these problems. As part of the review process about which the Minister has spoken, it would perhaps be appropriate to create a positive duty upon councils to keep meetings open. Whilst the Act as it is currently drafted carries such an implication, it is not clearly stated, and it may well be appropriate that it be stated. The Act should also provide very specific and precise reasons as to when a council can go into closed session. Currently the precise wording of the Act is not specific enough. Another proposal that has merit is the inserting in section 10 or chapter 4 of a provision that disclosure be based upon public interest, which is the overriding issue. [Time expired.]

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [4.31], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Liverpool for his support, which he was able to give because of his significant experience in local government. I also thank the Opposition for supporting the issue I have raised. The honourable member for Georges River, although she spoke for 10 minutes, did not spend much time on the subject matter of the debate. She gave a broad-ranging speech about local government, which I found interesting. I certainly would not object to what she said. She correctly said that reform of the Local Government Act was initiated by the Hon. Janice Crosio, and the bulk of the work was done by the former Minister, the honourable member for Dubbo. Over four years he made a tremendous contribution to local government in New South Wales. However, the honourable member for Georges River failed to mention that in the intervening four years David Hay, a former member for Manly, did absolutely nothing to bring the Act up to date. That was a lost opportunity, and I regret that no-one in the government of the day knew enough about local government to run the system.

The honourable member for Georges River also mentioned constitutional recognition as though it was wholesome and holy to the Labor Government. I point out to the House that the former Federal Labor Government held a referendum as to whether councils should be given constitutional recognition. The Liberal-National Opposition opposed councils being given such recognition. The referendum failed. If the honourable member believes that constitutional recognition for local council is reasonable she should get her Federal colleagues to do something about it. A few years ago they thwarted an attempt by the Labor Government to do something about it, and are now in a position to do something positive. I agree with the comments made by the honourable member for Georges River about self-monitoring. I would prefer not to have to introduce amendment to the Act in relation to issues such as this. But a minority of councils clearly wish to extend the application or pervert the provisions of the Act for their own purposes and flout the rule of self-monitoring. Obviously, therefore, I will be forced to bring such an amendment before the Parliament.

I do not want to pre-empt any decision, but people who have an objection to the council going into closed session should have some form of redress. One of the problems is that there is no penalty or redress if a council decides to go into closed session. The legislation should contain some form of redress so that when a council carries a resolution to go into closed session the councillors know they will be held accountable for the decision. I have always been in favour of freedom of information legislation and the openness of council meetings for a pragmatic reason. If councils get into the habit of making decisions in private believing they will never be judged on such decisions, they will make corrupt and incorrect decisions. When councillors are voting on a motion or moving a proposal they should have in the back of their mind that next week, next year or in two years they will have to justify their actions. That will lead to more honest and better decisions.

Dr Macdonald: Get rid of the whip system.

Mr E. T. PAGE: Nothing in the Local Government Act, over which I have control, mentions the whip system. If it were in the Act I would take it out. I certainly do not propose to insert it. I thank the honourable members who spoke in the debate for their support of the matters I have raised.

Discussion concluded.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.35]: By leave, I defer further consideration of the motion to amend Standing Order 197.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Replace 3, 4, 5 to read:

3. Postponed clauses/schedules in their numerical order

4. Preamble (if any)

5. Long title (if any)

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.39]: I move:

In paragraph (1), leave out "shall", insert instead "may".

The amendment is necessary because it is now compulsory for the Parliament to consider this issue regardless of whether the upper House has estimates committees. There is compulsion on the Government with the word "shall". I have given an undertaking to the House that we will have joint estimates committees where possible and that we will speak with members of the other House to achieve that. This motion provides that discretion by taking out the word "shall" and inserting "may".

Page 4612

If members want to get excited about it they can. It will not alter one iota the undertaking I have given to this Chamber that we will have joint estimates committees in preference to the ridiculous single estimates committees comprising only members of the upper House. The decision to have joint estimates committees rests not with the Government in this Chamber but with the Opposition parties and the Independents in the other House.

Mr Hartcher: They do not have to be joint committees.

Mr WHELAN: No government, yours or ours, has had or will have estimates committees in the lower House and in the upper House. That would be a waste of time and the honourable member for Gosford knows it.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.40]: When the charter of reform was signed by the present Government, one of the key elements was that the House would have estimates committees, so that instead of the prior farcical budget debate we would have a proper opportunity to examine the budget and ask the responsible Minister and the senior officers of the department to account for the expenditure they were seeking. For the last two years this House has not had estimates committees, notwithstanding the express mandatory wording of Standing Order 284 that there shall be estimates committees.

The excuse given is that the Legislative Council established estimates committees and that the Government insisted on joint committees and was not prepared to establish Legislative Assembly estimates committees. Nothing in the standing order requires that the estimates committees be joint House committees. The standing order does not even refer to the Legislative Council. The Legislative Assembly is the master of its own business. It is to the Legislative Assembly that the great majority of Ministers account; and it is in the Legislative Assembly that money bills must originate.

Notwithstanding that, the Government has simply, to use the words of the honourable member for Manly, weaseled out of its responsibilities to establish estimates committees from this House, using the excuse that the estimates committees were established by the Legislative Council. It is clear that this House is the responsible money House of the Parliament. The Constitution and the standing orders make that clear. The Legislative Assembly, therefore, must have estimates committees. The Government, by the soft approach we have seen all day from the Leader of the House to delete the word "shall" and substitute "may", is simply saying that it will be discretionary as to whether estimates committees are established. The charter of reform requires that every year members of the Legislative Assembly will participate in estimates committees. So, on an ex post facto basis the Government is simply seeking to legitimise its decision over the last two years not to constitute the estimates committees. For two years the Government has not set them up.

Mr Whelan: We are not going to have lower House estimates committees. Surely you are not insisting on that?

Mr HARTCHER: Yes. That is what the standing order provides: "that the Legislative Assembly shall establish . . .". It does not refer to the Legislative Council. Where in Standing Order 284 is there reference to the Legislative Council? Read it. It does not say the Legislative Council must establish estimates committees. It says that the Legislative Assembly is the House responsible for money and it is to the Legislative Assembly that most Ministers are accountable. The Government must, if it is to be accountable to the people of this State, ensure that the Ministers are called before the Legislative Assembly to justify the level of funding they are seeking and to explain how they expended the money granted the previous year. That is simply a matter of parliamentary practice, well-established in the Federal Parliament. Hopefully, it was to be well-established in the New South Wales Parliament. It worked under the previous Government, which conducted successful estimates committees.

Mr Whelan: Joint committees.

Mr HARTCHER: Exactly, but they do not have to be joint. The Minister is saying that unless the Government can have joint estimates committees it will not establish them. The Legislative Assembly cannot argue that the estimates committees have to be joint. The Legislative Assembly has to determine its own destiny. The Minister is saying he is going to walk away from decisions about estimates committees and leave them to the Legislative Council: if the Legislative Council establishes estimates committees but not in a way approved by the Minister, he will agree to Legislative Assembly estimates committees. Accordingly, the final decision will be made in the Legislative Council, not in the Legislative Assembly. That is simply not acceptable to anyone who believes in the supremacy of the Legislative Assembly on money bills. It is not acceptable to the Opposition, and the Opposition will oppose this amendment.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.45]: The Minister is misleading the House. Standing Order 284 very clearly says that estimates committees shall be appointed. There is no discretion there and it has nothing to do with joint estimates committees. It is important to reflect on the fact that there is nothing more important in the role of the parliamentarian than the scrutiny of public expenditure. At the moment all members of Parliament have enormous difficulty in reaching into the budget sector.

I have produced a discussion paper that seeks the establishment of an expenditure and review committee which would have the role of looking at standing committee and government expenditure and drawing on members from both sides throughout the year. The committee would also look at the revenue side of the equation and would be charged with trying to develop estimates committees that would sit for some time. I reject completely the ridiculous
Page 4613
excuse that we are getting caught in a crossfire between the upper and lower Houses. This amendment gets us absolutely nowhere. It does not create any certainty; in fact the uncertainty remains.

I am dismayed that the Minister can take such a cavalier approach to such an important issue. There may well be alternatives that should be examined. This amendment would only give the Minister a way out. It does nothing to advance the debate. A better alternative would be to seriously consider the proposal for an expenditure and revenue committee to constructively look at how this House - the only House that theoretically can actually amend the budget; certainly the Upper House cannot - can be empowered to examine the budget through the estimates committees. This is a regressive amendment.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [4.48]: I support the comments of the honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Manly in opposing this change to the standing orders. I too want to place on record my grave concern at the failure of the Government on two occasions to appoint estimates committees, despite the very clear provision of the standing orders that the Parliament shall appoint estimates committees. One has to ask hypothetically whether the past two budgets have been constitutionally valid and whether members of Parliament have been receiving their salaries under false pretences from a budget that should never have been agreed to. I say that because under the standing orders the debate on the appropriation bills cannot conclude unless there have been reports from the estimates committees. The estimates committees are a condition precedent of the adoption of the budget in this House. I do not suggest we should spend a lot of money in the courts arguing the question, but the courts would probably uphold the validity of such a challenge.

The essential failure by the Government, which is underscored by its attempts to extricate itself from the situation, is that the real strength of the Parliament lies in the Legislative Assembly because constitutionally it is the money House and the majority of Ministers are among its members. The Legislative Council cannot bind members of the Legislative Assembly to appear before it; it can only do so by request. Though the upper House estimates committees conduct an inquiry into expenditure, Ministers in this House cannot be compelled to attend before those committees. I am not persuaded that the Government could not reach agreement with the Legislative Council on setting up joint estimates committees.

Whilst I agree that this House could set up its own estimates committees, I equally agree that it would be nonsensical to have estimates committees sitting in both Houses, because it would be a duplication of process and an enormous waste of time for Ministers and their advisers. Certainly I do not suggest that that course be followed. However, I believe the true agenda behind the Government not going to the negotiation table to set up joint estimates committees is that it wants to hide from broad-based examination by estimates committees. This attitude is in dramatic contrast to the pious utterances of the Government, when in Opposition, about the necessity to examine the estimates proceedings.

I remember discussions in the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee about various provisions, time frames and insistence that members of the Legislative Assembly have the right to be members of the estimates committees to press the point with the Government. After all, Opposition members are the advocates of possible budget problems whereas Government members, in the eyes of the Opposition, will seek to gloss over the more insidious budget provisions. Honourable members in this House do not have the greatest admiration for members of the Legislative Council, nor do they hold that House in high regard for its legislative contribution. It is quite unconscionable for the Leader of the House to now hide behind this fragile gesture by simply saying that the Legislative Assembly will not have estimates committees, because that would allow the Legislative Council to dictate the destiny of the Legislative Assembly. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

If the Government got tough, a resolution of the problem of setting up joint committees could be found. It would have the complete backing of every honourable member in this House. Apart from anything else, the insistence of the Legislative Council on unreasonable provisions for joint estimates committee would have brought that House into disrepute with the public. There must be a reason other than administrative inconvenience for the Government to have wriggled out of setting up joint estimates committees. As an individual member of Parliament I am concerned that whilst the current Legislative Council estimates committees have provided some opportunity for members of the Legislative Assembly - through the good graces of going cap in hand and asking their colleagues in the upper House to ask questions - there is one section of the estimates that is sacrosanct from investigation. It should be important to all members of this House that they be able to examine the budget estimates of the Legislative Assembly.

When I was Speaker I attended numerous estimates committees hearings in which the expenditure of the Legislative Assembly was properly questioned. Some questions related to joint matters and I answered questions by Legislative Council members on matters pertaining to the Parliament on which for any reason the Legislative Assembly may have taken the lead. It is reprehensible of this Government to shroud the operation of the Legislative Assembly in mystery and to put it beyond the realm of examination. In the past 18 months some areas of the operation of the Legislative Assembly and its expenditure have left a lot to be desired, and there should be an avenue to question them. I seek an assurance from
Page 4614
the Minister for Police that should this House once again go through the farce of not having estimates committees hearings in which the Legislative Assembly is able to participate he will set up a special committee to discuss that matter that is certainly beyond consideration by the Legislative Council: consideration of the expenditure and operation of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.56]: There is a sense of deja vu about this debate. I am slightly mystified by the stance the Opposition takes. One thing I must say about the honourable member for Manly is that he is consistent. He wants estimates committees and he does not care whether they are held in the upper House or the lower House. Is the Opposition now suggesting that two sets of estimates committees be established, one in the lower House and one in the upper House? I suppose the Opposition will now agree to invite the Treasurer into this House.

Mr Hartcher: No, that is a separate issue.

Mr WHELAN: Whose budget is it? It is the Government's budget and the Treasurer delivers that budget on behalf of the Government. The Opposition voted against allowing the Treasurer to make the Budget Speech in this House, let alone be examined on the budget. The Opposition must make up its mind.

Mr Hartcher: We have.

Mr WHELAN: I know, it is called political opportunism, and all Opposition members should be condemned for it. There should be no greater issue than the examination of the budget. The message will be sent to the Legislative Council that this Chamber wants joint estimates committees in a similar but not identical format, much more open than was conducted by the previous Government, and with representatives from either House. Certainly the committees can sit longer and have a greater spectrum of questions. I have given undertakings to Independent members in this Chamber that the Government will move such a motion at the appropriate time to ensure that that happens.

Mr Hartcher: Let's see you do it.

Mr WHELAN: I am happy to move that motion today. However, I would seek an undertaking from the Opposition - the former Leader of the House, Garry West, gave me the same undertaking but reneged on it - that this proposal be taken to the coalition's party room for a vote.

Mr Hartcher: He did.

Mr WHELAN: Then he got rolled by his party! He was tackled short of the try line, again. Opposition members have the opportunity to convince their colleagues to hold joint estimates committees. The system works successfully in every other State and Federally. The Government wants joint estimates committees, but it will not have estimates committees for the upper House and for the lower House. There are constitutional reasons why Ministers in the upper House cannot appear in the lower House. Ministers in the lower House can appear in the upper House to answer questions about bills, but there is no provision for Ministers in the upper House to appear in this House. Indeed, to take the matter a bit further, it is not constitutionally possible. A motion must be passed by the House for that to take place. The Government moved a motion to that effect, but the Opposition voted against allowing the Hon. M. R. Egan to appear in the lower House. The Opposition will not guarantee that it will allow the Treasurer to enter this House. At the appropriate time the Government will move a motion relating to joint estimates committees.

Mr Rozzoli: Do it now.

Mr WHELAN: Honourable members may have to wait until closer to the budget.

Mr Rozzoli: No. The Government has had plenty of time to work it out.

Mr WHELAN: I am happy to send a message to the upper House at the appropriate time asking for joint estimates committees. That is what I have said I will do.

Dr Macdonald: Do it now.

Mr WHELAN: The House can deal with that matter when debate on these motions is complete. I am happy to send such a message to the upper House. But first I ask the Opposition to give an undertaking that the Liberal Party and the National Party will support the establishment of joint estimates committees of the Parliament. If I receive that undertaking I shall move a motion to that effect immediately after this business has been dealt with. The honourable member for Hawkesbury raised the issue of accountability for the Legislative Assembly. I do not agree that the Legislative Council should be in charge of Legislative Assembly finances.

Mr Rozzoli: I didn't say that.

Mr WHELAN: The Government is accountable for the Legislative Assembly in this Chamber. If the honourable member has a grievance he should let me know about it. If there is a problem he should tell me.

Mr Rozzoli: That is nonsense. The Government should establish a special estimates committee to examine the Legislative Assembly.

Mr WHELAN: Lighten up. What is the foundation for that?

Mr Rozzoli: That is the only way of doing it properly.

Mr WHELAN: The coalition should have done that during its seven years in office. The Government will move a motion relating to joint estimates committees at the appropriate time. I look forward to receiving an undertaking from the National Party Whip and the shadow leader of the House; I should like to receive them now.

Page 4615

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [5.02]: The Opposition wants to know the details of the motion relating to joint estimates committees before it agrees to it. A motion relating simply to the establishment of joint estimates committees is not sufficient, because the Opposition does not trust the Leader of the House that it will be a due and proper process. The Government should start the process now. It should provide full details of how the estimates committees will operate so that they can be debated and so the t's can be crossed and the i's dotted. Then when there is a reasonable proposition - and I emphasis the word "reasonable" - the Opposition will be reasonable about it and support it wholeheartedly.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.03]: That does not destroy the element of what I want the shadow leader of the House and the National Party Whip to do. I want them to give an undertaking that they and their colleagues will support the motion in the party rooms so that it can become part of the process.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.03]: The Leader of the House wants a blank cheque. If ever there was a person who is skilled in partisanship, conferences, branches and the many relationships of the right wing of the ALP, of which the Speaker is a member, it is the Leader of the House. If he expects us to give him a blank cheque and to go to our caucus rooms with a proposal along the lines that he has determined, he expects in vain. The Opposition wants estimate committees that will work and be successful. It wants sensible negotiations with the Legislative Council to ensure that we get that.

Mr O'Farrell: A commonsense approach.

Mr HARTCHER: As the honourable member for Northcott says, a commonsense approach. The Opposition wants Ministers and senior public servants to appear before the estimates committees. It wants a sensible amount of time provided for Ministers' answers, not the lengthy periods provided previously. If such parameters can be organised, if the Leader of the House is prepared to move a motion providing for joint estimates committees, for an equal number of members to be chosen from both Houses, for an opportunity to elect committee chairmen, for limited speaking times for Ministers, for senior public servants to be called if notice is given so that they can be questioned by the committees, and for questions not answered to be taken on notice and answered comprehensively within a stipulated time, the Opposition is happy to progress such a motion in negotiation with the Legislative Council. Providing such parameters is not in my hands; it is in the hands of the Leader of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I note that the Minister has agreed that he will bring that matter forward at a later stage.

Question - That the motion 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 Moss
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Sullivan
Mr Hunter Mr Tripodi
Mr Iemma 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 Armstrong Mr D. L. Page
Mr Beck Mr Peacocke
Mr Blackmore Mr Photios
Mr Brogden Mr Richardson
Mr Chappell Mr Rixon
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cochran Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr R. W. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Mr Merton
Ms Moore Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Scully Mr Kinross
Mr Shedden Mr Phillips

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Page 4616

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Omit "select".

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Replace the "Standing Order" to read:

357. The Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, the Library Committee and the House Committee shall be standing committees.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

Add at the end of the Standing Order:

An officer means a member of staff employed solely by the Speaker.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Rozzoli.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Donald Frederick Charles Beck be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption in place of John Harcourt Turner, discharged.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Donald Frederick Charles Beck be appointed to serve on the Standing Ethics Committee in place of John Harcourt Turner, discharged.

Bill read a third time.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.


Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [5.15]: Tonight I raise an issue that is dear to the hearts of the vast majority of people in the Menai area of my electorate. The Menai area is one of the fastest growing areas in the Sydney region. More than half the population is under the age of 15. The Menai Hawks Soccer Club, one of the largest junior sports clubs in Australia, has over 1,000 registered players. The Menai Netball Club, two local rugby league clubs - the Colts and the Roosters - the Illawong Cricket Club and the Illawong Athletics Club are all bursting at the seams with members. Other clubs, such as the softball club, play their sports outside the Menai area as there is no ground available on which to play. There is a dire need for more sporting facilities in that area.

A recent survey by Sutherland Shire Council made it quite clear that the development of sporting and recreational facilities was the top priority for the majority of residents in the area. Existing sporting facilities cannot cope with the demand. The previous Government recognised this and provided a developing areas assistance grant and capital assistance program grants. The present Government, which also recognised the problem, gave the Hawks Soccer Club a grant last year to extend its amenities block. This year the Holy Family Colts and the Hawks Netball Club have applied for grants to further extend their facilities.

The problem is that the only land available for the development of sporting facilities in the area is two tip sites at Menai and Lucas Heights. Until recently the former tip site at Menai was the subject of a land claim appeal in the Land and Environment Court. The court recently turned down the appeal on the basis that the land was not Crown land and therefore did not come under the ambit of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. Sutherland Shire Council and the Waste Service of New South Wales are presently in mediation over both sites. Council also claims that it has a 20-year plan for the development of both sites for a wide range of sporting facilities, including a golf course.

While bureaucrats mediate and plan, the residents of the Menai area play sport on overused fields. At present Buckle Reserve, Blaxland Drive, Casuarina Drive, Akuna Avenue, Billa Road and Barden Ridge grounds are utilised. All need rejuvenation with the possible exception of the last mentioned because it has only just been recently opened. Buckle Reserve is the home ground of the Hawks, the largest soccer club in the Sutherland shire. In summer the reserve is used by Illawong athletics club. There is simply no time for the ground to rejuvenate and by this time of the year the ground resembles the Simpson Desert, such is the use that is made of it.

The latest word is that the council and the Waste Service are negotiating an extension to the life of the Lucas Heights waste depot which will include overtopping the existing tip site. The previous Government indicated that the depot's life would end in the year 2000, as did the present Government when in opposition. The Waste Service developed plans for a 27-hole golf course on this tip site. All that the people of the Menai area want is playing fields. The old tip site at Menai was to be used for that purpose, as was the present tip site when it had run its course by the year 2000. The real worry is that by the time the Waste Service and the council conclude their wordfest the local population will have grown so old they will not need the facilities. There is a great sense of frustration in the area that there seems to be nothing being done to fix this problem.

Page 4617

I hope that the council and the Waste Service get on with the job of providing the sporting facilities that they promised the people of the area for many years. The present Government and the previous Government have indicated by their actions that they support the needs of the people in the area. Now it is time for the Waste Service and Sutherland Shire Council to do the same and provide further sporting and recreational facilities in the Menai area. The need is there now and not in 20 years time.


Ms HALL (Swansea) [5.20]: There is a group operating within the Swansea electorate who have approached the problem of unemployment in a unique way. The group, ably led by Jack Cambourne and Bob Mortlock, identified a problem, namely, the decline of fish stock and the reduction of the number of professional fishers in Lake Macquarie. The group decided to develop a solution to this problem which would generate employment and a new industry for the region. Both professional and recreational fishers have been experiencing problems in Lake Macquarie and have formed groups to address the declining fish stocks within the lake.

The number of commercial fishers fishing in Lake Macquarie has fallen from 136 to 28 over the last 15 years and recreational fishers are reporting a decline in the number of fish they catch. This can be attributed to a number of reasons, one of which is a problem with the water quality in Lake Macquarie brought about by development and associated problems along with industrial waste and chemical fertilisers entering the lake. This has led to the destruction of breeding grounds and nursery areas and has contributed to a reduction in the fish stock in the lake, along with a perceived overfishing of the lake by the professional fishers.

Both professional and recreational fishers have come to the realisation that there is a need for change, otherwise the fishing industry on both the central coast and in Lake Macquarie will cease to exist in the short term and deprive both areas of two important industries - commercial fishing and tourism - which will affect both professional and recreational fishers. The group headed by Jack Cambourne and Bob Mortlock has come up with a proposal to develop an aquiculture industry in the central coast on the shores of Lake Macquarie. This proposal has been developed over a two-year period and in full consultation with all relevant statutory authorities, Wyong and Lake Macquarie councils, and New South Wales Fisheries.

The proposal is to initially launch a pilot aquiculture scheme which will be conducted over a two-year period. It is intended that the pilot scheme will be located in the grounds of Munmorah Power Station and will utilise land-based pondage close to the foreshores of Lake Macquarie and installed by the aquiculture research department of the University of New South Wales five years ago for the purpose of growing prawns. It is envisaged that the inlets and outlets to Lake Macquarie will be blocked to circumvent any problems with water quality in the lake. Delta Power has given in principle agreement to the proposal, subject to certain conditions.

The pilot will be conducted with between 1,000 and 1,500 snapper fingerlings from the fishing research station at Port Stephens. The project will be administered by a marine scientist, assisted by a part-time administration person, and will be overseen by a board comprising two representatives each from the professional and recreational fishers, a local government representative and Jack Cambourne and Bob Mortlock. The pilot project is designed to achieve two things: one is to save the existing industries of commercial fishing and tourism, the latter being driven by recreational fishers, thereby saving the jobs of people employed in both those industries, and the other is to develop a new regional industry thereby creating new jobs in a new industry, namely aquiculture. The group believes that aquiculture is where the future for fishing lies, and that this pilot project will demonstrate that it is both viable and the way of the future. I understand that an overseas investor has already expressed interest in the project and if the pilot is successful then I am sure it will expand into a thriving regional industry.

It is important to point out that this pilot project was developed by a group of people seeking to address the issue of unemployment in the region. Both the central coast and the Hunter have higher than the State average level of unemployment, and it is only through the development of a non-traditional industry that the issue of unemployment can be addressed. The group has approached the Government for assistance and to date the Minister for Fisheries, Mr Martin, has provided considerable assistance and advice to the group, as has the Environment Protection Authority. The project is currently being examined by the Department of State and Regional Development.

This proposal will benefit the region now and in the future by creating a regional-based industry whilst contributing to the survival of existing industries. The efforts of the group, particularly Bob Mortlock and Jack Cambourne, should be commended and used as a model for community-driven solutions to unemployment and regional development. It is a pity there are not more people prepared to take the initiative like Jack Cambourne and Bob Mortlock to come up with some creative ideas to address the issue of unemployment.


Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.25]: I call on the Premier of New South Wales to instigate a royal commission into the Department of Community Services. This call follows the bombing of the office of the Department of Community Services at Coffs Harbour, which I have reason to believe was done by a disgruntled DOCS client. In the last week the
Page 4618
honourable member for Myall Lakes and other members have raised issues concerning DOCS during private members' statements. On 8 August I wrote a letter to the Premier and sent a copy to the Minister for Community Services asking for a royal commission to be established but to this day I have not received a response. In the letter I detailed the reasons I believe that a royal commission is needed. Some of these include:

•serious allegations not investigated by the Department and passed off by the Department as being, too busy to investigate, or as paranoia on behalf of the complainant

•vital evidence not being submitted to appropriate authorities, that is, courts or the police

•services funded by DOCS not being audited in either a financial manner or on a performance criteria

•DOCS employees, and services funded by DOCS, advising clients not to cooperate with police

•over zealous actions in some serious cases and no action in other cases

•therapies prescribed to clients being `abnormal' to say the least

•refusal to discuss cases with aggrieved parties

•intimidation of clients with threats of action in relation to child discipline . . .

•advice given by DOCS employees to minors encouraging them to leave the family home - parents then being told they have no rights in this regard

•refusal by DOCS employees to classify children `at risk'

Without naming the constituents involved I will provide some examples. A seven-year-old girl was sexually assaulted at school by a fellow pupil. That child's parents were told by a DOCS employee to take the child home, lock her child in a bedroom and let the child scream at the top of her voice, "Don't touch me." That is ludicrous and any parent would know that is not a solution to a serious problem such as a sexual assault. In another case a 14-year-old girl became involved with people who were dealing in drugs. The child, who came from a perfectly normal family, left home to be with the street children and then moved into a house with a 42-year-old. Her parents believe she was involved in a sexual relationship with that man. They approached police, but they could do nothing because, according to DOCS, the girl was not at risk. Because the department believed she was not at risk and because she would turn 15 in 12 months it would not become involved.

In another example DOCS would not classify as at risk a 13-year-old girl who was on drugs. It took three months for the parents to obtain the support of DOCS at a court hearing to have the child classified as at risk. At the end of the day all the Department of Community Services did was manage the case. That child now lives on the streets in Sydney but because she periodically attends a course prescribed by DOCS, that child, who has now turned 14, is not classified at risk and is being cared for - according to the department - under its system.

This is not good enough. The children of our society are not being protected by the department whose job it is to look after them. Those who are unfortunate enough to approach the Department of Community Services and seek advice are not receiving the advice or assistance they need. A culture exists within DOCS, and that culture does not support the policies of either this Government or the previous Government. It does not support family policy and does not support children in danger. It is incumbent on the Premier and the Minister to initiate a royal commission into this department immediately. Although not all employees of the department are involved, I, as a member of Parliament, am not proud of the culture in the department. I have received over 250 complaints. I am not surprised the office at Coffs Harbour was blown up. I do not condone it - [Time expired.]

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [5.32]: I am not in a position to comment on the merits of the matter raised by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. I am concerned about the matter he raised relating to the bombing of the Coffs Harbour office of the Department of Community Services. He said he had good reason to believe it was done by a disgruntled client of the department. I urge the honourable member to advise police of any knowledge he has of a criminal offence.

Mr Fraser: That information has been given to police.


Mr PRICE (Waratah) [5.32]: I raise a matter of great concern to the family of Mr Michael Creevey, of 21 Jacknorman Street, Waratah West. Mr Creevey appears to be a victim of a total lack of compassion by the ANZ Bank. He has written to me explaining his situation in precise and stark terms. His letter reads:

My wife, daughter and self were involved in a headon car accident on 8th August 1993. At that time we were working our own business, Michael Creevey Saddlery & Leathercraft, Marketown, Newcastle West.

For a further 2 years I tried to keep the business going. I was involved also in the repairs of saddlery, as well as manufacturing leather goods. As time passed my neck and right arm were causing me extreme pain when sewing and repairing leather goods. I had already had an operation on my right elbow February 1994. This did not improve the pain I experienced when working. I was also given 2 injections in to my right elbow to help relieve the pain. Only 1 worked. I insisted on further x-rays and CT scan of my neck. This revealed my injuries were 2 bulging discs which is damaging the facet joints in my neck. I also tried facet joint blocks of the cervical spine. My doctors recommended physiotherapy. I ended up spending more time having physiotherapy and rehabilitation exercises than I did running my business.

I approached my Bank Manager . . . ANZ BANK, Newcastle West and informed him of my condition. He felt it was pointless me continuing the business any longer. He felt sure litigation lending maybe, or ANZ would work something out till the claim was settled.

Page 4619

I also approached my Solicitor . . . Harris Wheeler. His advice was to declare myself bankrupt. This would mean a lot of suppliers would suffer and I would lose the family home. For me, this was not an option. He felt we would not have any problems regarding ANZ, because this was their bank and VACC Insurance admitting liability.

My general health for the last few months of 1995 had deteriorated to the extent I developed pneumonia Christmas 1995. I closed the business first week January 1996.

I approached ANZ in January 1996 asking them to consider waiting for my claim to be settled before receiving payment. They would not accept anything less than the full weekly repayments of $395.00. Since that time I have cancelled our family's life insurances to meet their request. Money from my wife's vehicle has also been used . . .

My main concern throughout has been ANZ's lack of compassion. I intend to pay them from my claim "NO MATTER WHAT". I do need them to wait, along with myself and family for this horrendous episode of my life to end. I have lost my business and health as a result of that idiot's careless and dangerous driving. I have become the guilty party - not the innocent party. I am only receiving sickness benefits and my wife parenting allowance which totals $698.10 per fortnight. As my health does not allow me to work, it is impossible for me to earn anymore. ANZ wish us now to pay interest payments of $291.70 per week. If their amount was paid we would be left with $114.70 per fortnight for my wife, daughter and self to live on. I expect we would need plenty of "handouts" from charities.

This man is on Commonwealth sickness benefits and his wife receives a family allowance. He has contributed to the community through small business, and has attempted to look after himself. I am privy to figures which indicate that his payout should be well in excess of the amount he owes the bank. I am appalled that the bank is not prepared to wait the five or six months it will take for the matter to be dealt with by the court. Because of the amount involved, the matter will be dealt with by the Supreme Court. That indicates the seriousness of the injury and the need for the bank to be patient. Interest could be added to the amount owing.

Mr Creevey is paying additional interest in excess of $41 per day to cover the problem, but still the bank wants to foreclose. That would result in Mr Creevey having to sell his home. It is an appalling situation. Both parents were injured, and a young person is involved. It appears that the bank does not have the ability to exercise discretion by showing compassion and giving them the time they need. The bank knows that full reimbursement is but a few months away.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [5.37]: I thank the honourable member for Waratah for telling me in advance that he would raise this matter. I have received advice from my department. The Government recognises that financial difficulties can be devastating for affected individuals and families. Sadly, because of circumstances beyond their control, Mr Creevey and his family are in a position of financial crisis. The hardship provisions of the Credit Act and the Credit (Home Finance Contracts) Act are aimed at assisting people who, because of unforeseen circumstances, are unable to meet their commitments. Temporary relief may be sought where there are reasonable prospects that a person's financial position will improve. However, the borrowings must be for personal, domestic or residential purposes.

Unfortunately, in Mr Creevey's case it is apparent that the debts are for business purposes. The debt is therefore not regulated by the legislation administered by my department. Nevertheless, in an endeavour to assist Mr Creevey and his family, officers of the Department of Fair Trading have today contacted the ANZ Bank in an attempt to agree on a course of action that may be suitable to both parties. Those endeavours are continuing and have not as yet been finalised. I will advise the honourable member for Waratah of the outcome of those efforts at the earliest opportunity.


Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [5.39]: I draw the attention of the House to the work of the Alzheimer's Association of New South Wales, which has its headquarters in the Vincent Fairfax Centre at the Macquarie Hospital, North Ryde. The association has been operating since 1982. Its aim is to optimise the quality of life for people with Alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia and their carers. It aims to promote local support groups for family carers; to provide a range of comprehensive support services; to create awareness and sensibility amongst the community of the needs of people with dementia, their carers, relatives and friends; to agitate for better resources and services; and to encourage research into dementia. Last Saturday, 21 September, at its annual general meeting the association was revealed to be a well-managed and professionally run organisation. The chief executive officer, Ms Joan Simms, is a most able and experienced community services administrator. She is a leader who has a real vision for the future of the association and an ability to ensure it is achieved.

The board of management is a special group of talented and committed people. Particular mention must be made of the outgoing president, Mr John Craig, who is standing down after two years. In many ways, Mr Craig was the perfect president. He has a clear vision and the determination to put it into place. That determination is matched by good sense and the ability to get on with people. His leadership was marked by a deep sensitivity and compassion for all sufferers of Alzheimer's disease, their families and carers. Under his leadership the Alzheimer's Association was a vibrant and very successful organisation. He will long be remembered with deep affection and great respect. My involvement with the association has brought me into contact with wonderful people such as Noreen Whittaker, who gave a moving and challenging address to the AGM. Noreen's husband, Wal, was
Page 4620
diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in his early fifties when he was in the midst of a successful and happy family and professional life. He is now in full-time nursing home care and is unable to remember or relate to his family or previous life.

Noreen's address raised issues that society and Parliament must address. The first issue is the size of the dementia problem in Australia. More than 5 per cent of citizens over 65 year of age suffer from dementia. In those over 85 years old the figure is 25 per cent. That equates to a figure of over 100,000 sufferers. When one adds to that figure the hundreds of thousands of carers and the fact that the number of people in the population who are over the age of 65 is set to expand rapidly in the next 25 years, the size of the problem becomes quite daunting. That must raise questions as to the level of care we expect should be provided and the amount of resources we are willing to set aside to achieve quality aged care, especially for those suffering from the distressing reality of dementia. Currently at present provision is not being made for adequate aged care in Australia. If we continue to close our eyes to that need a growing percentage of our aged citizens, especially those suffering from dementia, and their families, are destined to suffer intolerable standards of care.

This issue is likely to be one of the cental areas requiring Government action in the next 30 years. We must accept that reality and start preparing now. Some basic steps need to be taken. The first step is a recognition of the extent of the problem and an acceptance by all governments in Australia of the need to provide services. Part of that recognition requires an understanding of the impact of dementia on carers, particularly spouses and children. That is especially critical in cases of early onset of dementia. Dementia-specific nursing homes are needed. Currently the difficulty of placement in such homes causes families an undue burden. Support programs and respite care are also necessary. In particular, attention must be given to the specific needs of early-onset sufferers. Alzheimer's disease may impact on sufferers who are in their early fifties when they are strong and vigorous. It can no longer be accurately characterised as an old person's disease.

The challenge of providing care for such working-age sufferers, who often have young families, deserves recognition and urgent action. Finally, provision must be made for a fair and just carers pension that acknowledges the financial and social disadvantages to carers that are often caused by the onset of dementia. Our society is receiving quality care for very needy people on the cheap, as dementia sufferers are cared for by their families because there is often no other choice. The impact of that care is always demanding on the carer. Often the carer may be aged or without other support. The impact on families can be overwhelming and cause great emotional pain. What choice does a carer have when no support services and no accommodation services are available? We must recognise the impact of that lack of choice on families and carers.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [5.44]: Last weekend my home city of Dubbo experienced what was described by the Dubbo police as the worst rampage of vandals and thieves that has ever been recorded in the history of the city. Sixteen break-ins occurred and seven cars were stolen. In 1994 about 79 break-and-enter offences were recorded each month in Dubbo. Last month 140 break-and-enter offences were committed. Crime in my home city and in many other cities throughout New South Wales is totally out of control. I received a faxed copy of a letter that was written by one of my constituents to the chief superintendent of police in Dubbo. I should like to quote extensively from the letter. He said:

At 3:10am on the 20th of September, 1996 our Business Premises at 65 Macquarie Street Dubbo was entered and a quantity of stock, in particular 21 Canterbury International Brand Polo Shirts were removed.

Entry was gained by throwing a large stone through a ½ inch toughened plate glass panel.

The Writer attended the scene at approx. 3:20am and was advised by two witnesses who heard the glass shatter that 3 Males of dark appearance driving a small Hatchback Sedan were responsible as they saw them leave the Premises and drive off. The information was passed on to Const. Max Coffee and his partner who arrived at approx. 3:30am.

At approx. 11:30am I received an anonymous phone call from a person advising me that they were aware of the break and enter and named three males -

He gave the three names, but I will not use them because I do not want to affect the court proceedings. The letter continued:

Further, the person stated that they were driving a Silver Hatchback Sedan at the time which was owned by -

My constituent named the woman, who lives in west Dubbo. For obvious reasons I will not name her. The letter continued:

The Person further stated that they and the items in their possession, a quantity of quote "Canterbury Polo Shirts" which are quote,

"now at . . . house" and if I wanted them back I should contact the Police immediately.

I passed this information on to Const. Rodney Fardell who in turn advised me he would have to give the details to the Detectives.

At 4:30pm I rang and spoke to Det. Jeff McKechnie who advised me that this information had been passed on to him and that he was unable to do anything about it. He went on to explain to me that all the persons named were known to the Police and that without a Search Warrant . . . would not allow a search of her residence. Further the Magistrate would not issue a Search Warrant as the result of an anonymous call. What a joke!

The police did nothing. They did not even apply to the magistrate for a warrant and, as a consequence, my constituent lost approximately $16,000 worth of stock. That was not the first time he had been robbed. The people in my community have had enough. Since the mid-1980s in the time of the Wran Government meetings about crime have been held at Dubbo. Some of those meetings have been
Page 4621
attended by more than 2,000 people. Meetings have been held with representatives of the previous Labor Government, the coalition Government and various Attorneys General. I have approached at least six Attorneys General, yet nothing has happened. I want to say now publicly and openly that unless the police in Dubbo and neighbouring towns, with some support from the courts, which I have to say are feeble, are able to control crime within another month I will have no alternative but to call on my constituents to form vigilante groups to protect themselves. Crime is so out of control that if people cannot rely on the Government, the courts and the police to protect them from the sorts of offences I have referred to, in the end there is only one alternative: the people will have to protect themselves. There is no way that 40,000 people in a city the size of Dubbo can live in fear and be held at ransom by less than 100 people who rampage through their homes, shops and streets and assault and attack people. It has to stop. I advised the Minister for Police of what I intended to say.


Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [5.49]: I want to talk about the final days of Lidcombe Hospital, which about four years ago became the Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital. The new Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital is expected to be more efficient because of a better design that allows greater flexibility in the use of beds and will allow higher occupancy rates to be achieved. In addition, the inefficiency of operating a hospital over two sites some nine kilometres apart has now been removed. In 1988 when the Greiner Government was elected to power the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister for Health, discovered nearly 200 acres of land in the middle of Sydney that comprised the Lidcombe Hospital site.

Lidcombe Hospital was a great hospital; it did great things for the elderly. It had a brain damage unit, coronary care units, units for paraplegics and quadriplegics, Ferguson Lodge, and a multiple sclerosis centre. It serviced not only the electorate of Auburn but all of the surrounding areas. The doctors and nurses at Lidcombe Hospital did a great job. They had a high standard of achievement and credibility. The work done at the hospital received great respect. Unfortunately, the Liberal-National Party Government decided to close the hospital and transfer some of the facilities to the Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital. Other facilities went to Liverpool, Concord and Westmead hospitals. So the great Lidcombe Hospital was closed.

The new Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital has a total of 454 beds that were previously operated from the two separate hospital sites at Bankstown and Lidcombe. I am advised that the hospital can achieve the same amount of patient care in the future with 28 fewer beds due to the increased efficiencies of the new hospital. The new hospital also has eight theatres compared to the five theatres that were available at Lidcombe and Bankstown hospitals. As many as six theatres are now being used. The area health service advises me that the remaining theatres will be utilised to meet demand as the need arises.

However, people do not like hospitals being closed. When I became the member for Auburn in 1988 there were three hospitals in my electorate. St Joseph's Hospital was an acute-care hospital where my mother passed away and which my brothers, sisters and I attended. That hospital closed, and Lidcombe Hospital then closed. The closure of those hospitals by the previous Government brought great sadness and difficulty to me as the local member of Parliament. Strenuous efforts were made to stop the closure of the Lidcombe Hospital but, unfortunately, those efforts failed. The hospital was supposed to close in 1999, but to my dismay the closure was speeded up, I believe because of the wishes of those in the area health service and the Health Commission in advance of the election of a Labor government.

Money was made available to close the hospital so it could never be reopened. By the time this Government was elected to power in March of last year the whole of the hospital was gutted and little could be done to save it. Some buildings on the site are more than 100 years old and have heritage listings. I have been invited by the Lidcombe Hospital Heritage Foundation to join in attempts to preserve those buildings. I will do everything I can to preserve them when the land is subdivided. A child-care centre on the site is doing great work caring for the children of parents who work from seven in the morning until seven at night. The long-standing Ferguson Lodge and the multiple sclerosis centre are also on the site.

Both those centres have 99-year leases, of which 88 years are left to run. That being so, it will be hard to move them off the site for any type of development. Various operations were performed in the Jack Lang wing of the hospital. It was used particularly for operations on the elderly. It could make a good private hospital. I invite private interests to look at that. Land will be available for Cumberland college. I guarantee there will be no Japanese golf course. The rumour around Auburn is that the site will be bulldozed and become a Japanese golf course with luxury apartments owned by foreigners. That will not happen. There will be open space, home units, commercial facilities and good planning.

The Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development will examine the future use of the land and the mayor of Auburn, Pat Curtin, and I will be talking to the Minister about it. Finally, I thank those doctors and nurses who have worked in the hospital for the last 45 years for the great work they have done for my constituents and for the care, love and attention they have given to the people of the
Page 4622
electorate. Florence Nightingale would be very proud of them. Lidcombe Hospital is now closed and a great era has come to an end.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [5.54]: The Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is unable to be in the Chamber at this moment. The Minister has asked me to read the following message on his behalf:

I would like to place on record my personal appreciation and thanks to all the nurses and doctors of the former Lidcombe Hospital. The dedication and hard work put in by all the workers in the hospital is appreciated by the thousands of patients who received care and treatment.

It is both a shame and a disgrace that the former Liberal Government closed the hospital. Let me assure the House and the people of Bankstown and Lidcombe that I will do everything I can as Minister to ensure that the new Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital is a state-of-the-art facility and lives up to the wonderful tradition of care and professionalism of the staff of the former Lidcombe Hospital.

Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [5.56]: I have questions to ask about the long saga of the Picton sewerage scheme. We listened for years to claims about starting the process of constructing the scheme during the former Government's administration, and it became an issue at the last election. A press release was issued by the Labor candidate, the Hon. P. T. Primrose, who is now a member in the other House, which reached me via the local paper on 16 December 1994. The press release, which was headed "Libs stuff up Picton sewerage scheme again", stated:

The next State Labor Government has committed itself to the immediate construction of a series of major services in this area including Picton Tahmoor Thirlmere sewerage.

It also stated:

The study is expected to be finished around October 1995 which means that no work will even commence until 1996.

Work to commence in 1996, even under that timetable? On 6 February 1995 Sydney Water briefed Wollondilly Shire Council on the progress of the environmental impact statement. That timetable stated that the Minister's decision was to start work on 14 November 1995 and finish on 18 December 1995, and Sydney Water's decision was to start on 18 December 1995 and finish on 11 January 1996. The Mitchell McCotter report revealed the timetable for construction of the plan and indicated that it will take four years to complete.

It is now 25 September 1996. The original starting date was in the first quarter of 1995 and completion was scheduled for 1999. Already the project is one year and nine months behind schedule. To add insult to injury, the press release of 26 July this year issued by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing under the heading "Carr government to sewer Blue Mountains" stated:

Work on the project will commence immediately and construction on the first areas to be connected is to start within 12 months.

The press release also stated:

The Carr Government will use $18 million in the Special Environmental Levy funds - left unspent for six years by the former coalition Government - to help fund the scheme.

I do not object to the people in the Blue Mountains having a sewerage system. They deserve it, but it certainly should not be at the expense of the people of Picton, Tahmoor and Thirlmere. The promises have gone on for too long. I should like the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to answer a few questions. If, according to his press release of 26 July, he is able to do what he says he can do for the people of the Blue Mountains, why can he not expedite the commencement of construction on the Picton sewerage scheme? Has the Government or Treasury reneged on its promise to fund Picton's environmental works from the special environment levy? Is the $18 million from the SEL that was set aside for Picton to be used to fund the Blue Mountains scheme? The problem is a disgrace. It is an insult when the Minister says that he will do certain things for the community of the Blue Mountains and leave the people of Picton, Tahmoor and Thirlmere in the same position they have been in for years with progress on the scheme continually being stopped. [Time expired.]


Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [6.01]: I have the honour to represent the city of Newcastle in this House. Newcastle is an industrial city with a proud heritage. A great deal of hard work is done there and many workers are injured during the course of that work. Many workers have suffered back injuries associated with heavy labour, repetitive process work and working in awkward positions. It is of great concern to me, as I am sure it is to other honourable members, that after long periods off work or while in the process of applying for workers' compensation workers still suffering pain come to see me. Injured workers not only suffer the physical pain of their injuries or their debilitating impact. They lose their ability to work, their flexibility and strength, and their ability to carry out ordinary daily tasks. They suffer the psychological pain that is often associated with loss of work and being unable to produce income to support the family. In many cases they become dependent on drugs.

Many of these injured workers are unable to understand the complexity of the legal process and the length of time taken for cases to be finalised, and the changing emphasis within WorkCover on lump sum payments. Many workers have recently expressed to me their frustration and anger at the lack of results from legitimate claims. I will refer to two workers and I ask the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads to ensure that the
Page 4623
details are passed on to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Mr Dan Alexandru of 21 Selwyn Street had four work accidents between 1983 and 1988. In 1983 he fell and twisted his back while pulling cables. In 1986 he slipped on steps and sustained another injury. In 1987 he fell from scaffolding and was off work for a month. In 1988 while working for Transfield at the Liddell power station he hurt his back while lifting heavy gas bottles. He has not worked since that time. For eight years this man's case has proceeded through the legal process without a satisfactory outcome. During that time Mr Alexandru has undergone a major back operation involving the fusion of discs. Since he has been off work he has been prescribed Voltaren, Valium, Digesic, Panadol, Aspirin and a range of other medication to try to assist him to cope with the pain. Mr Alexandru has received a settlement offer of $110,000, but WorkCover has refused that commutation and a further hearing has been set down. Mr Alexandru has suffered a great deal of frustration because he has had to wait so long for his case to be finalised.

Mr Jim Gardiner of 147 Brunker Road, Adamstown, is in a similar situation. He has waited a long time for settlement of his compensation case. He received an offer of a settlement of some $60,000, but he has been advised that under section 51 of the Workers Compensation Act he must go through the process again and seek leave to prove that he is a worker able to claim a commutation under the system. Several cases of a similar nature have been raised in this House recently. I emphasise that these workers are suffering stress and frustration through the delay and lack of action in finalising their cases.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [6.06]: The honourable member for Newcastle has raised matters of deep personal concern to him and to his electorate. I shall make sure that these particular cases are drawn to the attention of the Minister for Industrial Relations in the other place.


Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [6.06]: I bring to the attention of the House a matter of importance regarding the Oxley electorate. A Kempsey firm has made allegations that its workshop facility may be lost because of representations I made to the Environment Protection Authority regional office at Grafton. One of my constituents complained to me that he had difficulty getting to sleep at night because of the noise created by this facility. As a member of Parliament I make confidential representations without fear or favour on behalf of my constituents. A petition containing approximately 100 signatures about the noise made by the company was forwarded to council. In a letter dated 26 June 1996 Kempsey Shire Council wrote to its ratepayers. The letter was signed by Mr B. W. Casselden, Director of the Environmental Health and Development Department of the council. In part the letter stated:

It would appear that the company can operate at night until approximately 2.00 a.m. doing mainly welding work - however, from time to time, hammering and grinding is necessary and the company tries to have that work finished by 8 p.m. each night. The company has been made aware of the concerns of yourself and other petitioners. The company intends to have a noise consultant examine their operation with a view to overcoming any problems.

Following an interview with one of my constituents I wrote to the EPA on 14 August regarding the regulations pertaining to noise, which my constituent claimed was unacceptable to him and other residents in the area as it affected their health and amenity. As a strong supporter of industry and jobs in my electorate, I acknowledge the dilemma of my concerned constituents and also that of the industry and firm involved. In my letter I asked the EPA to communicate with Kempsey Shire Council because it was the local planning authority. I was hopeful that the matter could be resolved locally. Today the company claims that my actions have forced it to employ a noise consultant. This is not correct. My representations on behalf of concerned residents were dated 14 August. In the letter sent to petitioners by Kempsey Shire Council, dated 26 June, the council stated:

The company intends to have a noise consultant examine their operation with a view to overcoming any problems.

The EPA has been receptive to the needs of all parties in this matter. It has done its best under the circumstances. It has tried to resolve the issue through consultation and without a heavy-handed regulatory approach to get the parties to consider each others problems. In fact the verbal report of the Environment Protection Authority given to me on 19 September was encouraging. The company has been trying to finish work at an acceptable hour, and matters seem to be improving. I am advised that the firm was most receptive to the EPA, and my constituents seem happy with the progress being made.

However, the problem blew up again today after the company went to the media, and apparently negotiations are at a stalemate. All the parties need to consider each other. The company is saying that I should have approached it first. That criticism surprises me because I have done confidential work, I believe successfully, for the company in the past. The company should know and respect my position as a member of Parliament on these matters. As I said, I deal with my constituents without fear or favour. All honourable members have that responsibility and obligation. I appreciate that the factory needs to work. The State needs jobs, but the residents need sleep.

This matter highlights a difficult situation that can occur from time to time in local areas, and the need for councils to consider adequate buffer areas between a residential area and heavy industrial areas. I have always encouraged local industry to develop within the planning laws. I trust that Kempsey Shire Council will be able to resolve the conflict that has arisen. As I said, I am concerned about the criticism
Page 4624
that has been expressed. I trust that the council, the constituents and the company can work together to resolve the problems.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 6.11 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.30]: I move:

That the motion moved earlier today relating to Standing Order 197 be withdrawn.

I indicate to the House that this measure will be dealt with by way of a sessional order rather than a standing order.

Motion agreed to.


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Standing Orders 51 and 197 be rescinded.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [7.32]: By leave, I move that the following new standing orders be adopted:

No Confidence in Speaker

124 The procedure for a no confidence motion in the Speaker is as follows:

(1) A notice must be given.

(2) Such notice shall take the place of and be called upon at the time for consideration of Matters of Public Importance at the next sitting of the House after the notice was given.

(3) On any day when such notices are set down, the House cannot consider notices of Matters of Public Importance.

(4) The motion cannot be postponed or amended.

(5) The motion may be withdrawn with the leave of the House.

(6) Debate will be as follows:

(a) Mover Unspecified

(b) Member leading the debate in
opposition to the motion Unspecified

(c) Any other Member 20 minutes

(d) Response by Member leading the
debate in opposition to
the motion 30 minutes

(e) Mover in reply 30 minutes

(7) The following motions cannot be moved:

That the Member be now heard

That the Member be not further heard

That the question be now put (closure)

That the question be now put (previous question)

Censure of Speaker

125 The procedure for a motion of censure of the Speaker is as follows:

(1) A notice must be given.

(2) Such notice shall take the place of and be called upon at the time for consideration of Matters of Public Importance at that sitting.

(3) Debate will be as follows:

(a) Mover 15 minutes

(b) Member leading the debate in
opposition to the motion 15 minutes

(c) Four other Members 10 minutes

(d) Response by Member leading the
debate in opposition to

the motion 10 minutes

(e) Mover in reply 10 minutes

(4) The following motions cannot be moved:

That the Member be now heard

That the Member be not further heard

That the question be now put (closure)

That the question be now put (previous
question)

As outlined in debate earlier, I have moved this motion because the Opposition believes that the procedures for motions of no confidence in the Speaker or censure of the Speaker should be set out in discrete standing orders as the Speaker is neither a Minister nor an ordinary member of the House. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.34]: The Government agrees with the motion. It is a commonsense measure as it isolates the procedures for dissent and no confidence motions relating to Ministers and honourable members. The new standing orders will place the Speaker, in terms of no confidence and censure motions, in a procedural pattern that the he and other honourable members can follow. The present standing orders leave the Speaker outside the debate. The motion has a great deal of merit and I thank the honourable member for moving it.

Motion agreed to.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.35]: I move:

That:

(1) Where a submission is made in writing to the Speaker by a person who has been referred to in the Legislative Assembly by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified:

Page 4625

(a) claiming that the person or corporation has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person or corporation; and

(b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in Hansard,

and the Speaker is satisfied:

(c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee; and

(d) that it is practicable for the Committee to consider the submission under this resolution,

the Speaker shall refer the submission to that Committee.

(2) The Committee may decide not to consider a submission referred to it under this resolution if the Committee considers that the subject of the submission is not sufficiently serious or the submission is frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character, and such a decision shall be reported to the Legislative Assembly.

(3) If the Committee decides to consider a submission under this resolution, the Committee may confer with the person who made the submission and any Member who referred in the Legislative Assembly to that person or corporation.

(4) In considering a submission under this resolution, the Committee shall meet in private session.

(5) The Committee shall not publish a submission referred to it under this resolution of its proceedings in relation to such a submission, but may present minutes of its proceedings and all or part of such submission to the Legislative Assembly.

(6) In considering a submission under this resolution and reporting to the Legislative Assembly the Committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the Legislative Assembly or the submission.

(7) In its report to the Legislative Assembly on a submission under this resolution, the Committee may make either of the following recommendations:

(a) that no further action be taken by the Committee or the Legislative Assembly in relation to the submission; or

(b) that a response by the person who made the submission, in terms specified in the report and agreed to by the person or corporation and the Committee, be published by the Legislative Assembly or incorporated in Hansard,

and shall not make any other recommendations.

(8) A document presented to the Legislative Assembly under paragraph (5) or (7):

(a) in the case of a response by a person or corporation who made a submission, shall be succinct and strictly relevant to the questions in issue and shall not contain anything offensive in character; and

(b) shall not contain any matter the publication of which would have the effect of:

(i) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person or corporation, or unreasonably invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph (1); or

(ii) unreasonably adding to or aggravating any such adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by a person.

(9) A corporation making a submission under this resolution is required to make it under their common seal.

I shall make a few brief comments about the motion currently under consideration. This motion will give individuals and corporations a right of reply to adverse references made about them by members of the Legislative Assembly. The support of this House for this change will be a victory for free speech, and very much in the interests of a truly democratic society. From today the people of New South Wales will have the opportunity to reply to matters raised in this House under the cloak of absolute privilege. This motion is important because it strikes a balance that maintains the absolute right and privilege of honourable members to speak freely in this place. But from now citizens will have a corresponding right. They will have the opportunity to respond to matters raised in this place.

From today the New South Wales Parliament will no longer be a coward's castle. In the past certain members of this House have overstepped the line. They have abused the privileges extended to them by virtue of their membership of the Parliament. They have ignored an essential element of democracy, that every right encompasses a corresponding responsibility. With the passing of this motion all honourable members will be more accountable for the statements they make in this place. That can only be a good thing. The motion arises out of a discussion paper prepared by the Clerks of the Legislative Assembly, and our thanks are due to them. That paper was distributed for consultation. It has subsequently been adopted by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee comprising the Speaker, the Leader of the House, the manager of Opposition business, the Government and Opposition Whips and Deputy Whips, the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

The New South Wales Parliament will not be the first Parliament to adopt procedures of this nature. The motion before the House is comparable to existing models used in other jurisdictions. In February 1988 the Senate adopted procedures to give citizens an opportunity to reply to adverse references made by senators. Since then, 22 cases have been considered by the Senate Committee of Privileges. The Senate provisions stem from one of 11 resolutions relating to parliamentary privilege. These resolutions were in turn adopted as a two-part response to the 1984 report of the Commonwealth Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. The other part of the response resulted in the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. In considering a citizen's right of reply, the Commonwealth joint committee concluded:

Page 4626

. . . some means should be sought to meet the legitimate concerns of those who, regardless of the reasons, have been subjected to unfair or groundless Parliamentary attack on their good names and reputations.

The committee further stated:

We think the only practical solution consistent with the maintenance in its most untrammelled form of freedom of speech and the rights of members of the public to their good reputation may lie - and we emphasise the word "may" - in adopting internal means of placing on record an answer to a Parliamentary attack. If such an answer is to have any efficacy, we think it should become part of the record of Parliament so as to carry back to the forum in which the attack was made a refutation or explanation.

The committee suggested a model. The essential elements of that model would ensure, first, that complaints be subject to rigorous screening; and, secondly, that there be clear limits on what may be put in an answer which is incorporated in Hansard. The mechanism proposed by the committee envisaged persons applying direct to the committee of privileges of the relevant House, and for that committee to have wide discretionary powers to deal with the complaint as it thought fit. The committee rejected a proposal to have complaints referred directly to the Presiding Officers as it felt that this "would place the Presiding Officer in the invidious position of taking responsibility for the threshold decision".

The Senate model has been operating for some time, and successfully at that. The essential elements of the Senate procedure are as follows: persons may forward submissions, subject to certain rules, to the President, but they are available only to persons named or readily identified in debate in the Senate and do not cover persons referred to by committee witnesses. A person must be able to claim that she or he has been "adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded by reason of that reference". If satisfied that a submission is not trivial, vexatious, frivolous or offensive and that it is practicable for the Senate Committee of Privileges to consider it, the President must refer it to that committee. The committee then has a similar discretion to the President in considering submissions and may confer with the person and senator and report to the Senate either that no further action be taken or that the person's response in terms agreed to by the person and the committee should be published or incorporated in Hansard.

Additionally, when such reports are presented to the Senate they are ordered to be printed and a motion is moved for the Senate to adopt them. In December 1991 the Senate Committee of Privileges reported on its work since the passage of the privilege resolutions. One chapter reviewed the application of a citizen's right of reply. The committee considered submissions as analogous to senators' personal explanations or claims of misrepresentation and deliberated with this factor in mind. The committee emphasised that submissions should be concise and strictly relevant to the issues under consideration and that they should not contain any statements that might further aggravate the situation. The committee decided that those provisions were consistent with the requirements for personal explanations or claims of misrepresentation.

It should be noted that the Senate committee does not consider or judge the truth of any statement made in the Senate or of any submission in reply. Thus the committee, in making a recommendation that a right of reply be given, is not making a finding of wrongdoing on the part of a senator. This aspect is reflected in the current motion. In this regard the procedures relating to the right of reply may best be compared with the right to present petitions to the Senate. It is the privilege of any individual in the community to petition the Parliament to obtain redress of grievances, and a moral obligation is placed on a senator to present the petition even if he or she does not agree with the contents of the petition. Similarly, the Senate committee does not have to agree with, nor is it permitted to judge the rights and wrongs of, the matter before it. The Senate Committee of Privileges, in evaluating the procedure for a citizen's right of reply, concluded:

Despite the behind-the-scenes workload involved in considering the matters, the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages, both perceived at the time of introduction of the process and uncovered during the succeeding three-and-a-half years, as indicated in the above account.

Of the jurisdictions other than the Senate the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly has the most extensive history in examining the issue of a citizen's right of reply. Its history is encapsulated in the August 1993 report of the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedures. In the first Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly an individual was named by a member, acting on the basis of information given by a consultant, as allegedly having links with the X-rated video industry and organised crime. Eventually the member apologised to the individual. The individual accepted the apology and said that he hoped that, in the future, others would be allowed the right of reply so that they would not suffer as he had from malicious allegations made by unscrupulous informers.

The Australian Capital Territory committee, with the benefit of Senate experience, considered that the following guidelines were necessary for the effective implementation of the procedure for a right of reply: that the procedure relate only to statements made in the Chamber; that it be available both to private individuals and to corporations; and that a parliamentary body consider the submissions and, in doing so, adopt the Senate's practise of not attempting to determine the truth or otherwise of the initial allegation and subsequent response. The motion before the House also encapsulates these necessary factors. The matters to which I have referred illustrate the history of the concept of a right of reply and the reasons why today's motion
Page 4627
should be supported. However, there are other powerful reasons why this motion should be passed. For too long members in this place have been able to defame with impunity.

Whilst freedom of speech is crucial to the proper functioning of this place and controversial matters must be able to be raised, when this privilege is abused the aggrieved person should have the means to correct the record. Although aggrieved persons can currently approach another member of Parliament to plead their case, often this is not a satisfactory option, particularly if the subsequent debate receives less coverage in the media. Alternatively, one could challenge a member to repeat the allegations outside the House. But, as we all know, this challenge is rarely taken up by the member in question. In conclusion, today's motion is an extremely important innovation in the history of this House. I urge all honourable members to support its terms. I indicate that if honourable members require additional speaking time the Government will not object to such a request.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [7.45]: On the basis of the Bill of Rights, which was introduced in 1690, the principle of freedom of speech has been fundamental to the operation of all parliaments under the Westminster system, of which this House is a derivative. Any proposal which would have the effect of calling into question what is said in this House must be regarded very gravely. The motion moved by the Minister for Police does not in itself call into question what honourable members say, but citizens will be placed on a footing which will enable them to rebut comments made about them in the Parliament by members of Parliament. I regard that as an opening which may or may not be desirable. It is important to realise that this motion provides an opening. At the end of the day we do not know whether that will be a good thing. Nonetheless, I suggest to the House that that is the first chink in the armour.

The Bill of Rights states that nothing that is said in a House of Parliament can be challenged in any other place. It is as simple as that. Members of Parliament cannot be sued for defamation, cannot be prosecuted, and have absolute privilege within the Parliament simply because of that statement in the Bill of Rights. This motion would establish a procedure by which statements made in this House could be challenged. As I said earlier, that may turn out to be a good thing. I am not dismissing it out of hand and I am not contributing to this debate simply to argue against or reject this motion. I am saying that it is an idea that should be approached with the greatest of caution. That is the view of other legislators who have looked at the same idea. The Leader of the House referred to the practise of the Australian Senate, which has adopted a certain model. But it should be understood that the mother of all parliaments - the House of Commons - has recommended against a formalised right of citizen's reply. The House of Commons looked at the Senate procedure and the House of Commons Procedure Committee made the following points as set out in a discussion paper:

the time taken in the first case robbed the rebuttal of any immediacy;

by allowing any rebuttal at all somebody is passing judgment on the Member;

That is a significant point. By allowing a rebuttal, we will allow somebody to pass judgment on what is said in this place. The House of Commons Procedure Committee continued:

any refusal by an aggrieved person to take advantage of the procedure might be seen as an acceptance of the truth of the allegations;

That point has to be understood. A lot of people in the community will not even be aware of what is said about them and, for whatever reason, they may not wish to challenge it. Then their failure to do so could be used against them. They could be told, "There is a mechanism available. Because you did not avail yourself of it, what was said in the Parliament about you must be true." The House of Commons Procedure Committee also said:

the actual words objected to . . . were not sufficiently damaging to justify a formal right of reply.

That is not a particularly strong argument, because it will depend upon the facts of the case. Two of those elements stick in my mind. By allowing a rebuttal we would be passing judgment upon anything that is said in this House. Any failure by an aggrieved person to take advantage of this procedure could well be seen to constitute an acceptance of the truth of the allegations. When the Minister for Police replies to this debate I would like him to inform the House how he proposes to rebut those two serious concerns expressed by the House of Commons Procedure Committee. A report by the Western Australian parliamentary Standards Committee endorsed the reservations set out in the House of Commons report and stated:

the Senate procedures required the drafting of `cumbersome regulations' which are not easy to interpret in practice;

It also stated:

it `is difficult to find any evidence to this stage that they have added significantly to the rights available to citizens'.

When debate on this motion began I was unaware that that formula was available in the Australian Senate. I do not think most citizens are aware that, if they have concerns about something that is said in the Australian Senate, they have a mechanism for redress. It is difficult to see how this procedure has added significantly to citizens rights. That is not to say that the idea is without merit. Its time has come and the issue should be considered seriously. The Opposition does not believe there has been an adequate process of community consultation or community information about this matter. I am unaware of anyone in the community who knows of this proposal. The views of the Australian Journalists Association are not known to me, nor are the views of the respective political parties. The proposal has not aroused much community interest, nor is it proposed in response to community demands.

Page 4628

I stand to be corrected but I do not believe that many members of this House received complaints about what is said about people in Parliament. I am not aware of any community demand for a change. The point I make is that this proposal provides an opening that may ultimately result in fundamental change. The Opposition does not wish to be negative about this issue, but to have the matter further considered. Accordingly, on behalf of the Opposition, I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word "That" where first appearing, the words "the following proposed sessional order be referred to the Standing Ethics Committee for consideration and report to the House:".

The Standing Ethics Committee is an appropriate vehicle to look carefully at the experience in the Australian Senate; the experience in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly; and at any other parliaments which may have adopted a similar model. The proposal so far has involved the issuing of a discussion paper of very limited circulation and a press release by the Premier, which gained some publicity. Suddenly the motion is presented to this House to decide. This House has a number of committees, one of which is the Standing Ethics Committee, chaired by the honourable member for Auburn. It is appropriate that major proposals which could have long-range implications are examined by one of the committees of the House. Of all the committees of the House the most appropriate one is the Standing Ethics Committee.

The other alternative would be to move for the establishment of a separate select committee for this purpose. However, the Opposition does not believe that is justified, but it is in order for an existing standing committee to examine the matter, to advertise, to hear evidence, to weigh up community concerns, possibly to take advice from the Australian Senate and from the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, to consider the matter and deliberate upon it, and then report to this House. The Standing Ethics Committee is doing good work on the establishment of codes of conduct. It has a community advisory panel assisting it and it has made every attempt to gain ideas from the wider community. Once again, there has not been a great deal of public interest in codes of conduct for members of Parliament but some people are very interested in the issue and they have come forward. The committee has brought down some interim ideas, which have been distributed to members for their consideration. That is exactly what could be done in this instance.

It is always a matter of concern when established practices are set aside and when changes are brought about without careful consideration of the long-range ramifications of those changes. Surely members would wish to deliberate very carefully before they embark upon a path which, like this one, is pregnant with so many possibilities. Accordingly, and I do not seek to prolong debate, I commend the amendment and I urge the Leader of the House to consider it seriously. I do not think there will be any loss by delay. Parliament has been established here since 1856. The Bill of Rights of 1690 celebrates its 306th anniversary this year. If it takes a few months for the Standing Ethics Committee to look at the proposal there will be no harm done. The committee can report in early 1997 and the House can consider its report.

There is nothing to be lost by the process that I am advocating; there is nothing to be gained by the Government forcing this matter through tonight; and there is nothing to be gained by the Opposition in opposing it. That is not a politically-partisan issue. It is an issue that should affect all honourable members in our conduct as members of this House and in the exercise of the privileges given to us by membership of this House. There is a tremendous amount that goes on here that is an abuse of members of the House, but there is not much said in the House which reflects upon people outside, other than the sorts of matters that a Minister might appropriately report to the House affecting the conduct of companies or citizens. I am not aware that a great many people have expressed a desire for a right of reply. Accordingly, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [7.56]: Whilst I listened carefully to the honourable member for Gosford, I am a little surprised at his latent concern as the matter has been on the table for some time with the Standing Orders Committee and was circulated twice, if my memory serves me well, to ensure that all members had an opportunity to view the document and for those within parties to express a corporate opinion through their party organisation. Therefore, I am not entirely sure why the amendment in the form it comes to us is being proposed when these opportunities have already been extended. Our party has taken this matter seriously. I agree with the honourable member for Gosford that this matter should not be taken lightly. The matter of privilege is a serious matter and one that has some precedent.

The proposal is an important step forward in our democratic society and is based on the operation of the Senate. It seems to me that the testing period has demonstrated that the mechanisms for ensuring that frivolous cases are not dealt with is probably important. There are occasions when statements under privilege, no matter how well intentioned in support of a genuine concern, can be wrong. They can be wrong in fact or personally embarrassing in the extreme by implication, without necessarily being correct. This proposed sessional order is designed to offer an opportunity to redress this situation but only after due consideration by the Speaker and then, if considered appropriate, by the privileges committee - in our case that may well be the ethics committee. Nevertheless it would go through those two stages before any decision was made for any opportunity for redress by way of a statement in Hansard was agreed to.

Page 4629

As has already been mentioned, defamed persons and those in other sorts of distress as a result of statements made in this or any other Chamber of the Westminster system may well be poorly treated and their opportunities for legal remedies of any sort may well be beyond their financial means. As a result we could perpetuate an unjust situation that would do none of us in legislatures any good and would certainly not assist the person who may well have been wronged, albeit inadvertently or by way of wrong information, or whatever.

I am sure that honourable members who raise matters in this House involving naming people or corporations do so with every good intention for their constituency. However, that does not guarantee accuracy on every occasion. This proposal offers a restricted way of dealing with the process of a form of redress which has been exercised only 22 times in the Senate and which, as the honourable member for Gosford said, has a relatively low profile to the general public. The discussion paper, in referring to Senate practice, states that the issue does not cover persons referred to as committee witnesses. That is an important aspect. The document also states:

•a person must be able to claim that he or she has been `adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference;

•if satisfied a submission is not trivial, vexatious, frivolous or offensive, and that it is practicable for the Committee of Privileges to consider it, the [Speaker] must refer it to the Committee of Privileges;

or whichever committee is to deal with the matter. It certainly places weight on the Speaker, who has a responsibility to determine, on the basis of information provided and evidence available, whether the matter should be referred to the committee. The committee then has absolute control of that reference. It can decide whether to pursue it; question either the person who made the statement in the House or the person seeking redress; call evidence from other quarters; throw the matter out; or hear it, deal with it and not report - it is entirely the prerogative of the committee. The proposal enshrines those principles and would not depart from them unless strong evidence existed to the contrary. The dismissal under the Senate operation is significant, and the document states in that regard:

The Committee considers submissions as analogous to Senators' [or members'] personal explanations or claims of misrepresentation, and has deliberated with this factor in mind. The Committee has emphasised that submissions must be concise and strictly relevant to the issues under consideration and that they must not contain any statements that may further aggravate the situation. In the view of the Committee, these provisions are consistent with the requirements for personal explanations or claims of misrepresentation, and therefore the analogy is reasonable.

It should be noted that the Committee does not consider or judge the truth of any statement made in the Senate or of any submission in reply. Thus the Committee, in making a recommendation that a right of reply be given, is not making a finding of wrongdoing on the part of a Senator [or member]. In this regard, the procedures relating to right of reply may best be compared with the right to present petitions. It is the privilege of any individual in the community to petition the Parliament to obtain redress of grievances, and a moral obligation is placed on a Senator [or member] to present the petition, even if the Senator [or member] does not agree with the contents of the petition. Similarly, the Committee does not have to agree with, nor is it permitted to judge the rights and wrongs of, the matters before it.

The checks and balances that are introduced with the proposal for the addition of standing orders for citizens' right of reply are adequate. The proposal adds a new dimension to being seen by the general community to be fair and reasonable. No blame will be placed on the member who raises the matter in the House, or on the committee that deals with it. Nor can any blame be apportioned to the Speaker who refers the matter to the committee. This is a reasonable proposal. The matter has been raised by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee on two occasions. The document has been extensively circulated to honourable members and they have had adequate time to debate it within their various party and individual group forums. I would like to see this matter proceed without amendment.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.04]: I support the motion in principle, but in doing so I want to make a couple of remarks about process and about the mechanism to introduce it into this House. It involves such a fundamental question that it must be dealt with cautiously, correctly and comprehensively. The discussion paper and other matters relating to considerations show that other jurisdictions have dealt with it carefully, have established committees, and have taken a great deal of time with their deliberations. The discussion paper raises more issues than it resolves. The Minister, in moving the motion, did not adequately address many of those issues.

It is proper that the Standing Ethics Committee should be involved. That committee is currently compiling a code of conduct and I believe that the issues of privilege, abuse of privilege and the rights of citizens are linked to the conduct of members of Parliament, and that issue may be addressed within the code of conduct. Putting that aside, a reference to the Standing Ethics Committee will allow for an open and public process of calling for public submissions. This issue goes to the heart of the rights of the community as much as the rights of members of Parliament. Membership of the Standing Ethics Committee includes community members, and if public submissions and consideration were called for, the community would become involved. Clearly, any provisions for a right of reply will seek to balance freedom of speech versus the abuse of privilege.

Having made those opening remarks and indicated that I am not happy with the motion being bulldozed through tonight - because there is a different and better way to deal with it - I will raise a couple of areas that need examination. Any right
Page 4630
of reply should only be allowed if it guarantees certain fundamentals. One is that nothing in the right of reply should be vexatious, offensive or aggravating. In other words, it does not extend the argument that it should be germane and that any right of reply or response should be commensurate with the attack. The other matter that needs to be considered is the proper process of gatekeeping. I do not gain any comfort from the gatekeeping process in this motion. Gatekeeping is essential and has to be apolitical.

The gatekeeper has to be clear in determining and ensuring that the right of reply is consistent with those heads of consideration that I mentioned earlier. Equally, the other issue that goes to the heart of the matter is freedom of speech. The rights of privilege that exist in Parliament should not in any way be blunted by an improper mechanism for right of reply. The proposal is essentially that the submission will be referred to the Speaker as the first gatekeeper, then to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, with one or two recommendations possibly following.

In the submissions presented to the Standing Ethics Committee in response to the draft code of conduct, Mr Athol Moffitt raised this issue in the context of that code of conduct, but he criticised the fact that it did not particularly address the issue of the right of reply. But the conduct of members in regard to privilege and whether it is misused or abused is a matter of ethics and conduct. He was correct in saying it should be relevant to the code of conduct. In regard to the question of abuse or misuse, it goes to the heart of the matter that we have to wrestle with that balance between abuse of privilege and the compelling need for freedom of speech.

Currently any person who is attacked in Parliament relies on qualified privilege as a defence in any defamation action that might be brought. In other words, someone who responds outside the Parliament has some qualified privilege. As I understand it, that is linked into some precedent in the Adams v Wood case of 1917 that occurred during World War I in which a general was attacked in the House of Commons. That qualified privilege applies only when the response - indeed the counter-attack, in a sense - is commensurate with and germane to the parliamentary attack. The difficulty with qualified privilege for somebody outside is the expense of legal action; it may be quite prohibitive.

The proposal put by Athol Moffitt is that the gatekeeper should be an independent officer. In his submission to the Standing Ethics Committee he suggested that that independent officer should be either a Supreme Court judge or the Ombudsman, but somebody who can independently determine whether or not the response is germane. I see that as an essential element. If the matter comes back to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, which is bound to be a politicised committee with Government members predominating, the right of reply might not be dealt with without prejudice or bias. These matters go to the heart of this issue. The proposal has great merit, but there are pitfalls which have been pointed out in the discussion paper and to the ethics committee in response to the draft code of conduct. The argument put by previous speakers on this side, that indeed it is a matter that need not be dealt with hastily but with some wisdom, is a strong one. I have not seen people marching in the streets asking for the right of reply. On the other hand, I would be concerned that we might make a hasty decision which in some way blunted a member's freedom of speech and use of privilege. The amendment that has been proposed sets a wiser course than passing the motion tonight. I support the amendment.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [8.13]: I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford. I call upon the House to give this matter further and more earnest consideration. The text of the motion could be subjected to considerable improvement in regard to the manner in which the process was carried through, if the result at the end of the day was to continue with this proceeding. However, having expressed that cautious support for the amendment moved by the Opposition and supported by the honourable member for Manly, I should say that I have seldom heard so much nonsense spoken as I have heard in this House tonight. This motion should be rejected out of hand as an enormous intrusion into the rights and privileges of the members of Parliament and of the citizens who elect those members of Parliament.

The right which is given to members of Parliament goes back many hundreds of years; it is a very sacred trust. If one goes back to the famous address by Edmund Burke in his speech to the electors of Bristol in the 18th century, one finds a very good enunciation of the role of a member of Parliament. He said a member of Parliament is to act as a representative of the people who put that person in Parliament; not to act simply as a conduit for the constituents, not to slavishly carry out the wishes of the constituents, but to evaluate all the information, including the views of constituents, in the determination of matters that come before that member as a member of Parliament and to make the right decision under all the circumstances.

In exercise of that sacred trust certain privileges have been accorded to members of Parliament, including the right of free speech, and the right to make any assertion in the House that a person considers appropriate without fear of reprisal. The motion is the first crack in the armour of that undeniable and powerful right of a democracy. I do not think that honourable members should take that breaking down of the democratic process too lightly. In the House today honourable members saw a certain devolution of democratic rights in amendments to the standing orders. It alarms me that we are seeing a further devolution of that democratic right tonight. Very little has been said in support of this motion, either by the Minister who
Page 4631
introduced it, or my very good friend the honourable member for Waratah who, for the most part, related matters that had been said by other people or reread the motion. He did not add too much to the debate.

The two great proponents of this proposal in Australia are the Senate and the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Any matter sponsored by those two august bodies is almost enough to turn one off the idea in the first place. Members of the Senate have become past masters of the art of navel gazing; it is a House consumed by process, complexities and convolutions of what it sees as its democratic process. Its concept of procedure to be adopted has been strenuously resisted by the House of Representatives, which represents more rational thinking citizens of Australia.

If one has regard to the matters brought before the Senate and their outcome, one realises that it has added not one jot to the democratic process. The Senate is merely filling up time and giving functions and operations for its members without adding any real value to the process to which it purports to want to add value. I have a lot of good friends at the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, but it is a bit like a glorified council; it is a mickey mouse Parliament. The dynamics of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly are vastly different from the dynamics which revolve around a Parliament of this size, of this stature, and which has the body of law, power and responsibility which this Legislative Assembly has.

I totally reject any recommendations that might come for this process from either the Senate or the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. One matter that concerns me - as touched on by the honourable member for Manly, and rightly so - is that this process is as subject to the possibility of political interference and lack of democracy as is anything else. This House has a procedures committee to investigate a proposal such as the present, giving to itself certain covert powers and the capacity to release only that which it wishes to release for any sort of public scrutiny. I do not think that that is necessarily democratic. We have a responsibility, reposing in Mr Speaker first of all, to determine whether he is satisfied that the proposal should go to a committee. The committee in this case, as nominated in the motion, is the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, although I doubt whether that is the right committee for it to go to.

As its name implies, the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee was set up to carry out a specific function: to consider the standing orders and procedures of the Parliament. It is not necessarily the correct deliberative body to examine these matters. Perhaps the Standing Ethics Committee may be more appropriate, but I doubt it. If the process proposed by the Government is to be followed a discrete and special committee should be set up, the membership of which reflects various points of view of members with the sole object of examining the type of material we are talking about. Whether it was the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, the Standing Ethics Committee, or a special committee, the majority of members would be Government members and the same sort of thing would happen as happens on other committees that have a majority of Government members: the committee becomes a clone of the Government. It is there to do the will of the Government.

The will of the Government at the time may be to allow something to go on the public record in rebuttal of a statement made by a member of Parliament that embarrasses that member of Parliament; but the committee may block the matter from being printed in Hansard if it is a member of Parliament whom the committee does not want to be embarrassed. Such matters would receive proper consideration only if the process were far more open and accountable, or if the deliberative process were far more obvious. Unless the committee delivers something beneficial to the democratic system it is of no use. It will be a time-consuming procedure. Considerable time will elapse between anything appearing in Hansard and the date on which the original statement was made in Parliament. The immediacy, the import, the feelings of hurt to the person will be far removed from the occasion on which the person felt hurt. Honourable members have another think coming if they think the publication of a sterile, massaged, carefully protective and sensitive statement in Hansard will in any way salve the bruised conscience, ego or mind of the person originally offended.

The experience in the Senate has been that the ultimate statements have been so innocuous that they were not worth the paper they were written on. We have to consider very carefully the efficacy of such a mechanism in adding anything to the democratic process. Many measures are available for people to seek redress from what is said in Parliament. In the years I have been a member of this Parliament some extremely nasty things have been said, many of which have been ultimately treated by the community with the contempt they deserve. They have been ventilated in a much better fashion than they could ever have been ventilated under the procedure that is proposed, and in a way in which responsibility rebounds on the perpetrator of the statement, if the statement is found to be totally irresponsible.

One has to balance the making of irresponsible statements, vexatious statements and damaging statements to people outside the House against the damage that may be done to the overall democratic process, the very heart of which is the capacity of elected parliamentarians to speak on behalf of their constituencies. Rarely does a member of this Parliament speak from a personal point of view, uninfluenced by the constituency he or she represents. We are here to articulate the views of our constituencies as we understand them. We should have the unfettered and unchallenged right to do that. If a person wants the right to be heard in
Page 4632
this Parliament, let that person stand for election to the Parliament, be elected by due process and earn the right to come in here to speak.

I am sure that all honourable members who sit in this Chamber have gone through a difficult process to get here. It is a testing process, the end of which we all probably arrived at by different routes; nonetheless each member in his or her way has earned the right to be here. One of the rewards of that right is the unfettered right of free speech on our part. We will not enhance the dignity of this establishment or the role of elected representatives by diminishing that right of free speech in any way. This form of reply has been largely rejected by all major parliaments around the world. In places where it has been adopted, it has not been successful; it has added nothing to the democratic process.

The motion should be rejected in the interests of preserving parliamentary integrity. However, if the Government insists on having the motion agreed to - it obviously has the numbers to do so - that can done in a better way than in the terms of the motion as it is now framed. I support the amendment and the sentiments of the honourable member for Manly who said that we can do better than this. Absolutely nothing could be lost by taking a few more months to get it as right as possible. We should go into the community to find out what it wants and factor that into the equation. If the effect of the motion is not to give the community what it wants, there is no point in putting it into effect on their behalf. I urge the Government to seriously consider adjourning the motion and referring it to the Standing Ethics Committee for further consideration. If the Government still considers that the motion should be accepted, its maturation during the period of adjournment will lead to a much better and more cogent formula than is currently before the House.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [8.27]: Honourable members of this House do not get many opportunities to debate partisan matters of principle in their early stages. We may have passed that point, but it is worthwhile for all honourable members to consider what we do, how we go about it and how we should change the process, if at all. In isolation a citizen's right of reply is an attractive concept to sell simplistically. If a citizen of this State has been wronged he or she should be given the chance to right that wrong. This motion is a means to an end. The implications and consequences of the changes proposed by the Government require greater consideration for a number of reasons. I advocate acceptance of the amendment because it leaves open an avenue to rectify potential problems. When honourable members of any Parliament make assertions or allegations about people outside, they are ultimately accountable. We are all accountable to our constituents. We all face periodic elections. We are accountable to both our colleagues in this Parliament and within the parties or groups of which we are members.

Importantly - the point is not made often enough - members of Parliament are accountable to themselves. We go through a fairly exhaustive process that ultimately results in our becoming members of this place, no matter where we sit. In that process we are tested by many people, and ultimately have the support of thousands or, indeed, tens of thousands of people who would like to place us in this Chamber. So we have gone through a process after which people have said, "Yes, we place our trust in you; yes, we give you that role to play; and, yes, we will trust you to exercise your judgment in accordance with the rights that you are given."

The motion effectively proposes a formal process of challenge to what a member may say in this House. On occasions members will, inadvertently or perhaps vexatiously, make an allegation about a citizen of this State. I put it to the House that that would happen on only rare occasions, and certainly not frequently. There have been many occasions on which allegations made in this place have been proven to have veracity. More often than not, if not always, those allegations have been made in the public interest. Honourable members should bear that in mind because there are potential consequences where truthful allegations have been made against citizens. The right of reply by the means proposed could act as a disincentive to a member who is minded to expose an act or incident that is improper, illegal or corrupt.

To my mind, there are two key faults in the proposal. Firstly, as I have already indicated, it is formalising a process of passing judgment on a member of Parliament. Though the member has earned the trust of constituents and many people have placed their trust in the member, a member of the general community who would deny a truthful allegation will be allowed to pass judgment and cast doubt on the allegation that has been made. The second fault with the proposal is the lack of provision for immediacy of reply by the citizen. So, even if an untrue or vexatious allegation is made and reported in the media or become known somehow to many people in the State, the person against whom the allegation is made has no means of seeking redress immediately. By the time one goes through the process that is proposed, it could be weeks or even months before a reply is published. Of course the redress in those circumstances is, arguably, ineffective for practical purposes; it will simply be for the purposes of record.

I put it to the House that citizens whose character has been reflected on or damaged in any way by allegations made in this place already have an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Citizens who are not members of Parliament have the opportunity to seek out a member of this House or of the upper House to make a statement in this Parliament to rectify a statement that is claimed to be incorrect or unfair. That avenue for response has been used on many occasions. So, arguably, there is no need to introduce a new system.

Page 4633

All honourable members who contemplate making an allegation against a citizen should make that judgment carefully. It is most likely that all members of this House will think very carefully before electing to make an assertion or allegation against a citizen and consider whether available evidence supports or corroborates the allegation. Earlier I said that the proposed procedure could inhibit criticisms that honourable members could justifiably make in this House. On many occasions honourable members have identified persons involved in all sorts of illegal activities at a time when those persons are not subject to legal action and charges have not been laid. The making of such allegations in the House has brought pressure to bear on the person concerned, and brought the issue to the notice of the general public. That may have warned other citizens about illegal or improper activities, or caused agencies to act against those involved in the activities.

Effectively, allegations made in this place will have been made in the interests of the community and in some way have made this a better State. Those powers are given to members of Parliament, and their proper use of those powers more often than not has the desired result. Members exercise those rights of free speech without fear or favour in order that this might be a better State. Of course, the procedure of allowing for an immediate declaration that a citizen is seeking redress may inhibit the criticism, with honourable members being shackled and prevented from properly carrying out their duties if there is to be a neutering of the comments that they would make.

I make two final points. The use of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee to review a reply by a citizen could clearly become a political exercise because that committee will always be weighted in favour of the Government. Where the member who made the allegation is preparing a response, that response may be denied or encouraged depending on the will of the Government for reasons that are not entirely apolitical or non-partisan. That would be not only most unfair but a great shame because it would deny the operation of a fair system. Serious consideration has to be given to a better system, if some such system is to be foisted upon us.

Finally, I emphasise that currently citizens have a right of reply to an allegation made in this House by an honourable member. Perhaps citizens need to be made more aware of that avenue of reply. One hundred and forty one members represent the people in the Houses of this Parliament. Where one member has made an allegation against a citizen, the person aggrieved can seek a form of reply through means that exist in both Houses. That procedure has been adopted in the past. It ought to be relied upon. I put it to the House that that procedure has proved to be effective, and it should continue to be used rather than have this House adopt the unbalanced system proposed by the Government.

Ultimately, the responsibility must rest with members of Parliament who make such assertions and allegations. But we must also accept that members of Parliament have subjected themselves to community scrutiny and assessment, have been chosen and supported by the community and have been given rights that the community wishes them to exercise. Members of Parliament have been entrusted with the proper exercise of those rights. Perhaps members of Parliament and citizens ought to ensure that members of Parliament are held accountable by their constituencies and by their peers to ensure that rights are exercised appropriately and properly in the interests of our State and our society.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [8.39]: I find myself in a very difficult situation. Whilst I appreciate the intent of the motion moved by the Leader of the House, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the honourable member for Hawkesbury, a former and eminent Speaker of this House, who outlined a member's responsibilities in making allegations and assertions in this House. Members who use this House to denigrate others have to take responsibility for their remarks. During the time I have been a member of this House I have raised many matters on the floor of the House and have referred to various things that have occurred. I do not believe that in doing so I have once named anybody. But as a member of Parliament I should be allowed, if I deem it necessary, to name someone with regard to malpractice, some form of corruption or similar event in my electorate. I should not be fettered. I defend vigorously the rights of members of Parliament, representing their electorates, to be entirely free of any responsibility other than the need to exercise commonsense and decency in bringing matters before the Parliament. The honourable member for Hawkesbury certainly rates amongst the best Speakers and his advice should be taken on board and considered carefully. I do not specifically agree with the amendment as I do not think it will solve the problem at all. The matter should be adjourned at this stage and further consideration given to it, particularly from the point of view of impressing upon members of Parliament that once they become members of this House they do not have a licence to defame people, whether or not they believe they have done something wrong.

All citizens have the right to have their character upheld until such time as the evidence presented deems their character to be questionable. If I am coward enough to come into cowards' castle and name somebody out of spite, I should not be in this place. I should not be a member of Parliament representing the people of my electorate because I have not got the stability or the courage to do the job that the people elected me to do. That is the thinking that should be behind this matter. I will not surrender tamely the right that the people of the electorate of Bathurst have given me to mention matters in this House that have a bearing on their lives.

Page 4634

The honourable member for Hawkesbury was 100 per cent correct when he said that a lot of rubbish has been spoken in this debate. The amendment does not enhance the proposition one bit. I very much regret that I believe there is no necessity whatsoever to be giving people the right of reply when members make statements in Parliament for which they are not prepared to accept full responsibility. A person's character is sacrosanct and any member who names people, defames or criticises them, whether or not the facts put before the House are true, does so at his own risk. Members of Parliament are required to act with dignity and decency. Consequently, I find myself in a position where I can support neither the amendment nor the motion before the House.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [8.44]: I support the amendment moved by the Opposition. I do so bearing in mind the strictures delivered by the honourable member for Bathurst, who has served this House for a long period of time. Although I have only been a member of this House for 18 months, on two occasions I have had to mention the names of individuals in this place to prove a point. The first case involved a real estate agent against whom an adverse finding had been made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and who had reinvented himself through another company in my electorate. Other agents and individuals in the community were threatened with legal action when they sought to pursue the issue of the ICAC investigation with the licensing body of real estate agents. I believed it was important that the people of Northcott be made aware of the reinvention of this character and I brought that matter to this Chamber. I did so with forethought and in the interests of my electorate.

Mr Clough: And you accepted the responsibility.

Mr O'FARRELL: I accepted the responsibility and I bore the heat that I received from that quarter afterwards. The second case related to an ongoing environmental matter in my electorate. The local council presented to a commission of inquiry an expert to endorse the process involved. The local residents, who again were threatened with writs, of which one is still before the courts, discovered that the so-called expert was, in fact, a director of a sister company. The local media was not prepared to expose that story, for legal reasons. I raised the matter in this Chamber. Again I accepted the responsibility and again I was prepared to bear the heat. I agree with the honourable member for Bathurst that neither of those matters was raised lightly and that such action should be taken rarely. Matters such as those should be raised with caution and with some sense of justice. That is why this debate ought to be adjourned until the Standing Ethics Committee, of which I and the honourable member for Manly are members, has considered these matters.

I am concerned when the Leader of the House talks about high principle. He is not a man whose career is littered with high principle. I suppose that can be said of any party hack on either side of the House, but his speech in this debate went to the heart of the issue. This motion is a media stunt designed to capture the imagination of the public and will not necessarily solve the problem in the best way. The rhetoric of the Leader of the House is not matched by the actions of the Government either since its election or before. As recently as this afternoon a Minister of the Crown used question time to attack a company associated with a member on this side of the House with no apologies, ifs, buts or anything else.

Only two years ago a member of this Chamber made the gravest possible allegations of paedophilia against a member of the public. I note that last month the royal commissioner dismissed those allegations. He did not use those words but essentially found there was "no case to answer". That man's reputation will never recover from the attack that was unleashed upon him in this Chamber. In that situation I am not sure what this so-called citizen's right of reply would achieve. What would it offer? How can that person suddenly inform not only the 4.5 million people across New South Wales but the rest of Australia that he is not a paedophile as named in this Chamber under parliamentary privilege, and represented as such in media reports and television programs two years ago?

I agree with the comments of the honourable member for Davidson. When issues are resolved down the track I am not sure that this measure will actually provide the relief suggested by the Minister. I strongly believe that this step is premature, bearing in mind the work of the Standing Ethics Committee. Only yesterday Parliament agreed to an extension of a month for the committee's deliberations on a code of ethics for members. That code goes to the heart of the issues being considered in this debate. The first or second clause of the code encourages members to strive to act honestly and truthfully in everything they do.

I am concerned that the specific proposal set out in the motion may overlap the committee's work. The committee's deadline is four weeks away and the committee may well have to reconsider the whole process in that four weeks. I am sure the honourable member for Manly agrees, and the honourable member for Cabramatta, if she were still in the Chamber, would also agree. What mechanism will deal with so-called breaches of our code? Will it be an external appointee? Will it be a committee of this place? How does that fit with the right of reply and, as the honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Manly have said, with an individual member's actions in this Chamber and his motivation for his actions? Why is there a rush? Why can the Government not accept the Opposition's amendment? Why can it not accept the considered suggestion of the honourable member for Bathurst, who I am sure with some difficulty entered
Page 4635
this debate this evening? It is not a good reflection on the Government that it has ignored the suggestion of an honourable member who has served in this place for as long as he has.

The honourable member for Waratah, in response to the honourable member for Gosford, said that this issue had been before a committee and on the notice paper for some time. I do not care if it has been on the notice paper for a year. At the end of the day we must get it right. An ethics committee of this Parliament is considering matters that are so intertwined with this issue that they are hardly able to be separated. If close consideration is not given to this issue, a genie will be let out of the bottle and it will never be put back in. All members of the House ought to consider that. It is better on this occasion to make sure that the mechanism is the right one, rather than going too far or not far enough, because there will never be a chance to change it. I am reminded of a discussion I had with the honourable member for Manly in another place earlier this evening about another institution in this State. The fact is that some institutions and topics may sound sexy in the public domain, but once in place their pin-ups cannot be taken down.

I am concerned also that this proposal affects only this Chamber. Why is there not a joint proposal? Considering the arguments of the honourable member for Gosford and others who participated in debate tonight, why should there be some restriction on what members of the lower House can and cannot say if that restriction will not apply to members of the upper House? I strongly believe that this House is the pre-eminent Chamber, for each of us is directly elected by our electors, not on a list system. Yet this proposal as it stands relates only to this Chamber, and may place restrictions on me that will not be imposed on members of the other place, for the reason that the Government does not control the upper House. The honourable member for Manly well knows my views on the last Parliament. But on issues like this I have much greater faith in a balance of power than I have in such proposals being introduced by a Labor Party which has no record in this area at all.

This important issue goes to the rights of citizens and of members of Parliament. Have those issues been considered in this process? The honourable member for Gosford raised the matters considered by the House of Commons committee. No attempt has been made by the Leader of the House to address any of those issues. The honourable member for Davidson mentioned the possibility of delay. The honourable member for Gosford asked what if somebody does not know they have been attacked in this place and does not avail themselves of the opportunity to reply, as provided for by this motion? Would failure to reply prove that the allegation is accurate?

The Senate model was canvassed in this debate, particularly by the honourable member for Hawkesbury. I am aware that model was strongly pushed by the Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, but it was also a by-product of a balance of power in the Federal Senate dominated by the Democrats. The honourable member for Hawkesbury spoke about the committee. Currently the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee has six ALP members, four Liberal members and one Independent member, so Government members are in the majority. I agree with the honourable member for Hawkesbury that under this model it is inevitable that at various times of stress and heat this committee can be used for political reasons. It is my understanding that one of the benefits of the Senate committee is that the Government does not have a majority. Again, I find myself defending uncharacteristically a balance of power mechanism -

Mr Amery: That is because you are in Opposition.

Mr O'FARRELL: No. The Minister says it is because I am in Opposition. I have attacked openly what the honourable member for Manly stood for in the last Parliament, and he knows that.

Mr Amery: That is because in the last Parliament you were in Government.

Mr O'FARRELL: No. I have said that I never want to see a repeat of that situation. If the Senate model does work, it seems to me that it works because there is no government majority. There is no fear by Opposition members that Government members will gang up on them and pick up, for instance, the honourable member for Davidson today, or the honourable member for Orange tomorrow, or the honourable member for Strathfield the next day. But that balance of power in the membership of the Senate committee ensures certainty that issues will be considered properly. The Senate model has been in place for many years. Labor has no record in this area. It seems that this is a classic Labor stunt, dreamed up on a day when Labor, in trouble, needed yet another media story. I am sure that I saw the Leader of the House or the Premier deliver that stunt directly to the camera that stands in the Chamber during question time, and I have no doubt that a repeat of it could be seen on television news services.

When this proposal was introduced in the Senate, Labor was in power in just about every State in the Commonwealth except New South Wales. Those were the days. Not one single State Labor Government sought to follow that precedent. That says a lot about other governments; it says a lot about the Labor Party. The honourable member for Hawkesbury has made the point that nowhere else in Australia has a similar model been adopted. I believe that on occasions the weight of inaction is better than one person racing off hastily to introduce things that may come back to haunt us. No evidence has been presented this evening that the Senate model is the best one.

I have increasing concern about the influence which such a move will have on the Speaker. Under our system the Speaker is a member of one or other of the political parties. Under this proposal the
Page 4636
Speaker has to consider if the matter is so trivial or the submission so frivolous, vexatious or offensive that they should not be referred to the committee. That is a difficult job for the Speaker and it places him in a particular position. If at various times the committee is going to be used politically, the Speaker is going to find himself under enormous political pressure from the party of the day to benefit his party electorally. That possibility also has not been addressed.

I am indebted to the honourable member for Strathfield for raising an issue that needs to be answered in this House. What privilege or protection is afforded a complainant who has been attacked in this House by a member? If I attack a member of the public and he writes in to say O'Farrell is a liar, or if he says other gross things about me - and I am sure he would not - what protection is afforded his letter? That issue has not been addressed. If there is no protection, a complainant will be fairly circumspect in what he says. That goes to the heart of the process. Will the process be effective? Will it provide the relief that the person seeks?

Ultimately it may be that this House follows the example of the Federal Parliament. In fact, one day we might follow the Federal Parliament's example and have a privileges Act covering both Houses of this Parliament, and there might be a right of reply. But members must be sure of the principles involved in the process so that a just outcome is guaranteed. Once this genie is out of the bottle it will never be put back in. Therefore, I support the amendment which seeks to have this motion deferred until the ethics committee submits its report, which I remind the Minister is due by the end of October. What is the rush? If this was a serious and deliberate matter, it would be adjourned. The honourable member for Bathurst has said the same, and I believe the Government ought to accept his suggestion.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [8.59]: A number of honourable members have said in this debate that implementation of this motion would in some way lead to the position or rights of a member of Parliament being restricted, and that a member of Parliament ought to be unfettered in what he or she says in this House. All honourable members would agree with that; certainly no-one has suggested otherwise. This motion does not state or imply that a member of Parliament is restricted in what he or she may say. Earlier in the debate it was pointed out that it is now more than eight years since the Australian Senate resolved to adopt a system whereby citizens were given a right of reply to adverse reference or accusations by senators. The well-worn catchcry "cowards' castle" is often heard in the media and the community when some person or corporation is named under parliamentary privilege.

Parliamentary privilege should never be compromised or watered down, but this motion does not seek to do that. However, the motion would go some way to overcoming the accusation that parliamentary privilege is used as a cowards' castle. To date only the Houses of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland have adopted similar provisions to the Senate. In 1984 the report of the Commonwealth Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege resulted in a number of resolutions covering such issues as protection of witnesses, contempt, exercise of freedom of speech, and circumstances in the giving of precedence to motions of privilege and senate proceedings referred to in court proceedings. Of a total of 11 resolutions, only one related to the provision of a citizen's right of reply. The motion before the House provides as follows:

That:

(1) Where a submission is made in writing to the Speaker by a person who has been referred to in the Legislative Assembly by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified:

(a) claiming that the person or corporation has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person or corporation; and

(b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in Hansard,

and the Speaker is satisfied:

(c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee; and

(d) that it is practicable for the Committee to consider the submission under this resolution,

the Speaker shall refer the submission to that Committee.

The terms of that motion are straightforward. The Committee may decide not to consider a submission if it determines that the subject is not serious enough or is thought to be frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character. In deciding not to consider a submission, that decision would have to be reported to this House. The motion also provides that if the committee decides to consider a submission, it may confer with the person who made the submission and any member who made the reference in the Legislative Assembly to that person or corporation. Of course, any consideration of this type by the committee would be in private. It is important to understand that in the terms of this motion when considering the submission and then reporting to the Legislative Assembly the committee will not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the House or in the submission. The motion also provides that in reporting back to the Legislative Assembly the committee may make a recommendation as follows:

(a) that no further action be taken by the Committee or the Legislative Assembly in relation to the submission; or

Page 4637

(b) that a response by the person who made the submission, in terms specified in the report and agreed to by the person or corporation and the Committee, be published by the Legislative Assembly or incorporated in Hansard.

The motion also provides that the committee's report must be succinct and strictly relevant to the issues in question and must not contain anything offensive in character. Paragraph (8)(b) of the motion states that the report should not contain any matter that would have the following effect:

(i) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person or corporation, or unreasonably invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph (1); or

(ii) unreasonably adding to or aggravating any such adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by a person.

While the Senate and the Houses of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland are the only Houses of Parliament in Australia with these provisions, the Standing Committee on Procedure in the House of Representatives has also investigated and reported on the matter of a citizen's right of reply. That committee recommended adoption of a provision similar to the Senate. The House of Representatives has not yet considered or passed such a motion. Unfortunately, parliamentary privilege can be and has been abused. It is only fair and reasonable that, if required, aggrieved persons have the means to at least set the record straight. The Senate and the parliaments of the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland have set the precedent. The Government's proposal is reasonable, moderate and fair, and it does not detract one iota from or interfere with the rights of members of Parliament to make utterances under privilege in this House. For those reasons the motion is deserving of support.

Mr MacCARTHY (Strathfield) [9.06]: I strongly agree with the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Bathurst, two very distinguished members from either side of the House. As the newest member of this House I shall not trouble the House for very long with wise words. However, I raise a couple of points in addition to those raised by the honourable member for Gosford, the honourable member for Davidson and the honourable member for Northcott. Apart from the question of whether Parliament should have such a provision there is the problem of detail in the motion. Some provisions are badly worded and there are areas of doubt or weakness. The motion provides no time within which submissions must be made. Are we to contemplate that someone could make a submission to the House 20 years after claiming to be maligned? Paragraph (5) of the motion is clumsily worded at best and at worst has words missing. That paragraph states:

The Committee shall not publish a submission referred to it under this resolution of its proceedings -

The question that must be asked is: what of its proceedings? It appears that some words are missing. Unless the Minister can clarify the situation, the motion has problems with its wording. I conclude my remarks by saying that I am persuaded by the remarks of the honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Hawkesbury that we should not proceed with this motion.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [9.08]: A very important issue has been raised in this House that fundamentally affects the right of freedom of speech in this Chamber that emanates from the Bill of Rights - whether of 1688 or 1702. The matter has been discussed at length. The honourable member for Bathurst has expressed his concern about this proposal. I assure this honourable House that over the last 12 months the Standing Ethics Committee came to grips with the problem of what should happen with a citizen's right of reply to an attack upon them in this honourable Chamber.

It is significant that last week the ethics committee met at some length and one of the issues discussed in regard to the response to the draft code of conduct was the question of a citizen's right of reply. Honourable members should be guided by the three community members - Mr Kim Wilson, Mr Stan Hedges and Mrs Leonie Tye - who agreed that it was a matter for the Chamber of the Parliament to decide the issue of freedom of speech and right of reply, if any, to be given to the citizen in respect of an unauthorised and unprovoked attack. It is not a matter of a code of conduct because the problem is not related to the conduct of members of Parliament outside this Chamber; it is related to the conduct of members in the Chamber, and that conduct should be dealt with by this House.

The issue is not whether the honourable member for Auburn attacked the honourable member for Camden during a debate. That is the thrust and the centrepiece of the democratic system that we have in New South Wales, the Westminster system of Parliament. At issue is a member's right to express a view in this Chamber; it is a matter of tearing apart the right of members to speak, or terrorising members into saying nothing. We do not have the right to read speeches because no-one should tell a member of this House what he or she should say. We should come into this House having prepared our own speeches and debate the issue in question. It is so easy to read speeches, and I have seen honourable members do so on many occasions. I have been appalled that honourable members have been allowed to read speeches in this House.

Members of Parliament represent the community, but to say, as has been said in this debate, that it should be a matter of ethics, that we should be able to be challenged by residents and citizens of New South Wales because they disagree with what we have to say in this Chamber, would
Page 4638
mean that the code of conduct would be always under challenge. I referred to the three community members - Mr Kim Wilson, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea; Mr Stan Hedges, who was a member of the Liberal Party and who served in local government for 40 years and as a member of many committees; and Mrs Leonie Tye, whose claim to fame is that she is a citizen of the State of New South Wales who once decided to take on a local council over the issue of a swimming pool.

Mrs Tye became a member of the ethics committee for the purpose of putting the community's point of view. Those members have no connection with politics - except for Stan Hedges who, for a brief period of three or four years of his 40 years in local government, was a member of the Liberal Party - but have had considerable input into what happens in the community. At the ethics committee meeting those people said: "We will make a contribution in our report to the effect that we consider that citizens should have a right of reply." They did not say that we should refer this as a matter of ethics. The matter has been discussed at length.

The Auditor-General, in what one might say is a letter that leaves a lot to be desired, began with the words that this was an important matter and that he was happy about the committee's inquiry, and finished with the words that high principle had not been met. Let me assure the Auditor-General and honourable members in this House that after discussion the committee was desirous of allowing this issue to remain one for this Chamber because it is a matter that should be dealt with in this Chamber. I am opposed to referring this matter to the ethics committee because if we are ever to have a question of ethics in this Chamber in regard to what honourable members say, we will ultimately destroy freedom of speech. Members of Parliament will be subjected to thuggery and terrorised into making speeches in the House because people will threaten them. I have witnessed that situation in the community.

Mr Jeffery: No-one threatens me.

Mr NAGLE: The honourable member for Oxley said that no-one threatens him, and I appreciate that. They do not threaten him because he has the right and ultimate freedom to say what he has to say. I have been a member of this House for eight years and the honourable member for Oxley has been a member for longer than that. Speeches have been made in this House with a sense of great responsibility; great things have resulted from motions in this House by honourable members on all sides of Parliament without an attack upon our right to speak. Admittedly, sometimes things have been said which have caused problems and concern to members of Parliament. I am glad to note that the Leader of the National Party - the honourable member for Lachlan - is present in the Chamber. One day I walked into this House, not knowing that the honourable member had a motion on the business paper to expel me from the House. I was given no warning and had no knowledge of what he intended to do.

The motion was that I had acted immorally, unethically and corruptly in respect of my support for 36 egg carriers in this State. At least the honourable member gave me the opportunity to defend myself and at the end of my defence he and others in this House became convinced that what I did was honest and done with integrity, and the motion was unsuccessful. The Leader of the National Party nods his head in agreement. That night at the Governor's residence I walked up to him and said certain words. Very quietly he said to me, "Son, you did a great thing today. You showed that members of Parliament are decent people and I was very proud of it."

[Interruption]

That is exactly what the honourable member said to me. He said it because he knew I had been a member of this House for less than two years and had little experience. After that debate he moved mountains in regard to the matter. In this House we deal with our own and the honourable member knows it. There is a difference between the right of reply of a citizen to the Chamber and allegations of unethical or bad conduct by members of Parliament. We are the people who have this major problem. If honourable members decide to refer the issue to the Standing Ethics Committee, the three community members on the committee will refer it right back, as they have already done. It is a waste of time. The matter should be referred to senior people in this House - Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House and the party Whips - so that they can deal with these important issues. The question of unethical behaviour by members is a matter for the Standing Ethics Committee to deal with.

The Standing Ethics Committee attaches to conduct which has dealings with the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Freedom of speech in this House does not relate to the ICAC. If we make accountability such that members of Parliament will not make a speech in the House unless they are absolutely sure of their facts, we will deny them the right to speak and that will be a sad day for democracy. Many good persons suffered hardship to obtain this right for us under the Westminster system and many good persons want us to retain that right and freedom to speak. If what I say in this House becomes an ethical issue, I could be expelled for what I say. Two motions in this House have related to comments I made - one, when the Leader of the National Party was Minister for Agriculture, and Deputy Premier and the other because I once had a political thought and I expressed it. What happened? The former Government, now the Opposition, decided to censure me for a stupid political thought.

Page 4639

Never in the history of western society under the Westminster system of Parliament has a member been censured for having a political thought, making a speech or expressing a view. I notice the honourable member for Strathfield is shaking his head, but he has not been in this place too long. After I spoke in my defence that motion was unsuccessful. I was not being censured for what I had to say or for what I did not do; I was being censured because I had a thought and I desired to express the fact that the citizens of New South Wales should have certain rights. That was an abuse of power by government. The former member for Canterbury, Mr Kevin Stewart, once had the audacity to say that the then Premier, Mr Robin Askin, was a crook. Former Premier Askin moved to have the former member for Canterbury expelled from this House for saying that he was a crook. Eventually the honourable member apologised, and history speaks for itself. Honourable members should be careful about interfering with the right of members to speak in this House. If that is to be made a part of a code of conduct, it will infringe upon the right of members to express their views, regardless of whether those views be right or wrong. At the end of the day people have a right to refer to the Speaker any matter of abuse. One should never attack the right of people to speak.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [9.19]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Sullivan
Mr Hunter Mr Tripodi
Mr Iemma Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Windsor
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson
Mr Beck Mr Peacocke
Mr Blackmore Mr Richardson
Mr Chappell Mr Rixon
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cochran Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Humpherson Mr Souris
Dr Kernohan Mr Tink
Mr MacCarthy Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Merton Mr R. W. Turner
Mr O'Doherty Tellers,
Mr O'Farrell Mr Jeffery
Mr D. L. Page Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Knight Mr Cruickshank
Mr Scully Mr Kinross
Mr Shedden Mr Phillips

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.


Royal assent to the following bill reported:

Bank Mergers (Application of Laws) Bill

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

Lane Cove National Park (Sugarloaf Point Additions) Bill

Bill received and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [9.32]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill was introduced in another place on 17 September 1996 and the second reading speech appears at pages 1 and 2 of the Hansard proof for that day. The bill is in the same form as when it was introduced in the other place and I commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.