The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.


Petition praying that the House not allow the proposed Sydney casino to operate slot machines, received from the Hon. A. B. Manson.

Petition praying that the Forestry Commission of New South Wales be reformed in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and that the House urge the Government to act immediately for the good of our environmental heritage and the health of the plantation timber industry, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition praying that the House legislate to ban totally the manufacture, sale and use of steel-jawed leg hold traps in all areas of the State as they cause great suffering to all animals and birds, both target and non-target, caught in them, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition praying that because of the detrimental effect of throw-away packaging on the environment, legislation be introduced imposing a mandatory deposit on all containers sold in New South Wales, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [2.36]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Mines Inspection Act 1901 currently prohibits the employment of miners below ground and of persons using certain machinery for periods longer than those specified in the Act. Section 29 of the Act provides that, except in cases of emergency, no person other than the owner or a person acting in the management of the mine can be employed below ground in any mine for more than eight consecutive hours or for more than 48 hours in any period of seven consecutive days. Every person employed below ground in any mine must have at least one full day of 24 consecutive hours off work in any period of seven consecutive days. Section 30 contains similar provisions in respect of a person in charge of prescribed machinery.

The bill which I am now introducing will repeal sections 29 and 30. Section 29 was amended by the Opposition in another place. While the Government is prepared to accept the amendment, it does not resile from its position that it considers hours of work to be an industrial matter, not a matter to be regulated in an Act which is essentially concerned with safety issues. The bill does not compromise safety in any respect. I give notice that I will be moving a number of amendments in Committee. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [2.38]: The Opposition does not propose to oppose this bill being given a second reading. The bill has been amended by the Legislative Assembly in a way that the Opposition contends is sensible and fair. When the bill is considered in Committee, honourable members will realise that the differences between the Opposition and the Government in relation to the bill are narrow in their scope. They come down to this: the Opposition contends that before shifts in a metalliferous mine are increased from eight hours per day to nine hours per day the relevant trade unions ought to be consulted. Apparently the Government denies that proposition and claims that the consultation process should not be enshrined in the legislation. Of course, those matters will be dealt with in detail in Committee. In this second reading debate I propose to make some general comments which are intended to be defensive of the amendments enshrined in the bill by the Legislative Assembly. Metalliferous mines are presently regulated in New South Wales by the Mines Inspection Act 1901, and a number of the provisions contained in that legislation deal with a restriction on hours per shift to be worked by miners in metalliferous mines. In particular, section 29 of the Mines Inspection Act 1901 provides:

Except in cases of emergency, no person other than an owner or a person acting in the management of the mine shall be employed below ground in any mine for more than eight consecutive hours at any time nor for more than forty-eight hours in any period of seven consecutive days, and every person employed below ground in any mine shall have at least one full day of twenty-four consecutive hours off work in any period of seven consecutive days.

In other words, for many years the Legislature has enshrined in the Mines Inspection Act the idea of an eight-hour shift. Employers in the industry, though, in recent times and on a continuing basis desire to move to a 12-hour shift. What the Opposition desires to say is that, although circumstances may justify that movement, we are dealing with a dangerous, difficult and arduous industry and specific safeguards ought to be imposed by the legislation to ensure that the occupational health and safety standards of workers are properly guaranteed.

[Interruption]

Page 1562

I should say, Mr President, that I do not intend to respond in any way to the silly and disruptive interjections from the Government ranks. I intend to proceed without regard to the chatter from the Government benches. The Opposition contends that, without the safeguards of union consultation, without the safeguards of proper consultation with the work force - they are the sorts of safeguards that any sensible employer would implement - the legislation would excessively empower employers to unilaterally introduce the relevant changes, without that process of consultation.

It will be said against that argument: why not deal with the individual workers; why not negotiate without the benefit of a collective representative structure? The fact is that the legislation of this State recognises the useful role that registered unions of employers and employees play in the processes of conciliation and arbitration. This Parliament, by its enactments, has said that representative bodies ought to be established and incorporated by the law of the State, and it is appropriate in dealing with consultative processes to recognise the existence of registered bodies representing the interests of employees and employers.

In part, that is because there is an inequality of bargaining power between employees and employers. If I can relate that remark to this particular industry, the metalliferous mining industry, where an employer issues a threat or warning - or, putting it more neutrally, an indication - that the mine might be closed in the absence of certain industrial changes, obviously the employees are in an impaired and unequal bargaining position; and it is the role of the registered union to advise, counsel, negotiate and represent the interests of those workers. That is the role conferred upon such registered bodies by the Industrial Relations Act passed by this Parliament.

The Hon. Dr B. V. P. Pezzutti: What has this got to do with the bill?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am asked the brilliant question by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: what has this got to do with the bill? The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training would perceive that this is the very issue between the Opposition -

The Hon. Dr B. V. P. Pezzutti: Rubbish.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The interjections from the Government ranks are an indication of their perception of high quality debate. Whether they know anything about this legislation or are following it is a matter of extreme doubt. Under sections 56 and 58 of the Mines Inspection Act 1901 provisions are made for general rules and special rules to be formulated governing the working conditions of metalliferous mines. I have already pointed out that under section 29 there is a prima facie requirement of an eight-hour shift and a provision against a 12-hour shift. I turn now to the effect of the bill as amended in the Legislative Assembly. The bill as amended will have the effect of omitting sections 29 and 30 of the legislation altogether and including a provision that the manager of a mine at which persons are employed below ground may alter the hours of work so as to require a person to work below ground in the mine for more than eight consecutive hours or for more than 48 hours in a period of seven consecutive days and may alter the associated working arrangements, but only if the manager had consulted with the work force of the mine and with the representatives of any trade unions representing that work force and obtained the agreement of the work force to the alteration.

In Australian industrial relations in the 1990s it is widely recognised that consultation with registered organisations or trade unions is a desirable feature of the introduction of any change, be it technological change, the introduction of redundancy packages, administrative changes or the like. The troglodytes on the Government benches mocking the idea that there ought to be this sort of consultative arrangement shows their naivety and ignorance of what is happening in the real world of industrial relations. In a highly unionised industry such as metalliferous mining it is obvious that mining companies, if properly advised, and if sensibly conducting themselves, would consult with the relevant unions representing the work force. How could one suggest, for example, that mining companies at Broken Hill would proceed to introduce a 12-hour shift without consulting the relevant unions in that city? How could one suggest that employers at Cobar would proceed to introduce a 12-hour shift without consulting the relevant unions representing the work force in that city?

By way of supporting the value and utility of consultation with trade unions when an employer is trying to introduce consultative change in a co-operative manner, might I refer to what the former Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said in a case in the oil industry in 1968. In 1968 the then president of that commission, Mr Justice Kirby, Mr Justice Moore and Commissioner Matthews said:

When employers are contemplating the introduction of computers and other automatic devices which may have serious effects on employees such as termination of employment or transfer interstate it is essential that both the employees and the union concerned should be informed of and involved in the planning as soon as possible. Many real human problems may be involved which may not be known to company executives and they, with the best will in the world, may take steps which do not help to solve them. It is our view that employees and their welfare are as important in the planning of a change of the kind we have had to consider as any other aspect of the change and that they, both individually and through their union, should be brought in at the planning stage. When brought into the planning, both employees and the union should in their turn attempt to understand the problems which the employer faces and co-operate with him to try to find a reasonable solution.

I happen to think that Sir Richard Kirby and Sir John Moore know a little more about industrial relations than the august members in the Government ranks in this Chamber.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do not
Page 1563
know!

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am sorry, but I remain prejudiced to that effect. I think that the lifetime of experience and learning of Sir Richard Kirby and Sir John Moore in this field puts them somewhat above the level of understanding and experience of the chattering, interjecting Government members in this august Chamber. In an effort to shorten the Committee stage of this debate I will concentrate upon the precise terms of the amendment which the Opposition foreshadows. Government members have been kind and courteous enough to consult with us about the amendments, and we have of course received a copy of the Government amendment. I stand amazed at my own moderation.

We have taken on board and incorporated into our amendment some aspects of the Government's amendment. For example, there was some technical criticism of the use of the words "fixing" and "altering"; the Government desired to use the word "determining" - presumably to make it clear that this process could apply to future mines. The Government said also that it might be undesirable to refer to the agreement of the work force as a whole. The Government put forward the idea that there ought to be a 65 per cent agreement by the work force before 12-hour shifts are introduced. We have incorporated that notion into our amendment.

Upon analysis, the one area of difference we have with the Government is whether the unions should be consulted. I emphasise that union agreement is not required by the amendment; consultation is required. In other words, unions would not have a right of veto; they would simply have the right to be consulted, to be heard, to participate in the negotiations, and to counsel their members in relation to the proposed change. It seems to us that the Government stands steadfastly against this proposition and the view of the Legislative Assembly only on the basis of some blinkered, ideological obsession; a notion that it is somehow completely wrong as a matter of principle to consult unions in relation to effecting a change from an eight-hour shift to a 12-hour shift. I suggest that the Government consult responsible employers in the industry. I think the Government would receive the answer that it would be madness not to consult the relevant trade unions in an industry such as this and about a matter that bears directly upon the health and safety of the employees in metalliferous mines.

There is only one other point that I wish to make, a point that puts the entire debate into perspective: in one sense the amendments put forward by the Government are unnecessary. It is clear that under the existing provisions of the Mines Inspection Act 1901 the Government, by advice to the Governor, can exempt a particular mine from the strictures of the legislation. That was done in relation to the Woodlawn mines: a proclamation by the Governor was published in the Government Gazette exempting that mine from the strictures of the Act. It was the subject of a challenge in the Supreme Court by the Australian Workers Union, but that challenge was dismissed by the Supreme Court, thus affirming the legal power of the Government to exempt a mine from the eight-hour shift restriction.

I think we have to view the Government's legislation in the context that these are cumulative powers to introduce the eight-hour shift on top of the already existing power to exempt a mine from the provisions of the Act in whole or in part. I emphasise that point. I also emphasise the quite modest safeguard that we are suggesting. Consultation with the unions is a proposition with which any person familiar with contemporary labour relations would find no difficulty whatsoever.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [2.56]: I fully support the Mines Inspection (Amendment) Bill. The main purpose of the bill is to remove the outdated restrictions relating to hours of work in underground mines and to take the mining industry into the twenty-first century. For too long the industry has been suppressed. In Australia we need a mining industry that is modernised and can compete on an international level. With the introduction of new technology, industry restructuring and a more skilled work force we will be able to compete internationally. The bill seeks to increase productivity, jobs, and Australia's ability to compete with other mining nations. The Government is committed to all of these goals and is constantly working towards achieving them.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is leading Australia.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti suggests, the legislation is a step in the right direction. As it stands, the Mines Inspection Act 1901 does not allow miners to work underground or use certain machinery for longer than the hours specified in the Act; that is, eight hours. Clause 29 of the Act states:

Except in cases of emergency, no person other than an owner or a person acting in the management of the mine shall be employed below ground in any mine for more than eight consecutive hours at any time nor for more than forty-eight hours in any period of seven consecutive days, and every person employed below ground in any mine shall have at least one full day of twenty-four consecutive hours off work in any period of seven consecutive days.

The proposed amendment to clause 29 provides that the manager of a mine at which persons are employed below ground may alter the hours of work so as to require a person to work below ground for more than eight consecutive hours or more than 48 hours in any period of seven consecutive days only if the manager has consulted with the work force at the mine and with the representatives of any trade union representing the work force and has obtained the agreement of the work force to the alteration. The bill also calls for the manager, in fixing or altering hours of work, to ensure that he or she complies with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983. Clause 30 provides for the chief inspector of mines to require alteration of hours of work. The clause states:

The Chief Inspector of Mines may direct the owner or

Page 1564
manager of a mine to limit working hours or to alter associated working arrangements at the mine if of the opinion that existing hours of work or associated working arrangements are likely to affect adversely the health or safety of the employees.

The owner or a manager of a mine must comply with a direction under that clause of the bill. The bill also calls on managers to prominently display details of the shift roster and to keep records of the hours worked below ground by each employee. The bill, which I support, will repeal two sections of the Mines Inspection Act 1901 and introduce more appropriate provisions. It is my opinion that the safety standards that the State Government supports so strongly will not be compromised by implementation of the amendments the Government is putting forward.

Safety is paramount. In fact, under the coalition Government there has been an increase in the safety standards of mines and a decrease in the number of accidents. We have come a long way since 1901 when the legislation was first put in place, and we must continue to move with the times. I am sure all honourable members would agree with that. This amendment bill aims to keep our mines open and our miners employed. It is true that mine managers will have a more active role in managing mines as a result of the bill. But why should they not?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They are still responsible, after all.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Precisely. The amendments have been requested by the Chamber of Mines, Metals and Extractive Industries. The Chamber of Mines and the Government firmly believe that hours of work is an industrial issue to be dealt with at the enterprise level between the management and the workers. The bill allows for that process, whereas hours of work are currently restricted by the Mines Inspection Act 1901. With these amendments continuous operation will be allowed and a more productive operation in many of our mines will be forthcoming.

All honourable members should be aware that the Governor already has the power to exempt any mine at any time with or without conditions upon the requirements of sections 29 and 30. The Governor has already utilised this authority at the Woodlawn mine, near Goulburn. Woodlawn mine is just one of the success stories of the 12-hour shift option. In that case it was the workers, not the proprietors, who requested the extension in shift time. Two years down the track Woodlawn mine won the Department of Mineral Resources safety trophy as the safest underground metalliferous mine in New South Wales, and is continuing these high standards. Other mines have followed suit with very good results.

Sections 29 and 30 of the Mines Inspection Act are no longer appropriate. The bill will allow for more flexibility without compromising safety standards in our underground mines. In mines that have adopted 12-hour shift work underground not only has safety performance been maintained but there has been a decrease in sick leave taken and absenteeism. Most significantly, there has been an increase in productivity, and mining costs have gone down. This is all the proof we need to show us that the bill has already made a positive impact upon the mining industry. In Broken Hill, for example, Pasminco Mining has sought changes to work practices, including a change in shift rosters. If mining in Broken Hill is to survive, it needs long-term cost improvements. If the mine there does not increase the amount of minerals extracted, it may soon find itself in a very grave situation.

The Government does not want to see the closure of more mines and does not want mining operations such as that in Broken Hill to join the long list of closures. The bill aims to assist mining operators and workers to increase both productivity and profitability - two very necessary factors if there is to be an improvement in the mining industry in New South Wales. We need to maintain our mining services, and the provisions of the bill will promote that aim. I congratulate the Minister for his initiative and foresight in developing the Mines Inspection (Amendment) Bill, and I offer my full support of the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.5]: The bill as first proposed was identical to the wishes of the Chamber of Mines, Metals and Extractive Industries, which no doubt lobbied other members as well as me. I am pleased that the legislation was amended in the lower House by the Australian Labor Party and the Independents working together. The Government has decided to accept the amendments but is proposing to move an amendment to the amendments in Committee. There is no doubt that when competing on a level playing field with other countries in the 1990s we must ensure that we get the best out of our capital investments. It seems extraordinary that some mines work only 16-hour shifts, leaving expensive machinery lying idle for eight hours. On the other hand, I cannot understand why three eight-hours shifts cannot be worked. However, some mines are now working 12-hour shifts, and the majority of miners working in those mines have agreed to work 12-hour shifts and apparently are perfectly happy with the new hours.

Miners should be allowed to determine for themselves whether they are willing to work 12-hour shifts. We are, after all, talking about working 12 hours underground. I would not wish to work underground. Though I am not claustrophobic, I could not stand working 12 hours underground; it would not be a pleasant way of earning a living. I do not understand why the Government has such a truly obsessive, ideological hatred of trade unions. That approach makes no sense to me. It is clear that workers, mine workers in particular, need the protection of unions such as the Australian Workers Union, especially when mines are closing and miners are being put off work. The Australian Democrats will support the proposed legislation as amended and will support the inclusion of trade union representation, which has a place in particular for those working underground.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.7]: Two important issues seem to be at stake in the proposed
Page 1565
legislation - whether unions should be consulted about changes to the working conditions of a work force, and whether the Government is going to be consistent with its industrial relations legislation that passed through this House in 1991. That legislation provided that industrial agreement could be achieved without union involvement if 65 per cent of workers, including those working in a mine, do not want a union to be consulted. However, the issue at stake is that at a mine such as Hillgrove, where there ain't no unionists -

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Is that English?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is English enough for the honourable member. As a coal miner myself, working underground, I can say that where I worked there were no members of the union either.

The Hon. Judith Walker: You are not even a coalminer's daughter.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am not a coalminer's daughter. There are no unionists at Hillgrove mine. If the legislation is amended as proposed, so that the union must be consulted, who will pay a union to come to a mine and work with management to determine whether a proposal is appropriate, if none of its miners belong to a union? Which union will management consult or talk with? Will that union be the catch-all Australian Workers Union or some other?

Second, even the Federal Labor Government has come out of the 1950s and agrees with the concept of enterprise agreements. The difference between Federal and State industrial relations legislation is that Federal legislation requires union involvement and discussions. Legislation passed in this State requires that individual workers be consulted about changes and agree to them. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that the Opposition requires a union interface between it and management, but the Government does not. We believe that sensible management, which cannot be legislated for, as the Hon. J. W. Shaw said, would of course talk to all members of the work force.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: Let us require sensible and knowledgeable management.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: You cannot legislate for sense. The problem in this country is not to do with workers who do not know how to work; it is management that does not know how to manage. If management does the right thing, it gets results. Woodlawn mine is a perfect example of good management and a good work force producing the goods, as well as safety for the workers. I totally support the Government's legislation and the Government's proposed amendments.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER [3.11]: I am sure the contribution by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has uplifted the souls, minds and hearts of both Government and Opposition members in relation to this legislation. Put simply, in Committee the Opposition will argue about the rights of the work force to be represented by the trade union movement. This is what this argument is all about. When the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti posed a question about which union the management would deal with he was being naive. There have always been industry unions operating in the mines. It is ridiculous for him to pose the question as if mine operators or owners would have to go to the directory of the Labor Council to pick out which union might represent the people underground. The good doctor knows that that is a nonsense.

I have always believed the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has a split personality: whilst he is happy to belong to the Australian Medical Association, he cannot concede that the Australian Medical Association is a trade union. The Australian Medical Association is entitled to represent doctors in the same way that unions have represented mining employees since the nineteenth century. The Opposition does not support the legislation; the Government is moving away from the trade union movement having any right or representation. The good doctor said that the Government's industrial relations legislation provides that if 65 per cent of the work force in any enterprise votes for an agreement with management with or without the presence of the trade union that is allowed. This legislation is about enforcing that style of commitment. It is not about international trade agreements.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Oh, come on!

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: Don't talk nonsense, man. It is not about international trade agreements; it is not about health and safety, although it may become a matter of health and safety. The employees at Woodlawn may have agreed to increase underground operations from eight hours to 12 hours, but there is no way that operation could continue if the management and trade union representatives of the workers had not set health and safety issues in concrete. The mine would not make a profit and it would not be operating. The Government has already proclaimed its industrial relations legislation. Why does it feel that it has to reinforce in the minds of everybody, particularly Pasminco, the big mining companies, that it is perfectly all right to extend the underground operating hours of mines with or without the trade union movement being represented? That is the crux of the matter. Yet honourable members opposite talk arrant nonsense about the trade union movement.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: But safety standards are a matter for the Government as well.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: Safety standards were always a matter for the trade union movement. I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. J. M. Samios. He would know as well as I do that had it not been for the trade union movement and the work force there would be no safety at any work site in New South Wales. No Liberal government would have introduced health and safety provisions. The 1983 Occupational Health and Safety Act was
Page 1566
introduced by the Hon. Patrick Darcy Hills. It came about because of discussions between the New South Wales Labor Council, its constituent members and the Minister. It had nothing to do with the Liberal Party. Labor introduced that legislation. Ask yourself this gentlemen and ladies: which was the first State with such legislation?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And women.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: Ladies and gentlemen is fine by me.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Why did Jack Lang call the troops in then?

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: He was before my time, Minister - only just, but he was before my time. How would the members here feel after starting their day at 9 a.m. and 12 hours later, at 9 p.m., learning that the House would sit through till 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. to finish business? One does not have to be an Einstein to work out the stress that that would place on some members of Parliament. Some members seem to cope with the hours but others get stressed out. Imagine people working in a mine for 12 hours at a time.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Some days it would feel just like a long day here, I reckon.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: We do work from the bunker here and I can understand people developing a bunker mentality. Whether or not the Government wishes to accept it, the trade union movement is there to protect its membership, which it has done. It has done it through occupational health and safety measures and proper award conditions. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti I believe is the member for the east wing. He should be locked in there every day, even as penance.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Ask Pat Staunton about it.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has no understanding of what it would be like to work for 12 hours virtually in the dark underground. He suggested that I should ask Pat Staunton, the secretary of the Nurses Association. I know that many industries have moved from eight to 12 hour shifts but the move has created stresses for nurses as well. We should not be reduced to arguing from a technological point of view. After all, it was the workers of Woodlawn who asked the owners to extend their shift. The extension increased productivity and this has been a good example. But I give a word of warning: The change at Woodlawn occurred with the co-operation of the union members and the union and the mine owners. This is opening the door.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It was their nominated representatives, not necessarily their
elected representatives.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: I appreciate the Minister's position. She is really putting a technical argument to me now. At the time there was no legislation which precluded unions being represented. Even the good doctor drew the attention of the House -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The union can be the representative now.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: I am fully aware of that. We argued this point when the industrial relations legislation was before us. We argued ad nauseam about the right of the workers to be represented by trade unions. All the managers in the field, no matter which enterprise they were in, knew which union represented the workers on the ground. The argument being advanced by the honourable member is spurious, ridiculous and puerile. I am sure the honourable member's argument is not that of the Government; the Government would not accept his point of view on this particular issue. I strongly support the Opposition's right to seek to amend the legislation in Committee. The Opposition will continue to inform the work force of the differences that exist between the Labor Party and this coalition Government.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.20]: The Mines Inspection (Amendment) Bill will amend the Mines Inspection Act 1901 to make further provision in respect of hours of work and associated working arrangements in a mine for other purposes. I have received a detailed submission from and had discussions with Maxwell Wrench, principal consultant with the Chamber of Mines, Metals and Extractive Industries. I bring to the attention of the House some of the concerns of the companies operating in the mines of this State. In assessing this issue, I have tried to take account of the prospect that faces miners almost weekly, that of mines closing down with jobs being lost. Because of the specialised nature of their occupations miners who have been laid off find it virtually impossible to relocate to some other area. In addition, often miners live close to the mines in which they work, therefore, should they lose their jobs, their lives as well as those of their families and those associated with them are completely disrupted.

The priority in this debate must be the basic issue of jobs, jobs, jobs. This matter must be decided by the miners themselves. They should have the right to make decisions that affect their present and future employment. Decisions about whether it is possible for mines to remain viable should be made by the miners who work underground and who are directly affected and not by those involved in the mining industry, particularly those who work above ground. I am advised that the Labor amendment will have a detrimental effect on the future of the mining industry in this State. In correspondence dated 16th April, 1993, the chamber stated:

We advise that these changes to the Mines Inspection Act are being carefully monitored by a number of major Australian Mining companies, and; the outcome could have a significant bearing on their future mineral exploration and mine investment plans in NSW.

Page 1567
Obviously if this House is not careful in its approach to this very important issue, there could be a loss of further jobs and also a reduction, if not a cancellation, of future plans for mine investment in this State. Investment will provide additional jobs. The mining industry rejects this proposed approach by the Australian Labor Party on the following grounds:

. . . [The amendment would] impede necessary workplace reforms urgently needed to enable the mines to become more cost efficient and survive international competition.

2. It enshrines the status quo, threatens the jobs of 1,500 miners and therefore the future of Broken Hill and Cobar.

3. It introduces mandatory consultation with trade unions which is against the spirit and intent of the Industrial Relations Act 1991. This Act gives employees the choice of whether or not to be represented by a trade union.

4. It was put forward by the Labor Party at the request of militant unions, to neuter the original Bill introduced by the Government.

The Chamber of Mines, Metals and Extractive Industries detailed additional reasons in a letter dated 16th April to the Hon. Ian Causley, the Minister for Natural Resources. The chamber stated:

. . . [The amendment] starts from the position of outlawing employment for more than 8 consecutive hours and provides for situations of exception.

Their proposed amendment is concerned only with alteration of hours at an existing mine working 8 hour shifts. There is no provision for a mine which is presently working extended shifts of 12 hours. There is no provision for a start up mine situation.

Hours can only be altered subject to certain preconditions. The [ALP] amendment has inherent in it a number of other practical problems.

Some of those problems are listed in the letter to Minister Causley by the chamber in the following terms:

Interpretation of the following words "work force" "trade union" "representing" and "agreement" present practical problems.

There must be consultation "with the work force". "Work force" is not defined. It could arguably include all employees on site, not simply those underground employees affected by the proposed changes.

In addition there must be consultation, "with the representatives of any trade unions representing the work force". "Trade union" is not defined.

It is not clear whether "trade union" includes federal as well as state organisations.

We have heard already that this concept is working effectively federally. I continue the quote:

"work force" is not defined. Again it could include all employees on site.

"representing" is not defined. It is unclear whether the trade union represents only its members or anyone for whom the trade union has constitutional coverage or those it customarily represents.

"unions representing that work force". It is unclear whether this requires consultation with all unions on site, or only those with members working underground and affected by a proposed change.

"obtained the agreement of the work force to the alteration". Lack of definition of "work force" again causes difficulties. It is unclear whether this means agreement of:

each individual member of the site work force

a majority of the site work force

each individual member of the underground work force who is affected by the proposed changes

majority of those members of the underground work force who are affected by the proposed changes

The amendment moved by the ALP is poorly worded and will add to confusion on this particular matter. Today, to make mines more efficient and effective expensive equipment is used continuously. In that regard it is important to note that many of the provisions in the original Mines Inspection Act - especially those that restricted hours of underground work - were developed during the early days of mining when underground mines had little mechanisation; miners literally used a pick and shovel and primitive drilling and blasting equipment. That involved considerable time and physical stress and effort for a person working underground with a pick and shovel.

Today, of course, mines are fully mechanised and capital intensive. The Mines Inspection Act has not kept pace with these changes, which have resulted in expensive underground equipment being significantly underutilised. Machines lie idle at night and weekends because of outdated restrictions on hours of work. With regard to the Woodlawn mine an exemption was granted to enable an assessment to be made of the effects of more flexible working hours. This trial, which has run for two years, has proved to be an outstanding success. Productivity has increased, safety standards and performance have been improved, and the work force is in favour of the new rosters.

Those are important factors. Production has increased. Although concern has been expressed by the Opposition about safety standards, they have not been affected because no member of this House would support legislation that would endanger the lives of miners. As the miners are directly involved, certainly they would not be in favour of any work condition that put their lives at risk. In its letters to me the Chamber of Mines, Metals and Extractive Industries (NSW) also mentioned that the mines at Broken Hill and Cobar are very much at risk. Because of today's depressed commodity prices the long-running underground base metal mines at Broken Hill and Cobar are presently uneconomic. There is an urgent need to introduce workplace reform without compromising safety standards, to improve productivity and secure the long-term future of the mines and their associated local communities, which depend upon the mines for survival.

In February of this year at Broken Hill 500 jobs were lost because of the closure of the north mine and the restructuring of the southern mine's operations. Even so, the remaining mine at the southern end of the Broken Hill lode, which employs 800 people, is currently not economic. The company is struggling to keep this mine running and urgently needs to increase production. Therefore, as I have said, my concern is to support a proposition under which the majority of the miners are consulted and make a decision as to
Page 1568
what they wish to do. That is far more desirable than dealing with the union secretary. By supporting the miners who wish to work under the proposed conditions, honourable members are also supporting their right to work and maintaining their opportunity for employment. For those reasons, Call to Australia supports the bill and not the proposed Opposition amendments.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [3.32]: I wish to participate in this debate only to refer briefly to the difference between the foreshadowed amendments to be moved by the Opposition and the Government. Clearly the bill seeks to provide benefits to employers and employees. It is about ensuring increased productivity for employers and avoiding the dull routine undertaken by underground miners every time they go to work. Sometimes they must spend as much as an hour or an hour and a half travelling to the mine site and kitting up before they commence the actual mining process. After they have completed their work they must clean up and then travel home. Saving that time benefits not only the employers, but also the employees; the increased productivity protects their jobs. I could use no better words than those used by the Prime Minister, who has talked about the need to give workers interesting and productive jobs.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Was that Bob Hawke?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am sorry, Paul Keating. One could hardly argue that miners are engaged in productive work when they are cleaning and showering instead of extracting minerals. When honourable members are considering the Opposition's foreshadowed amendments, they must ask themselves whether the union movement necessarily reflects what workers want. On a number of occasions in the recent history of this country unions have resisted what workers wanted. I refer particularly to Mudginberri, the wide-tooth comb dispute and the Shepparton Preserving Company dispute. Let me add another instance of the union resisting what workers wanted under the guise of protecting health and safety conditions.

I am referring to the changes that all local councils have had to deal with following the introduction of one-man operated trucks for the collection of waste and refuse. These trucks were designed to replace employees who worked according to a regime - a darg developed by the Transport Workers Union - of 760 bins per shift. That number of bins had been rightly calculated as the maximum that could be safely dealt with by one worker in one shift. When the one-man operated trucks were introduced, the union told Labor controlled councils that they could only allow the trucks to do exactly the same amount of work as the workers they were introduced to replace. The fact that the trucks were capable of collecting 1,200 bins a shift was irrelevant to the union. Nevertheless, it insisted under the guise of reasons related to health and safety - as if one has to worry about the back of a truck - that the trucks should collect only 760 bins a shift.

That is another excellent example of a union putting people's jobs at risk and resisting useful productivity enhancements under the guise of being concerned about occupational health and safety. The reason the Government wants employers to consult with employees alone and not necessarily with unions is that surely, in this day and age, employees know best what they want. They are not always given the best representation by the unions, as has been demonstrated time and time again. If employees choose to be represented by the appropriate union, that is their choice, but the Government and its representatives support the concept of freedom of choice for workers and believe that workers can be trusted to make decisions of their own accord.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [3.36], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I am pleased to note that the points of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government have been narrowed. As all honourable members will be aware, considerable concern has been expressed about the unrealistic amendment moved in the Legislative Assembly. If a change in working hours in a mine required the agreement of 100 per cent of the relevant work force, that agreement would never be obtained. One could never expect to secure the agreement of mine employees who are non-miners or people who are on leave. Bearing that in mind, it was absolutely essential that the Opposition find some form of face saver. I am pleased that common sense and reality have prevailed. Regardless of their opinion about the proposed amendment, all honourable members agree that the introduction of a greater level of flexibility into mining operations is necessary. Whether one is speaking about the economic viability of the mines - and unfortunately, many mines have closed not only in New South Wales but across the whole of Australia - or whether one is talking about the undesirable practice of having -

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: That was not as a result of union action.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The Hon. J. R. Johnson should not be so touchy. I did not suggest for one moment that it was. A variety of reasons have led to mine closures in New South Wales and across Australia. However, it is beyond doubt that a number of mines have had difficulty in utilising their incredibly large investment in capital and in using the time of workers more flexibly. Unlike most members of this Chamber, the lives of members of my family revolved around shift work. Anyone who tries to tell me that there is no difference between working a 12-hour shift and then having a longer period of time off work, and working an eight-hour shift - bearing in mind the destruction and stress that that brings to the worker or to the worker's family - has not lived in the sort of home environment to which I have referred. It is a choice for the people involved; it is not one that should be imposed by us in a legislative form or by someone who is not working those shifts - namely, the union officials.


Page 1569
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Or by the bosses.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Indeed, or by the bosses. It should be a matter for the people involved; and that is precisely what the Government's amendment is endeavouring to implement. I look forward to the debate that will no doubt ensue in Committee. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Schedule 1

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Both the Government and the Opposition have foreshadowed amendments to schedule 1. With the consent of the Committee I propose that both amendments be considered together. There being no objection, that course will be followed.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [3.42]: I move:

Page 2, Schedule 1(1), lines 23-34. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) Despite subsection (1), the manager of a mine at which persons are employed, or are to be employed, below ground may determine the hours of work so as to require persons to work below ground in the mine for more than 8 consecutive hours or for more than 48 hours in a period of 7 consecutive days and may determine the associated working arrangements. If this requires any alteration to the hours of work or associated working arrangements of persons employed below ground at the mine then no such alteration may be made until the manager has consulted with them and with any representatives nominated by them, and has obtained agreement to the alterations of not less than 65% of the persons employed below ground. The general rules may make provision for or with respect to the manner in which the persons employed below ground and their nominated representatives are to be consulted.

It appears that the points of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government have now been narrowed, and I will not traverse the difficulties that I believe would have arisen if the Opposition had persisted with the amendment that was moved in another place. In essence, the only difference remaining between the Government and the Opposition is the mechanism to be used in respect of the point of consultation or primary contact when it comes to altering the times of shifts. As has emerged in the second reading debate, the Opposition has persisted with a view that the general rules shall provide that any alteration be undertaken in consultation with representatives of the trade unions. The Government is of the view that greater flexibility needs to be introduced and that the wording in the last part of the first amendment should be, as has been proposed by the Government, that the nominated representatives are to be consulted.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Next time you are sick, go down and see the butcher.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You probably bloody would.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will refrain from using such language.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I would have to say that I have greater faith in the common sense of miners than does the Hon. J. R. Johnson, apparently, because if my livelihood and hours and conditions of work depended on it, and I sought to enter into consultation to vary those conditions and hours of work, I would seek to have the best possible person available who knew me and my needs and could represent me. That would be the most critical aspect. The prospect raised by the honourable member -

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: You had the best possible representatives.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am not altogether sure that I did. I have to say that the honourable member's suggestion that a greengrocer or baker should be the person selected is clearly ludicrous.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the Hon. J. R. Johnson to order.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: In terms of the desirability of having "nominated representatives" as the preferred wording, one needs to look no further than the example of the Woodlawn mine. Before moving to that example, I merely say that if the trade union representing the views and aspirations of persons at a particular mine was deemed to be the most appropriate, powerful, relevant and pertinent group to represent the views of the work force, then beyond a doubt the work force will have that trade union as its nominated representative. But it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to imagine that, from time to time, it may well be that the workers believe that they would be more appropriately represented by another person or another group.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: I have never seen it yet.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The honourable member says he has never seen it. Let me take the example of the Woodlawn mine where exemption from compliance with sections 29 and 30 was granted, and a 12-hour shift underground was implemented. The exemption was challenged by the Australian Workers Union - the exemption that the workers themselves sought was challenged by the union.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: Because it is their right.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Of course it is their right. I am not denying that that is their right. The point in question is: was the union representing the wishes of the workers or representing the union view? The Hon. J. W. Shaw would agree that, from time to time, circumstances can arise when there is a divergence views. I am not saying it will
Page 1570
always happen; I am not saying that in every instance that would be the case. But if the honourable member genuinely believes that this would be some sort of aberration and that there always will be some parallel running, some commonality of view, between the workers in a particular environment and their union, why will he not accept that, under those circumstances, the union will be the nominated representative of the workers on the site?

The only reason that the honourable member would insist that the wording refer to the trade union rather than a nominated representative is because of his understanding that, from time to time, there is a divergence of views and that the trade union may not necessarily be seen as representing the wishes of the workers at that workplace. We have attempted to ensure that there is the option for the union, or another group, to be the nominated representative. For the honourable member in all logic to be able to sustain his argument, he would have to explain how there could be some sort of commonality of view when we have an instance where the Australian Workers Union challenged the Woodlawn decision against the wishes of the miners. I am not being fanciful when I say that was the wish of the miners. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal ordered a secret ballot. I am advised that the result of that ballot was 30 to 11 in favour of a nine-month trial of 12-hour shifts. Certainly the workers were keen to give it a go. After two years experience of 12-hour shifts, Woodlawn mine won the Department of Mineral Resources safety trophy as the safest underground metalliferous mine in New South Wales.

I always listen carefully to the views of the Hon. Judith Walker, but in response to her remarks I have to say that in those cases in which workers in consultation decide to move to 12-hour shifts we should remember that Woodlawn has the best safety record of any mine in New South Wales. It was the members' desire to move to the 12-hour shift and the general view of the workers themselves, who are, of course, the ones most directly affected. They were most happy about the situation, and they feel less stressed because they are able to work 12-hour shifts and then have a significant period of time off. I do not deny that some people might feel more comfortable and less stressed with a different work pattern, but I repeat that, having grown up in that environment, it does not necessarily follow that eight-hour shifts and short turnaround times are necessarily a better way to go. There are always stresses involved in any form of shift work.

I am pleased that the points of disagreement have been narrowed. I commend the Government's amendment. If the Hon. J. W. Shaw truly believes that the union at the work face - I hesitate to say the coal face - truly represents the views and aspirations of the local work force he should have no fear in supporting the Government's amendment.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [3.53]: I move:

Page 2, Schedule 1(1), lines 23-34. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) Despite subsection (1), the manager of a mine at which persons are employed, or are to be employed, below ground may determine the hours of work so as to require persons to work below ground in the mine for more than 8 consecutive hours or for more than 48 hours in a period of 7 consecutive days and may determine the associated working arrangements. If this requires any alteration to the hours of work or associated working arrangements of persons employed below ground at the mine then no such alteration may be made until the manager has consulted with those persons and with representatives of any trade unions representing them and has obtained agreement to the alterations of not less than 65% of the persons employed below ground. The general rules may make provision for or with respect to the manner in which the persons employed below ground and the representatives of trade unions are to be consulted.

The broad questions of principle and the desirability of trade union involvement in negotiations have been satisfactorily argued in the second reading debate both in my own remarks and in the remarks of the Hon. Judith Walker, representing the Opposition's point of view. The critical words that appear in the Opposition's amendment but which do not appear in the Government's amendment are "with representatives of any trade unions representing them", that is the employees. We do not say that established trade unions which have a representative role or capacity in relation to the work force have to agree or to acquiesce in the proposition of moving from an eight-hour shift to a 12-hour shift, but that they must be consulted, be part of the discussions. The Opposition believes that that is an appropriate legislative provision for a number of reasons.

First, it seems to be common ground in the debate between the Government and the Opposition that it would be sensible, in the context of a work force belonging to a particular trade union, for management to consult the trade union, but the argument appears to be that one should not legislate in favour of sensible behaviour in industrial relations. The Opposition takes a different view. We believe that the work force is entitled to sensible behaviour by management. Legislation, when facilitating the introduction of serious work changes such as this legislation seeks to do, is entitled to the protection of union consultation or involvement, when, I emphasise, trade unions are actually representing the work force at the particular mine. It is clearly imaginable that one could have an oppressive management using the enormous bargaining power that a management would have when it threatens to close a mine, and in those circumstances the work force may be oppressed, or coerced into accepting changes which, upon proper consideration, were neither justifiable nor fair.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Miners are amazing people for caving in like that.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: In difficult circumstances it is possible for the free will of working people to be overborne by the imminent threat of mine closure and the loss of jobs. As was mentioned in the second reading debate, there is also an inherent inequality of bargaining power between the work force and major corporate employers such as those who manage metalliferous mines. The Government's amendment contemplates that
Page 1571
representatives of the work force may be involved in the consultation - representatives nominated by the workers. What happens if there are multiple nominees? What happens if there is a controversy about which body or person ought to be the nominee, the representative? One can readily imagine controversies concerning this matter which might complicate the bargaining process and which might frustrate negotiations.

Members of this House ought to be sufficiently astute to ensure that legislation which establishes trade unions, recognises them, registers them and declares them to be the legitimate representatives of certain specified classes of workers should provide for those bodies to be the appropriate representative bodies in the negotiations for the purposes of this legislation. The Minister should address the point as to what happens if there is a disagreement about the appropriate representative body or if different workers want different bodies, different unions or different individuals to represent them in the negotiations.

Finally, in relation to the Woodlawn mine, the Australian Workers Union had a perfect right to challenge the decisions made in the Supreme Court. It was entitled to argue that due process was not adhered to. The union was entitled to argue that it did not receive natural justice. In the ultimate it lost that point, but the Court of Appeal was clearly divided about various aspects of the case, and it was quite clear that the AWU not only had a right or interest to protect, as the Supreme Court held, but had a reasonably arguable point to take to the court to insist that the law be adhered to.

[Interruption]

The trade union was protecting its rights and its members as a whole to ensure that a proper procedure was adhered to. There can be no criticism of it for taking that step. I commend the Opposition's amendment.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER [3.58]: The Minister's argument in presenting the Government's amendment was indeed persuasive. The unfortunate difficulty for the Labor Party and the principles it holds dear with respect to its relationship with the workers is that not all mineowners are like the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. That is the problem. The Minister has put a most persuasive case, but in reality that is not what we are dealing with in respect of these mines. We are not dealing with reasonable people like the Minister; we are dealing with employers, some of whom are good employers; but we must take a position. As the Hon. J. W. Shaw said, why is it so wrong to legislate for sensible industrial relations behaviour so that the sort of situation about which I am speaking cannot occur.

The Minister puts a good case for the practice adopted at Woodlawn mine to operate at all metalliferous mines. It may well be that changing eight-hour shifts to 12-hour shifts will improve productivity. I understand, having read the legislation, that any such change in shifts is subject to the concurrence of the mines inspector. That safeguard has not been removed from the legislation, but the Opposition does not resile from its original position of protecting the principle involved in this issue. The Minister is not the mineowner. If we legislate now for the sensibilities of industrial relations and recognise the position of everyone involved, we will not set the whole industry off on a goose chase.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.



The Hon. M. R. EGAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. I ask the Minister whether he told the House last Tuesday:

. . . there is no doubt that a premium is attached to the interest on FANMAC bonds which enables them to be pre-paid; in other words, for the mortgage to be discharged early with no penalty to the mortgagee. There is no question of compensation in that regard.

Why then has the Government been stood over by the bondholders and withdrawn its promised assistance to the HomeFund borrowers seeking to refinance their loans?

The Hon. R. J. Webster: On a point of order. As you know, Mr President, notice has been given of the introduction of two bills that directly relate to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I submit that he is now entering into debate on those bills.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition have his question in writing?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Yes, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: May I have a copy of it?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Yes. On the point of order. The notices of motion relate to a bill to establish a home purchase assistance authority and a bill to appoint a HomeFund ombudsman. My question relates to a matter that the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing raised in this House last week, which has since been the subject of another announcement from the Government. We have to keep in mind that no member of the House has yet seen the two bills, which, as I understand, are to be introduced at 6 o'clock tonight and rammed through the Parliament tomorrow. We will have no opportunity to consult with affected groups, we will have no opportunity to draft suitable amendments -

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I want to hear the submission of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The Government simply wants to ram this legislation through the Parliament. The point that is relevant to the Minister's point of order is that at this stage we have no way of knowing whether the two bills of which notice has been given have anything at all to do with the $5,000 assistance grants that were announced
Page 1572
recently by the Government. The Premier and Treasurer advised the other place last Thursday that those grants are now to be suspended, so I presume that the grants are not encompassed in either of the two bills that will come before the Parliament. How can the Minister claim that I am anticipating matters that will be dealt with in the legislation? It is a bogus claim. The Government has already announced that it will not proceed with that matter. It is to that issue that my question relates.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: On the point of order. President Lackey, on 21st November, 1894, ruled that it is out of order to anticipate debate - I emphasise the word "debate" - on a notice of motion. I would argue that the Leader of the Opposition is not seeking to anticipate debate; he is seeking information regarding forthcoming legislation, of which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training gave notice on behalf of the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing last Thursday morning. I refer to House of Representatives Practice, second edition, page 519, which states:

The principle established by rulings from the Chair is that questions seeking to elicit information about proceedings pending in the House are permissible provided they do not anticipate the discussion itself or invite a Minister to do so. For example, in 1976 Speaker Snedden disallowed a question because it invited anticipation of the second reading speech and the arguments and principles upon which the legislation was based. However, he later permitted a question asking whether certain people would be disadvantaged under legislation then before the House. The Speaker ruled, in response to a point of order alleging inconsistency in the two rulings, that the second question was in order as it was simply seeking information about the legislation. The distinction can be difficult to make in some circumstances, but the cardinal rule is to avoid the anticipation of discussion of orders of the day.

The first point I make in regard to that passage is that the question of the Leader of the Opposition does not relate to an order of the day; it relates to a notice of motion given by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training on behalf of the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing last Thursday morning. The second and probably more important issue is that the Leader of the Opposition is not seeking to anticipate debate on the legislation of which notice was given late last week; rather, he is seeking information as to this pending legislation, when it is coming forward and certain matters relating to it, as opposed to debating the merits of it.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: Further to the point of order. What has been said by the Hon. R. D. Dyer only confirms what I said in my original point of order: the fact is that all of the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, as he quite rightly knows, will be dealt with by the legislation of which I have given notice. It is on the public record as to what will be in this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition is quite clearly anticipating debate.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing has taken a point of order on a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition about FANMAC bonds and their prepayment. The substance of the Minister's point is on the question of anticipation. The Hon. R. D. Dyer has quoted a ruling of my illustrious predecessor President Lackey that it is out of order to anticipate debate on a notice of motion. Unfortunately, the precedents of this House do not offer much further assistance in this regard. Therefore, I must be directed by the standing orders of this House which refer me to May's Parliamentary Practice. Although I have noted the precedent set by the House of Representatives, as outlined by the Hon. R. D. Dyer, I point out that what occurs in that House is in no way binding upon this House. I therefore refer to page 327 of the twenty-first edition of Erskine May, dealing with the rule against anticipation:

. . . a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated, but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion; a substantive motion more effective than a motion for the adjournment of the House or an amendment, and a motion for the adjournment is more effective than a supplementary question.

From comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, and the Minister, I am satisfied that the substance of the bills in respect of which there are notices of motion covers the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore I rule the question out of order.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training. Will the Minister inform the House how many school councils are operating in New South Wales schools, what their purpose is, and how they benefit the students and staff at their schools?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the honourable member for his question and his continuing interest in education. Almost half of all government schools in New South Wales - that is 1,075 schools, which is double the number with councils at this time last year - have established school councils. The pace at which school councils are being formed is accelerating dramatically. In particular, school councils are strong in the Riverina, where they have been established in 82 per cent of schools. On the North Coast, 75 per cent of schools have councils. School councils were initiated to allow the community and parents an active role in defining a school's aims and philosophies, the use of resources, staff selection, and the setting of priorities. Councils are proving very popular with local communities, which are welcoming the chance to have a say in the running of their local school.

A council comprises the school principal, plus a range of students, parents and citizens and community
Page 1573
representatives. I am hopeful that by next year all schools in New South Wales will have their own school council. Although this appears to be an ambitious target, the Department of School Education is promoting school councils with establishment grants, in-service courses, and packages for schools. In its 1992-93 budget, the department has allocated almost a million dollars to promote and introduce school councils. School councils will continue to ensure that our education system is focused on and targeted at the needs of local communities, and that our students continue to receive an education of world-class standard.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing, representing the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister please confirm that the Roads and Traffic Authority monitors ambient noise levels for only 18 hours a day rather than the full 24 hours? Will the Minister please explain why this is so? Will the Minister introduce 24-hour monitoring in order to measure, if only on a trial basis, noise levels caused by heavy trucks travelling on roads between midnight and 6 a.m.?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I shall refer the honourable member's question to my colleague and obtain for her a full and complete answer.


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. Did the Minister say, when he made his HomeFund relief announcement on 29th March, that his proposals included "grants of up to $5,000 to facilitate refinancing by low start and affordable borrowers who had suffered a loss of equity and would not otherwise be able to refinance. By restoring lost equity, the refinancing grants are designed to remove an important obstacle to refinancing"?

The Hon. R. J. Webster: On a point of order. Mr President, you have clearly ruled on a question relating to HomeFund. I ask you to make the same ruling on this question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Before the Minister's interruption I had not heard all of the question. Perhaps the Minister might be kind enough to allow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to conclude his question. The Minister might then take his point of order, and I will make a ruling.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: Now that these refinancing grants have been jettisoned under pressure from the bondholders, what alternative measure does the Government propose to remove the obstacle to refinancing referred to by the Minister?

The Hon. R. J. Webster: On a point of order. Mr President, I believe you have ruled very clearly on matters anticipating debate on the two HomeFund bills, of which I gave notice last week.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I rule the question out of order for the same reasons I gave in my previous ruling on this subject, and in particular because notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Minister for Housing refers to home purchase assistance.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [4.18]: I move:

That this House dissent from the ruling of the President.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister whether in his HomeFund relief announcement on 29th March he said that his proposals included "grants of up to $5,000 to facilitate refinancing -

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. Has the Leader of the Opposition supplied his dissent motion in writing, as required under standing orders?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, the motion is here. The question which my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had prepared to ask was:

In your HomeFund relief announcement on 29th March did you say that your proposals included "grants of up to $5,000 to facilitate refinancing by low start and affordable borrowers who had suffered a loss of equity and who would not otherwise be able to refinance. By restoring lost equity, the refinancing grants are designed to remove an important obstacle to refinancing"? Now that these refinancing grants have been jettisoned under pressure from the bondholders, what alternative measure does the Government propose to remove this obstacle to refinancing?

The simple fact is that the grants to which the honourable member's question referred were those that the Minister announced on 29th March, which were abolished by the Premier last Thursday. So that particular matter -

The Hon. R. J. Webster: They were suspended.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Suspended. That particular matter clearly is not included in either of the two bills. The only thing we know about those two bills -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How do you know?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Why would they be suspended and then included in legislation?

The Hon. R. J. Webster: You are just wasting time.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Do not be ridiculous. Are you telling the House that reference to refinancing grants of $5,000 is in either of those bills? Do not make a liar of yourself. You know as well as we do that those refinancing grants are not included in either
Page 1574
of the two bills.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Dissent from a ruling by the President is a very serious matter, and it is important that I hear what is said. It is important also that all speakers address themselves to the question of dissent and do not debate the issue.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The only thing that the House knows with any certainty at the moment is that the Government has given notice of two bills. I will read the notices of motion. The first is:

That leave be given to bring in the Bill for an Act to constitute a Home Purchase Assistance Authority; to specify its functions; and for other purposes.

There is nothing in that wording that relates specifically to the refinancing grants of $5,000 that the Government announced and then reneged on. Nor is there anything about them in the second notice of motion, which reads:

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the appointment and functions of the HomeFund Ombudsman; and for other purposes.

Nothing in that notice of motion appears to relate specifically to the question that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked. On the same grounds that this question has been ruled out of order, no question about mining would be allowed in this Chamber, because the Mines Inspection (Amendment) Bill is on the business paper. No question would be allowed in relation to trusts or trustees, because the Trustee (Amendment) Bill is on the business paper. No question would be allowed about motor vehicles, because the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Amendment Bill is on the business paper. No question would be allowed in relation to the entertainment industry, because the Entertainment Industry (Interim Council) Amendment Bill is on the business paper. One sees from the business paper that there is not one area of Government responsibility that is not covered in one form or another.

These points of order are a device to stop debate, but more importantly to stop the Opposition raising legitimate questions that the Government cannot answer. If this ruling is supported by this House, an intolerable precedent will be set for ever and a day, because it will stifle the asking of questions in this House. Question time has a specific purpose. It is not to debate issues, whether they be on the business paper or not; it is to elicit information. If the rule against anticipation is used to stop an Opposition trying to elicit information, to prevent the Opposition from making the Government account for all its twists and turns, parliamentary democracy in this Chamber will be a complete and utter farce. Let us look at Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and see what it says about questions and the rule against anticipation. The passage that the President quoted does not mention questions. Indeed, this is how the passage starts, "A motion must not anticipate a matter . . ." They are the first seven words. When the President read that passage to the Chamber he said, "A matter must not anticipate a matter".

There is a very, very big difference. What May says is that a motion must not anticipate a matter. If the Government is going to get away with this sleazy little trick, there will be a very simple device for stopping the asking of any questions in this House: just put a notice of motion on the notice paper. Let us say that the issue is education and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training does not have the guts to stand up to scrutiny. All she need do is arrange for one of her colleagues to give a notice of a motion relating to education. If it involves the Attorney General, he would arrange for a private member's notice of motion to be moved. Then there would be no questions asked. The Government would not have to provide any answers.

We know why the Government has tried this sleazy little trick. It is because it cannot answer the questions. It does not want to answer the questions. It has resorted to this attempt to stifle questions. The ruling which the President has given - I am sure given in good faith - is nevertheless completely wrong. The ruling is completely alien to the rights of members in this House to ask questions. If it stands, it will forever stifle proper questioning in this Chamber. For that reason the President's ruling should not be upheld.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.27]: Mr President, I support your ruling. I observe that at least the dissent motion has kept the Leader of the Opposition in the House during question time. It is a pleasant change for Opposition members to have their leader present during questions. However, Opposition members must have experienced pain at the performance of the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt they would prefer his usual course of behaviour at question time. A motion of dissent from a President's ruling is a very serious matter, as all members of the House will appreciate. The motion proposes that the House accept the view that you, Mr President, were in error in your ruling that a question cannot be asked which anticipates debate on a matter to be dealt with by the Parliament.

I again draw the attention of the House to page 327 of twenty-first edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, which you, Mr President, referred to and which the Leader of the Opposition selectively referred to. I emphasise the term "selectively". We are used to the Leader of the Opposition using material in this way. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that a question which anticipated debate could not be ruled out of order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are not talking about a rule which is new but a rule on anticipation of debate first reported in Erskine May as arising in 1874. It is not something that is new but, no doubt, is new to the Leader of the Opposition. Erskine May stated:

Stated generally, the rule against anticipation (which applies to other proceedings as well as motions) -

Page 1575

And questions are "other proceedings":

- is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated.

Clearly therefore the rule is based on the proposition that if there is a more substantive matter before the House, upon which the issue can be addressed, then the less substantive form should be ruled out of order. Erskine May continued:

. . . it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion . . .

There is a bill before the House in the sense that notice has been given of intention to bring in a bill and, as the House is well aware, it is intended that that bill be introduced later today and the second reading of the bill proceeded with after the leave of the House is sought on urgency. I quote further from Erskine May:

A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion; a substantive motion more effective than a motion for the adjournment of the House or an amendment, and a motion for the adjournment of the House is more effective than a supplementary question.

That is a direct reference to the issue of a question which the Leader of the Opposition adverted to when he selectively quoted from Erskine May. Erskine May stated further:

Thus for a Member to declare his or her intention of raising a matter on the adjournment during question time precludes further supplementary questions even where the Member has not yet been allowed a specific opportunity for an adjournment debate.

That is as general a proposition as one can possibly raise on the issue of the extent to which the substance may be adverted to either on a motion or by way of notice in the House. I repeat what is said by Erskine May:

Thus for a Member to declare his or her intention of raising a matter on the adjournment during question time precludes further supplementary questions even where the Member has not yet been allowed a specific opportunity for an adjournment debate.

The view of Erskine May is therefore quite clear. The fact that one has given notice of leave to bring in a bill in respect of a specific matter - in this instance the Home Purchase Assistance Fund and the HomeFund Commissioner - is clear identification of the subject-matter of the material which is to be the subject of debate, and Erskine May has made it quite clear that in that particular regard there cannot be an anticipation of that wholesale debate. Erskine May goes on further:

A motion (other than another motion for leave to bring in a bill) -

And I emphasise this particular point:

- is out of order if it anticipates a notice of motion for leave to bring in a bill that includes the subject proposed to be dealt with by the motion.

It is beyond question so far as Erskine May is concerned, and he draws on rulings from 1874 to show that where questions are being raised in relation to a matter that is the subject of a bill before the House, that question quite clearly is out of order. One can only draw upon rulings which were made by your predecessor, Mr President, when such questions were also raised during the course of question time and were ruled out of order. It is also a serious matter to challenge the ruling of the House. In my understanding there have been only seven such attempts, which are usually not made frivolously and on the run - they have been seriously considered. It is a shameful day when this House calls into question a ruling in the frivolous way the Leader of the Opposition has done on this occasion. The Leader of the Opposition is obviously at a loss in relation to this particular issue. He is seeking to keep alive an issue in whatever way he can, and in doing so is abusing the processes of the House. I urge the House to support you, Mr President, and oppose the motion of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [4.34]: I support the motion of dissent moved by the Leader of the Opposition against the ruling that you have given, Mr President. This is not something that the Opposition does lightly. Mr President, you have occupied the office of President of this House since 1991, and I believe that this is the first occasion on which the Opposition has found it either necessary or appropriate to move dissent from any ruling that you have given during that time. Let not the Leader of the House say that the Opposition is embarking on this exercise lightly, because that most certainly and definitely is anything but the case.

With respect to you and your ruling, Mr President, I am of the view that you ruled in great haste in regard to the precedent that I quoted to you from House of Representatives Practice. I say that because the passage on which the Attorney General relies, from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, if one refers to the headings and subheadings, relates to the moving of motions before the House. The passage upon which I relied from House of Representatives Practice, second edition, page 519, addresses itself in very clear terms to questions being asked in the House at question time.

When you gave your ruling, Mr President, you referred to the apparent lack of direct precedent in this House itself, and you then said you were obliged to refer to Erskine May. With respect I would put it to you that given the absence of clear and direct authority in this House you could equally have referred to House of Representatives Practice, after all the House of Representatives is a legislature in this country - Australia. The ruling that was given by Speaker Snedden related to question time and not to motions. I repeat portion of the passage I cited earlier:

The principle established by rulings from the Chair is that questions seeking to elicit information about proceedings pending in the House are permissible provided they do not anticipate the discussion itself or invite a Minister to do so.

The Opposition is arguing that the question sought to be asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - and for that matter the earlier question asked by the
Page 1576
Leader of the Opposition - was seeking to elicit information concerning proceedings pending in the House. The Opposition argues, in accordance with Speaker Snedden's ruling in 1976, that that is permissible provided that the discussion itself is not anticipated or the Minister is not invited to do so. The passage I cited earlier also indicated that Speaker Snedden later permitted a question that asked whether certain people would be disadvantaged under certain legislation then before the House. Speaker Snedden ruled in response to a point of order alleging inconsistency in the two rulings that he had given, that the second question was in order as it was simply seeking information about the legislation. The learned author of House of Representatives Practice stated:

The distinction can be difficult to make in some circumstances, but the cardinal rule is to avoid the anticipation of discussion of orders of the day.

We are not here seeking to anticipate the discussion of orders of the day, Mr President. We are here seeking to ask questions without notice during question time. There is no question of orders of the day having arisen. Last Thursday morning the Hon. Virginia Chadwick on behalf of the Hon. R. J. Webster gave notice of her intention to bring in bills dealing with two matters relating to HomeFund. All the House is faced with this afternoon are two notices of motion - nothing more.

Procedurally these matters fall short of being orders of the day. With great respect to you, Mr President, and the ruling you have given, the Opposition argues strongly that you were hasty in disregarding and setting aside the precedent quoted to you earlier from House of Representatives Practice, which relates directly to question time, in contradistinction to the passage from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which relates to anticipation as it impacts on motions before the House. For all of those reasons, and for the reasons advanced to you by the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition wishes to persevere with its dissent motion because it believes that the ruling that you gave, although I regret to say so, was in fact wrong.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.40]: The Opposition does not take lightly a motion of dissent from any ruling of the President. Indeed, in the almost 12 years I have been a member of this House, very few such motions have been moved against any Presiding Officer. It troubles me to put to you, Mr President, that you were precipitous in giving the ruling. There was a distinct possibility that you might not have heard the point of order taken by the Hon. R. D. Dyer, who quoted Erskine May to you. The Chamber was somewhat agitated at the time. You will recall that you did not hear the first part of my question, and I was able to repeat it. It seems to me that the problem is that by that precipitous action you have introduced into the Chamber an inhibition which could well militate in the future against many a possible question that we think might properly be asked in this place.

My question concerned the HomeFund relief announcement on 29th March by the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. A point of order was taken by the Minister that notice had been given of a bill to establish a home purchase assistance authority. As points of order are legalistic, I ask you, Mr President, to point out to this Chamber how we ought know that a home purchase assistance authority has legally, semantically, anything to do with HomeFund. True it is, without being absolutely specious about it, that had the Minister referred to an Act to constitute a HomeFund purchase assistance authority or the like, I do not think there would be any point in our continuing with questions today. But you have been somewhat entrapped. I say that with the greatest respect. I cannot understand how members of the Opposition ought be on notice that the setting up of a home purchase assistance authority should possibly deter or prevent them from asking questions about HomeFund. I am troubled by your ruling and I believe that in the circumstances you were wrong.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [4.43]: This is a serious matter and some clarification is vital. I am disturbed particularly about the ruling because if one looks at the full range of business before the House - that is, motions and proceedings of various forms - one sees that it encompasses a wide range of public policy issues in this State. For example, the notices of motions, of which there are 37 on the business paper, relate to many private members' bills that encompass virtually every area of public policy in this State. It would be difficult to find a question to ask in this Chamber that did not relate in some way to the issues raised in that proposed legislation. For example, the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile have placed a large number of notices of motion before the Chamber which deal with a wide range of public policy issues, particularly relating to health.

It would be difficult to conceive how questions relating to those issues did not impinge in some way upon the notices of motions put before the House. On a number of occasions in this Chamber a series of questions have been asked that anticipated what was on the business paper. Those questions have been allowed. Only at this point of time, when an embattled Minister is trying to cover over the sins of his predecessors and is left holding the ball in difficult circumstances, does he seek in effect to gag debate. That is precisely what he did. He has attempted to gag further debate on this issue. Mr President, I believe you should re-analyse your ruling in the light of what the Hon. R. D. Dyer has said. The point he made about the Snedden ruling is important indeed.

That ruling did not impose a blanket ban on questions that may be relevant to matters on the business paper. In the opinion of Speaker Snedden in 1976, questions that sought information were permissible and were ruled to be different from questions that anticipated fully the debate. At that time he ruled a question in order because it only sought information and did not anticipate the debate. The questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. R. D. Dyer did not seek to anticipate the debate but sought further information about bills, notice of which has been given but copies of which
Page 1577
have not been delivered to honourable members of this Chamber, probably on all sides.

Those questions merely sought information about those bills. In the past questions seeking information have been ruled to be permissible. I submit that the strict ruling you have made extends anticipation beyond what is said in Odgers or Erskine May. It endeavours to close off the seeking of information in answer to a question. It attempts to go beyond the confines of practice in a way that would make it difficult for members of this Chamber to ask questions relating to a major issue of public policy about which information is vitally needed, both for borrowers outside the Chamber and for members inside the Chamber. For those reasons, a distinction needs to be drawn between motions, adjournment debates and those sorts of proceedings. Questions seeking information from Ministers are a different matter.

That is a clear distinction. If one looks through the sources you cited, Mr President, one sees the anticipation ruling in relation to motions and adjournment debates, but no such ruling is made in relation to questions. There is good reason for that. In the past, as Speaker Snedden noted, it has been permissible to seek information on matters that may be before the House in another form. He made that clear, and if your ruling is not narrowed in some way and made more specific, the task of honourable members of this Chamber in seeking information will be made far more difficult. I urge you to reconsider your ruling in relation to questions.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [4.50]: Mr President, the ruling that you have given in relation to the question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has taxed my mind and, after studying the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I can find little relevance in the documents that have been quoted to the ruling that you have given. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was seeking information - information that, according to the notices of motions on the business paper, does not appear to mirror anything contained in the question. I believe that a recapitulation of your position would assist the future deliberations of this House because I can see immeasurable difficulty arising if there is a persistence with the ruling you have given. In the interests of the future good running of the House I plead with you to vary your ruling.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.51]: Mr President, to put your ruling into context, it does appear quite clear from the statements that the Minister has made that the bills of which notice has been given - that is, the Home Purchase Assistance Authority Bill and the HomeFund Commissioner Bill - are designed to deal precisely with the very questions being asked by the Opposition. The bills are, in fact, the result of constant questions from the Opposition over past weeks. It has been explained adequately in the media that the bills will deal with providing assistance to HomeFund borrowers. In addition, the bills will be dealt with as urgent bills in order that they may be debated without the normal five-day delay.

If the notices of motion were being moved as a ploy to prevent the Opposition from asking questions, that would be an abuse of the conventions of the House. In fact, the Government has moved the notices of motion and given notice of its intention to have the bills dealt with as urgent bills - a procedure I assume the Opposition will support - to allow all questions that members on both sides and on the crossbenches wish to ask on this important issue. The notices of motion and the declaration of urgency are designed to permit wide-ranging questions to be raised during the second reading debate and in Committee.

It does appear that the notices of motion are in a special category or of a special character, and the questions that the Opposition is seeking to ask will pre-empt and may even confuse the debate. As a member of the crossbenches, I want to hear a full-blown explanation of the Government's intention, the plan proposed by the bills, so that honourable members can ask questions based on that information rather than in a hotchpotch manner at this time.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.54]: Mr President, I place on record my support for the matters put by the Leader of the Government in support of your original ruling. I also support the words of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The plight of those caught in the HomeFund trap should be obvious, given the ongoing debate; various solutions have been offered and have been widely debated in the media during the past 10 or 14 days. The fact that the Government has now seen fit to seek leave to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency should make it clear to the Opposition that any questions relating to HomeFund, FANMAC, the bondholders or the people caught in the trap of HomeFund would be in conflict with the legislation that is soon to come before the House.

I realise that Opposition members believe they have the right - indeed the duty - to attack the Government, particularly at question time, with a series of loaded questions that may be devoted to any one subject. That is accepted parliamentary practice. It is an accepted political strategy and the Opposition follows that strategy extremely well. However, I do not believe the solution to the HomeFund mess will be advanced if the House continues with that strategy today. Question time today has now been lost because of the motion of dissent against your ruling by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There were many other important issues to be raised, including one particularly important question which I know my colleague proposed to ask and which I believe is equally as important for the future of this State as the HomeFund issue. He has lost that opportunity and may not regain it until tomorrow or perhaps Thursday. Question time should not be used in that manner. I support the views of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Leader of the Government.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [4.57]: I support the Leader of the House in regard to your ruling, Mr President. I add to the debate by quoting from
Page 1578
Hansard of 3rd October, 1985, when the Hon. H. B. French directed a question without notice to the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, in the following terms:

In view of the announcement by the Leader of the federal Opposition that, as part of Liberal Party policy of privatising public assets, he would sell off Telecom Australia along with the Australian National Line, Trans Australia Airlines and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, will the Minister inform the House of the possible effects the privatisation of Telecom would have on the rural people of New South Wales?

The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: I am aware of the espoused policy of the conservation forces in Australia to promote the concept of privatisation, the argument being that such a policy would be to the advantage of the community generally, especially those in country areas. Telecom and the Commonwealth Bank are two organisations that the Hon. J. W. Howard and the Hon. I. M. Sinclair have given a high profile.

The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: On a point of order. The question asked of the Minister is surely anticipating a debate on privatisation that is to take place in this Chamber after question time today. I submit that the question is completely and utterly out of order.

The President at that time, the Hon. John Johnson, then said:

Order! The question is out of order.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Mr O'Grady
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Mrs Symonds
Mr Enderbury Mr Vaughan
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Walker
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mrs Arena
Mr Manson Mr Macdonald

Mr Bull Mr Mutch
Mrs Chadwick Mrs Nile
Mr Coleman Revd F. J. Nile
Mrs Evans Dr Pezzutti
Miss Gardiner Mr Pickering
Mr Gay Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Webster
Mr Jobling
Mr Jones Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mrs Forsythe
Mr Moppett Mr Ryan

Mrs Kite Mr Samios

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion of dissent negatived.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: If honourable members have any further interesting questions, I suggest they put them on notice.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: On 3rd March the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked a question about Wyong TAFE. The answer is as follows:

The department of Transport administers and is responsible for both the free and concession travel schemes. The free travel scheme does extend to students attending TAFE who meet the eligibility criteria. Under existing arrangements students must be under 18 years of age as at 1st January in the year of application, be proceeding to TAFE directly from school and must be enrolled in a full-time course defined by the Ministry of Transport as at least 20 hours of attendance per week. Students over 18 years of age enrolled in a full-time course again defined as attendance of at least 20 hours per week may be eligible for concession travel.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: I desire to make a personal explanation. The mayor of Liverpool, Alderman Mark Latham, has issued a report in response to certain matters that I raised in the adjournment debate in this House on Tuesday, 20th April. The mayor's report is to be discussed by Liverpool City Council tonight at an ordinary meeting. The report has already been released to the local media. In his report, Mr Latham said that I had advertised the fact that I conduct constituent interviews out of the office of a real estate company known as Nucifora. In part the report states that "his reputation" - that is a reference to me - "has been sullied by his association with the company which acted as the property manager for the premises used by _The Angel's Touch' massage parlour". As I have outlined the details of this matter in the adjournment debate I will not deal with them again.

It is a matter of great regret to me that Alderman Latham has made this additional allegation while he has yet to express any sympathy for the great injustice that he caused to Alderman Glavich by leaking material which was supposed to be dealt with by closed council. In response to Alderman Latham's charges I can say the following: it is true that I conduct interviews with constituents at the offices of Nucifora Real Estate. This is a service I am proud to provide to constituents of southwestern Sydney, and in particular Liverpool, to save them a trip into the city. I am most grateful to the proprietor of Nucifora Real Estate for making space available to me free of charge so that I can provide this service. I do not know whether Alderman Latham's allegations about Nucifora are true, but in the remote possibility that they are, I assure the House that I have nothing whatsoever to do with the business that is conducted from those premises. I am sure that honourable members will appreciate that as a consequence I know
Page 1579
nothing about Nucifora's customers.


Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Schedule 1

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER [5.8]: I do not seek to say a great deal more about the differences between the Government and the Opposition on the fine-tuning of the two amendments before the Committee, except to say that the industrial relations policies of the Liberal Party-National Party and the Labor Party will always be clearly different. On the subject of trade union representation and membership of trade unions, my position is very clear, as is the position of the Hon. J. W. Shaw and that of the Opposition. I have indicated to the House that I believe that the remarks of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training were very persuasive. The Opposition still holds the view that it is far more sensible to include the words "trade union". It would give workers in any enterprise, wherever they are employed, the right to select who represents them; it would not give any other forces, including bosses who might be trying to put it over the workers, an upper hand in a matter which might cause strikes and other problems within an industry. I think the Government signals loud and clear the basic philosophical differences between the Government and the Opposition on this amendment.

Question - That the amendment by the Hon. Virginia Chadwick be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Chadwick Mrs Nile
Mr Coleman Revd F. J. Nile
Mrs Evans Mr Pickering
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Webster
Mr Jobling Tellers,
Mr Moppett Dr Pezzutti
Mr Mutch Mr Ryan

Mrs Arena Miss Kirkby
Dr Burgmann Mr Macdonald
Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mr Dyer Mr O'Grady
Mr Egan Mr Shaw
Mr Enderbury Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Jones Mr Manson
Mr Kaldis Mrs Walker

Mr Bull Mrs Kite

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The vote being equal, I give my casting vote with the ayes and declare the question to be resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [5.18]: I move:

Page 3, Schedule 1(1), line 2. Omit "fixing or altering", insert instead "determining".

This is a consequential amendment flowing on from the Government's first amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 21st April.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [5.20]: During his second reading speech the Minister indicated that the purpose of the bill is to amend the principal Trustee Act 1925 to enable a trustee to hold or invest in securities by means of the Reserve Bank information and transfer system, otherwise known as RITS. The Minister explained that RITS is an electronic system which has been developed for trading in securities. At present RITS applies only to Commonwealth Government securities. Section 14A of the principal Act lists those securities in which a trustee is authorised to invest, unless expressly forbidden to do so by the trust document, which could be either a deed of trust or a will creating a trust. A trust of a deceased estate is administered by the executor and trustee of the estate.

The Minister said in his speech that doubts had arisen within the trustee industry regarding the ability of trustees in this State to participate in RITS. In particular, trustees in this State have raised the question whether, if they avail themselves of the benefit of investing via RITS, they are complying with the authorised trustee provisions contained in section 14A of the principal Act. In fact, the Government has been advised by the Crown Solicitor that use by a trustee of the RITS system would not meet the authorised trustee investment provisions of the principal Act, and therefore a trustee would not be entitled to participate in RITS except where a trustee was specifically permitted to invest in those securities within the RITS system by virtue of the specific provisions of the trust instrument.

The Government, in introducing the proposed legislation, has made clear that a trustee, unless expressly forbidden by the trust document, will be able to utilise the RITS system when dealing in securities which are authorised as investments under the Trustee Act. The Government has pointed out -
Page 1580
and I join the Attorney General in saying - that nothing could be safer in this country than the RITS system when it is considered that it is operated by the Reserve Bank of Australia. Trustees will be able to utilise the RITS system only to invest in securities already authorised as investments by the Trustee Act. Accordingly, there will be no increased risk for investors as a result of the proposed amendment.

The sorts of investments authorised by section 14A of the Trustee Act are very safe investments indeed. To give just a few examples, those investments include any public funds or government stock or government securities of the Commonwealth or any State of the Commonwealth, any debentures or securities guaranteed by the Government of New South Wales, and any debentures or securities issued by the Council of the City of Sydney or any city, municipal or shire council in New South Wales. Other examples of authorised trustee investment are a mortgage of land in any State or Territory of the Commonwealth. All honourable members would appreciate how safe a mortgage held over real estate is. Any purchase of land, including any lot within the meaning of the Strata Titles Act in any State or Territory of the Commonwealth, is an authorised trustee investment. A final example is interest bearing deposits in a bank authorised to carry on the business of banking under any law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth. In other words, to use the vernacular, authorised trustee investments are as safe as a bank. The Opposition is pleased to be able to support this amendment to the Trustee Act 1925, which in essence catches up with modern technology in the RITS system.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [5.25]: I also support the proposed amendment to the Trustee Act 1925. As the Hon. R. D. Dyer said, the amendment seeks to change division 2, which deals with powers and duties under the Act. The purpose of the amendment is to enable a trustee to invest in or sell Commonwealth Government securities, and to do so by use of the computerised Reserve Bank information and transfer system, which has the rather ritzy title RITS, an electronic system developed for trading in Commonwealth government securities. Members of this system lodge securities in a pool account which is maintained in the registry of inscribed stock at the Reserve Bank in Sydney. Legal and beneficial ownership of securities lodged by a member passes to the Reserve Bank. In return, the Reserve Bank grants to the lodging member a chose in action which entitles that member to direct the Reserve Bank to deliver securities of a specified description and face value which are clear of encumbrances.

No documentation issues regarding the lodgment of the securities and a member does not have a proprietary interest in any particular securities. It has been brought to the attention of the Government by the Trustee Companies Association of Australia that there is a need for an amendment to the Act so that the RITS system can be utilised by members of that organisation. The association believes that the RITS system will provide far greater efficiency in its members' dealings in Commonwealth Government securities. The Crown Solicitor has been consulted on the need for such an amendment, and in particular whether a chose in action constitutes a security for the purposes of the authorised trustee investment provisions contained in section 14A of the Act.

The Crown Solicitor has advised that a chose in action of the kind involved in RITS is not a security for the purposes of section 14A and, accordingly, a trustee is not permitted to participate in RITS other than when specifically permitted to do so by the trust deed or other document. The Reserve Bank of Australia has also expressed its support, along with the trustee companies, for the proposed amendment. The Reserve Bank has advised that approximately 80 per cent of all Commonwealth inscribed stock trading is now conducted through the RITS system. The Trustee Advisory Committee also supports the amendment, which would permit trustees to utilise this technology on behalf of their client companies. The bill will provide that, in utilising the RITS system, a trustee will comply with the authorised trustee investment requirements of the Act and of section 14A in particular. I support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.30]: The Australian Democrats support the Trustee (Amendment) Bill. As the Hon. R. D. Dyer has already pointed out, the bill will allow trustees to make use of the Reserve Bank information and transfer system, known as RITS, to hold or invest in securities in which the trustee is authorised to hold or to invest in. RITS was introduced in 1991. It is a real-time computerised system for recording and settling transactions in Commonwealth Government securities on a delivery-against-payment basis. As soon as a transaction is confirmed in the system the transfer of ownership of securities is registered and an irrevocable payment obligation is created on the buying member's bank. Already about 80 per cent of turnover by value is now being settled on RITS. The Democrats see no reason why trustees in New South Wales should not be able to take advantage of this advance in technology. The bill will allow the use of RITS in future unless it has been expressly forbidden by the trust deed. In cases in which the trustees believe that is necessary, it will provide a safeguard. I support the bill.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.32], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of the bill, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Page 1581
Debate resumed from 21st April.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [5.33]: The Opposition supports the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Amendment Bill. The amendment to the principal Act, which was enacted in 1942, follows a decision of the Court of Appeal in a case known as Nikolovsky v. GIO. Although the Minister said in his second reading speech that that decision was handed down in August last year, it was actually handed down on 11th September last year, the case having been heard before the Court of Appeal on 26th August, 1992. The Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 was amended during the term of office of the previous Government in 1984. Part 3A was inserted in the principal Act to achieve various results. The only one that need concern us here is that section 14 of the principal Act was amended to require common law actions for damages for personal injury arising out of motor vehicle accidents to be brought directly against the GIO. I note that at that stage the GIO was the sole third party insurer.

The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the amendments brought before Parliament in 1984 and the second reading speeches at that time indicated that the changes to section 14 were intended to be of a procedural character. That is, they were essentially designed to remove what the Attorney General has described as being the fiction whereby the plaintiff sued the owner or driver, whereas in each case the defence, as any lawyer would know, was assumed by the GIO. However, in Nikolovsky's case the Court of Appeal decided that section 14, as it was amended, also applied to common law actions for work-related - I emphasise that term - motor vehicle accidents. It was generally the case in regard to such accidents that the employee sued his or her employer for breach of the duty of care arising by virtue of the employer-employee relationship. However, the effect of the decision in Nikolovky's case was to overturn the previously accepted interpretation of section 14.

This has created a degree of confusion in the legal profession. The amendments have had the effect of reversing the effect of the decision in the case of Nikolovsky v. GIO without affecting the orders made by the Court of Appeal in that case. The circumstances of Nikolovsky's case were that on 12th September, 1986, the plaintiff was riding on the mudguard of his employer's tractor in the course of his employment when he fell off that tractor and sustained an injury. The tractor was insured for the purposes of the principal Act by the defendant, that is, the GIO. The injury sustained by the plaintiff was caused by or arose out of the use of a motor vehicle, namely a tractor. The plaintiff, Nikolovsky, commenced proceedings against the GIO and then added his employer, which was the State of New South Wales, as a party to those proceedings. The GIO was alleged to be liable for the negligence of the driver of the tractor which it had insured but the employer was alleged to be negligent in respect of its acts and omissions as employer and in respect of its alleged breaches of duty.

Two questions of law were removed from a judge of the Supreme Court for consideration by the Court of Appeal. The first question is whether the plaintiff may sue the employer for any breach of the duty of care owed by the employer to the plaintiff as its employee, or whether any such cause of action is precluded by section 14 of the Act. The Court of Appeal answered no to that question. The second question decided was whether such allegations of negligence as arise from any breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the employer by reason of the employment relationship lie as against the GIO by reason of section 14 of the principal Act. The answer given by the Court of Appeal to that question was yes. The effect of the Court of Appeal decision was - the language of section 14 of the principal Act as amended in 1984 and the authority of the High Court are quite clear - that so long as the bodily injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle, proceedings shall be made against the GIO and shall not lie against the owner or driver of a vehicle. The court also said that includes the owner or driver in whatever other relationship there is between the owner or driver and the injured person, including a relationship of employment. The final point I should like to put to the House is that His Honour Mr Justice Kirby, President of the Court of Appeal, who gave the leading judgment in Nikolovsky's case, said:

Because the result arrived at is probably the consequence of over-reaching legislative drafting, in legislation which is otherwise poorly expressed (rather than a deliberate choice of Parliament), it is possible that the outcome of these proceedings may require the attention of Parliament. Such attention would, at least, put beyond doubt the contribution of dual insurers and perhaps restore to plaintiffs the common law causes of action which nobody in 1984 said were being extinguished by the emphatic language in which s 14 of the Act was expressed.

In other words, these amendments will ensure that any employee who was injured in a motor vehicle accident during the period in question to which the principal Act still applies - that is from the date of the amendment in 1984 until 1987 - retains the right to sue his employer instead of only the GIO; or, in the alternative, may in addition bring an action against the GIO as well as against his employer. Further, in the case of pending proceedings against the GIO, the plaintiff is given the opportunity to proceed against the employer despite the fact that the limitation period for bringing the action has expired.

The result of the litigation in Nikolovsky's case clearly did not follow the legislature's intention, and due to an inadequacy of expression it is now necessary to correct that by way of this bill. The Opposition has no objection to, and indeed supports, what the Government is doing to restore the position as it was intended to be in 1984, prior to the passage of the amendment to the legislation carried to the principal Act in that year.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.42]: The Australian Democrats support the Motor Vehicles
Page 1582
(Third Party Insurance) Amendment Bill. The bill unequivocally states that the common law right of an employee to sue an employer for a work-related motor vehicle accident will not be affected by the recent decision in Nikolovsky v. GIO. In 1986 Mr Mladen Nikolovsky, an employee of the Department of Public Works, fell from a motorised tractor on which he was riding in the course of his employment. Mr Nikolovsky sought to sue both the State, as his employer, for breach of its duty of care, and the GIO, as the statutory body liable to be sued for the negligence of the driver under third party insurance. In this case the State was insured with the GIO in respect of its common law liability as employer.

In 1984, section 14 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 was amended so that common law actions for damages for personal injury from motor vehicle accidents would be brought directly against the GIO as sole insurer. Furthermore, sections 35A to 35D were inserted to prescribe discount rates for calculating the amount of damages in such actions. Prior to 1984, plaintiffs used to sue the owner or driver of the motor vehicle, or both. However, the defence used to be almost always assumed by the GIO or other insurer authorised under the Act even though the litigation used to be conducted as any other private litigation.

The plaintiff in Nikolovsky v. GIO argued that the 1984 amendment merely streamlined procedure and allowed the GIO to be sued directly. The State argued that section 14 meant that only the GIO could be sued. The State said that the owner or driver could not be sued as tortfeasor and argued that the intention of the amendment was to reduce the costs of litigation, to control the amounts recoverable and to increase the control by the GIO over claims. The ambiguities of the legislation stemmed from the lack of specific instructions in the parliamentary debate and from the apparently conflicting impulses contained in the legislation. On the one hand section 14(1) stated that a claim:

. . . which but for this section, could be made against the owner or driver of the motor vehicle, shall be made against the Government Insurance Office and any proceedings to enforce any such claim for damages shall be taken against the Government Insurance Office and not against the owner or driver of the motor vehicle.

The amendments in 1984 specified a discount rate for the calculation of damages in such claims. However, section 35A of the Act sets down the application of the awards of damages to which the limitations introduced by the Act apply. Section 35A(d) specifically states that the discount rate does not apply to an award of damages in an action "which is brought by or in relation to the employee and against the employer". These conflicting impulses provoked Mr Justice Kirby to make the comment, "The statute is poorly integrated", as quoted into Hansard by the Hon. R. D. Dyer.

A further complicating matter was the High Court of Australia decision in Dickinson v. Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust, which ruled that proof that the use of a motor vehicle had a causal or consequential relationship with the death or bodily injury giving rise to the action is all that is in question; it is not necessary to show that there was negligence on the part of a particular character. As a result of the phrasing of section 14(1) and the decision of the High Court in Dickinson's case, the Supreme Court decided that the 1984 amendment to section 14 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 applied to common law actions for work-related motor vehicle accidents in which the employee sued his or her employer for breach of duty of care owed by the employer.

As previously pointed out, this decision has serious implications. First, it reduces the amount payable to employees in work-related motor vehicle accidents. Second, there are grave implications for the GIO if it alone is liable to the plaintiff. The employer's indemnity insurer - workers' compensation and common law extension insurance - would escape liability. There is no need to emphasise how grave and dangerous that might be. Therefore the Democrats welcome the amendments in this bill which overturn the decision in Nikolovsky's case to ensure that employees injured in motor vehicle accidents between 1st July, 1984, and 30th June, 1987 - to which the Act applies - will be able to sue their employee instead of only the GIO. All cases which have been decided by the court will not be affected. In pending proceedings the plaintiff may proceed against the employer instead of, or in addition to, the GIO. Rules concerning dual insurance and contributions between insurers will continue to apply. The amendment has safeguards and I believe it is necessary that the Act be amended in this way. The Democrats support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.48]: The Call to Australia group supports the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Amendment Bill. This is a machinery bill to allow a court decision to be taken into account and overruled by this legislation. The object of the bill is to amend the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 with respect to work-related motor vehicle accidents affected by the decision in the Nikolovsky v. GIO case. The amendments in this bill will reverse the decision in that case - but without affecting the order of the court in that or in any other decided case - to ensure that employees injured in motor vehicle accidents during the period 1st July, 1984, to 30th June, 1987 - to which period the Act still applies - will be able to sue their employer instead of the GIO only. The bill will also allow all pending proceedings against the employer or GIO to be continued. In the case of pending proceedings against the GIO, the plaintiff is given the opportunity to proceed against the employer - instead of or in addition to the GIO - despite the fact that the limitation period for bringing the action has now expired. The Call to Australia group supports the bill.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.49], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of this important legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Page 1583

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.53]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The HomeFund Commissioner Bill provides for the appointment of an independent HomeFund commissioner to investigate and deal with complaints by HomeFund borrowers, both past and present. There is no doubt that the national recession has had an adverse impact on the HomeFund program. Unemployment, falling interest rates, low inflation, and a halt in the upward trend in property values have all contributed to difficulties faced by HomeFund borrowers. Inquiries into the program have confirmed poor origination of some HomeFund loans. Allegations have been made about deceptive, misleading and unfair conduct in respect of the promotion, origination and management of HomeFund loans. The Government acknowledges that in such a climate there are HomeFund borrowers who have complaints which require resolution.

The Opposition claimed to provide borrowers with access to a quick and inexpensive method of justice through its HomeFund Mortgage Relief Bill. That bill was significantly flawed. It conferred on the Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales, in respect of HomeFund mortgages, not only all the jurisdiction and powers exercised by the Supreme Court under the Contracts Review Act 1980, but also additional powers which would have the effect of retrospectively subjecting all aspects of the development and management of the HomeFund program to the scrutiny of the tribunal. The interests of the borrowers would become subordinate to the wider inquiry. The pursuit of justice for the individual borrower could become protracted. The HomeFund Commissioner is the Government's alternative. It focuses attention on the borrowers and the resolution of legitimate complaints in a manner that is accessible, quick, efficient, relatively inexpensive, fair and determinative. Justice Andrew Rogers, soon to retire as a Supreme Court judge, has agreed to be appointed as the commissioner, a distinguished appointment that the Government is confident will be welcomed by all parties.

I turn now to the provisions of the bill. Part 1 deals with the commencement of the Act, definitions and the object of the legislation. Part 2 provides for the appointment of the commissioner and his staff, and allows for the employment of whatever expert assistance the commissioner requires to undertake his functions. Part 3 outlines the functions of the commissioner, the principal functions being to receive complaints from HomeFund borrowers; to provide advice about the relief and remedies available to HomeFund borrowers; to refer borrowers to appropriate authorities; to investigate complaints; to conciliate complaints; and to make determinations in accordance with the proposed Act. Part 4 deals with complaints and their investigation. Clause 10 establishes the right of HomeFund borrowers, both past and present, including guarantors, to make complaints about the promotion of, negotiations for, entering of, terms of, or administration or enforcement of a HomeFund mortgage to which they are or were a party. Complaints must be made before 1st August, 1993.

Clause 11 provides for the preliminary assessment of a complaint, and clause 12 sets out the factors to be considered when deciding whether or not to investigate a complaint. For example, an investigation may not be pursued if the commissioner is of the opinion that the conduct of the complainant does not warrant it, or if the complainant has no entitlement to a legal remedy. Under clause 14 the commissioner is required to notify affected parties about an investigation; and under clause 16 has powers to seek information and require the production of documents from both a public authority or a body such as a co-operative housing society or FANMAC Limited. Clause 17 authorises the commissioner to hold inquiries, and for this purpose he will have certain powers of a royal commissioner.

Clause 24 enables the commissioner to determine the procedures he will follow in exercising his functions. Speed and informality are to be features of these procedures. Clause 23 provides that representation of the parties will only be permitted by leave of the commissioner. The aim is to avoid the costly, protracted, adversarial proceedings of a court, while preserving the rights of financially and legally unsophisticated borrowers to receive expert assistance in making a complaint. Part 5 deals with determinations. Clause 25 authorises the commissioner to make a determination after investigating a complaint, but only if he has established that the borrower is entitled to a legal remedy. The determinations he may make are as follows: relieving a HomeFund borrower of specified obligations, including current or future payments and arrears of payments; setting aside or altering a HomeFund mortgage; setting aside a HomeFund mortgage and entering into a new transaction; and ordering the payment to a HomeFund borrower of an amount of money, whether by way of damages or compensation, or otherwise, for financial loss.

Determinations will be directed to the contractual arrangements between HomeFund mortgagors and mortgagees, or will apply to the parties to an ancillary contract involving a HomeFund borrower - including, for example, a solicitor or real estate agent, a co-operative housing society, or the Department of Housing. Clause 26 limits the payment of money to amounts not exceeding $20,000. Clause 27 enables the commissioner to make temporary determinations that have the effect of suspending action to evict HomeFund borrowers from their homes. Such action will allow proper consideration of the borrowers' complaints and circumstances without the threat of imminent loss of their homes. Clause 28 provides that public authorities, such as the Department of
Page 1584
Housing, will be bound by determinations. The private sector will also be bound, but only if parties have given prior consent to participate in the process and be subject to the commissioner's rulings.

If a party chooses not to consent, the commissioner will still make a determination, which will be unenforceable against the non-consenting party. Nevertheless, it can be expected that justice will still result for the borrower. For example, if the commissioner found that a solicitor was negligent in his or her advice to a HomeFund borrower, the matter would be referred to the Law Society for appropriate action even if the solicitor had not consented to the determination. Clause 29 will allow the borrower to give consent after he or she has been told the terms of the determination. If a borrower does not consent, the commissioner may still make a recommendation based on his finding as to the borrower's legal entitlement. The borrower will then be free to pursue other legal remedies, such as an application to the Supreme Court. If the borrower does consent, she or he will be required to sign a release preventing institution of proceedings in another forum - a matter dealt with by clause 31.

Part 6 will authorise the commissioner to make reports on matters arising in relation to complaints, including an annual report to the Minister and a special report to Parliament. Part 7 deals with miscellaneous issues. Clause 37 will enshrine in statute the appointment of the HomeFund Advisory Panel, which will assist the commissioner in the exercise of his functions. Three persons - Betty Weule of Credit Line, Lyn Gain of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and Michael Gill of the legal firm Phillips Fox - have already agreed to become members. The bill will bring justice to those HomeFund borrowers who have a legitimate complaint about their involvement in the HomeFund program. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.2]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to establish the Home Purchase Assistance Authority as a statutory corporation. This bill is one of several measures that the Government is taking to improve the administration of HomeFund and assistance to home purchasers in general. To understand the need for this bill it is necessary, first of all, to explain some of the fundamental principles of HomeFund lending and why recent difficulties have arisen. We cannot tackle present problems without understanding their sources. HomeFund schemes were developed in the mid-1980s to tackle a basic dilemma of housing policy. The dilemma is that people with the lowest incomes tend to live in rented accommodation, yet, in the long run, renting seems to be more expensive than buying. Buying offers greater security of tenure, tax-free capital gains and security in retirement. Moreover, in the conditions of inflation in the 1970s and 1980s, the real costs of buying houses went down year by year whereas real renting costs either stayed the same or increased.

The problem was, and is, that the initial costs of buying - for deposits and repayment in early years - are much higher than renting. This prevents people on low incomes from getting a start in home ownership. HomeFund programs offer such people loans which do not cover interest in the early years, so initial repayments are low - often close to the level of rents. These loans have escalating repayments. At first repayments were set to rise at 6 per cent per annum; more recently, 4 per cent per annum has been the escalation rate. Eventually, for each borrower, total repayments cover total costs except for the built-in subsidies of the various schemes. The escalation in repayments is an inevitable consequence because HomeFund lending offers larger amounts relative to incomes and property values than can be offered under usual mortgage loans with monthly repayments that are fixed as long as interest rates do not change.

One of the major difficulties faced today is that the 1990s are proving very different from the 1970s and 1980s. Incomes are not rising as rapidly as they did before. Some HomeFund borrowers now find it difficult to meet their escalating repayment obligations. HomeFund programs depend upon housing co-operatives to originate mortgages. Their responsibility is to ensure that loans are made to borrowers who are eligible and that they are made for suitable dwellings. The rapid growth of HomeFund programs placed strains on the ability of the housing co-operatives to do this well. As there are several HomeFund schemes, the housing co-operatives face a difficult task.

Problems have arisen concerning the two main schemes - low start loans and affordable loans. The latter was for people on lower incomes than those eligible for the former scheme. They offer higher subsidies, particularly because they protect borrowers from income loss by setting repayments at no more than 30 per cent of their incomes over the life of the loan. When repayments reach 30 per cent of income, borrowers with affordable loans can request a review of repayments and a rescheduling of them to 27 per cent of household income. As this scheme is expensive, it was not feasible to offer this degree of protection to borrowers with higher incomes. A major innovation in HomeFund was the method of raising finance for the mortgages. FANMAC was established to issue bonds at fixed interest rates for this purpose. Mortgage rates are fixed because borrowers with low incomes and high loan-to-value
Page 1585
ratios have little capacity to absorb interest rate increases, either by paying more or by extending their loans.

Fixed mortgage rates are, in turn, funded by fixed rate bonds. However, many HomeFund borrowers have been able to take advantage of recent falls in interest rates by refinancing their loans without penalty. This is an unusual benefit for a fixed rate mortgage. Investors in the FANMAC bonds take the risk that the bonds will be prepaid before their maturity by refinancing, but bondholders are guaranteed payments of interest by the Government on all outstanding bonds. The Government takes the risk when HomeFund borrowers are unable to make their scheduled repayments or there is a shortfall on sale of the property and discharge of the loan. Then any shortfall in interest or principal due to the bondholders is met from government funds.

I have spent some time describing HomeFund because it is a complex program that offers different benefits to different participants. HomeFund grew very rapidly because these benefits were appreciated at that time. Borrowers wanted early access to housing. They wanted to be able to live in their own homes as soon as possible. Investors appreciated the opportunity to buy long-term bonds with a good yield and a government guarantee. It is important to remember that it suited everyone to expand the scheme before the recession. What we now understand in retrospect was not known then. When I became Minister for Housing last year I realised that severe problems were emerging and I asked John McMurtrie to review the whole program. He reported to me in December 1992.

Mr McMurtrie's report recognised, first, the scale and importance of HomeFund. By September 1992, 55,000 loans had been made. The vast majority were to assist borrowers who wanted home ownership but could not afford it on the terms then offered by banks and building societies. Mr McMurtrie reported, second, that a major cause of recent difficulties had been the unforeseen length and depth of the current recession and its effects on incomes, house prices, interest rates and, especially, unemployment. Falling interest rates have made HomeFund loans seem expensive. This is despite the fact that HomeFund loans generally had lower interest rates when they were originated than bank home loans. It is also despite their low start structures. Over the years, escalation has raised levels of repayments faster than many incomes.

As market interest rates have fallen, 20,000 HomeFund borrowers have taken the opportunity to refinance their loans without any extra costs. They have benefited by being able to move into a house early and yet they have not paid high interest rates for very long. Unfortunately, many other borrowers cannot meet banks' refinancing criteria and are now finding repayment difficult. Because of the recession many have lost jobs or overtime, and this makes their difficulties worse. Third, Mr McMurtrie advised that the complexity of the program and the many different participants worsen the difficulties that are due to the recession. An example of confusion was that because the arrangements for financing were complex, there was a 10-day gap between a borrower making a repayment and that repayment being entered into his or her account. Mr McMurtrie confirmed that this practise was legal but borrowers remained highly critical of these arrangements.

Since receiving the McMurtrie report, I have introduced a number of measures to further assist HomeFund borrowers. I have arranged to close the gap between repayment dates and the date at which amounts received are credited to borrowers' accounts. I have extended the levels of mortgage assistance available. I have organised the provision of advice and counselling on refinancing and other means of meeting HomeFund difficulties. This package still stands and will continue to stand, except that the $5,000 grants announced for the refinancing have been suspended temporarily. There remain, however, the problems of HomeFund's organisation. These are being tackled in three different ways by the new legislation introduced into Parliament this week and by discontinuing new lending through the HomeFund programs.

First, the establishment of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority will simplify the management of HomeFund and improve accountability by creating a single authority dedicated to its administration. Second, the HomeFund Commissioner Bill, also to be introduced into Parliament this week, will establish the position of HomeFund Commissioner. He will receive complaints from individual HomeFund borrowers and determine solutions. The Home Purchase Assistance Authority will provide guidelines for the HomeFund Commissioner. Together, the two bills provide the means to solving past problems. Those that have arisen on a case-by-case basis will get individual attention. Changes of administration that the McMurtrie report identified will be implemented to improve the general management of the HomeFund portfolio.

Third, new loan financing by HomeFund has been discontinued. Methods of assisting home purchasers in ways more appropriate to today's economic environment will be developed by the Home Purchase Assistance Authority. The authority will also manage the existing HomeFund loans, which, of course, have many years to mature. The Home Purchase Assistance Authority will be a small statutory corporation, reporting directly to me in my capacity as Minister. I shall be able to appoint a chief executive officer who can concentrate on the administration of HomeFund and new programs to assist home purchase.

The Home Purchase Assistance Authority will have an independent board chaired by a person other than the chief executive officer. The board, made up of part-time members and the chief executive officer, will determine the policies and long-term strategic plans of the authority. It will oversee the management of the authority and advise me on matters
Page 1586
relating to its functions and activities. The board will be chosen from persons with experience in public sector policy, consumer affairs, finance, housing, commerce, law and economics. I will therefore be able to draw together more varied management skills than previously to develop effective home purchase policies.

The functions of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority will enable it to manage efficiently the Government's existing programs for home purchasers and allow it to develop effective new programs. The Home Purchase Assistance Authority will develop guidelines for eligibility for assistance. The authority will determine terms and conditions of loans; it will provide information; it will be responsible for managing loans and investments. I will approve the budgets of the authority. I will use funds available from the Home Purchase Assistance Fund, presently managed by the Department of Housing, and grants from funds provided by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments under the terms of the Commonwealth-State housing agreement.

Financial and performance reporting and external audits will ensure the accountability of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority. There will be many benefits from the establishment of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority. The authority will avoid duplication of effort and resources - for instance, between Treasury and the Department of Housing; encourage professionalism in the development and management of policies to assist home purchasers; and sharpen the process of fixing objectives for home purchase programs as the authority will have to justify its recommendations and have them approved by me.

Above all, the establishment of this authority will centralise responsibility for home purchase assistance. As we look to the different economic environment of the 1990s it is clear that a new approach to home-ownership policies will be required. In the past, these policies have been developed without adequate accountability. Complex structures have obscured responsibility and hidden the risks being taken by borrowers, investors and the Government. I recommend that a new, single purpose, statutory corporation, the Home Purchase Assistance Authority, be established to manage the existing HomeFund loans and develop a new, more accountable method of assisting people with home purchase. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer.


Debate resumed from 21st April.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [6.15]: The Opposition does not oppose this bill, which is narrow in its scope. The effect of the bill is to extend the life of the Entertainment Industry Interim Council until 1st January, 1994. In 1989 Parliament legislated to establish the Entertainment Industry Interim Council, which by section 6 of the Entertainment Industry Act was given the role of fostering the development of an entertainment industry regulatory body controlled by members of the industry. It also has a general role of providing advice to the Minister. For reasons which are not readily apparent, but I suppose are understandable, it appears that the council has not been able to complete its work as was envisaged in 1989.

Section 7 of the 1989 Act provided that the council would be dissolved three years after the commencement of the part, hence the need to extend its life by this legislation. The Opposition will be concerned to scrutinise and form a view about any plan for an entertainment industry regulatory body that the interim council ultimately constructs, but we certainly cannot see any harm in the interim council being able to complete its work. Whatever might be our ultimate view of the entertainment industry regulatory body which is constructed, we do not oppose the idea of the existing council being allowed to complete its work nor the extension contemplated by this legislation.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [6.16]: The objects of the Entertainment Industry Act are to promote the development and growth of the entertainment industry; to provide for the development of codes of ethics for the entertainment industry; to provide a forum for the hearing and resolution of complaints in the entertainment industry; and to develop a framework that will provide for the self-regulation of the entertainment industry. The legislation was enacted in 1989 and reflects the recommendations of the ministerial committee which reviewed the then existing theatrical agents and employers legislation contained in the Industrial Arbitration Act 1940. At that time the committee was chaired by the present Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. J. P. Hannaford, and was made up of representatives of agents, employers, unions and proprietors within the industry. A broad review of the industry was conducted by the committee and agreement was reached by the parties in formulating the recommendations contained in the report, which became the basis for the legislation.

The role of the council is an important one, providing for the development of an industry-based self-regulatory body. The entertainment industry is an important service industry catering for the entertainment needs of the people of New South Wales. With more leisure time available and a difficult economic climate, the entertainment industry becomes even more pivotal to the social cohesion of our society. The legislation covers all forms of entertainment, including live, filmed and televised performances by actors, singers, dancers, models, musicians and performers of any kind, and represents a dynamic and innovative move towards industry self-regulation and a minimum of government intervention.

When the Hon. J. J. Fahey was the Minister for Industrial Relations he emphasised several times that
Page 1587
the industry would receive ongoing support and assistance from the Government in setting up a self-regulating system. The Entertainment Industry Interim Council was set up under part 2 of the Act to develop a self-regulatory body within the industry and to assist in developing guidelines and principles to be adopted by that body in relation to the entertainment industry. Originally it was contemplated that the council would require two to three years to complete its obligations under the legislation, and consequently provisions were included in the Act whereby the council would furnish the Minister with a report on the abovementioned matters within two years of the commencement of the legislation, and that it would be dissolved three years after such commencement.

As the Act was commenced on 18th May, 1990, the date on which the interim council is to be dissolved under the legislation is 18th May, 1993. The council has found, however, that due to the innovative nature of the work it has undertaken and the nature of the industry, together with the limited resources available to it, it has had insufficient time to finalise its report to the Minister. It has made representations that the life of the council be extended by seven months to the end of the year, by which time the report will be finalised and presented to the Minister. In view of the importance of the legislation to the entertainment industry and the Government's commitment to ongoing support of the council and its work, the bill seeks to amend the Entertainment Industry Act 1989 to extend the date on which the council must furnish the Minister with its report and dissolve to 1st January, 1994. The bill is good housekeeping legislation. The Attorney General is to be commended for the legislation. I am pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.21]: When I became aware that the Entertainment Industry (Interim Council) Amendment Bill was to come before the House today I thought of the following biblical quotation, "The mills of God grind slow, but they grind exceeding small". I am beginning to wonder whether I shall still be a member of this House when this legislation is finally enacted. The legislation had its genesis when I was vice-president of Actors Equity in 1977. A delegation from Actors Equity went to see the then Minister, Mr Pat Hills, and negotiations were commenced with the Minister for regulation in the industry, particularly regulation of theatrical agents. I was also involved with the Hon. Barrie Unsworth in the formation of the Models Guild; up until that time models had been grossly exploited. When there was a change of administration in 1988 the Leader of the Government was given the job of trying to sort out this long-running inquiry into what should happen. The Entertainment Industry (Interim Council) Amendment Bill was the result. That council was set up in 1989.

A few moments ago the Hon. J. M. Samios referred to the innovative nature of the work that the council was doing. I point out to the honourable member that by and large the industry has been involved in attempting to get this legislation off the ground for the past 16 years. But after four years on the job, the interim council wants more time. I am beginning to wonder whether the council will want more time for some other reason when we get to the end of this year. I shall wait with interest to see what happens in subsequent months. I realise that there are many conflicting agendas and personalities involved in this. Obviously I support the bill. There has been consultation with the industry and it is asking for more time; I do not think that we are in a position to deny it. I beg and pray that the council uses this next few months productively and that by 1st January, 1994, the Government will be in a position to proceed with the legislation, that the council will exist and regulation - long deferred and much needed - will also exist. I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.24]: The Call to Australia group supports the Entertainment Industry (Interim Council) Amendment Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Entertainment Industry Act 1989 to postpone the date at which the council must exercise its general functions under section 6 of the Act - including reporting to the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations as described above - to 1st January, 1994. The date on which the council is dissolved is also postponed to 1st January, 1994. It may be that there is a reluctance by the entertainment industry to set up a regulatory body. As the entertainment industry is an ad hoc industry, it may prefer to operate in that way in case the regulatory body seeks to impose certain regulations on the industry which it does not want. I hope that this bill will speed up the whole process, that a report can be presented to the Minister, and a regulatory body established.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [6.26]: As a member of the appropriate union under discussion -

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: That explains some of the performances from time to time.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Attorney General has interrupted me, as usual. I am not a member of the actors union; I am a member of the former theatrical union, which encompasses clowns in this State. Notwithstanding this point, I am happy to endorse this bill. The theatrical union is now a part of the Arts and Media Alliance - that great, fabulous union - which also includes Actors Equity, of which my colleague the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is a member, and the Australian Journalists Association. It is a great alliance. This legislation has been designed to help stamp out some of the worst practices in the industry. I am pleased that the Government is seeking to extend the terms of the Entertainment Industry Act, particularly the functions of the council, in endeavouring to ensure that in future members of my union will not suffer the trials and tribulations that they have in the past, prior to a decent entertainment Act.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [6.28]: I support the extension of the life of the interim council of the entertainment industry. As the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has said, this is a long-running show. It is obvious that the council has not been able to fulfil the
Page 1588
objects of the Act in the time it has been given; namely, to promote development and growth of the entertainment industry, to provide for the development of codes and ethics, to provide a forum for the hearing and resolution of complaints in the industry and to develop a framework that provides for the self-regulation of the industry. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, the council has to furnish a report to the Minister on its establishment, composition and functions by 18th May. It is unable to do that - apparently due to a lack of resources - so there is a need for this amendment. It could not do all of the things set out in the legislation in its interim life. The Attorney General has agreed to the council's representations to introduce a bill to extend its life to 31st December, 1993. That amendment will enable the council to fulfil its obligations under the Act and allow it to finish its work as an interim council. I support the bill.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.30], in reply: I thank honourable members for their comments in support of the bill. I also join them in their aspirations for the future of this council.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The PRESIDENT: I invite the attention of honourable members to the presence in the Chamber of Duan Jin, Consul-General for the People's Republic of China.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.32]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON [6.32]: I speak on an issue recently raised in a question asked in this House by the Hon. J. M. Samios directed to the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations. The question, asked on 31st March, 1993, referred to the activities of building workers at Pitt Street, Singleton and Richmond, who are seeking to have outstanding entitlements paid. In his answer the Minister loosely referred to a bricklaying company called Dionfield. Dionfield is in fact two companies - Dionfield Pty Limited and Dionfield Australia Pty Limited. Both companies have a share capital of $2. Both are operated by a Mr John Bruce and his wife. Stuart Brothers had awarded subcontracts to both companies, including for the Richmond job, which involves the construction of a TAFE college for the State Government.

Soon after application was made to place Dionfield Pty Limited into liquidation, in June 1992, Stuart Brothers sought to transfer its dealings to Dionfield Australia Pty Limited. The activities of the Dionfield companies were recently investigated by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program "The Investigators". That program, together with the protests of the building workers at the three sites, has raised the very serious issue of the use of two-dollar companies to avoid legal and moral responsibilities, both by head contractors and the directors of two-dollar companies. It appears from his answer that the Minister has not provided Parliament with an accurate picture of what has occurred in relation to this matter. I have noted a number of misleading statements made by the Minister. The more serious of these are as follows.

Misleading statement No. 1: in his answer the Minister referred to one Dionfield creditor, "the Australian Taxation Office, which claimed to be owed $42,000". In fact, the amount claimed by the Taxation Office is $420,000. And this amount did not relate to back taxes but to PAYE tax deducted from workers' wages which was not forwarded to the Taxation Office. Misleading statement No. 2: the Minister referred to a $42,000 payment made by Stuart Brothers on 17th December and a statutory declaration made by Mr John Bruce stating that "the money received was paid out in full by way of wages to the employees of Dionfield". In fact, many of the building workers received only half of their pay at that time. There is only some question as to whether around $7,000 to $8,000 of PAYE tax on that amount was forwarded to the Taxation Office.

Misleading statement No. 3: the Minister referred to "extreme action of the Building Workers Industrial Union". He also suggested that the three sites in question were subject to picketing and industrial action. The workers are actually engaging in a democratic protest against this sort of activity. In fact, the Minister's Federal Liberal colleagues John Hewson and John Howard both signed the protesting workers' petitions calling on the State Government to assist the workers and address the current problems with companies going into liquidation.

Misleading statement No. 4: the Minister said that on 18th December "industrial action" was started by employees of Dionfield in the form of pickets. It is not clear whether at that stage the workers were employed by Dionfield Pty Limited, which had already been liquidated, by Dionfield Australia Pty Limited or John Bruce directly. At the time the workers' protests started - they were not pickets - the workers were probably no longer employed. As the Minister for Industrial Relations should know, if the workers were not at that stage employed, they could not be involved in industrial action under the terms of the Industrial Relations Act.

Misleading statement No. 5: the Minister said that a statement of affairs had not been submitted to the liquidator. In fact, a report as to affairs was signed by John Bruce on behalf of the company on 15th February, 1993, and submitted to the liquidator
Page 1589
soon after. Misleading statement No. 6: the Minister stated that "the BWIU in this case is attempting to force an employee takeover on the three . . . building sites". If the Minister had contacted the union or Stuart Brothers he would have been informed that there is no such demand by the BWIU, and there has not been for a considerable amount of time. [Time expired.]


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.37]: I wish to bring to the attention of this House, and the Attorney-General in particular, the problem still facing Mr Douglas Harry Rendell. I received further correspondence today from Professor Barry Boettcher, of the University of Newcastle, which states:

1. Douglas Rendell should receive compensation for his wrongful imprisonment.

In this respect, the Attorney General, whose province this is, should appoint a suitable person to assess appropriate compensation for Mr Rendell. I submit that, based on the assessment procedure for the Chamberlains, Justice Hunt, who ordered the Inquiry into Mr Rendell's conviction, and who prepared the report to the Governor (which resulted in Mr Rendell receiving a pardon), is the appropriate person to assess compensation for Mr Rendell.

2. Provision should be made to enable Mr Rendell to return to Court, to have his conviction quashed. (The current position is that Mr Rendell has received a pardon from the N.S.W. government, but his conviction for murder remains in the legal records.)

It has to be accepted that, as the law stands, the Attorney General has no residuary power to give Mr Rendell permission to return to the Court of Criminal Appeal. But, this was also the situation when the Chamberlains received their pardon from the Northern Territory government. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly passed a bill introduced by the Attorney General, which gave the Chamberlains the capacity to return to the Northern Territory Supreme Court, where their convictions were quashed.

The request is for the Attorney General to introduce legislation to enable Mr Rendell (and others like him who are found to be innocent, after having been convicted of a crime earlier) to return to a Court (presumably the Court of Criminal Appeal, or the Supreme Court), to enable him to have his conviction quashed.

In order that you can have the opportunity of reading the correspondence between the Attorney General's Office and me, I am enclosing copies of the correspondence.

That correspondence is voluminous. In fact, the most recent letter that Professor Boettcher has written to the Attorney General - which I assume is in the Minister's file awaiting his attention - is dated 20th April, 1993. The reason Professor Boettcher is taking so much time and trouble over this matter is not only that he has secured a quashing of the conviction against Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, but also that he has documentation to prove there was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, to fabricate evidence, to commit perjury and submit false evidence against Mr Rendell. The documentation of these charges, together with formal laying of complaints, was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police on 2nd February, 1993.

On 9th March Professor Boettcher had received no reply from the commissioner's office on that matter although the post office acknowledged that the documents were delivered on 4th February. He believes that his claims have to be investigated because the charges are serious and the actions strike at the heart of our legal system. Second, the Attorney General has said that Mr Rendell will not receive compensation since his conviction was obtained by the due process of law. Thus it has to be brought out that Mr Rendell's conviction was obtained through actions which were not the due process of law. Third, he believes that it is very important that the police are able to investigate their own people without fear or favour.

There is the point - I hope the Attorney General will take it on board - that the section 475 inquiry into Mr Rendell's conviction, by its terms of reference, was to determine whether there was a question of doubt about the conviction. It was not to try to determine what went wrong. But it was after Professor Boettcher went through the evidence - sworn evidence given at the trial and committal - that he was able to document that withholding crucial evidence was not the only improper action that had been used against Mr Rendell. I once again request that the Attorney General take all these matters into consideration and further consider the possibility of introducing a bill to enable Mr Rendell to have his conviction quashed.

Motion agreed to.