Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 16 November 1993, Corrected Copy)

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

The President offered the Prayers.


The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to the resolution of 26th October, 1993, after consultation with party leaders I have given permission for filming today of the debate on the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill and debate on the police administration motion to be moved by the Hon. E. P. Pickering. I also announce to the House that I have given permission for a photographer from the Daily Telegraph Mirror to take photographs during the proceedings of the House.


Formal stages and first readings agreed to.


Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.


The Hon. D. J. Gay, on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, brought up the collation of evidence of the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Mr Ian Temby, Q.C., on general aspects of the commission's operations on Friday, 15th October, 1993, at Parliament House, Sydney.

Ordered to be printed.


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.

Petitions praying that the House reject all homosexual vilification legislation, received from the Hon. D. J. Gay, the Hon. Elaine Nile and the Hon. J. F. Ryan.

Petition praying that the House oppose Government proposals to legalise brothels and that urgent action be taken to clean up vice, disease and exploitation, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.

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.


Suspension of certain standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.41]: I move:

That the resolution of the House granting precedence to the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill of all Government and General Business from Tuesday, 16th November, 1993, be rescinded.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [2.42]: The Opposition is somewhat taken by surprise by this motion. We gleaned during lunch that it was likely that a motion along these lines would be moved, but although I had a discussion with a member of the other place, I had no notification from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby that she would be taking this course of action. It was therefore with some concern that the Opposition gave the honourable member leave to proceed with her motion. When this matter was last debated the Opposition, of course, supported the bill taking precedence over all Government and general business from today. We did so because we believe that it is essential that this legislation not only be debated but, hopefully, be passed by this House before Parliament rises at the end of this week. Honourable members will be aware that the legislation was introduced into the lower House in May and, but for the original precedence motion moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, would have no prospect of being passed by this House this year. I hope the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has received
Page 5324
assurances from the Government that the legislation will be dealt with this week; I hope she is not being set up. The advantage of this legislation being debated today and taking precedence over all Government and general business is that in the normal course of events the Government would have legislation that it had to get through the Parliament before it rises at the end of the week.

As I understand it - and I have only been told this by one of my colleagues - the plan now is to alternate the bill with Government business. By so doing, the risk is that the Government will deal with all of its urgent legislation, and when the anti-vilification legislation comes on there will be nothing else that the Government needs to have passed by the end of the week. The result will be that there will be a filibuster on this legislation, and any amendment to it will not be able to be dealt with by the lower House before it rises - as I understand, as things are now planned, on Thursday evening.

I am somewhat concerned at the course which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has taken. I realise that things happen very quickly in this place and that it is not always possible to consult with or inform one another as fully or as satisfactorily as we might like. I would have thought that, given the importance of the legislation, and the procedural tactics if you like, at least the Leader of the Opposition would have had some notification. I will await the explanation of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby - and perhaps of the Leader of the Government; I do not know - before the Opposition determines whether it will support the motion.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.46], in reply: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I also apologise both to the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. P. F. O'Grady, because I know that his commitment and his feelings about this legislation are greater than even mine or those of the Hon. E. P. Pickering. Last night - I was in Canberra yesterday - I received a message to say that the Hon. Elaine Nile had requested that the Australian Democrats pair the leader of the Call to Australia group in any vote on this legislation. I made it quite clear that I would not be able to grant such a pair, first because I am the mover of the bill and also because I believe that it is essential, for all of the reasons that the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, that it should pass through the Parliament this week. The matter was left there.

When I arrived back in Sydney this morning I was informed that my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones had offered a pair to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile so that he would be able to continue the treatment for his injury in hospital. That seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable. It was, as I have already pointed out to the Hon. Elaine Nile in private conversation, an offer made in the spirit of Christian charity. I would certainly hope that if any other member of this House suffered such a terrible accident there would be absolutely no barrier to that member receiving a pair.

However, I was informed during the morning that it would be necessary to delay debate on the bill, and at a meeting held with the crossbenchers just after one o'clock in the office of the Leader of the Government - as is usual on a Tuesday - I was asked if I was prepared to allow the bill to be deferred. It was suggested to me, however, that there was a possibility that it might be deferred not just until tomorrow but perhaps until Thursday. I refused.

I said clearly to the Leader of the Government that - despite the illness of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile - this was just another delaying tactic on his part, and therefore it was necessary that an assurance be given that the legislation would be debated tomorrow, for all the reasons given by the Leader of the Opposition. Agreement was reached, particularly in view of the fact that there is to be a large demonstration outside Parliament House of people supporting this legislation - I believe the police are expecting about 5,000 - that after question time today I would make my second reading speech and the debate would be adjourned either until a later hour of the sitting or until tomorrow. That is the procedure that has been agreed between the Government and me.

It will meet the concerns of the Opposition and it will also increase the possibility of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile being in attendance in the House tomorrow, depending on his state of health. By agreeing to this, we have not jeopardised the bill. I have discussed the matter with the Hon. E. P. Pickering because he is as committed to this legislation as the honourable Richard Jones and I are. There is absolutely no reason for the leader of Call to Australia to reject the offer of the pair in the spirit in which it was offered. Apparently Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is still determined to filibuster on this bill. Today he released to the media a so-called speakers list with times allotted to every name. The release suggested that practically every member of this House will speak for at least one hour - some for as long as 90 minutes. The released suggested further not only that he and the Hon. Elaine Nile would filibuster, but that he had more or less commanded members of the Opposition and members from the Government side of the House to filibuster also. I have released that so-called speakers list to the press.

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: Does the honourable member have an assurance of how long the House will sit?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I have an assurance that the House will sit until Friday. I have an assurance that this bill will be debated, and, if necessary, if there is to be such a filibuster, we shall be sitting for a long time tomorrow and into Thursday. The lower House, I am informed, will not rise until 6 p.m. on Friday.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: And the honourable member believes that?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I am not in control of the business of the lower House, as the honourable member well knows. I am informed that the lower House will sit until Friday.

Page 5325

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You still have not explained why the bill had to be deferred today.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: The honourable member has not been listening to what I have said.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will address the Chair.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I do not like having to follow this procedure. I am informed by the Clerk that the matter can be addressed only in this lengthy, complicated and technical way. Honourable members know the complexities of our standing orders, but few members of the public have any understanding of them. And I doubt, by the puzzled looks on the faces of members of the press, that they have any understanding of our standing orders either. I can only say that the advising from the Clerk was that this was the only way in which I could tackle this problem. I do not like having to defer the debate. However, given that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is still in hospital, it would seem and would be widely interpreted as unchristian in the extreme if he were not permitted an additional 24 hours to recuperate sufficiently to improve his chances of being in attendance in this House tomorrow.

That is why I have agreed to this procedure. But I make it crystal clear to both the press gallery and the public gallery, where I note many members and supporters of the Call to Australia group are seated, as I made it clear to the Hon. Elaine Nile at 1.30 p.m. today: just as the Hon. Elaine Nile and her husband are committed to the defeat of this bill, I am totally and completely committed to ensuring that it passes this House in line with the commitment and the promise I made to the gay and lesbian community. If I was not so committed when I first said I was going to introduce the bill of the honourable member for Bligh into this House, I am now totally convinced, because of the appalling correspondence and telephone calls I have received in the past few days. In the past few days my office has received letters from members of the public detailing to me every known act of sexual perversion

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: You are not the only one.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I am quite sure I am not. The authors of the letters state categorically that these acts of sexual perversion are practices indulged in by members of the gay and lesbian community. The letters are riddled with hatred and malice, and they are whipping up an appalling and unchristian spirit of homophobia in this State. The letters that have been written to me in sincere Christian belief I have replied to, though I do not agree with their views. The others I have put where they belong: in the wastepaper basket. I will not have such filth peddled as Christian doctrine, because it is not. It can only be condemned in the strongest terms. I hope that honourable members of the Opposition are satisfied with my explanation.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby agreed to:

That consideration of the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill take precedence of all other Government and General Business from Tuesday, 16th November, 1993, until concluded unless the Order of the Day is adjourned until a later hour of the same day or to another day by Order of the House.

Debate resumed from 12th October.

Motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby agreed to:

That this debate be now adjourned until the conclusion of Question Time today.

Debate resumed from 10th November.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [3.1]: The Opposition supports the Home Purchase Assistance Authority (Amendment) Bill, subject to some amendments which it will propose in Committee.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: You did not give us much time.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing has just said that the Opposition did not give the Government much time. I indicate that I have not had much time. Today at 1.30 p.m. I learned that this bill would be debated this afternoon. That being the case, I made it my business to locate the amendments and to circulate them to members on the Government side of the House and on the crossbenches as soon as I could. I, along with other members of the House, was under the impression, until the lunch hour today, that the bill that has just been under discussion - the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill - would have occupied much, if not all, of the time of the House today. I put those matters before the House to indicate that there was no intended discourtesy on my part with respect to making the amendments available to the members on the Government side of the House and on the crossbenches.

The bill seeks to transfer the identified surplus funds of the Rental Bond Board, the Real Estate Services Council and the Building Services Corporation to what is known as a Housing Reserve Fund under the control of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority. Commissioner Mant and Commissioner Dodd identified a surplus in each of these organisations in excess of their operational requirements. The Opposition believes that the amount proposed to be transferred to the Housing Reserve Fund is of the order of $218 million.

The Government refuses to accept the view that the surplus funds should be retained within these respective entities - the Real Estate Services Council,
Page 5326
the Rental Bond Board and the Building Services Corporation - to be used to support programs for the benefit of client groups. This is a matter of major concern to the Opposition. I pose a number of simple questions to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. Is what the Government doing fair? Is it right and just for these surplus funds, if I can call them that - surplus to the immediate requirements of those statutory bodies - to be used to help solve the HomeFund debacle when the funds were clearly gathered for quite different purposes?

I shall now refer to the effect the legislation will have on the operations of the Building Services Corporation. To illustrate my concern, I refer to an editorial which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27th September this year under the heading "HomeFund, and the other mess". That editorial stated, "What requires closer examination is the nature and origin of the $218 million" - to which I referred a short time ago. The editorial asks rhetorically, "From what hollow log is it being plucked?". The editorial asks, as I have, whether what the Government proposes to do is fair. The editorial states:

The question is whether these "surplus funds" can properly or fairly be used to help solve the HomeFund mess when they were gathered for a different purpose.

The editorial refers to that purpose. It states:

That purpose, under the 1989 Building Services Corporation Act, is to "insure . . . residential building work against its not being completed or its being defective."

That is the principal statutory purpose of the fund administered by the Building Services Corporation. The editorial then refers to representations and protests made by an organisation known as the Building Action Review Group. The group claims that the BSC has failed in its statutory duty to protect the interests of consumers in the residential building industry. The Building Action Review Group claims that the BSC has failed to ensure that disputes between consumers and builders are resolved fairly and to see that incomplete or defective building work is made good by using the insurance funds set up under the Act for that purpose.

It is further argued by the Building Action Review Group that if surplus BSC insurance funds are to be distributed, it should be to consumers left with defective buildings. It is important that the Building Services Corporation should not be allowed to fail in its function, as required by law, to ensure that persons who have had the misfortune to have had defective buildings constructed are not left holding the baby, so to speak. The editorial concludes by referring to two great messes: one being HomeFund and the other described as the scandal in the residential building industry. The editorial reached the following conclusion:

At the very least there should be no tampering with "surplus" BSC insurance funds until all questions raised by consumers who built the funds have been answered satisfactorily.

I now refer to the effects the legislation will have on the Rental Bond Board. Funds from the rental bond interest account are used currently to fund the administration of the Rental Bond Board. Half the costs of administering the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal Act 1986 come from this rental bond interest account. Funds from the account may also, with the agreement of the Minister, be used for the establishment or administration of rental advisory services. In that regard I refer to section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act 1977.

It is very instructive to note that in 1989 the then Minister for Housing, the Hon. J. J. Schipp, withdrew funds from the housing information and tenants service program. That program had been funded from the rental bond interest account. It included 22 community-based tenants advice and advocacy services located throughout the State and employed approximately 60 people. The program provided an accessible service to tenants. I emphasise that the programs to which I am referring were independent of the Department of Housing; they were community-based services and they were able to respond effectively to the advice, information and advocacy needs of local tenants.

The services, being community based, were able to target tenants most disadvantaged by lack of information and resources and in particular those from non-English speaking backgrounds. When the Hon. Joe Schipp took the draconian actions to which I am referring - as I recall, I was Opposition housing spokesman at the time or I was very soon after - the then Minister installed in place of what he had abolished a very limited information service inside the Department of Housing, and more recently transferred to the Ministry of Housing. The service is also funded from the rental bond interest account. The department's tenancy service comprises approximately 11 advisers for the whole of New South Wales, four of whom are based in regional centres. The service is limited to the provision of information to landlords, agents and tenants. It does not provide assistance beyond the supply of information, such as advocacy on behalf of one party against another or assistance to a party at a tribunal hearing. Its location within the Department of Housing - which incidentally is the largest landlord in the State - the Opposition would argue, has posed a fundamental conflict of interest.

In 1993 John Mant, in his inquiry into certain customer service bodies under the responsibility of the Minister for Housing, found that tenants are generally not as well off as home owners, yet they receive less help from government. Reference to that can be found at page 55 of Mr Mant's report. He acknowledged that many tenants are in great need and have little knowledge of their rights. He observed that governments are not very good at providing advice and assistance to individuals and suggested that it was more appropriate for advice, as distinct from information, to be provided by community organisations. He suggested also that funds for community based tenant services could be provided
Page 5327
from the Rental Bond Board interest account. The Opposition acknowledges that the bailout of HomeFund will cost a lot of funds. However, we are concerned that, as it turns out, the burden will not be spread across the community but will be borne via the raiding of the Rental Bond Board. To that extent the cost will be borne by tenants. What I am arguing is that to the extent that the funds are not available for their true and intended purpose they will be diverted to another purpose, worthwhile as that other purpose might well be.

It is worth while remembering that generally speaking, as a class, tenants are among the poorest groups in the community. It seems that the Government does not accept the view that the surplus funds to which I have been referring should be distributed among the client groups from whom those surpluses historically have been derived. They are supposed to be benefited by the funds that have been garnered over the years from, to take one example, tenants or, to take another example, those who contributed to the funds of the Building Services Corporation. The Government's view in this regard is based on the flawed logic that if the surplus funds are not applied to HomeFund the burden will fall upon other areas of government, and in the case of the housing portfolio this undoubtedly would take the form of reduced provision of public housing, which clearly is the last thing the Opposition would want to see occur. As a one-off transfer the appropriation of the funds of the bodies to which I have been referring - the Rental Bond Board, the Real Estate Services Council and the Building Services Corporation - can possibly be justified in the light of there having occurred a, one would hope, one-off disaster in the HomeFund scheme. On this basis, but on this basis alone, the Opposition will support the bill. However, the Opposition strongly believes that any future surplus funds of the three bodies should be used to support programs for the benefit of the client groups of those bodies and that those bodies will not become a de facto taxing arm of the Government.

For the reasons I have mentioned I propose to move three amendments in Committee which I now foreshadow in general terms. The first amendment is intended to have the effect that only so much of the funds of the Rental Bond Board, the Real Estate Services Council and the Building Services Corporation identified as surplus to requirements as at 30th June, 1993, will be transferred. The intended purpose of the second amendment is that the identification of the surplus funds will be endorsed by the Auditor-General prior to the transfer of any amounts to the Housing Reserve Fund. The third amendment I foreshadow on behalf of the Opposition is that the proposed Government amendment to the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act 1977 be further amended to provide for an amount to be paid each year from the rental bond interest account for the establishment of or ongoing administration of non-government tenants advice and advocacy services in a sufficient amount to provide a high level of such services to non-government tenants - that is, private tenants - within the community.

The Opposition believes that approximately $218 million, which I identified at the beginning of my speech and which the Government intends to transfer to the Housing Reserve Fund, equates only to the capital injection required to meet the liabilities of the ongoing HomeFund program as recently determined by the Auditor-General. Transfer of the retained surplus of the Home Purchase Assistance account will not cover any orders - I stress this - made by the HomeFund Commissioner, nor will it cover the restructuring of the entire HomeFund scheme. Finally, it will not cover any possible compensation payments to the FANMAC bondholders. The Auditor-General was very specific in stating that he had not included these items in his calculation of the amount of capital required to support the HomeFund program. Therefore, the Opposition puts it to the House that the proposed transfer must be recognised for what it is, a band aid. The financial, social and emotional problems encountered daily by HomeFund families must be accepted in their entirety by the Government. The Government is responsible for many thousands of unsuspecting families being in this mess and it must ensure that those same families are rescued.

I note that the Minister has said at question time and at other times that the Greiner Government merely took over the HomeFund scheme being operated by the previous Labor Government. So far as actual legal structure is concerned, that is true. However, the statement does not concede, but ought to concede, that under the Hon. Joe Schipp a quantum leap occurred in amounts lent under the HomeFund scheme. Whereas the previous Labor Government was lending to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, suddenly lending escalated to such an extent that many hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars were being lent by HomeFund. The Hon. Joe Schipp made no apology for that at the time. He said that private home ownership was the way to go and that the Government was trying to get people into private rather than public housing. Were it not for the fact that some HomeFund borrowers were unable to service their loans, that might have been a commendable objective. However, many HomeFund borrowers were never likely to be able to service a commercial housing loan, let alone a housing loan with a fixed interest rate.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It was set up by your organisation.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti interjects. I have said that the HomeFund scheme was set up by the former Labor Government. I have said also that lending was massively escalated by the Hon. Joe Schipp under the Greiner Government. I could produce for the information of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti press releases I issued when I was shadow minister for housing, in which I predicted that certain borrowers would get into trouble because of the fixed rate nature of the HomeFund scheme. Some borrowers were borrowing at a 14.9 per cent fixed rate. That was not an unattractive proposition in the interest rate structure at that time because variable home loan interest rates
Page 5328
at that stage rose to as high as 17 per cent. Some years ago I predicted, although it was not fashionable to listen to at the time because it had not happened, that when the interest rate structure changed and the variable rate fell - rates fell gradually to 16 per cent, to 15 per cent, suddenly in steps to about 12 per cent, and to lower rates since - the HomeFund borrower with a loan at 14.9 per cent would not be a happy little vegemite at being locked in to that rate for many years when a neighbour might be paying 12 per cent to the State Bank or some other lending institution.

Another reason the Homefund scheme was predicated on subsequent failure was that part of the scheme was based on inflation continuing and the income of the borrower continuing to escalate at a defined rate each year. That did not happen, which caused a number of HomeFund borrowers grave financial difficulty and harm. That is the proximate cause of the difficulties that many HomeFund borrowers fell into and more than anything else, apart from various misrepresentations, the cause of the HomeFund debacle. That is all I want to say about the HomeFund scheme. The Government is now trying to straighten out the mess. I call upon the Government to live up to its responsibilities to HomeFund borrowers.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.23]: I support principally the thrust of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority (Amendment) Bill. Towards the conclusion of my contribution I shall raise a large number of questions for the Minister which I would ask him to consider in his response to the House on the second reading of the bill. It is pleasing that the Hon. R. D. Dyer, on behalf of the Opposition, supports the thrust of the proposed legislation. The bill will amend the Home Purchase Assistance Authority Act in order to establish and administer a Housing Reserve Fund out of which payments may be made in connection with housing assistance. The Minister for Housing will be able to direct the transfer of money and other assets held by the Building Services Corporation, the Rental Bond Board and the Real Estate Services Council to the new fund.

The Home Purchase Assistance Authority was constituted on 1st July, 1993, to facilitate provision of assistance to home purchasers on low and moderate incomes and to manage existing and future home purchase assistance schemes, including HomeFund. It is my understanding and the Government's view that the most effective use of the surpluses from the three agencies is to combine them into a single fund for use within the housing portfolio, to be administered by the Housing Purchase Assistance Authority. Commissioner Mant, in his inquiry into the Rental Bond Board and the Real Estate Services Council, identified considerable surplus funds as being in excess of their immediate needs and current liabilities. On 28th February Commissioner Peter Dodd reported after his inquiry into the Building Services Corporation that:

According to the BSC's actuary there is between $56 million and $70 million of assets of the BSC that are not required to support the BSC's current insurance obligations.

Under the provisions of the bill, these funds will be transferred to the Housing Reserve Fund, forming the most practical response to our need to address the problems within the housing program. The bill follows through with actions foreshadowed in the 1993-94 Budget Papers, using surplus funds to meet the costs associated with the HomeFund financial restructure, determinations of the HomeFund commissioner and housing needs in general. To that end, the bill enables an amendment to the Building Services Corporation Act 1989 to enable payments to be made into the Housing Reserve Fund from the Building Services Corporation account kept under that Act. The bill further amends the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act 1977 to enable payments to be made into the Housing Reserve Fund from the rental bond interest account kept under that Act. The bill also amends the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 1941 to enable payments to be made into the Housing Reserve Fund from the statutory interest account and the Real Estate Services Council compensation fund kept under that Act.

Accumulated surpluses have been identified in these three named agencies within the housing portfolio by Commissioner Dodd in respect of the Building Services Corporation and by Commissioner Mant in respect of the Rental Bond Board and the Real Estate Services Council. Commissioner John Mant, in his report of inquiry of 12th May, 1993, referred to the surplus held by the Rental Bond Board as being an amount of about $100 million. Notwithstanding his view that the funds have been essentially accumulated from past activities, he was supportive of the Rental Bond Board's commitment to applying surplus income from managing funds to government housing programs.

In reporting on the Real Estate Services Council, Commissioner Mant identified surplus funds being a minimum of $50 million in excess of its immediate needs and for which there is no specific purpose. He found, as he had in the review of the Rental Bond Board, that the Real Estate Services Council had large amounts of capital from past surpluses which were far in excess of their day-to-day requirements or their contingent liabilities. In his inquiry into the Building Services Corporation of 28th February Commissioner Peter Dodd reported that according to the BSC's actuary between $56 million and $70 million of assets of the BSC are not required to support the BSC's current insurance obligations. He noted that these assets had been accumulated over the past five years from operating surpluses in the licensing activities and the excess return on investment over and above that which was required for insurance purposes. Commissioner Dodd noted:

I do not believe that the Government intended for the BSC to have a fund of the current magnitude.

His recommendation essentially was that the activities for which the resources had been accumulated - being education, resource and training - would be better brought into the inner budget sector of the Government. In the 1993-94 Budget, the Government foreshadowed the use of surplus funds to meet any
Page 5329
costs associated with the HomeFund financial restructure, determinations of the HomeFund Commissioner and housing needs in general. These were quite clearly set out and put up front at the earliest possible stage. I have no basic problems with those matters. However, in relation to the Building Services Corporation I have received an incredible amount of representations from constituents about what might be described as grievance cases or disputes with the Building Services Corporation. I mention these matters today so that they are on the record. I specifically invite the Minister, in his reply, to clarify the following matters in relation to the Building Services Corporation. First, I ask how many claims are in dispute? Second, how many claims listed as either settled or not proceeding may be considered as still in dispute?

Third, on the basis of experience, how many new claims are expected to be notified and lodged with the passage of each month? Fourth, what will be the expected maximum and minimum costs, in dollar terms, to settle (a) all disputed claims from the three separate areas of change from 1986, 1988 and 1990, given the legislative changes that were introduced by the Government and the improvements put in place by this Government to assist in the settlement of those claims; and (b) those claims submitted and expected since September 1993? Fifth, I invite the Minister to re-affirm and guarantee to this House that if the $50 million to $70 million is transferred to the Housing Reserve Fund from the Building Services Corporation, sufficient funds will be available to meet all unresolved disputed claims now known and those anticipated to be submitted; and how this funding will be found and preserved. Sixth, what is the major basis of disputes before the Building Services Corporation, and why are they still unresolved?

Seventh, I ask the Minister whether the maximum $100,000 compensation - which was increased from $17,500 by this Government - is sufficient to meet the claims of various consumers; and if there is any doubt as to whether it is sufficient will the Minister consider increasing the limit immediately to at least $200,000 or $250,000. Eighth, as a number of eminent jurists appear to be of the view that the present legislation does not seem to allow for ex gratia payments, even if the Building Services Corporation is found to be or admits that it is at fault in the handling of a claim - there appear to be three or four cases in this capacity - will the Minister give an undertaking to amend the Act or to introduce new legislation to allow for the provision of ex gratia payments to be made in specific cases? Ninth, will the Minister explain how he proposes to overcome the present cost difficulties to be met by claimants who are dissatisfied with the decisions of the Building Services Corporation, as it appears that appeals under the current and previous legislation can concurrently be reviewed only by the Supreme Court? Quite clearly this is an extraordinarily expensive process and a course that is clearly beyond the financial capacity of most people.

Tenth, I ask the Minister whether he will give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced next session to enable all outstanding insurance claims to be directed to a new commercial tribunal of New South Wales for determination, as recommended by Commissioner Dodd in his report - with assistance for costs, either all or part, to be met by the Government? Eleventh, I ask the Minister to consider setting up an independent body to review all current disputed claims and to deal with all future claims. I ask this particularly because the present Building Service Corporation inspectors are perceived by many people as being extremely legalistic and totally bureaucratic in their approach; and because, as either former builders or people engaged in the building industry, they give the impression that they are builders looking after builders. I invite the Minister to indicate if this is possible, and within what time frame such action could be undertaken.

Twelfth, in the case of Purton v. Building Services Corporation, which is the only case I shall mention, I ask the Minister what undertaking he will give to prevent solicitors of the Building Services Corporation, when dealing with certain matters in arbitration, exceeding their authority in relation to claims of negligence and offering what is patently incorrect information, thereby prejudicing the claimant's position, and then having to write a letter of apology? Thirteenth, I invite the Minister to consider allowing private insurers to have the option of competing with, and offering alternatives and better insurance schemes than, the Building Services Corporation?

Fourteenth, as many of the dissatisfied people who have made complaints against the Building Services Corporation appear to have been inveigled, shall I say, into using unlicensed builders, or people using the gold card of another person to hold themselves out as being a licensed gold card builder, what action does the Minister propose to take to eliminate that particular practise, which has caused great difficulty to many consumers and great problems to the Building Services Corporation. Fifteenth, I invite the Minister to undertake a full review and restructure of the Building Services Corporation. In the event that the Minister will give such an undertaking, I ask how he would propose to deal with this matter, and over what time? Sixteenth, Minister, I would hope that if the Minister does this he will ensure that the Building Services Corporation will be accountable to and under the direction of the Minister of the day.

Seventeenth, I invite the Minister to consider the introduction of a plain English contract that can be clearly understood by both homeowners and laymen alike, certainly to replace the current industry contract, which is both complicated and difficult for ordinary people to understand, is rarely properly explained and, in my opinion - and I suspect most reasonable people would agree - could be seen to totally favour the builder in the event of a dispute. Eighteenth, contrary to the implication given in the Dodd inquiry, it has been alleged that the Building Services Corporation does not maintain a separate
Page 5330
insurance fund to cover shoddy building work claims. I ask, as it has been put to me by a number of people, is this part of the reason why the Building Services Corporation has been able to accumulate excess funds, contrary to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in 1986?

Finally, will the Minister give an assurance that the claim that the Building Services Corporation has failed to notify consumers of their right of appeal to the Commercial Tribunal in lieu of arbitration is incorrect? Will the Minister advise what action the Building Services Corporation has taken, and proposes to take, to ensure that consumers are notified of their rights? Subject to appropriate answers to those questions being put on the record so that this matter can be clarified for all time, those asking the questions and I support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.39]: The Australian Democrats are also concerned about the Home Purchase Assistance Authority (Amendment) Bill, and particularly about the use of bond interest money to bail out HomeFund. Today I received a fax from the Redfern Legal Centre bringing to my attention the concerns of that centre, the Western Sydney Tenants Service and the Tenants Union of New South Wales. Their first concern is that the amendments provide for the transfer of accumulated funds from the Rental Bond Board interest account to the Housing Reserve Fund and that the primary interest of the fund is to bail out HomeFund. It is suggested that that will involve a sum of approximately $100 million. Their second concern is about the transfer of funds from the Rental Bond Board interest account to the Housing Reserve Fund at any time with the authorisation of the Minister and Treasurer. In other words, they are concerned that this will not be a one-off transfer. I ask the Minister to comment on that in reply, because I have received other information which suggested that this may be a one-off transfer.

The funds in the Rental Bond Board interest account are the interest accrued from bonds lodged by tenants. For many years interest was not returned to the person who lodged the bond. That has been rectified because, quite rightly, it was considered wrong that the Government should be able to use the interest on tenants' money - in many cases substantial sums of money. The tenants may have been able to earn interest on that money, but the interest was accruing to the Government and not to the tenants. Organisations representing tenants had agreed that that interest should be spent on the provision of services to tenants, particularly on funding community based tenants advice and advocacy services. The concern that was brought to my attention was, and these are the words of the writers of the fax, "If the Rental Bond Board funds are raided to bail out HomeFund, there will be limited funds available for tenants' services".

At present Rental Bond Board interest account funds are used to administer the Rental Bond Board and to meet half the cost of administering the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal Act 1986, and the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act 1977, under section 20(2)(a). Funds from this account may, with the agreement of the Minister, be used also for the establishment or administration of rental advisory services. That use of the money is permitted under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act 1977. I have been informed by the Minister that in fact the money was never intended to be used for rental advisory services. It would appear, therefore, that the opinion of the Minister for Housing and the implications of the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act are different.

In 1989 the then Minister for Housing, Mr Schipp, withdrew funds from the housing information and tenants service program, much to the anger and chagrin of service providers. That program had previously been funded from the Rental Bond Board interest account, and included 22 community based tenants' advice and advocacy services located throughout New South Wales, which employed approximately 60 workers. It was obviously a valuable program because it provided an accessible service to tenants and was independent of the Department of Housing. Those community-based services were able to respond effectively to the advice, information and advocacy needs of local tenants. They were also able to target tenants most disadvantaged by lack of information and resources, particularly those from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Under the administration of Mr Schipp a limited information service was developed inside the Department of Housing. That service has recently been transferred to the ministry of housing. This is the service that is currently funded from the Rental Bond Board interest account. The department's tenancy service is, of course, far less extensive. It consists of approximately 11 advisers for the whole of New South Wales, but only four of those advisers are located in regional centres. The service is limited to the provision of information to landlords, agents and tenants and does not provide, for example, advocacy assistance to a party at a tribunal hearing. The very fact that it is located within the Department of Housing, the largest landlord in New South Wales, seems to me to show a fundamental conflict of interest.

In 1993 John Mant, at page 55 of the report on his inquiry into certain customer service bodies under the responsibility of the Minister for Housing, found - and I think it was self-evident - that tenants are not generally as well off as home owners, but receive far less help from governments. At page 68 he acknowledged that many tenants are in great need and have little knowledge of their rights. He observed that "governments are not very good at providing advice and assistance to individuals". At page 62 he suggested that it would be more appropriate for advice, as distinct from information, to be provided by community organisations. He suggested at page 63 that funds for community-based tenant services could be provided from the Rental Bond Board interest account.

Page 5331

It is not denied by anyone that the necessary bailout of HomeFund - and I have been emphasising this to people who have been speaking to me - will cost several hundred million dollars. However, the Australian Democrats are concerned that the burden should not be spread across the community. If Rental Bond Board funds are raided, the burden will be borne by tenants. That is why some categorical assurance is needed from the Minister that the interests of tenants will be protected. I do not think it needs to be repeated - it should be self-evident - that, as a class, tenants are among the poorest in the community. Attached to the fax to which I referred earlier are some distressing examples of people living in quite appalling circumstances. One example involved a lady who died while her house was being renovated, under protest, by her landlord. It took so long for the repairs to be carried out that she died before they were concluded. It is possible that she may have lived much longer if she had not had that worry on her mind.

It is appalling also that during that length of time she was forced to continue paying rent to live in substandard housing, which had holes that allowed the weather to get in through the walls. I have not seen the building but it seems to be a dwelling that no one should have been permitted to live in, particularly a person of advanced years. Because of the fax I received from the Redfern Legal Centre, I took the matter up with the Auditor-General. He made it clear that only past profits on earlier bonds would be used; that is, the interest earned in the past on bonds that have already been returned to bondholders. He made it clear also that in the past the Rental Bond Board had been disbursing bond money, but had done this without any legal authority, and that the Auditor-General, in his 1992 report, had brought this to the attention of the Government. I have obtained a copy of the relevant pages. At page 265 of volume 3 of that report the Auditor-General made these comments:

There would appear to be merit in a review of the board's financial activities and financial structure in relation to interest distribution and the use of accumulated funds for housing programs. While the Act requires the board pay a rate of interest to bondholders, it is currently less than half the interest which the board itself earns. The surplus interest meets the board's administration expenses and at no apparent cost to the community and without the scrutiny entailed in parliamentary appropriation, subsidises tenancy services and Government housing programs. The equity of using tenants' income obtained by not distributing more of the surplus earned to current bond lodgers to subsidise Government programs can usefully be examined.

I gather that that has already taken place and that what is now happening is that the rate of interest paid to bondholders has been increased and there is no intention to use the current accumulation of bond moneys to bail out HomeFund; but I would like that categorically confirmed by the Minister so that it is on the record. The Auditor-General also made this statement:

Such an examination could also cover the efficiency of the board retaining over $407 million worth of assets when its total liabilities, including the $244 million in rental bond liabilities, amount to $248 million.

He explained that the great bulk of the board's accumulated funds of more than $159 million is invested in social housing schemes. The Auditor-General continued:

While these investments are legal in that they have been prescribed pursuant to the legislation and have been directed by the Minister for Housing, they seem to be aimed at social services which arguably are more a function of government through the normal channels of parliamentary appropriation and reviews than of the board.

On page 266 he continued:

I understand that the Minister wishes to consider these matters, including the board's income should be subject to a tax equivalent regime; whether funds to be directed to government purposes should be remitted to and appropriated from the Consolidated Fund; and whether measures are available to deal with the board's accumulated fund which has built up since the board's establishment about 15 years ago. A review of these issues would be a welcome initiative.

In conversation this afternoon the Minister gave me an assurance, and he has also given an assurance to my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, that he will make it clear in his reply to this debate that bonds lodged with the Rental Bond Board will be preserved and quarantined by the Government; that they will be safely preserved and not siphoned off to assist the Government to solve the problems of HomeFund. If that is the case, it may be that Members of the Opposition might also be satisfied. I am not aware of that because the Hon. R. D. Dyer, who led for the Opposition, has not consulted with the Australian Democrats on this matter; nor have any other members of the Labor Party.

I believe there are problems. The Hon. J. H. Jobling adverted to problems with people in the community being ripped off by shonky builders - a matter that I have raised time and again by way of questions in this House and in the adjournment debate - and the Government has promised to give a further assurance that there will be sufficient money to meet their needs; and that they will be given legal assistance to have their cases heard by an appropriate tribunal to be set up by legislation. I ask the Minister to place those assurances on the record, both in an attempt to calm the fears of those who have put money into the rental bond scheme and those who are desperately disturbed because, after months - and in many cases years - of trying to obtain legal redress against shonky builders, they have still not achieved it. It is certainly long overdue that they should be compensated for shoddy building work. In view of the Minister's commitment to my colleague and me, if those assurances are given in proper form we will support the legislation.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.56]: It is my pleasure to support the Home Purchase Assistance Authority (Amendment) Bill. In the absence of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile I am tempted to read the explanatory note onto the record, but at this stage I will resist. First I will address the comments of the Hon. R. D. Dyer. Members on both sides of the Chamber accept that he is a decent bloke who brings to the Labor Party a degree of credibility that it quite often
Page 5332
lacks - in fact, lacks more often than not. He is one of the shining lights in the Labor Party, but every now and again it slips one under his guard. It says, "Ron, everyone reckons you are a decent bloke. We will get you to do it". Probably the Leader of the Opposition has said, "We want to slip this one in. We have been reading the editorials" - as honourable members know, the Labor Party likes playing consensus politics - "and we will get someone to slip it in. We will just repeat the editorials because the journalists like it when we repeat the editorials". The Opposition has taken an editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald and has repeated it virtually word for word in its proposed amendments and in the honourable member's speech. There is not one original thought.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: They have plagiarised it.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Exactly. It is a particularly bad editorial because it identified that the Government is taking accumulated funds, but missed the important word in the report, "surplus" - accumulated surplus funds. The argument put forward by the Hon. R. D. Dyer on behalf of the Opposition falls completely flat when one adds what was identified in the report: that these are surplus funds. The existing funds that are there and are required to do the job will stay in that authority, but the surplus funds that the Government identified will be removed to provide a very proper role in respect of home purchase assistance. Honourable members will remember that the slogan of the Government when it first came to office was, "Putting people first by managing better". The present Premier said that Greinerism is not dead; this is where Greinerism is alive and well. The Hon. J. R. Johnson does not like to admit it but this is the particular area -

[Interruption]

You should not bring up HomeFund. It was your guys who introduced it in the first place. You are the ones who should be ashamed of it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted for the taking of questions.



The Hon. M. R. EGAN: My question is directed to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council. During the controversial Mr Bubbles debate in 1990 when the Opposition repeatedly called for a royal commission into the matter, were senior Ministers, including the then Attorney General and the then Minister for Police and Emergency Services, aware of the police paedophile protection extortion racket and the allegations about Detective Senior Sergeant Fluit?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I would not know. If the Leader of the Opposition has information that would assist me to make those inquiries I will happily pursue them.

Later,

Earlier the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about the knowledge of the Minister for Police with regard to certain paedophile protection allegations. I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that, at page 8216 of Hansard of 11th October, 1990, the member is recorded as having asked a question on this particular subject. The then Minister for Police answered the question and I will restate in part what he said:

I have certainly had numerous discussions with the commissioner -

That is, the Commissioner of Police:

- and some other senior officers on the matter. Honourable members will recall that recently, so that the community of New South Wales could be utterly satisfied that this matter was being appropriately dealt with, I undertook to have Commissioner Temby fully briefed on the matters to date and also to provide him with a briefing from the department in my presence on a monthly basis. I would think one could do no more than to provide assurance in everyone's mind that this matter is being effectively dealt with.

If the honourable member proposes to raise further questions he might well look at the question asked by him in 1990 on this subject.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that in view of the Burdekin report the Sydney City Mission has called for increased government funding so that charities such as itself can purchase private boarding-houses to help care for the mentally ill in New South Wales? What is the Government's reaction to this offer, and what steps have been taken to address the issues raised by the Burdekin report into mental health?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Though I am not aware of the approach by the Sydney City Mission, for many years I have had an association with the mission's fine people, who have served this city and State well. It is with some interest that I note the honourable member's comments that the mission has made an approach to my colleague, to whom I shall pass on the question for a detailed reply.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Housing. Will the Minister inform the House of the results of the New South Wales Ombudsman's investigation of the Department of Housing's administration of the local government and community housing program?

Page 5333

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: This investigation commenced formally in June 1991 and culminated in a special report to Parliament on 25th February, 1993. The investigation coincided with the Mant report on the Department of Housing. The outcome of this investigation has been recorded in the New South Wales Ombudsman's 1993 annual report. The Ombudsman reported that by mid-1992 "it very quickly became clear that a new era for the department was beginning". The Ombudsman went on to say:

The Director of Housing provided concrete proposals for improvements in the functioning of the program. In response to the Ombudsman's provisional report, that is, without waiting for a final report on the investigation, the Director of Housing advised of the following initiatives: a special task force was established to report fortnightly to executive management; closer links with the Commonwealth department were forged; and a concerted effort was made to speed up the department's pre-funding administrative and assessment procedures.

The Ombudsman further noted:

The department's response to the Ombudsman's final report indicated complete compliance with the recommendations of that report within the structure of the newly established community housing program.

In 1992 the department spent $15.2 million of moneys available in the 1992-93 financial year. This represented an improvement of more than 250 per cent on the performance in the previous year. In addition, the Ombudsman noted:

The department has also made significant improvements to the administration of the community housing scheme and the crisis accommodation program.

I can only concur with the Ombudsman's conclusions that the Department of Housing in 1993 has a strong client focus, particularly in the community housing sector. Furthermore, the Ombudsman noted:

The development of a strong community housing sector can only support the work of the Department of Housing.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: What is community housing?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I should be happy to give you a briefing, but as someone who is interested in housing I should have thought you would know.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: I know what public housing is.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I will give the honourable member a briefing.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Promise?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I promise. Give me a ring.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Perhaps the Minister will answer the question.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Recently I provided $50,000 to the New South Wales Federation of Housing Associations to help expand its activities to provide training for community groups and to assist in the development of policies and structures for the expansion of the community housing sector. The long-term objective is that the Department of Housing will not have primary responsibility for the delivery of community housing, and that community housing programs will be delivered through an independent non-government structure. The spiritual leader in Canberra of the Hon. Ann Symonds, the Deputy Prime Minister, is strong in support of this project. The detail of how this structure will operate in partnership with the community, via the Community Housing State Advisory Committee, will be the subject of extensive community consultations. The objective is to develop an expanded, independent and viable community housing sector so that the people of New South Wales have a greater range of housing choices. The Fahey Government has an ongoing commitment, through the community housing program, to the provision of affordable secure accommodation for low income earners and to provide greater choices in housing. The Department of Housing has gone a long way in the past 18 months towards achieving the objectives so clearly outlined by the Ombudsman.


The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: I direct a question without notice to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council. Why did the Minister take 18 months after detailed allegations were made by police informant Fisk before a police task force was established to investigate the police paedophile protection racket? Was that task force only established after the issue was raised by the honourable member for Heffron in Parliament on 6th September, 1990?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I will refer the first part of the question to the Minister for Police for advice. As to the second part, I suspect that the answer is no, but I will also obtain details in relation to that aspect of the question and provide the honourable member with an answer.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier. I am extremely interested in the provision of a manual skills type curriculum in the school education system, and I ask the Minister to inform the House about initiatives under way to promote the study of industrial technology in schools.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The question is timely. The honourable member - as is his wont - is up to date with innovations and matters of importance in the educational calendar. Today this year's INTECH display was officially opened at the Powerhouse Museum. Though honourable members
Page 5334
love and admire the Powerhouse Museum in its own right for its magnificent displays and exhibitions, I suggest that they try to make a point of visiting the museum some time between now and the end of January to see the 29 major projects and works of industrial technology students. The works are varied, innovative and creative. They display the best of the students who have studied industrial technology in 1993.

It is interesting to note the increasing popularity of the industrial technology course. This year 5,700 students studied industrial technology as one of their higher school certificate subjects. Honourable members, particularly those from non-metropolitan areas, will be interested to note that the INTECH exhibitions will be held in Wollongong, Newcastle, Lismore, Bankstown and Dubbo throughout the year. I know that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is interested in this matter so I will ensure that the dates of the exhibitions in those regional centres are made available to him and to other interested honourable members.

The INTECH exhibition, similar to the Art Express exhibition, has grown enormously in its scale, complexity and the type of venues in which the work is displayed. Most importantly, there has been an increase in the quality of the work on display. The display is under the auspices of the Board of Studies, which I congratulate in this regard. The display reflects yet another aspect of excellence within education in New South Wales. From time to time, sponsorship is a talking point in educational circles. The INTECH exhibition, in both Sydney and the regional centres, would not have been possible but for the enthusiastic support of the Powerhouse Museum, which has allowed us to exhibit the display, and Pacific Power, which is our sponsor and to whom I express my thanks and gratitude.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines. The Minister may have seen a display of various traps outside Parliament House today, including a platypus trap. When does the Government intend to join the rest of the civilised world in banning the diabolical instruments of torture known as steel-jawed traps, bearing in mind that most traps capture non-target wildlife and leave them in agony?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I certainly deplore the use of platypus traps - indeed any trap that was used to harm our protected species. However, unlike the honourable member, I grew up on an Australian farm where the rabbit was regarded as a noxious pest and where steel-jawed traps were used effectively in rabbit control - and are still used for that purpose. Whilst I accept that the honourable member may have a point in that non-target species are occasionally caught in traps, the reality is that most people who use steel-jawed traps take care to ensure that non-target species are not caught in the traps by the position in which they place them. In my experience, the only animals other than rabbits which I saw caught in traps were foxes and feral cats - both of which are on the noxious animals list. I have set a lot of rabbit traps in my time. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has obviously never had to contend with the rabbit as a noxious pest, or he would not be demanding that steel-jawed traps be banned. I agree with him, however, that they should be used responsibly, and I believe that, in general, they are used responsibly.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council. Was millionaire merchant banker and financial adviser Philip Harold Bell arrested in 1975 under the name of Philip Hill for allegedly indecently assaulting two boys at Chatswood on Sydney's North Shore? Why were charges against Bell-Hill dropped in North Sydney court in November 1975?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I will take the Hon. A. B. Manson's question on notice and obtain an answer from the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council. Has there been an increase in reported incidents of domestic violence? Will the Attorney General advise the House as to what work is being done to investigate the incidence of domestic violence?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe has a significant interest in this issue, particularly in her role as a member of the Minister's advisory committee on women's affairs. The incidence of domestic violence appears to be increasing. In early 1992 the police were called out to 2,197 domestic violence incidents per month; in the early part of this year police were called out to 3,301 domestic violence incidents per month - an increase of almost 1,200 incidents of domestic violence per month.

The Hon. Franca Arena: And they are the ones that are reported.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yes, they are the reported incidents. I have been told recently that 2,893 incidents of domestic violence are reported a month. That is almost 3,000 a month! Last year the incidence of domestic violence increased over the Christmas period. While I was Minister for Community Services I noted that there was a growing incidence of domestic violence and child abuse.
Page 5335
There appeared to be a correlation between the recession and its economic impact on families, the abuse of alcohol and the incidence of domestic violence. That is of great concern.

The actual number of domestic violence assaults is of great concern. I draw a distinction between domestic violence assaults and domestic violence incidents. I refer to real violence in domestic violence situations. In 1991 there was an average of 674 cases a month; in the latter part of 1992 and the early part of this year the number of cases increased to 840 a month. I am referring to actual domestic violence assaults. If someone took the view that domestic violence is not a major problem in the community, they would be living in another world. The level of conviction for crimes of assault has increased. About five years ago around 1,100 people were in our prisons as a result of convictions for crimes of violence; now there are around 1,900. More people are being convicted of crimes of violence.

Police are enforcing the law in this area. They are showing real concern for these issues. The effectiveness of our policing is dramatically improving. The number of arrests for serious and violent crime last year totalled 9,000 more than the figure five years ago. The courts are reflecting community concern about serious and violent crime. I am informed that a jury hearing such a case is more likely to convict now than was the situation five years ago: the number of people being convicted by juries has increased. Judges are also imposing stronger sentences. People convicted of violent crime today have a 51 per cent chance of being sent to gaol, whereas five years ago the figure was 46 per cent. The letter written by the honourable member for Auburn is shameful. He differs from his party on the issue. He has a total lack of understanding of what is now occurring in the community. He started his letter to the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service by stating:

I am not in agreement with the Crimes (Domestic Violence) Amendment Bill and the Bail (Domestic Violence) Amendment Bill. I do not believe that they address the many important issues which seek to eliminate the number of deficiencies in the current legislation.

He then went on to say:

I do not think the solution to the problem is putting men and women in jail for domestic violence because it only achieves the following results.

He outlined 10 results. Two of those reasons he gave for imposing approved domestic violence legislation need to be put on record. They reflect very poorly on him. His seventh reason was that the gaoled offenders "will be embittered on the next occasion. After leaving prison they are wiser in committing domestic violence and it may very well be fatal". The tenth reason was that "at the moment of committing an act of domestic violence very few people ever think about the consequences of their criminal act because they think they will not get caught or their rage is uncontrollable". We are trying to make these people understand that they will get caught and that there is no excuse for having uncontrollable rage against women in a domestic situation or any other situation. The honourable member for Auburn should hang his head in shame on this issue.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: Did they discipline him this morning?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: We have not heard from the Labor Party as to what it has done with the honourable member for Auburn. Labor still has not learnt on this issue. Today, Bob Carr was set up by the shadow attorney general, who issued a press release embargoed until 6 a.m. today on the issue of stalking and domestic violence. It stated that the Labor Party would introduce amendments to the Government's legislation in the other House to strengthen the legislation. Mr Carr said that the Labor proposals include provision for a gaol sentence of two months or a fine of $200. What is the Government's proposal? It is that the person will be gaoled for six months and the fine will be $2,000. Yet Bob Carr is going to strengthen the legislation by reducing the fine to one tenth of the Government's fine and reducing the gaol penalty to one third of the Government's gaol penalty.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The level of interjection is too high.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Bob Carr then announced another dramatic reform of the Government's legislation. He is going to ensure that police retain domestic violence records for at least five years. The Government's legislation proposes that they will be retained for 10 years. This is the Labor Party's strengthening! It is trying to be on the front foot with domestic violence, to be seen to be one up on the Government. Bob Carr really has foot in mouth disease. The honourable member for Ashfield, the Duke of Ashfield, has set up the Leader of the Opposition yet again. Last week on a series of items of legislation the Labor Party was almost ripped apart. The Leader of the Opposition this morning spoke on 2GB to talk up the issue. His press release was 100 per cent faulty. And who gave him the information? The member for Ashfield gave him the information. It is about time Labor Party members looked at what is going on with their shadow ministers and started getting on top of issues of real concern to the community.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines. Is the Minister aware of warnings given by Professor Ben Selinger, Chairman of the National Registration Authority, regarding the potential for DDT contamination of Australian beef? What action can be taken to prevent the contamination of beef from New South Wales. Does the Minister acknowledge that the effect of residual organochlorins will directly affect our attempts for clean, green exports?

Page 5336

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I share the concern of the honourable member at any revelation made concerning contamination of Australian beef. Australia has a reputation, as the honourable member said, for clean, green agricultural products. That is one of the reasons we have been able to access so many world markets with our products, particularly beef and wine. I will seek a more detailed answer from my colleague the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries but I am quite sure that he has the matter under control. I will get back to the honourable member with a detailed answer.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council: Did the Victims Compensation Tribunal make 3,000 restitution orders for recovery of compensation between March 1993 and 30th June, 1993? Was this on the instruction of the director-general of the Attorney General's Department?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I thank the honourable member for the opportunity to address this issue. In the other Chamber last week the honourable member for Campbelltown made an interesting speech in relation to the Victims Compensation Tribunal. He called for a major review of the tribunal, totally ignoring the fact that the issues he raised were identified by me about 12 months ago. At that time the shadow attorney general attacked me for raising these issues. I raised the issue of whether or not there was fraud and he put out a press release which said there was no evidence of fraud in what was going on in the Victims Compensation Tribunal.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Is this the same person, the honourable member for Ashfield?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: This is the Duke of Ashfield all over again. In a press release of 20th August he said:

Why is the Government being so secretive on this issue, and what does John Hannaford have as a hidden agenda for victims of crime in New South Wales?

He went on to say, "I doubt that fraud is widespread". The honourable member for Campbelltown then decided that he had had a miraculous vision of the problems of the Victims Compensation Tribunal. I ordered an inquiry. In addition, a report has been circulated to all interested parties and the Government is finalising the drafting of legislation for a review of the Victims Compensation Tribunal to ensure that victims of violent crime are receiving the real compensation they are entitled to and that the money is not being syphoned off by people who should not be receiving it. The legislation was passed by the Labor Party in the dying days of the Unsworth Government because it wanted to be seen to be doing something about victims, whereas the Liberal Party-National Party coalition was highlighting that the real victims were being mugged in the streets daily because the law and order policies of that Government were not working.

The Unsworth Government tried to avert the agenda by forcing this legislation, but did not proclaim it. The legislation has been found to be flawed and the Government is attempting to correct it. The honourable member for Campbelltown is attempting to find joy in what has happened. But there will be no joy in this issue for him. The Government will put in place an effective scheme. The honourable member for Campbelltown, chairman of the one-person Opposition wastewatch committee, stood up and expressed a view on this issue. Did the Leader of the Opposition in this House give the honourable member that information and set him up? Did the Leader of the Opposition set someone else up, instead of being set up himself?

I expect that the Leader of the Opposition, having raised the issue, will give me full support in the reforms I will be pursuing to ensure that compensation goes to those in real need. The Government is intent on making that legislation work. In relation to recovery orders, the director-general instructed the tribunal to pursue recovery from people against whom orders were made. The Government is entitled to recoup money from perpetrators of attacks to provide additional financial assistance. I am pleased that is occurring. I was astonished to learn that very little had been done in seeking recovery from those people. However, much more is occurring and will continue to occur.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. Can the Minister advise the House of the nature of the guarantees the Water Board provided to the operators of the build, own, operate drinking water filtration plants?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I thank the Hon. J. F. Ryan for his question and for his fine contribution towards the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. I also thank my colleague the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner for her contribution to that committee, though I will not say too much about that of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. There have been claims in the media recently that the Water Board entered into secret agreements with the build, own, operate consortia. These claims are absurd. There were no secret agreements; merely guarantees given as part of normal practice for long-term Government contracts such as these. The board and the parent companies of the consortia both entered into guarantees. They are guarantees to meet contractual obligations. They are not financial guarantees. These guarantees are normal commercial practice.

The 25-year funding required for the BOO contracts and the lack of depth of Australian capital markets make these guarantees necessary. Because of the number of companies involved in the BOO projects, the board asked the parent companies of the consortia to accept liability for the obligations of their
Page 5337
subsidiaries. In turn, this Government, in the position of owner of the board, gave the same guarantees to the parent companies. These guarantees mean that, in the event of the consortia being unable to fulfil their obligations, the board would buy them out and own the plants. In the extremely unlikely event of the board being unable to meet its requirements, the Government would help the consortia.

The board has explained the content and reasons for the guarantees to the joint select committee on the Water Board. The committee seemed satisfied the guarantees were similar to normal guarantor arrangements. Claims have also been made in the press that the BOO contracts do not forbid the formation of cartels and that the consortia will own the water and sell it to the board after treatment. Again, these claims are nonsense. There are provisions within the contracts which ensure that neither party can get out of them without the permission of the other party. Given this, I do not see how cartels can be formed.

The BOO consortia do not own the water; they only treat it. The board retains control over the water and the price of treatment. The Independent Pricing Tribunal controls the board's prices to its customers. There have been allegations that the appointed board of the Water Board has delegated all responsibility for the BOO projects to the managing director. These allegations are spurious. The BOO contracts and projects were discussed by the former or current board on more than 25 occasions since 1991. The former board appointed a special subcommittee to scrutinise the subjects in detail. Two members of that subcommittee are members of the current board. The contracts have also been extensively reviewed by legal and financial advisers. Only the actual signing of the contracts was delegated to the managing director.

There have been statements that there is a need for cost-benefit studies to be carried out on the plants before further contracts are signed. Cost-benefit studies have already been carried out on the various options for the provision of water treatment by the private sector, as have risk analyses. These were conducted by external experts and were favourable. The board did not include catchment management as an option against the treatment process. Catchment management on its own is subject to the vagaries of weather, bushfires, heavy rainfalls, runoff, et cetera. Accurate data and probabilities of such events are not available to provide any meaningful comparison. The BOO projects are innovative, efficient, cost-saving initiatives which will benefit the people of Sydney. As such it is a pity that some sections of the community do not look beyond their own interests to see this.

One other supporter of the build, own, operate contracts is none other than the Hon. Bob Carr, the Leader of the Opposition, who wrote a letter to the BOO consortia expressing the support of the Australian Labor Party. I was somewhat mystified to read that the Opposition environment spokesperson, the Hon. Pam Allan, had again differed with her leader on water policy. That seems to be a regular occurrence for Ms Allan, who seems unable to communicate with her leader to find out what he is saying before she sticks her foot in her mouth. Some honourable members might be worried that the Hon. Bob Carr supports these projects, but he, as Leader of the Opposition, tries to be all things to all men and women. I hope that my remarks with respect to build, own, operate projects have put to rest some of the more outlandish interpretations of what was, I understand, a leaked draft report of the joint select committee. I am sure that when the final report is produced by the joint select committee all these matters will be perfectly clear.


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I address my question without notice to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council. Does he recall asserting in August 1992 that the troubled victims compensation scheme was beset by fraud? Did he refer his concerns to the fraud squad or, if it involved legal practitioners, to the Law Society? Does he agree with the Premier's comments on the John Laws program yesterday that the Victims Compensation Tribunal was a mess? Why has the Government failed to act before this on that very crucial matter?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I thank the honourable member for his question again. I reiterate what I said a moment ago: yes, I identified a problem in the operations of the Victims Compensation Tribunal; I identified that it appeared that the claims that were not properly sustainable were being pursued; and I did indicated that the matters needed to be addressed. After I made my announcements in that regard the then shadow attorney general said, "I doubt that fraud is widespread". Following that I ordered an inquiry to be conducted into the operations of the Victims Compensation Tribunal and asked for a report to be brought down on the mechanisms for improving the operations of the tribunal.

The former chairman of the tribunal, Cec Brahe, did bring down such a report. I released that report, which was the subject of comment by all the organisations that have an interest in this particular issue. As a consequence of all the comments which have been made in relation to this matter, including comments made by the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council, and issues addressed in the green paper on juvenile justice, a legislative package is being finalised to address those particular issues. As to the issues raised by the honourable member: yes, I identified the problems; yes, I sought to have the problems identified in detail; yes, I sought to have recommendations made to me to have the issues corrected; and, yes, I am pursuing legislative change to correct those identified problems.

Page 5338

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier, representing the Minister for Health: Is it a fact that the people of Nambucca Heads have collected $20,000 towards an ambulance station? Would she please give an indication when they will get the ambulance station they so urgently need?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How much?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I said $20,000.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for his question and commend the good people of Nambucca Heads for their enthusiastic support and self-help, and the hard work that must have been undertaken to raise $20,000 towards their ambulance and ambulance station. I commend them for their work and for the support they obviously give to their local community. However, I do not know when construction of this ambulance station is expected to begin. I will ask my colleague Mr Phillips whether there is such a timetable. I know Minister Phillips will enthusiastically support, as I do, the local community in their fundraising. Long may it continue. Raising $20,000 is clearly a very good start towards their ambulance station.


The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council. Is the Victims Compensation Tribunal required to serve documents at the last known address of an offender before it makes a determination for restitution? How does the tribunal determine the last known address? Have documents for restitution been served on addresses up to 20 years old?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I thank the honourable member for her question. She is correct: the legislation does require the tribunal to serve documents at the last known address. The tribunal obtains that last known address from a number of sources, for example, from the court documents. Often the court documents record information provided by the defendant in the criminal proceedings, against whom the order is to be made. The defendant identifies the last known address and that is in the official court records. The tribunal also resorts to other simple measures, such as checking the telephone book. If a difference is found, further investigation ensues. Also, the tribunal may search the electoral rolls to check an address.

Obviously, the use of such measures seem to cause some wonder in the mind of the honourable member. Yes, there have been occasions where the addresses available to the tribunal interestingly are said to be, in her words, 20 years old. Considering the fact that the tribunal has been operating for only three years, one can only assume that people providing information to the courts might be said to have provided inaccurate information. One would not want to say that criminals might have lied about their addresses, but not being so cynical in these issues one can well expect that the tribunal will use its best endeavours to identify the last known address. I notice that the honourable member for Campbelltown in another place referred to the fact that on one occasion the building was burnt down. It is quite possible that a house might have burnt down after the time a person was charged and the paperwork has been prepared to pursue him for recovery. That does not mean that there is any inefficiency in that regard on the part of the officers of the tribunal. It only serves to emphasise that when pursuing convicted criminals in an attempt to recover money one could expect that it would be difficult and therefore one might expect it to take a little longer to return the money into the system.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier. Would the Minister inform the House as to the results of the recent quality assurance reviews of schools? I am particularly interested in information about parental involvement.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Turn around and thank him and tell him how wonderful he is.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister does not need prompting.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the member opposite for her urging me to congratulate the Hon. J. F. Ryan on this important question. I agree with the honourable member that it is a very interesting, important question and well recognised by honourable members opposite. All honourable members would be aware of the initiative in the Department of School Education to establish a quality assurance team ably headed by Dr Peter Cuttance. The team has done a remarkable job in a very new area of educational activity, not only in New South Wales but in Australia. Mr Cuttance came to the department from South Australia where he introduced quality assurance. New South Wales is the second State of Australia to have introduced the quality assurance program.

As well as the many hundreds of reviews that have been undertaken so far this year, the department has asked the quality assurance team to prepare a report on the major themes, the major findings that have come through from those quality assurance reviews.

In doing so, the team analysed 70 school reviews that were conducted in terms 1 and 2. A number of interesting features emerged. The vast majority of school reports indicate that the image of the school within the local community is very positive and that
Page 5339
generally there is a high level of satisfaction with the quality of education being provided. Of the schools that were reviewed, 80 per cent nominated student welfare as a review focus. More than 110 recommendations were made to schools, which I am sure they will find helpful. However, it is true to say that other issues will need improvement. The most important one that has emerged to date is the need to bed down the level of parental involvement so that it moves, in some cases, beyond rhetoric to reality. The welcome and increased level of parental involvement in our schools needs to go beyond parents and citizens meetings, the school canteen, fund raising activities and clothing pools, et cetera. Parents need to be encouraged to take a real interest in the school curriculum, the progress of their children and the school priorities. Where that has happened, it has been a remarkable success that has strengthened the school community. One of the Government's priorities, which was recommended by the review, is to ensure that that level of parental involvement increases.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines. Is DDT still being used in New South Wales to control termites? If so, why?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I will seek a detailed answer to the honourable member's question from my colleague. I understood that DDT was no longer a legal substance in New South Wales, but I will check that with my colleague.


The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Vice President of the Executive Council. In cases involving multiple offenders, has the Victims Compensation Tribunal made orders to recover the full amount of compensation awarded to the victim from each offender? Was one victim awarded approximately $3,000 in compensation for an assault by four persons? Were each of the offenders required to pay $3,000? Was the remaining $9,000 out of the $12,000 collected retained by the Government?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am pleased that at least members of the Labor Party in this Chamber have read the speech of their colleague in another place. They have tried to divide up that speech into a number of items and, having done a cut and paste job, they have decided to ask a series of questions on the same issue. Obviously they are a little short of issues to raise today, but at least the Hon. Ann Symonds has asked a question containing allegations with some degree of accuracy. I am pleased that the field has been narrowed down and that I have been asked a question of some substance.

The honourable member is correct when she says that the system in place in the tribunal to provide for the recovery of moneys from multiple offenders did not provide an appropriate mechanism for cross-referencing those offenders. Therefore, in a few isolated cases, recovery actions were taken against multiple offenders in relation to the amount awarded. I am not aware of the particular matter to which the honourable member refers, but I will find out about it. She has raised the issue, as the honourable member for Campbelltown did in another place. That particular issue was addressed some time ago and the appropriate remedial measures have been taken to deal with it. The honourable member for Campbelltown raised one or two other issues. I am pleased that members of the Opposition can read. I am happy for them to continue to ask the same questions as were asked by the honourable member for Campbelltown.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the Minister aware of reported comments by the Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Beazley, regarding cuts in the number of university places? If so, is the Minister concerned about how such cuts will affect the opportunities for potential students in New South Wales, given that New South Wales is currently under-funded in comparison with other States for tertiary education, and, in particular how the cuts will affect the most disadvantaged area of our State, and possibly Australia, in terms of tertiary education - western Sydney?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Like the honourable member, I have noticed the increasingly strident comments of Minister Beazley in relation to funding of the university sector. It is sad that the honourable member is accurate when she says that New South Wales is grossly disadvantaged by the Commonwealth Government in the allocation of university placements. The tertiary education unit of the New South Wales Ministry of Education has put in enormous effort in recent years and some catchup has been made in the allocation of very rare additional places to areas such as western Sydney and the North Coast because of the growth in population in those areas. The sad reality is that New South Wales has a goal of something of the order of 34 per cent of the available funding for places. However, New South Wales is still about three point something per cent short of that goal, despite the fact that this State, unlike so many other States of Australia with the possible exception of Queensland, has areas of rapid population growth.

New South Wales has particular problems which are compounded by the historic inequitable distribution of funds, which have favoured other States - particularly Victoria. If there is any truth in Mr Beazley's sabre rattling about a reallocation and rationalising, shall we say, of available university places nationwide, although I certainly do not wish
Page 5340
universities or my colleagues in other States ill, New South Wales stands ready, willing and able to use those extra places to good advantage. Increasingly, New South Wales universities are clearly bedevilled by a tightening of the Federal budget for the university sector. Similarly, problems of growth, which both I and the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith have alluded to, need to be accommodated. Those problems are exacerbated in fast-growing areas, such as western Sydney, which does such a wonderful job. New South Wales also faces the challenge of the number of young people, compared with mature age people, who are gaining places in our universities. Although it is important that people be given second chances, that equity issues are addressed and that the talents of all people in the community are called upon, it certainly seems to me, as Minister for School Education, to be something of a tragedy that the hopes and aspirations of young school-leavers are dashed because people of my age are taking university places that could be theirs.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I suggest that if honourable members have further questions they put them on notice.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.2]: I support the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill as introduced in another place by the honourable member for Bligh. Over the past few days I have been alarmed at the extreme and irrational homophobic responses at the prospect of the passage of this bill. Many of those extremist views have come from people claiming the Bible as their authority to oppose the legislation. I can remember vividly as a small child - I would have been perhaps seven or eight years old - attending an Anglican church in Great Britain with my mother. During the sermon my mother - who was a most devout Christian and a regular attender at church - rose to her feet, took me by the hand and removed me from the church. She was obviously extremely agitated and distressed and she said to me by way of explanation, "I shall never attend that church again, and I do not believe you should attend that church again, because what was being preached from the pulpit was that unless you worship in the way that we worship in this church, you are not a Christian. That is totally opposed to the teachings of Jesus", and she was very angry.

I think that is one of the problems that we face. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and his followers are trying to say that their version of Christianity is the only version and that the views of any other Christian church in this country on homosexual vilification therefore have no validity. This is a very important issue for our society, and how we vote will have long-term ramifications for a very significant section of our community. I have taken the time to examine the biblical references to homosexuality and, having done so, I submit that opposing this bill on biblical grounds is a greatly misguided response.

As I have discovered from my recent study of the scriptures, such a response is an affront to the fundamental and central Christian message which centres on a ministry of love and acceptance of all people. The Bible contains only a very small number of references to homosexuality and I intend to refer to them in greater detail shortly. The scope of those passages should be carefully examined because all too often they are used and often abused to justify homophobic reactions which themselves have no biblical basis for such a response. What is particularly disturbing is that the scriptures are being substantially misused to promote a view in which gay people are vilified. I find that attitude distressing, entirely unacceptable and totally unethical. In his discussion on the issue of homosexuality and the church's treatment of gay people, English theologian John Stott wrote in his book Issues Facing Christians Today, published in 1984:

We are all human beings. That is to say, there is no such phenomenon as a "homosexual". There are only people, human persons, made in the image and likeness of God . . . However strongly we might disapprove of homosexual practices, we have no liberty to dehumanise (or to vilify), those who engage in them.

"Them" meaning, of course, homosexual practices. The well-known Christian theologian Derrick Sherwin Bailey was the first Christian theologian to correctly re-evaluate the traditional understanding of biblical references to homosexuality. His famous book Homosexuality in the Western Christian Tradition was published in 1955. In it Bailey correctly pointed out that there are in fact only four main biblical passages which refer, or appear to refer, to homosexuality. The first of those is contained in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah set out in the Book of Genesis 19 and the related story of Gibeah from the Book of Judges 19. The Genesis narrative makes it abundantly clear that the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning against the Lord, and that God's judgment was upon them.

But the question is: what exactly was the sin committed by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah which merited God's judgment? Did this have anything at all to do with homosexual practices, as some claim? A close reading of the passage reveals that God's anger was not directed at the homosexuals of Sodom. The Christian view, in some cases and in some Christian churches, has been that the people of Sodom were guilty of homosexual practices which they unsuccessfully attempted to inflict on the two
Page 5341
angels whom Lot was entertaining in his house. However, theologians such as Bailey show that this view is based on a false interpretation of the passage, centred on the demand of the men of Sodom to, "Bring them out to us so that we may know them". This has been mistakenly interpreted as meaning, "so that we can have sex with them".

The Hebrew word "know" or "yada" occurs 943 times in the Old Testament, but only 10 of those occurrences actually refer to physical intercourse, and then only to heterosexual intercourse. Mr Bailey said, "It seems to me, therefore, that a far more appropriate interpretation of this passage would be to translate the phrase so that it has the meaning, 'so that we may get acquainted with them' ". If one goes on to read the rest of that passage, Lot then offered his virgin daughters to the men. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it suggest that the nature of the offences committed by the people of Sodom was homosexual intercourse. Importantly, other books of the Old Testament which refer to the events in Sodom throw a different light on the subject.

The prophet Isaiah implies in the book of Isaiah 1:10 that the sins committed by the people of Sodom were hypocrisy and social injustice. The prophet Jeremiah suggests it includes sins of adultery, deceit and general wickedness, while the prophet Ezekiel paints a picture of the people of Sodom as being arrogant and greedy, totally indifferent to the needs of the poor. It was on this basis that God's judgment lay upon Sodom and Gomorrah. In effect, God's anger at the people of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality, and to claim otherwise is a serious misinterpretation of the scriptures.

The only other references to homosexuality in the Old Testament appear in the book of Leviticus. It is true that both references in this book refer to homosexuality in a judgmental way, but the context is important here too, because reference is made in the context of idolatrous worship. The word "abomination" appears in both references, but it is important to recognise that the word "abomination" is an Old Testament religious term so often used in connection with the practise of idolatry. Viewed strictly within their contexts, these Old Testament condemnations apply to the practise of worshipping false or other gods and all sexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry. There is ample evidence to prove that pagan activity connected with sexual activity continued long after the start of Christianity and the formation of the Christian church. The passages certainly have nothing to do with a homosexual relationship between consenting adults, as some have implied. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament does God actually condemn a caring, homosexual relationship between consenting adults.

On the issue of perverse sexual practices, the Bible naturally has much to say. It clearly condemns the practise of rape and sex without consent, but on homosexuality it says very little. The force of Old Testament references to the subject are limited by the context in which they are set, as I have just explained. Likewise, there are only a few passages in the New Testament which refer to homosexuality, and they too must be read in the context within which they are set. The Apostle Paul himself made only limited reference to the gay lifestyle in biblical passages found within his letters of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and following, and in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. In both instances I agree with the views of mainstream theologians such as Derrick Bailey and Peter Coleman, who in his book Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality, argues that both these New Testament passages of scripture have been misinterpreted significantly. According to Coleman, neither passage is relevant to gay people and their lifestyle of choice.

As emphasised, these are the views of respected Christian theologians and academics, some of whom have published books and articles on this topic. Their analysis of the scriptures reveals that the New Testament passages which refer to homosexuality do not pass negative judgment on a modern gay lifestyle involving two adults who are both consenting and committed to each other. It is surely remarkable that in all of the Bible there is only a handful of references to gay behaviour, none of which involves a specific condemnation of gay sex between consenting adults. I can only conclude, therefore, that the whole topic of homosexuality is marginal to the main thrust of the gospel message. The Bible does, however, have a great many references to the sins of pride and hypocrisy and hate - sins which those who oppose this bill might do well to consider. In any case, the references to which I have referred are, if anything, a rather flimsy basis on which to take a stand against the gay lifestyle. It is true that the Bible obviously condemns sexual orgy and sexual perversion, but not one of the passages to which I have alluded comes near to condemning a loving relationship between two gay people. I am comforted by the fact that the conclusion which I have reached has also been drawn by a number of Christian academics, including Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott who, in their 1978 book Is the Homosexual My Neighbour? wrote:

The Bible clearly condemns certain kinds of sexual practices such as gang rape, idolatry and lustful promiscuity. However, the Bible is silent on certain aspects of homosexuality - including the homosexual orientation and a committed love relationship analogous to heterosexual monogamy.

The Bible is silent on many issues that we face in the modern twentieth century. Apostle Paul, let alone the Old Testament authors, never really contemplated the idea of a modern gay lifestyle. It is unlikely that they would have known about certain sexual practices. The very notion that two men or two women could fall in love with each other and develop a loving and stable relationship comparable to a heterosexual marriage would simply never have entered their thoughts. In biblical times, women, negroes and slaves were all ostracised groups who did not have equal rights or status. Thankfully since then these groups have all been liberated and have been given their rightful place in today's society. It would be unthinkable to argue today that vilification against any of these groups should be allowed on the basis of their
Page 5342
status 2,000 years ago. So it is equally inappropriate to oppose this bill. Another Christian academic, Norman Pittenger, in his 1987 book Time for Consent, wrote that a gay person is not abnormal and does not have unnatural desires or habits. According to Pittenger, heterosexually orientated people act naturally when they act in accordance with their sexual desires. Likewise, gay people act equally naturally when they act in accordance with their basic inbuilt desires and drive.

Surely it is the duty of those who profess to be Christians to accept all people. In his Epistles, Apostle Paul instructs Christians to accept and, indeed, to welcome one another. Those who reject gay people or promote vilification on the basis of a different sexual preference have in fact utterly failed to understand the Christian gospel. Above all else, the Bible message is one of love for all humanity; yet love is precisely what some people who profess to be Christians find so difficult to show towards gays and the gay lifestyle, choosing instead to promote vilification. Some so-called Christian members of our society have taken the shocking step of actually arguing that vilification against gays is justified. That is where those who oppose this bill stand. Where is the biblical basis for such a stance?

I have received letters from people who profess to be Christians, and tell me that they are Christians. They lay on the heads of all homosexuals a whole variety of perverse sexual practices which no one would support, whether practised by heterosexuals or homosexuals. Above all else, the Bible message is one of love for all humanity. Indeed, I am encouraged that in recent weeks many members of the mainstream churches in Sydney have come out to declare their support for the passage of this bill and to point out, as I have done today, that there is no biblical basis on which to argue otherwise. Thankfully, the mainstream Christian denominations and numerous church leaders have expressed their support for the passage of this bill. I am certainly encouraged by the fact that I have their support. I ask those who seek to oppose this bill: How it is that they are so isolated and out of touch with other Christian views on this issue?

The Hon. Elaine Nile: What about the New South Wales Council of Churches?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I have refrained from answering the previous interjections of the Hon. Elaine Nile. The New South Wales Council of Churches is a very small group of extreme right wing churches. Because of the statements made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile the Uniting Church has withdrawn from the New South Wales Council of Churches. To respond to an earlier interjection of the Hon. Elaine Nile, the Anglican Synod of the Diocese of Sydney has made it clear to me by way of a letter signed by the diocesan secretary - which I will table - that although the synod is opposed to this bill it requests that if it is to go through, it be amended to include the word "religious". I have agreed to that amendment, as has the Hon. E. P. Pickering, and I have written to the Anglican Synod to inform it of that. I will table the letter.

If Call to Australia is to continue to suggest that the Anglican Synod is totally opposed to this bill, that will be a misrepresentation of its current stance. The "religious" amendment was discussed at length at a meeting between the honourable member for Bligh, the Hon. E. P. Pickering, the Uniting Church, two representatives of the Catholic Church, the Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, and me. I am especially encouraged by the numerous messages of support from my committed Christian friends, many of whom have expressed to me their outrage and contempt for the self-serving attitudes and essentially un-Christian antics of some of the more vocal opponents of this bill. It seems remarkable to me that the people who are most opposed to the passage of this measure also happen to be those most eager to wave their Bibles in defence of their views. And yet their homophobic attitudes are so obviously contrary to the Bible message of love and tolerance for all people. In St Mark's Gospel 12:30-31, when Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment of the Lord, he replied, "You shall love the Lord your God. The second is, Love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these".

Likewise in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus makes it clear that we should love, not hate. Hate is an un-Christian emotion. Jesus knew that God's love was to be given to all people and he demanded that we love each other. Compassion, tolerance and love for one another are important Christian concepts. They are commanded and taught as central to the Christian life. To condone vilification of any segment of society therefore seems to me to be highly offensive to the Christian gospel. Furthermore, if we are to use the Bible in guiding public policy over issues such as this, it is imperative that we do so faithfully to the scriptures. Jesus came and lived and left the world a better place, but he suffered greatly for it. In doing so, Jesus committed his whole being to kindness and compassion and he lived a life of service and mercy, constantly speaking words of tenderness, truth and love.

The ministry of Jesus is all-inclusive. It includes good will to all and most certainly rejects any twisted notion of hate or vilification. As we learn from the New Testament, Jesus was often in trouble and condemned because he chose to associate with the so-called wrong people of the day: the sinners, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the blind, the lepers and the lame. Two thousand years ago these groups were vilified in society. Imagine the reaction today if it were argued that vilification against them could be justified. In this example we clearly recognise the unjustified ignorance and prejudices of the people of the day. Yet Jesus rejected the idea of vilification against any member of society, and his whole ministry is devoted towards showing tolerance and compassion and love to all people, including the most vilified of his day.

Page 5343

Indeed, it is precisely because of his anti-vilification attitude that Jesus earned the hatred of the Pharisees of the day. In Chapter 15 of Luke's Gospel we read that the so-called various outcasts of society at that time, including the tax collectors, gathered around Jesus to listen to him speak. However, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them". Did Jesus vilify them? The answer, of course, is no. If Jesus were alive today, would he have gay friends and would he go to gay clubs? From a biblical perspective, the answer to both questions must be yes, because in his day he spoke with sinners and welcomed them. The bible tells us so. He promoted an all-inclusive ministry. In fact, I suspect that if Jesus were here today he would be horrified to know that certain members of this Parliament believe that it is a good thing and is justified to pass laws allowing the vilification of one group of society. What a totally incomprehensible and unethical position that is.

In passages such as Luke 7:36 we read the story of a prostitute approaching Jesus. What was Jesus' reaction to this encounter? He accepted the woman as she was. He certainly did not show hate or give her a lecture about how her lifestyle might be wrong. We should remember the story of Mary Magdalene. At no stage in Jesus' life did He vilify any one or any group in society. At no stage did Jesus urge vilification or hate against any member or society. According to His terms, we are all treated as equals. His ministry shows a quality of tenderness, open emotion and acceptance that today stands at odds with the homophobic reaction that has met the prospect of this bill passing Parliament. I assure honourable members that every letter I have received, even the most disgusting of them, has been from people who have claimed to be Christians - and that I cannot accept. I shall close with a reference to a final and very relevant passage of Matthew's gospel in chapter 23, verse 23, in which Jesus states:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! . . . You have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practised the latter without neglecting the former.

I suggest that the Government has a clear responsibility therefore to work for a more just society and to look to the interests of all members of society. To endorse or promote vilification against any group in our society is an anti-Christian concept. In my previous remarks on this bill I mentioned the car stickers that were being sold. By way of interjection at that time Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that he had never seen them and he did not believe they were available. I have two of them here. They cost 20c each. They can be bought by post from an address in Queensland. One reads:

GAY RIGHTS? Under God's law the only "rights" gays have is the right to die.

The other one reads:

REGISTER POOFTERS NOT GUNS before they kill us all.

The stickers exist, they are being sold, and they are an incitement to vilification. They are appalling. To suggest that they do not exist, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile suggested, is totally and absolutely wrong. They do exist. One of the letters I received included a lengthy document from the Canadian Intelligence Service. It was so offensive while trying to appear a scientific document that I sent it to Professor Ronald Penny of the Australian Cancer Foundation Medical Research Centre for Immunology at St Vincent's Hospital. He replied in a letter faxed to me on 11th November in the following terms:

Dear Miss Kirkby,

Thank you for your letter of 18th October which unfortunately arrived while I was overseas. The letter from the Canadian Intelligence Service is extraordinarily offensive, discriminatory and is clearly the reason why an Anti-Discrimination (Anti Vilification) Amendment Bill needs to be passed. It is the perpetuation of such offensive and vilifying material that must be suppressed.

That is one of the major reasons we need the legislation. He concluded by saying, "I strongly wish the bill to be passed". That is what I am attempting to do. If we are to use the Bible in public debates such as this, I urge that we do so in an appropriate manner. It is clear to me that if we are to be guided by the scriptures on this issue, the example we should follow is Christ's very own ministry - not the history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament but Christ's ministry which encompassed the attitudes of love and acceptance. The letters I have received show quite clearly that there is, frighteningly, within society a homophobic backlash against the gay community which has resulted in the many murders of and assaults on gay people. Homosexual vilification is anathema to Christianity and I urge the passage of the bill.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [5.36]: I lead for the Opposition on the bill and indicate that the Opposition supports the bill and its purposes. I also indicate at this stage that if the bill is successful at the second reading stage and goes into Committee, the Opposition will propose an amendment. The purpose of the amendment will be to meet a legitimate concern that has been expressed by various churches and to make it clear that the law, should the bill become law, is aimed at vilification and violence and not at free speech. The Opposition congratulates the honourable member for Bligh, Clover Moore, on the legislation, which has already passed through the lower House. We believe it is legitimate that a community being vilified and subjected to violence should look to Parliament for an answer. As the Leader of the Opposition in the other place said when first endorsing this legislation:

We, the Labor Party at a State level, are supporting of the gay and lesbian community in standing against vilification and prejudice. It is simply unacceptable that people be vilified because of their sexual orientation. We are not going to have one section of our community singled out to be persecuted by bigots or threatened with violence. All the arguments against racial vilification ring true in this instance.

Page 5344

When speaking to the legislation in the lower House the Leader of the Opposition also said:

There is a real danger that waiting for the Government to act will result in nothing being done and in the violence and vilification continuing . . . I make the point again that the legislation cannot stop that violence, but it can represent in itself a powerful expression by this representative forum of the people of New South Wales that we find the vilification that lies behind the violence intolerable in a civilised community.

I emphasise again that the purpose of the legislation is to prevent vilification and violence. Its intention is not to interfere with free speech, not to prevent bona fide debate, nor to prevent or hinder in any way bona fide teaching or exposition of the traditional religious stance that homosexual conduct is objectively morally wrong. Proposed section 49ZT(2)(c) provides that a public act will not be rendered unlawful under this legislation if it is - I quote from the legislation - "done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about an exposition of any act or matter". However, the Catholic Church has indicated concern that this provision may not cover "the expression and exposition of sexual values and morals based on and related to religious belief". And the Anglican Church has indicated concern that it may not cover "public quotation or interpretation of Biblical principles".

The Catholic Church has suggested that the words "religious instruction including schooling" be inserted after the word "academic" and before the word "artistic" in clause 49ZT(2)(c), and the Anglican Church has suggested that the word "religious" should be inserted. When the bill reaches the Committee stage I will be proposing that the words "religious instruction" be inserted. Although this amendment will not be in the identical terms sought by either church, I am satisfied that my proposed amendment will meet the legitimate concerns the churches have raised. I do not for one moment believe that there is any real conflict between avoiding vilification or incitement to violence on the one hand, and espousing the religious and moral views held by the Catholic and Anglican Churches and other groups and individuals in society on the other. Having spent 12 years of my primary and secondary education in a Catholic school, I can vouch that the teachers who taught me never went remotely close to confusing the two. Whilst maintaining the Catholic Church's view on the objective moral wrongness of homosexual conduct, there was never any question of encouraging hatred or ridicule of homosexual persons. Indeed, the very opposite was true, as one would expect from a genuinely Christian perspective. The Opposition supports the bill and is proud to do so.

Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:

That this debate be now adjourned until after Government Business Orders of the Day relating to the Home Purchase Assistance Authority (Amendment) Bill, Courts Legislation (Amendment) Bill, Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2), Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill, Gaming and Betting (Amendment) Bill and Public Finance and Audit (Budget) Amendment Bill have been dealt with.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [5.44]: Call to Australia supports the proposed legislation. Accumulated surplus funds have been identified in three agencies within the Housing portfolio - by Commissioner Dodd in respect of the Building Services Corporation and by Commissioner Mant in respect of both the Rental Bond Board and the Real Estate Services Council. Commissioner John Mant referred to the surplus held by the Rental Bond Board as being "about $100 million". He supported the Rental Bond Board's commitment to apply surplus income from managing funds to Government housing programs. The Government contends that it will be more effective for the surplus to be combined with those of the other two agencies into a single fund for use within the housing portfolio.

In reporting on the Real Estate Services Council, Commissioner Mant identified surplus funds being a minimum of $50 million in excess of its immediate needs and for which there is no specific purpose. He found, as he had in the review of the Rental Bond Board, that the Real Estate Services Council had large amounts of capital from past surpluses which were far in excess of their day-to-day requirements or their contingent liabilities. After his inquiry on the Building Services Corporation, on 28th February, 1993, Commissioner Peter Dodd reported that according to the BSC's actuary there is between $56 million and $70 million of assets of the BSC that are not required to support the BSC's current insurance obligations. In the Budget Papers, the Government foreshadowed the use of surplus funds to meet costs associated with the HomeFund financial restructure, determinations of the HomeFund Commissioner and housing needs in general.

We accept the Government's contention that these objectives can be achieved by establishing the Housing Reserve Fund under the administration of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority. We all know that the Government is likely to incur substantial costs arising from the problems evident in the HomeFund program. These can be expected to take the form of costs of restructuring the portfolio, costs of providing adequate capital in the Home Purchase Assistance Fund and costs of determinations by the HomeFund Commissioner. If the surplus funds are not applied to HomeFund, the burden will fall on other areas, and within the housing portfolio this would take the form of reduced provision of public housing. This would obviously be disastrous. Given the obvious problems with HomeFund, the proposal by the Government is common sense and is supported by Call to Australia.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.46]: The Hon. R. D. Dyer led for the Opposition in this debate. He began his contribution by saying that at 1.30 p.m. today he was surprised to discover that the debate was to proceed this afternoon but that he had
Page 5345
done his best to get the amendments out. I trust he was not surprised to find that this House was to debate the issue this week but rather was surprised at its timing. The bill was read a second time on 10th November last week. In addition, the Government clearly signalled in the Treasurer's Budget Speech in early September its intention to move surplus funds of the Building Services Corporation, the Rental Bond Board and the Real Estate Services Council to the housing area. The key object of the bill is the creation of the Housing Reserve Fund.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer made his usual diligent speech that honourable members have come to expect from him. However, I was fascinated not so much by the honourable member leading for the Opposition but that he was the Opposition. No other Opposition member has spoken on the issue - an issue that, from 1989 onwards, has been raised in question after question, motion after motion and speech after speech in this House and the other House. The Opposition has sought over and over again to destabilise the HomeFund issue, to attack but never to be constructive. The bill is an attempt by the Government to be constructive and practical, and to find an equitable solution to what is widely admitted to be a most difficult problem. Only one Opposition member has spoken on the issue, yet he expressed surprise that the debate was brought on.

The Opposition is excellent at destabilising but is not so good at giving practical support for practical solutions. The Opposition's support for the proposed legislation is the two-bob Carr approach. The Opposition offered support but wanted amendments. Similarly, the Opposition said it supported the Olympics but then offered criticisms. The bill is an attempt by the Government to find a practical and equitable solution. The Hon. R. D. Dyer mentioned but skipped over the fact that it was a suggestion largely the result of inquiries by both Commissioner Dodd and Commissioner Mant that have led the Government down the path, as the Hon. D. J. Gay pointed out, of using accumulated surplus funds of those three government instrumentalities. It is all well and good for member after member to refer in their contributions to commissioners Mant and Dodd and their recommendations. Commissioner Mant said in his report that the surplus, which he estimated at $100 million, should be paid into consolidated revenue. In the Whitlam Government era Commissioner Mant worked first in a bureaucratic way for none other than the great architect of cities of the time, the Hon. Tom Uren.

We know Commissioner Mant as the head of a government department in South Australia. We know that the Labor Party in both Victoria and Tasmania sought advice from him as a consultant. Certainly the previous Government in this State sought advice from him. We see his name appear regularly in any of those $1,000-a-day educative sessions that are conducted in Sydney. Commissioner Mant is held in the highest regard for his knowledge of local government planning and cities. It is not just anyone who made these recommendation; it is a person from whom both this Government and the Opposition, and governments and Oppositions of all persuasions, have sought advice. Commissioner Mant's advice is not to be taken lightly. The Hon. R. D. Dyer talked about home ownership and HomeFund and how, under this Government, so much had been done to encourage home ownership. He said that that had been the problem with HomeFund. In the debate on the HomeFund legislation earlier this year I said that so long as we have a society that holds up home ownership as the great Australian dream we cannot say to one group in the community that they have no right to something that everyone else has.

Through HomeFund the Government attempted to make that dream a reality for many more people. Clearly there have been problems. This Government is attempting to find a practical solution. The damage caused by HomeFund is not something that will be repaired either easily or overnight, but it will be solved and it has to be solved. If this problem is not solved through this bill, the Government will have to find another measure to solve it. The Hon. R. D. Dyer talked about raiding hollow logs. That is all well and good, but when the Labor Party was in government in this State it was the master at raiding hollow logs. The Hon. Neville Wran balanced his budget on the proceeds from hollow logs.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Are there any more?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: No, I doubt that there are. This scheme is a practical and sensible attempt at a solution. If the Government does not find the money this way, it will have to find it another way. What Opposition member will say, "You can cut back in my area"? What person on the housing waiting list will say, "Well, I am prepared to wait longer"? The reality is that members will not say, "You can cut funds in my area". People on the waiting list desperately need housing. The Government must find a solution, and this is a genuine attempt at a practical and equitable solution. The Hon. R. D. Dyer suggested that people should ask the Government whether it is fair to solve the HomeFund debacle this way. I conclude by asking: is it fair not to solve it in this way?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.52]: I have been briefed on the Home Purchase Assistance Authority (Amendment) Bill and will speak briefly to it. It is sad that we will use the amounts in these hollow logs to repair the damage done by the over-ambitious HomeFund scheme during the last three or four years. It is true to say that this Government did accelerate the HomeFund scheme when it came to office. The HomeFund idea originally was a good idea but it was based on false premises - that there would be a continuation of inflation in both wages and property prices. Of course, that was not to be the case, and essentially that is what brought the HomeFund plan undone.

One can hardly predict what the inflation rate will be in two, three, four or five years time. The scheme was based on current figures at that time, and they did not eventuate. A number of people now owe
Page 5346
more than their properties are worth. One possible reason for the acceleration may have had something to do with Margaret Thatcher, who encouraged people to buy their own homes to try to convert them into Tory supporters. She believed that people who own their own homes, as opposed to those who rent, tend to vote Conservative. And that did actually happen. Margaret Thatcher converted many hundreds of thousands of people from home renters into home owners. A number of those people then believed that they were Conservatives and should support Margaret Thatcher.

There was an ideological basis for the acceleration of this scheme. I believe in the idea of people buying their homes wherever possible. The scheme had a good foundation, but unfortunately it was poorly structured. It is true that one has more security in one's own home; one does not have to suffer the whim of the landlord. One can do virtually anything with one's own home: plant a garden and undertake alterations. The family unit feels more secure. It is better for one to buy a home than to rent. Unfortunately, many people in our society will never be able to own their own homes, they will simply never have the income. Regrettably, a number of those people were caught up in the HomeFund fiasco.

I hope that those who were caught up, who would never have been able to purchase their own home but for this scheme, will eventually be helped by the Government and this legislation to maintain and own their own homes. Those who owe large amounts now will find that the equity in their homes will increase over the next three, four or five years. The level of flatness in the real estate market of the past four years will not continue. No doubt there will be slight increases over the next few years as market conditions change. It is likely that within the next 12 months real estate values will increase possibly by two or three times the level of inflation. I hope that home purchasers will start building up equity in their properties. Perhaps there will be increases in wages and salaries, which will assist them to pay the higher amounts.

In the long run those who are in trouble today will be assisted either by market forces, by increases in values, by increases in their incomes or by moneys appropriated by this legislation. Reference was made to whether the amount in the Building Services Corporation was surplus to the needs of the Building Services Corporation. I have had considerable discussion on this matter. It is quite clear to me that considerable amounts of money, which have been identified by Commissioner Peter Dodd, for example, in the Building Services Corporation are excess to the requirements of the Building Services Corporation in the foreseeable future. Amounts of between $50 million and $70 million available in the Building Services Corporation allocation will now be used for helping people in trouble. Other amounts are available in the Rental Bond Board and the Real Estate Services Corporation allocations. The Mant report dated 12th May, 1993, states at page 54 that there is an amount surplus to requirements in the Rental Bond Board to the tune of approximately $100 million. The report states:

It is estimated that the Rental Bond Board has surplus funds over and above its operating requirements of about $100 million.

The report refers also the Real Estate Services Corporation in the following terms:

The RESC has a minimum of $50 million in excess of its immediate needs for which there is no specific purpose.

These amounts were identified by Commissioner Dodd and Commissioner Mant as being surplus to the requirements of those organisations. This money could have been paid into consolidated revenue to be used for education, housing or other purposes. It is appropriate that such moneys be used by the Home Purchase Assistance Authority to help shore up the fund. It may be necessary to raise a further $200 million over the next few years, but I hope that will not be necessary. If it is, the amount will have to be budgeted for in forthcoming years. I hope that this amount will be sufficient in the next financial year.

I have received correspondence from the Redfern Legal Centre, which I very much admire for the work it does for its clients. The centre is keen to revive the funding of the advisory and advocacy services for tenants in public and private housing. The Australian Democrats are keen supporters of those services, and it is regrettable that the former Minister, Joe Schipp, ceased funding for them. The centre has proposed amendments, a version of which will be moved shortly by the Opposition. The amendments will seek to appropriate funds from the Housing Reserve Fund for tenant advisory and advocacy services. I am keen to ensure that the services are funded, but it is apparent that it would not be appropriate to use this legislation to secure that funding. I would like non-government services to be funded so that grass roots activities are funded, not merely government services. That is important.

For the past few years the people who perform this work have done it more for love than for money. They are extremely efficient and very good in the way they help people. I would like the people who have been doing this work for very little to be funded so that tenant services can be improved. My colleague the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby mentioned some examples given by the Redfern Legal Centre. Clearly there are heartbreaking cases in the community at present. Many more people need assistance now because of the recession, which is still biting as hard as ever, but they have been denied it essentially because of a lack of funding. I have spoken to the Minister about this. In reply, the Minister will talk about his intentions in relation to the funding of the services. He has given me an ironclad guarantee that they will be funded. I hope that non-government advisory services will be funded, and not merely government services. The services need to be funded as they were before. I believe the Minister wants to do this and is aware of the valuable assistance they provide to the community. I am keen to hear what he has to say about this funding before the bill reaches the Committee stage.

Page 5347

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.1], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate, for their support of this important legislation, which obviously needs to be passed by the Parliament this week so that the Government can get on with the job of providing relief to those HomeFund borrowers who are eligible for assistance. I particularly want to address some of the issues raised by the Hon. J. H. Jobling in his contribution, because this legislation involves the transfer of funds from three bodies under my control - the Building Services Corporation, the Real Estate Services Council and the Rental Bond Board. Understandably, some members have been concerned about the adequacy of funds that will remain with those three bodies. I assure the House that the Government will only transfer funds which are surplus and which can be used in another area of the housing portfolio; that is, in the Housing Reserve Fund, which is under the control of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority.

In relation to the Building Services Corporation, the Hon. J. H. Jobling asked how many claims are in dispute. The Government believes that more than 13,000 claims have been lodged since the insurance scheme started in 1974. He also asked how many claims listed as either settled or not proceeding may in fact be considered as still in dispute. As I said, 13,000 claims have been lodged since the insurance scheme commenced in 1974. Since then more than $67 million has been paid out in insurance claims. The maximum benefit under the insurance scheme was raised to $100,000 by the Greiner Government in March 1990. Prior to 1990 the maximum benefits were estimated to have been insufficient to meet all consumer losses in about 15 per cent of cases. Of claims lodged in respect of work completed prior to 1990, four are currently in arbitration. It is estimated by the Building Services Corporation that less than 20 claims in respect of work commenced prior to 1990 have been taken on appeal by the claimants to arbitration, and 16 claims for work commenced after March 1990 have been taken on dispute by claimants to the Commercial Tribunal.

The sample of 900 cases examined by the Building Services Corporation showed that, with the exception of those cases where the maximum benefit under the legislation was insufficient to cover the claimants' losses, there are potentially about 150 claims; that is, about 1½ per cent of all claims made for work commenced prior to 1990 may possibly be classified as in dispute. For a variety of reasons, the former Builders Licensing Board and the Building Services Corporation have, since 1987, paid less than the amount sought by claimants. The sample showed that 20 per cent of claims lodged were declined for a variety of reasons. No loss was established in more than a quarter of these cases. Almost 20 per cent of cases were resolved by the Building Services Corporation having the original contractor fix the problems, and 30 per cent were claims which did not fall within the statutory terms of the scheme. Another 10 per cent did not proceed with their claims. In other words, it is likely that less than three per cent of all claims declined would be classified as potential disputes.

The third question was: on the basis of experience, how many new claims are expected to be notified and lodged each month? In 1992, 824 claims were lodged. At present claims are running at about 70 per month. The fourth question was: what will be the expected maximum-minimum costs in dollar terms to settle all disputed claims from 1986, 1988 and 1990, considering legislative changes and the improvements introduced? The answer to that question is that it is difficult to put a precise figure on costs if all appeals were upheld. The amount is expected to be very low and is adequately covered by current insurance provisions. For the three years covered by the sample referred to, the cost was about $50,000. In other words, the Government is confident that that is adequately covered by the insurance provisions.

The second part of the fourth question related to those claims submitted and expected since September 1993. More than $50 million is now set aside in reserves to cover all existing insurance contracts. Reserves will be increased in future, based on actuarial advice obtained each year. In other words, there is adequate provision. I was also asked by the Hon. J. H. Jobling if I would give a guarantee that if $50 million to $70 million is transferred to the Housing Reserve Fund from the Building Services Corporation, sufficient funds will be available to meet all unresolved or disputed known claims, as well as anticipated claims. I was asked also how this funding will be found. The answer to that question is yes, I will give that guarantee. Funds have been provided in balance-sheet reserves.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling also wanted to know the major basis of dispute and why disputes are unable to be resolved. It is generally suggested that the statutory maximum limit is insufficient. There are outside statutory time limits for a claim, and disputes over the technical assessment of building problems. The seventh question was: is the maximum $100,000 compensation, which was increased from $17,500 by the Government, sufficient to meet claims? I was asked also to give consideration to increasing the limit immediately to $200,000 to $250,000? The answer is yes, the maximum compensation was increased to $100,000 by the Government. Since 1990 only a handful of claims have sought in excess of $100,000. As part of the development towards privatisation of the insurance scheme, consideration is been given to significantly increasing the level of benefit.

The eighth question was: as the existing legislation does not appear to allow for ex gratia payments even if the Building Services Corporation is at fault - and the Hon. J. H. Jobling suggested that may be so in three or four cases - will the Minister give an undertaking to amend the Act and introduce new legislation to allow provision for ex gratia payments? The answer to that question is: no, but the
Page 5348
matter is being investigated, together with other possible measures to assist those claimants. The Hon. J. H. Jobling also asked how I propose to overcome the present costs difficulties to be met by claimants who are dissatisfied with decisions of the Building Services Corporation, as currently appeals can be reviewed only by the Supreme Court. That course is clearly beyond the financial capacity of most people. The answer is that insurance appeals for building work commenced prior to 1990 must currently be dealt with by arbitration. The Government intends to give those consumers the same rights as those introduced for consumers entering into building contracts after 1990; in other words, they will be able to take their disputes to the Commercial Tribunal. The Government is also considering ways of assisting with legal costs for this small group of claimants.

The tenth question asked whether I would give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced next session to enable all outstanding insurance claims to be directed to the Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales for determination, as recommended by Commissioner Peter Dodd, and to provide assistance with costs of all or part of the hearing. The answer to that question is yes. Question 11 asked whether I will agree to setting up an independent body to review all current disputed claims and to deal with all future claims, especially as the current BSC is perceived as legalistic and bureaucratic, and builders look after builders; and whether I will indicate a time frame for this to take place. As I have indicated to the House previously in answer to this question, in accordance with Dr Dodd's recommendation these outstanding disputes will be referred to the Commercial Tribunal. There will be no need to set up a further body.

The twelfth question referred to the case of Purton versus the BSC and asked what undertaking I would give that the solicitors for the BSC in arbitration proceedings relating to negligence will not exceed their authority and offer incorrect information, thereby prejudicing the claimant's position. I understand that this was a clerical error and did not jeopardise the claimant's position. It should not have happened and steps have been taken to ensure that it does not happen again. Mrs Purton's case is under special review in the BSC. The Hon. J. H. Jobling asked in question 13 if I would allow private insurance to compete with and offer alternative insurance schemes to the BSC. This matter was part of Commissioner Dodd's recommendations and has been considered by the steering committee which I set up to look at privatising the insurance scheme. However, having competition between the two schemes does not appear to be practicable and the likelihood is that the Government will privatise the scheme entirely. It is working through that with the Insurance Council and no final decision has been made.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling suggested there are many claims against unlicensed builders or those using someone else's gold card and asked what action I propose to take to eliminate that practice. As I understand it, less than 2 per cent of claims were declined because of unlicensed builders. The BSC has an active program to detect such practices. Further, when a consumer uses an unlicensed builder, the BSC provides a range of assistance to help the consumer get redress. In the fifteenth question he asked when a full restructure of the BSC will be undertaken. As I have said, a package of reforms is under consideration. Extensive consultation is taking place with the industry and I will announce a package of reforms before the end of the year. The Hon. J. H. Jobling also asked whether the restructured BSC will be accountable to and under the direction of the Minister. The answer to that is yes.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling asked when I would introduce a plain English residential building contract that can be understood by home owners, to replace the current contract which is complicated and totally favours the builder in the event of a dispute. We already have a plain English residential building contract which I intend to launch in December. The contract will address many of the problems arising in contractual disputes between builders and owners. Many builders and owners do not use a formal contract. The BSC will be actively encouraging consumers and builders to do just that. It is alleged that, contrary to the implications of the Dodd inquiry, the BSC does not maintain a separate insurance fund to cover shoddy building work claims. The Hon. J. H. Jobling asked whether this was part of the reason that the BSC has been able to accumulate excess funds, contrary to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in 1986. Faulty building work has been covered in the scheme since the mid-1970s. The funds have been accumulated for a variety of reasons.

Finally, the Hon. J. H. Jobling asked whether I will give an assurance that the claim that the BSC has failed to notify consumers of their right to appeal to the Commercial Tribunal in lieu of arbitration is incorrect, and advise what action I will take to ensure that such consumers are notified. I have already announced that this group of consumers will be given access to the Commercial Tribunal. As I have said, legislation will be introduced into the House next session. I thank the Hon. J. H. Jobling for those questions, and I am sure other honourable members do also, because they are comprehensive. It has given me the opportunity to clear the air and certainly to assure honourable members that adequate funds are left in the BSC beyond the funds that will be appropriated to the Housing Reserve Fund.

I want to recap some of the points that were made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. Elaine Nile, the Hon. D. J. Gay, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, and the Hon. R. D. Dyer. Representatives of tenant and community groups have been kept informed of developments in the housing portfolio during the reorganisation of the Department of Housing after Mr Mant's first report, and of the follow-up of the recommendations of his second report. Only
Page 5349
yesterday they met in my office with my policy adviser to discuss a proposal for funding and I was left with the impression that they were happy with the outcome of that meeting.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer made reference to the tenancy information service established by the Government in lieu of community advice services which are funded by the Rental Bond Board. The tenancy information service is funded from the Department of Housing. I am very sympathetic to the needs of public and private tenants, and in response to the Hon. R. D. Dyer's point about funding of non-government tenancy advisory services, I am prepared to fund a community based advice service. The cost will be shared equally by the Rental Bond Board and the Real Estate Services Council. This will avoid the need to establish a separate administrative and accounting arrangement which would be necessary under the Opposition's proposal - which is the amendment we will deal with shortly. I expect to consider a detailed proposal for just such an arrangement in January next. Some amendment to the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act will be necessary to facilitate this arrangement and I expect to introduce this legislation in the autumn session.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer pointed out that prior to 1989 the board funded community advice services which employed 60 people. One of the problems with the previous funding was difficulty in assessing the success with which consumer needs were met. There was generally a lack of accountability by the centres on the application of funds and services given. In response to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby's question on the Auditor-General's arguments on interest paid to tenants being less than half the interest earned by the Rental Bond Board, a substantial proportion of the interest earned by the board relates to accumulated funds earned when no interest was paid to tenants, under the previous Labor Government. Had the previous Government paid interest on bonds, the return to tenants would be more in line with the board's overall return.

Even so, tenants have earned returns which have been favourable compared with those paid by banks holding similar amounts. In response to her reference to the Auditor-General's comments, I assure the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby that the Rental Bond Board has at all times disbursed its funds in accordance with the Act. The funds have been applied to a variety of housing schemes, including public and private housing schemes for low income earners. Since assuming government, the coalition has directed funds within the Rental Bond Board to provide a commercial rate of interest on tenant bonds. The legislation approved by the previous Government provided for no such opportunity. It appears that the Australian Labor Party had no faith in the Rental Bond Board to efficiently and profitably manage bonds on behalf of tenants. Of course, that has not been the case; it has performed exceptionally well. I will leave it there and deal with those specific issues in more detail in the Committee stage and I commend the bill.

Schedule 1

The Hon. R. D. DYER [6.18], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

Page 4, Schedule 1. After line 19, insert:

(e) contributing to the funding of tenant advisory services and tenant advocacy services, both for tenants in public housing and tenants in private housing;

Page 4, Schedule 1. After line 23, insert:

(4) Money will be paid out of the Housing Reserve Fund for the establishment and administration of non-government tenant advisory services and non-government tenant advocacy services, both for tenants in public housing and tenants in private housing.

(5) The amount of money paid under subsection (4) must be sufficient, in the opinion of the Minister, to ensure that adequate non-government tenant advisory services and adequate non-government tenant advocacy services are available to those who need them.

Page 5, Schedule 1. Lines 13 to 18. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(1B) No more than one such order may be made with respect to any money or other asset referred to in subsection (1) (b), (c) or (d).

(1C) The Treasurer's concurrence is not to be given to the making of an order with respect to any money or other asset referred to in subsection (1) (b), (c) or (d) if the amount of the money (together with the amount of the money value of any such asset) exceeds the amount certified by the Auditor-General as being surplus to the requirements of the account or fund concerned as at 30 June 1993.

I thank the Committee for that facility. It will shorten proceedings. I indicated during the second reading debate that the Opposition would propose three amendments. Those amendments, first, provide that only so much of the funds of the Rental Bond Board, the Real Estate Services Council and the Building Services Corporation identified as surplus to requirements as at 30th June this year should be transferred.

Second, the identification of such surplus funds should be endorsed by the Auditor-General prior to the transfer of any amounts to the Housing Reserve Fund. Finally, the Opposition's amendment provides for an amount to be paid each year from the rental bond interest account for the establishment of or ongoing administration of non-government tenant advisory and advocacy services of sufficient amount to provide a high level of such services to non-government tenants within the community. If I could deal with the first amendment circulated by the Opposition, the proposal is to insert a new provision (e) within subsection 3 of proposed new section 13A, establishing the Housing Reserve Fund, which provides that money may be paid out of the Housing Reserve Fund for any of a number of specified purposes. The Opposition wishes to add to this provision that money may be paid out of the Housing Reserve Fund for the purpose of contributing to the funding of tenant advisory and advocacy services for tenants in both public and private housing. I welcome the announcement the Minister made a short time ago that he contemplates making some provision in this regard in the new year.

Page 5350

However, the Opposition desires to have the certainty of providing that money may be paid out of the Housing Reserve Fund not only for the purposes already mentioned - for example, contributing to the Home Purchase Assistance Fund and other important objectives such as contributing to the fund of any mortgage and rent relief program conducted by the State in accordance with the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Opposition would like the certainty of having it set out as a permissible purpose for which money may be paid out of the Housing Reserve Fund towards the funding of tenant advisory and advocacy services. It is not necessary for me to repeat what I said during the second reading debate. There has been a history to this. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga, when he was Minister for Housing, defunded such community based services. The present Minister is more conciliatory and is having a rethink regarding that, which is welcome. However, I press the amendment on the basis that the Opposition would like it to be possible to have money paid out of the Housing Reserve Fund to fund what the Opposition regards as important tenant advisory and advocacy services to help people who are often disadvantaged.

The second amendment circulated by the Opposition provides that money will be paid out of the Housing Reserve Fund for the establishment and administration of non-government tenant advisory and advocacy services. It is specifically provided in the proposed amendment for tenants in both public and private housing. In the more usual case it would be true to say that tenants in private housing would be those more often in need of advice, assistance and advocacy services, but the Opposition sees no need to restrict the proposed provision to advisory and advocacy services for those tenants. In my experience tenants in public housing can encounter difficulty and often need advice on advocacy and I believe it is appropriate that provision should be made for them also. This second amendment makes provision to the effect that the amount of money paid out must be sufficient in the opinion of the Minister to ensure that adequate non-government tenant advisory and advocacy services are available to those who need them. In other words, it is a matter within the discretion of the Minister as to the amount of money that is paid out to meet the objectives I just mentioned.

The final amendment deals with a somewhat different matter. The existing provision within schedule 1, identified as a new subsection 1B to section 17 of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority Act 1993, provides that the Treasurer's concurrence is not to be given to the making of an order with respect to any money or other asset referred to in subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d), unless the Treasurer is satisfied that the money or the money value of any such asset is surplus to the current requirements of the account or fund concerned. The funds or the accounts concerned are respectively those in which money is held in the Building Services Corporation account, the rental bond interest account and the Real Estate Services Council statutory interest account or the Real Estate Services Council Compensation Fund. So four different accounts are referred to in the bill. The objectives of the Opposition's third amendment are that no more than one such order may be made with respect to any money or other asset referred to in the various accounts to which I have just referred. The Opposition does not want the Government to have cart blanche to activate what we would see as a taxing mechanism essentially for revenue purposes. In other words, if there are hollow logs, we do not want the hollow log to be hollowed out ad infinitum for such other purposes as the Government might dream up. We are happy for it to be raided for this particular purpose to help the unfortunate HomeFund borrowers, but we want to restrict this to one such order.

Finally, it is provided in the Opposition's third amendment that the Treasurer's concurrence is not to be given to the making of an order with respect to any money or other asset referred to in subsections (1)(b), (c) or (d) - that is the four accounts to which I referred a short time ago - if the amount of money together with the amount of money value of any such asset exceeds the amount certified by the Auditor-General as being surplus to the requirements of the account or fund concerned as at 30th June, 1993. In other words, the Opposition is trying to build in an accounting or auditing mechanism so that the Auditor-General can put his imprimatur and so that the funds transferred do not exceed the amount certified by the Auditor-General as being surplus to the requirements of the account or fund concerned as at 30th June this year. That is a short explanation of the objectives of the three Opposition amendments which I put to the Committee.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.28]: The Australian Democrats have been long-time advocates of tenant advocacy and advisory services. We were appalled when the previous Minister cut out funding to these services, which were doing such a good job helping people in time of need. The services were gradually choked off one by one, though a number of people were helped in spite of the cuts. The Minister has assured me, and I am sure he will repeat the assurance, that he will fund non-government tenant advocacy and advisory services and introduce appropriate legislation in the March session. I hope he will quantify that to a certain extent. People need help not from government advisory services but from non-government advisory services. They are the ones who use the money most efficiently, and they work for next to nothing. If the bill becomes law, the Minister will have total control over the money being paid and I hope he will be generous to these services and the tenants in their time of need. Further, the Australian Democrats believe that the third amendment is an unnecessary shackling of the Minister. We believe he should not be shackled as proposed by the amendment.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.30]: I thank the Hon. R. D. Dyer and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for
Page 5351
their contributions. Even though I disagree with the Opposition, the Hon. R. D. Dyer has expressed strong support for the general thrust of this legislation. The Government will not accept the three amendments moved by the Hon. R. D. Dyer. The first two amendments deal essentially with appropriating funds from the Housing Reserve Fund for matters which are clearly inappropriate for the purpose of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority. Honourable members have to remember that the HPAA was set up to deal with matters associated with home purchase assistance. That, of course, involves the HomeFund scheme, future home purchase assistance schemes, and looking at the past and restructuring HomeFund; it has absolutely nothing to do with tenant advisory services. To impose in this bill the requirement that tenant advisory and advocacy services be funded from the Housing Reserve Fund is inappropriate.

As I said briefly in my second reading reply, it is and has been my intention for some time to re-establish some tenant advisory and advocacy services for both public sector and private sector tenants. I had a meeting several months ago with the New South Wales Tenants Council. It expressed to me its concern at what was happening. I am establishing a new policy unit in the new ministry of planning, housing and urban affairs. I have asked that policy unit, together with the various tenants groups, to work through a policy and put a proposal to me. They have undertaken to do that in January next year. That policy will come out of consultation between the tenants groups and the ministry.

As I pointed out in my second reading reply, there were some difficulties associated with accountability under the old scheme. I am sure all honourable members will acknowledge that that can be a problem. We want to make sure that any dollars allocated are wisely spent and properly and fully accounted for. I give honourable members an undertaking that that tenancy advocacy and advisory service for public sector and private sector tenants will be re-established by me, based on the recommendations of that working group which was set up - comprising my policy unit and the tenants groups. It will be given adequate funding. Funds will be provided on a share basis from the Real Estate Services Council and the Rental Bond Board. Any amendments to legislation that are required to make that happen will be introduced in the next session of Parliament. I do not think I can be any clearer than that. If honourable members are not clear on that, they should say so. I think that is a pretty fair and clear explanation of what the Government is doing.

The third amendment involves introducing the Auditor-General into policy matters. That is clearly outside his brief and is unnecessary. The Opposition must be joking when it suggests that Treasury will be in any way generous in signing off surplus funds to anyone. I know exactly what Treasury is like. The Opposition's amendment seeks to unduly constrain, once again, the capacity of the Government to access these accumulated funds. On the one hand - I am not having a go at the Hon. R. D. Dyer, who is an honourable man - the Australian Labor Party says that we should spend $500 million, $1 billion on HomeFund, it keeps adding noughts to the figure, and the Government has to compensate these people with all this money; and on the other hand, in this legislation it is trying to restrict our capacity to do it.

I said in the Chamber the other day that the funds to assist HomeFund borrowers will not come out of thin air or out of the Budget; they will come out of the housing portfolio. That means we either use these surplus funds, which are clearly surplus, or we tap into the public housing budget. Any honourable members who want us to tap into the public housing budget should stick up their hands, or for ever hold their peace. I do not think we should do that. The only chance we have is to use the surplus funds to be appropriated by this legislation. This amendment has been deliberately drafted to try to constrain that process. If we do not have enough funds - I believe we will have enough funds if we are able to access what are clearly surplus funds - we are in trouble and we will have to go somewhere else.

The Government believes that this amendment seeks to unduly constrain access to those accumulated funds. The independent commissioners' reports identified those funds as surplus, as has been mentioned by honourable members. Those funds are surplus to the operational needs and prudent provisions of the three agencies. The suggestion that the Auditor-General be required to certify that the funds are surplus is superfluous and inappropriate. The bill requires that the concurrence of the Treasurer is not to be given unless the Treasurer is satisfied that the funds are truly surplus to the individual agencies. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Auditor-General to duplicate that process. This would amount to an unnecessary intrusion by the Auditor-General into what is essentially a policy issue.

Provision has already been made for an independent, professional audit of the value of the accumulated surpluses that may be transferred to the Housing Reserve Fund. That will be supervised by the Treasurer. This, together with the requirement of the Treasurer's agreement, provides more than adequate protection so that the three agencies will be able to retain sufficient funds for their ongoing operational needs. The effect of the third amendment, therefore, will be to restrict and thereby reduce the resources that would be available to the Home Purchase Assistance Authority to restructure HomeFund and provide relief to HomeFund borrowers, which was the purpose for which it was set up in the first place. The Government is firmly of the view that adequate safeguards have been developed for the ongoing needs of the three agencies and that the full amount of the surpluses should be transferred and made available to address the problems of the HomeFund scheme. Hence, the Government rejects all three amendments.

Page 5352

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

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

Mr Coleman Mrs Nile
Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti
Miss Gardiner Mr Pickering
Mr Gay Mr Ryan
Dr Goldsmith Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jobling Mr Webster
Mr Jones Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Mutch
Mr Moppett Mr Samios

Mrs Kite Mr Bull
Mr Obeid Mrs Chadwick

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.


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

Letona Co-operative (Financial Assistance) Bill

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. D. J. Gay) left the chair at 6.47 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.15]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

This bill seeks to make a series of amendments to various Acts affecting the powers and procedures of some of our courts. Most of it deals with civil jurisdictions. If it could be summed up it would be as a bill to remove several fairly minor hindrances to the more efficient operation of the courts. Most of its provisions have been sought by the courts themselves.

I will deal with the provisions generally in the order in which they appear in the schedules to the bill.

Schedule 1 amends the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970.

The local courts have a general civil jurisdiction up to $40,000, and it is important to the efficient functioning of the civil courts system that actions within the jurisdiction of the local courts be litigated there.

One problem has been the inability of the local courts to order the return of goods wrongly detained. In an action in detinue in a local court a judgment for the plaintiff can only be for payment of money, and when the defendant pays the value of the goods they become his or hers; the defendant can be given the option of returning the goods, but cannot be compelled to return them. Amendment (1) gives the local courts jurisdiction to hear a claim for specific return; it then goes on to tidy up the drafting by recasting section 12, which is the major statement of the courts' jurisdictional limits. Amendment (3) then gives the local courts the powers of the District Court to make orders for specific return, and allows the court rules to provide for enforcement.

Another problem in keeping actions in the local courts has been the unavailability of a defence under the Contracts Review Act 1980. Section 7(1)(a) of that Act enables the Supreme Court and the District Court to refuse to enforce a provision of a contract if the court finds that the provision - which is enforceable under the general law - is unjust in the circumstances. The Act does not apply to the local courts, and a defendant who wants to rely on section 7(1)(a) in a local court action has to apply to the District Court to transfer the action there. Quite a few applications are being made on this basis, and it is suspected that at least some of them are spuriously made as a delaying tactic. Amendment (2) gives the local courts the powers of the Supreme Court to grant relief under section 7(1)(a), but is careful not to extend any other provision of the Contracts Review Act to the local courts. Most of those other provisions involve equitable relief.

The Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act is far too specific in detailing the procedures relating to the financial examination of a judgment debtor. Because of the way the Act is worded, registrars are being compelled to conduct examinations in circumstances where it would be quite reasonable to insist on the creditors doing the work themselves. Registrars are very busy people, and it is inappropriate that the taxpayer should foot the bill for saving the creditor from having to attend the court where the creditor could quite easily do so. The District Court has a much more reasonable system, which is achieved by leaving it to the court to make rules about when a creditor may or may not require the registrar to conduct an examination. Amendments (5) and (7) bring the position in the local courts into line with that in the District Court.

Where a judgment debtor fails to attend a local court as required by an examination summons duly served, the registrar is required by the Act to report the failure in writing to the court. The magistrate can then direct adjournment of the proceedings or the issue of a warrant for the apprehension of the judgment debtor. This warrant requires the sheriff to arrest the debtor and bring him or her before the nearest registrar for examination; it does not authorise imprisonment of the debtor except in the very rare case where an arrest is made at a time when no registrar is available. Almost invariably the magistrate authorises the warrant to issue, and makes this decision without any knowledge of the matter other than the registrar's report.

Page 5353
There is no point in taking up the time of the court with what can only be treated as a routine matter, or in accepting the delay the process causes in some remote areas. Amendment (6) enables the registrar to exercise the functions of the court to adjourn the examination or issue the warrant or apprehension.

Section 61 of the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act prohibits the seizure of property under a local court writ of execution between 8.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. No other court has anything remotely resembling such a restriction on its process. The origins of the provision have been traced as far back as the Small Debts Recovery Act of 1846, but there is nothing to indicate why it is needed in 1993 in a court with a jurisdiction up to 440,000. Sheriff's officers do not execute a large number of writs at night, but there are occasions when a levy simply cannot be made except at night. Amendment (8) repeals section 61.

Amendments (9) and (10) deal with transitional matters.

Schedule 2 amends the District Court Act 1973.

Amendment (1) makes the same provision for issue by the registrar of a warrant of apprehension as is made in schedule 1 in respect of the local courts.

Amendment (2) deals with a problem concerning orders for costs made in the District Court. In a recent decision the Court of Appeal held, by majority, that the District Court has no power to order costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis. The reason for this decision was that the definition of "costs" in the District Court Act was interpreted as restricting the court's powers to dealing with costs to be taxed on a party-and-party basis, and amendment (2) seeks to lift that restriction.

Very broadly, the distinction between the two types of costs order is that party-and-party costs are limited to the costs necessarily incurred in establishing the successful party's case, and further limited by prescribed scales; indemnity costs include all the costs actually incurred by the successful party other than those unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount, and any doubt about the reasonableness is to be resolved in favour of the successful party. The difference in amount can be quite substantial. An indemnity cots order is punitive in nature, and is made only where a party's unreasonable conduct of the proceedings has prolonged them or otherwise added to their costs. Such orders are not infrequently made in the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal in its judgment thought it highly desirable that they should be able to be validly made in the District Court.

The particular concern in the District Court has been with plaintiff's offers under the offer of compromise system. That system has been of great assistance in promoting early settlement. Where a plaintiff makes an offer to accept a specified amount in satisfaction of his claim; the defendant rejects the offer; the proceedings continue to judgment; and the plaintiff recovers the amount of his offer or more, it is usually clear that the defendant's rejection has unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings. The plaintiff in such a case would seek and be granted an order that his costs incurred after the date of the offer be paid on the indemnity basis, and the District Court rules provide for this.

Quite a number of orders for indemnity costs have been made in the District Court, and they are of no effect following on the Court of Appeal decision. They were orders made on the merits of the case and in accordance with the rules of the court and the court's understanding of its powers, and the parties who were granted those orders should be protected. Amendment (2) seeks to validate those orders by providing that the court has had power to make them since 28th April, 1989, which is the date of commencement of the offer of compromise system. As is usual in such circumstances, the validation does not affect the particular matter that was before the Court of Appeal.

When the Legal Profession Reform Bill 1993 becomes law, it new approach to costs will supplant the present system, and there will be no doubt about the court's power to award indemnity costs. The provisions of that bill and the bill now before this House cannot stand together, and so the latter provisions are expressed to be repealed on commencement of the former. It is not practicable to leave the present problem to be solved by the Legal Profession Reform Bill, because there will necessarily be a good deal of delay between assent to that bill and commencement of the relevant provisions.

The definition of "costs" which provoked the proceedings in the Court of Appeal is repeated in the Compensation Court Act 1984 and the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970, and it is necessary to make the same amendments to those Acts as to the District Court Act. The bill attends to those matters in schedule 4 and amendment (4) of schedule 1.

The District Court Act makes extensive provision for the court to make orders for inspection of property in proceedings in the civil jurisdiction, but there is no such provision at all in respect of the criminal jurisdiction. Serious doubt exists as to whether the court can order, say, a view by a jury in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court relies on its inherent powers in this area, and amendment (3) of schedule 2 will allow the District Court to make rules conferring those powers on the District Court, but limited to orders for a view of real property. For caution, any such rules are included among those criminal procedure rules which need approval of the Attorney General before they can have effect.

Schedule 3 amends the Contracts Review Act 1980 to include the local courts in the definition of "court" but only for the purposes of section 7(1)(a) of the Act. It complements amendment (2) of schedule 1.

Schedule 4, as I have mentioned, clarifies the power of the compensation court to order indemnity costs.

Schedule 5 applies the Supreme Court (Fees and Percentages) Regulations to the Dust Diseases Tribunal. That tribunal was established in 1989 to take exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings for damages for dust-related injuries which were then brought mostly in the Supreme Court. The Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 provided for regulations to be made as to fees in the tribunal, but none were made. The tribunal has been charging the same fees as charged in the Supreme Court, which was always the intention, but it now becomes necessary to validate those charges. The amendment will continue the application of the Supreme Court charges until regulations are in fact made under the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act.

The various amendments to be made by this bill will assist the courts in their endeavours to provide an efficient dispute resolution service to the citizens of this State. The Government again congratulates the courts on the very impressive progress they are making, and is glad to bring forward legislation sought by the courts to remove a few barriers to that progress.

I commend the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [8.15]: This bill deals usefully with a number of technical and procedural changes affecting both the Local Court and the District Court. The changes have emanated, as I understand, from views within the court system. Obvious expertise within the court system suggested these changes and they ought to be viewed sympathetically by this House. I shall list what the Opposition apprehends to be the essential features of the changes effected by the legislation. First, an option will be provided to order the return of detained goods instead of payment of their value and damages.
Page 5354
Second, courts will be able to refuse to enforce an unjust contract. Third, the examination of judgment debtors will be dealt with in the Local Court. The proposed amendment would place a local court on the same basis as the District Court. Fourth, the registrar will be able, without first obtaining the authority of the local court, to issue a warrant or to adjourn the proceedings and order the debtor to appear to answer an examination summons. Fifth, the time within which execution of goods may be levied will be extended.

Sixth, the District Court will have power to inspect property in criminal proceedings, and seventh, the District Court will be authorised to make orders for indemnity costs. In a recent Court of Appeal case it was discovered that the District Court lacked the salutary and useful power to order indemnity costs as distinct from party and party costs. It is appropriate that this Parliament should fill that hiatus because obviously the Supreme Court and other superior courts of record do have conventional power to award indemnity costs. It is a matter of surprise and anomaly that the District Court lacks that power. The final aspect of the legislation is particularly welcome. It will enable a District Court to deal with cases of procedural misconduct or the unwarranted prolongation of proceedings which warrants the payment of full costs on the part of the unsuccessful party. The Opposition supports this appropriate piece of legislation.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [8.18]: I speak briefly in support of the Courts Legislation (Amendment) Bill, which makes a series of amendments to various Acts, affecting the powers and procedures of some New South Wales courts. Most of the amendments deal with civil jurisdictions, basically removing a number of minor hindrances to the more efficient operation of courts. Most of the provisions were asked of the Government by the courts themselves. As the Hon. J. W. Shaw said, these amendments affect various minor operations of the court, some of them dating back to archaic provisions such as abandoning the enforcement of a local court writ being issued at night. There are a number of other minor technical amendments to the Acts. I have pleasure in supporting the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.19]: The Courts Legislation (Amendment) Bill will make amendments to the jurisdiction of the District Court and the jurisdiction of local courts under the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970. The Court of Appeal in Milosevic held that the District Court had no jurisdiction to award indemnity costs. I am informed that the New South Wales Law Society had urged the Attorney General to introduce amending legislation to circumvent this decision, and this has now been done with retrospective effect, excluding the parties to the Milosevic case. Similar provisions are also being introduced to give local courts and the compensation court jurisdiction to order indemnity costs from the date of the enactment of the legislation.

Another provision of the bill is to give local courts a limited jurisdiction to deal with small cases under the Contracts Review Act. Small cases falling within the ambit of the Contracts Review Act are still being adjudicated by the District Court in spite of the expansion of the monetary jurisdiction of local courts to $40,000 from mid-1991. This has led to additional costs. This bill will give local courts the powers of the Supreme Court to grant relief under section 7(1)(a) of the Contracts Review Act, which enables the Supreme Court to refuse to enforce the provision of a contract if the court finds that this provision is unjust. Item (3) of schedule 1 deals with the fact that local courts did not have the power to order the return of detained goods, unlike the District Court and the Supreme Court. With the increase in the monetary jurisdiction, it is necessary to grant local courts such powers. The final significant provision of the bill will be to give the District Court power similar to the Supreme Court in relation to criminal proceedings to make rules for the inspection of personal property. These rules would need the consent of the Attorney General, who will ensure that the common law rules which require the rights of third parties to be taken into account will not be affected. The Australian Democrats support the bill.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.21], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of this important piece of legislation. During debate in another Chamber certain matters of concern were raised which I should comment on and clarify. The first issue was "the imprisonment of a judgment debtor arrested under a warrant of apprehension". I assure the House that there is no need for members to be concerned about this issue. The imprisonment justified by the warrant is no more than the Sheriff keeping the debtor in safe custody until he can be brought before a registrar. I emphasise that it does not include the lodging of that person in a gaol. It is a requirement imposed on the Sheriff by the common law, not by any provision in the Act under which the warrant is issued. The warrant does not authorise the keeper of a gaol to take custody of the debtor, nor could it without statutory support.

The Sheriff is required by the common law to do what he must reasonably do to fulfil his obligation to bring the debtor before a registrar. If no registrar is available, the Sheriff has to make interim custodial arrangements, which might, for example, consist of insisting that the debtor remain with him in the court house while the registrar is brought from his home. The Crown Solicitor formally advised the Sheriff in 1977 as to the common law obligations attendant upon a warrant of apprehension. The Sheriff then formally advised all his officers that if an arrest is to be made under a warrant, and there is any reason to doubt the availability of the registrar, that availability is to be checked before the arrest is made. If no registrar can be found, the arrest is not to be made, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

No such circumstances have arisen since 1977 and no debtor has lost his or her liberty other than in being brought before a registrar. I also emphasise what was said in the other place: that the liability of a judgment debtor to arrest for failure to comply with
Page 5355
an examination summons has always existed; it is not being created by this bill. The bill looks only to the procedure for the issue of the warrant and simplifies that. It is also worth noting that the bill will not interfere with the requirement that the debtor be given 14 days notice of the decision to issue the warrant - 14 days in which the debtor can completely avoid the consequences of having disobeyed the examination summons simply by attending upon the registrar. There is not the slightest basis for any concern in relation to this issue. I thank honourable members for their support of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.25]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This Government, since coming to office in 1988, has implemented the most ambitious program of microeconomic and public sector management reforms of any government in Australia. The reforms are extensively documented in the Budget Papers and include accrual accounting and budgeting, global budgeting, comprehensive budget presentations, guarantee of service, reform of government trading enterprises and the establishment of the Government Pricing Tribunal. The key objective of the ongoing reform program is to achieve more efficient and effective financial and resource management and to improve service delivery for the benefit of the citizens of New South Wales. The reform process for the budget has now been substantially completed. The Government is currently focusing on the consolidation of the budget reforms.

I am pleased to say that the comprehensive financial reform program that has been introduced by New South Wales is now being followed by a number of other major jurisdictions. In the area of accrual accounting, for example, the Commonwealth, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia are now following the New South Wales lead. However, we earned our reputation for financial responsibility by being a reformist Government before the recession forced other governments to pursue the same path. The purpose of this bill is to incorporate in the Public Finance and Audit Act the accepted public finance standards for budget presentation. These standards are the government finance statistics standards used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in compiling public finance data on outlays, receipts and financing transactions and are consistent with international statistical standards.

I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

New South Wales has in fact long been a champion of better, more uniform Budget information.

At the May 1991 Special Premiers' Conference, all Governments agreed to a New South Wales proposal to publish in their Budgets supplementary information on the Government finance statistics basis for the "General Government" and Public Trading Enterprises Sectors.

The "General Government" sector covers not only Budget dependent agencies, such as Department of Health, et cetera, which constitute the Budget sector, but also those agencies which are self-funding either from user charges or regulatory fees. Examples of self-funded Non Budget Sector agencies include the WorkCover Authority and the Motor Accident Authority.

The aggregates for the "General Government" Sector, Public Trading Enterprises and the overall State sector have been presented on the Government Finance Statistics basis in the New South Wales Budget Papers since 1988-89.

In addition to the presentation of this supplementary information on State finances, the actual Budget presentation has been substantially improved. Traditionally the Budget was presented on a narrow consolidated fund basis which did not give a full picture of the financial position of the Budget Sector.

Starting with the 1991-92 Budget, the Government Finance Statistics standards have been applied to present a comprehensive picture of the Budget Sector financial position.

Similarly the monthly and quarterly reporting of the Budget has been presented on this broader basis and this was legislated for in the Public Finance and Audit Act last year.

The intention of these proposed amendments is to now incorporate in the Public Finance and Audit Act the requirement to present the Budget on the basis of Government Finance Statistics standards, in line with our practice since 1991-92.

On some rare occasions, departures from these guidelines on presentation may be warranted for good accounting reasons but they will be required by the legislation to be explained in the Budget papers and therefore will be open to public scrutiny.

A recent example of such a departure was the decision to exclude the proceeds of the sale of the "GIO" from the Budget despite the fact that inclusion was in line with Government Finance Statistics standards. This decision was taken in order to avoid distorting the Budget result with such a large extraordinary item.

The proposed amendments were foreshadowed in the 1992-93 Budget Speech. They are aimed at demonstrating the Government's commitment to "Truth in Budgeting".

This legislation will ensure that any future Government would only depart from the Government Finance Statistics principles in a transparent way.

The issue of Budget presentation was recently raised in the public forum by Professor Bob Walker, Professor of Accounting at New South Wales University. Without wishing to go into technical detail, the essential proposition put by Professor Walker was that the Budget should present the comprehensive financial position of all Government agencies.

The New South Wales Budget presents comprehensive information on revenues and outlays of agencies predominantly funded from the Budget.

To expand the Budget to include agencies that are fully or predominantly self-funded would completely undermine the purpose of the Budget which is the means for Parliament appropriating financial support to Budget funded agencies.

It would also be totally at variance with the approach to the Budget of all other Australian Governments.

Page 5356

Moreover, New South Wales has been a pioneer in presenting separate information on the overall financial position of State agencies both on a cash basis in Budget Paper No. 6 and on an accruals basis in the Consolidated Financial Statements that are released later in the year after the Budget. Hence all the information that Professor Walker proposes is currently being produced.

In summary, the amendments contained in this Bill are directed at setting in legislation appropriate standards for Budget presentation and are in accord with Budget practice since 1991-92.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.27]: The Opposition supports the Public Finance and Audit (Budget) Amendment Bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.27]: The Australian Democrats also support the bill.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.28], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of the important budget reforms. New South Wales will continue to be the leader in terms of economic management in this country.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council), on behalf of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick [8.29]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Gaming and Betting Act was initially drafted in 1912, at a time when community values regarding gambling were significantly different to what they are today.

It has become clear that a major review of the existing legislation is necessary, but there are certain obvious inadequacies in the Gaming and Betting Act which need to be addressed urgently.

The current proposed amendments originated from an inter-departmental inquiry into prohibited amusement devices. This inquiry highlighted some changes which were clearly required immediately.

Subsequent discussions with the New South Wales Crime Commission indicated that there was also an urgent need to strengthen the existing laws in relation to unlawful bookmaking.

Because of the urgent need to strengthen controls over unlawful bookmaking and prohibited amusement devices, a task force of officers has been established to review the legislation in its entirety.

The first meeting of the task force was held on 18th October, 1993. It is planned that the task force will provide its final report to me by 1st September, 1994, but provision has been made for staged reporting before that time, if required.

In the meantime, in view of the fact that particular deficiencies in the Act have already been identified - deficiencies which are affecting the immediate control of illegal gambling - it is proposed to proceed with specific amendments which I shall now turn to.

Mr President, the bill introduces several new controls aimed at S.P. bookmaking.

The Act is presently constructed in a way which makes it unlawful to operate a bookmaking operation in a public place - that is, "Street" betting - or to operate a bookmaking operation in a private place - that is, "Place" betting or keeping a "betting house". This distinction means that some mobile S.P. operations can slip between the gaps of "street" betting and "place" betting.

The bill introduces a new offence of unlawful bookmaking, for which it will be unnecessary to show that the activity occurred in a particular place or street, in order to convict.

A further new offence of having a financial interest in the business of bookmaking is also to be introduced, to assist law enforcement agencies to capture the principals behind large bookmaking businesses.

First offences of unlawful bookmaking will be able to be prosecuted either summarily (that is, before a Local Court magistrate) or on indictment (that is, before a District Court judge). The significance of this option is that it brings into play the provisions of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crimes Act, which defines a serious offence as one which may be prosecuted on indictment.

The New South Wales Crime Commission believes that the ability to confiscate proceeds of unlawful bookmaking will prove a useful measure in combating major S.P. bookmaking operations.

The final provision aimed at tightening controls over bookmaking relates to the forfeiture of unlawful betting aids. Presently, police may seize unlawful betting aids such as ledgers, mobile telephones, tape-recorders, and diverters, but they are required to return these items even if the owner is subsequently convicted of a bookmaking offence. The bill will allow the court to order the forfeiture of these devices.

Mr President, the next group of amendments which I should like to address are those related to prohibited amusement devices.

The existing penalty structure under the Gaming and Betting Act provides for a maximum penalty for possession of prohibited amusement devices under section 17A of the Gaming and Betting Act of 10 penalty units ($1,000) or imprisonment for 12 months.

It is proposed to introduce the same penalties for offences relating to prohibited amusement devices as currently apply to street betting and place betting under the Act - that is, a maximum of $10,000 or 12 months imprisonment for a first offence, and a maximum of $50,000 or 2 years imprisonment for second or subsequent offences.

It is also proposed to amend the Act to provide a maximum penalty of $50,000 for corporations which are convicted of possession of a prohibited amusement device. This is consistent with the maximum penalty which may be imposed on corporations in disciplinary proceedings under the Liquor Act.

The bill also provides the court with the power to order a defendant to pay the expenses incurred by the police in taking possession of, transporting, and storing under security a prohibited amusement device while it is held for evidentiary purposes.

Page 5357

Mr President, the bill also introduces an amendment in relation to what has become known as "phantom race meetings".

The Gaming and Betting Act was amended in 1989 to allow betting to be conducted on a racecourse following the abandonment of the race meeting prior to the conduct of the first race.

The declaration of a "phantom race meeting" allows betting to take place on-course on intra- and inter-state race meetings, and full services to be offered by the club to its patrons even though the race meeting has been abandoned.

The Australian Jockey Club approached the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing seeking a further change to the legislation, to allow race clubs to postpone meetings on the day preceding a programmed meeting. At present, the declaration of a phantom meeting must take place on the scheduled day of the meeting.

The bill provides for this extension of the "phantom" race meeting concept.

Mr President, the final amendments which I should like to discuss relate to validating certain proceedings which have been instituted outside the requirements of the Act.

Section 60 of the Act provides that, except where otherwise provided, proceedings for an offence against the Act shall be dealt with summarily before a Local Court. Second or subsequent offences in respect of certain specified provisions are to be "prosecuted on indictment and not otherwise."

Some proceedings for second offences in respect of the specified provisions were instituted and dealt with by a local court. The bill provides for the validation of any such proceedings.

Mr President, as I have indicated earlier, these amendments will not result in a perfect set of controls over unlawful gaming and betting operations in this State.

The amendments are aimed at bringing some immediate assistance to the work of the two law enforcement agencies, the Police Service and the Crime Commission.

Following the report of the task force, it is likely that more significant amendments to the Act will be identified as being necessary, in order to ensure that the Act can provide effective controls over the unlawful gambling industry into the next century.

It is hoped that those significant amendments will be brought before this House within the next 12 months.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.29]: The Opposition supports the Gaming and Betting (Amendment) Bill.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [8.30]: The Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services said in her second reading speech in the other place:

The Gaming and Betting Act was originally drafted in 1912 at a time when community values regarding gambling were significantly different to what they are today. It has become clear that a major review of the existing legislation is necessary.

A task force has been established and had its first meeting on 18th October. It is planned that the task force will provide its final report to the Minister by 1st September next year. However, in the meantime it is necessary to bring forward certain amendments which will assist greatly in implementing the provisions in the Gaming and Betting Act. The first of these is to tighten up the offences, for starting price betting has been in existence for many, many years and is still being carried out. Once upon a time the SP bookmaker had to have an office with a number of telephones to conduct his business. It was fairly easy for the police to crack down on the SP bookmaker because of this fact. However, with the introduction of mobile telephones it has become more difficult to clamp down on this operation.

If we are serious about cracking down on SP betting it is necessary for us to do the same in respect of betting on other sports. At present betting on sports other than racing is not legalised. When I became Minister one of the first things I attempted to do was to legalise betting on other sports but betting could take place only on a racecourse. This had the approval of Cabinet but because of the outcry from a number of people, including the rugby league, it was decided to withdraw the proposed legislation and shelve it for the time being. The argument put forward by the rugby league board was that legalising betting on rugby league could create inherent dangers such as players being bribed to miss kicks, drop balls and all that nonsense. Rugby league is a highly professional game with players paid big money, so to them winning is more important than losing. Betting on football is rampant in Great Britain and to my knowledge there have not been any misdoings in respect of soccer or football in the United Kingdom.

The Act is at present constructed in such a way that it makes it unlawful to conduct a bookmaking operation in a public place, that is, street betting, or to conduct a bookmaking operation in a private place, that is, place betting or keeping of a betting house. This distinction means that some mobile SP operators can slip between street betting and place betting. It is proposed to amend the Act to provide that SP betting, wherever occurring, is an offence and thus it is unnecessary to show that it occurred in a particular place or street in order to convict. Penalties for unlawful bookmaking have been increased, which will have a dampening effect on SP bookmakers. Another provision contained in the amendments is aimed at tightening controls over bookmaking relating to the forfeiture of unlawful betting aids. At present police may seize unlawful betting aids - such as ledgers, mobile telephones, tape recorders and diverters - but they are required to return these items, even if the owner is subsequently convicted of a bookmaking offence. The bill will allow the court to order the forfeiture of these devices.

The next group of amendments relates to prohibited amusement devices. Penalties in respect of these matters will be very much the same as those that apply to street betting. Hundreds of these machines have flooded Sydney's ethnic clubs, pool halls, coffee shops and small retail businesses. More than 300 seized in police raids are stacked in a secret inner-city warehouse. Such machines are believed to be responsible for raking in millions of dollars a year in illegal funds. An article which appeared in the Sun-Herald of 31st October stated:

Criminals are even targeting young teenagers by putting the machines in places such as milk bars.

Page 5358

Chief Inspector Alan Leek, patrol commander at Cabramatta, which has a large Asian population, is concerned that standover tactics are sometimes used to force small shopkeepers to install the illicit machines. The chief inspector stated, "That, to me, is a more sinister form of extortion than young gangs going into shops and threatening to play up if they are not given money". The difficulty in respect of this matter is that making machines is not illegal; only operating them is. The article went on to state that Detective Superintendent Ray Southwell of the Drug Enforcement Agency said that because of the huge money at stake machines seized by police were quickly replaced. He said:

Once we raided the place at 11 o'clock at night and they had new machines operating by next morning.

The increased penalties could have an adverse effect on the illegal operators. The next matter addressed in the amendments concerns phantom race-meetings. As honourable members would be aware, phantom race-meetings can be held only on the day that a particular race-meeting has been cancelled. Racegoers can go to Randwick as late as 12 o'clock before the first race after there has been a deluge of rain and it has been decided to cancel the meeting and they can still bet on course with bookmakers and the tote or on race-meetings held in other States as well as provincial meetings within the State. The amendment will allow race clubs to postpone meetings on the day preceding a programmed meeting. This is a very worthwhile amendment which should have been brought in some time ago.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: When you were the Minister.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I tried.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: You were done.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I was unable to convince the powers that be.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: You were a power.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I thought I was a power, but there was also a Cabinet. You have to listen to what the Cabinet says. These amendments will not result in a perfect set of controls over unlawful gaming and betting operations in this State. They are aimed at bringing immediate assistance to the work of the two law enforcement agencies; namely, the Police Service and the Crime Commission. The work of the task force is important. When its report has been handed down next year no doubt further amendments will be introduced to the Gaming and Betting Act. One of the problems we face is that SP betting has been with us for ever and a day. Whatever we do, I do not think we will cut it out.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Did you ever get set with one?

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I used to have an SP bookmaker in Queensland. The Hon. J. R. Johnson might laugh, but where we were out in western Queensland there was no TAB, so if you wanted to have a bet you went to the local fellow. He was a good bloke, I must admit. But he really worried me on Melbourne Cup day in, I think, 1954. The stationhands put all the bets on with me and I rang him up. Unfortunately, the horses they backed did not do any good. Came the last race at Flemington, I rang him up to have a bet, but he had disappeared.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: So you did not have to pay him?

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Yes, I did have to pay. These amendments will help in some way to crack down on starting price betting, through which the Government loses so much revenue. I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not raise that issue. The Government is missing out on a lot of revenue through starting price bookmakers.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: We are getting it now; Bob Askin was getting it previously.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Bob Askin was doing nothing of the kind. The honourable member should not mention his name in that regard. I knew Bob Askin extremely well. He was always on-course; he was never on a telephone. He truly supported racing. I support the proposed amendments. I hope the measure will cut down on illegal betting operations. I support the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.41]: The Australian Democrats also support the legislation, which goes one step further towards assisting legitimate bookmakers to maintain their viability.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.42], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of this important legislation, which I commend to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.43]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. In Committee I will move a further minor amendment to the Crimes Act, and I will explain the details of that amendment at that stage.

Leave granted.

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) continues the well-established statute law revision program which commenced in 1984. The bill is the twenty-first bill to be introduced in the program. The statute law revision program is recognised by all members as a cost-

Page 5359
effective and efficient method of dealing with amendments of the kind included in the bill. The form of the bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. Schedule 1 to the bill contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the Minister responsible for the legislation to be amended considers to be too inconsequential to warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill. The schedule contains amendments to 20 Acts. I will mention a few of the amendments to provide honourable members with an indication of the kinds of amendments involved. Some amendments arise out of other amendments previously made to the Act concerned.

For example, the amendment to the Guardianship Act 1987 will ensure that the Supreme Court will not be able to make orders for the carrying out of special medical treatment, such as sterilisation, when the court is exercising its jurisdiction with respect to guardianship. The amendment reinstates a previous restriction on the power of the court. The removal of that restriction was an unintended consequence of earlier amendments to the Act. Similarly, amendments to the Liquor (Amendment) Act 1993 and the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Act 1993, together with consequential amendments to the principal Acts in schedule 2 to the bill, are made for consistency with similar amendments that were made during the committee stages of the debate on the bills for those amending Acts. For example, the Liquor (Amendment) Bill, as introduced, proposed to amend the sections relating to various kinds of liquor licences to allow the Licensing Court to grant applications for extensions of trading hours for a trial period. Amendments in Committee limited that trial to a period of up to six months in relation to hoteliers' licences. For consistency, one of the amendments in this bill imposes the same limitation on the proposed trial period in relation to the other licences concerned.

Examples of other amendments contained in schedule 1 are the amendments to the Disability Services Act 1993 and to the Zoological Parks Board Act 1973. The amendment to the Disability Services Act 1993 will allow full effect to be given to the disability agreement between the Commonwealth and the State that was entered into on 30th July, 1991. The effect of the amendment is to permit the Minister for Health to obtain financial assistance under the Act for the funding of certain psychiatric disability services. The services concerned will have to conform to the objects and principles of the Act. The amendment to the Zoological Parks Board Act 1973 is to make it clear that the board has the power to administer trust property as a trustee even if some of the purposes of the trust are not related to the functions of the board, and even if the board is, or could be, a beneficiary under the trust.

A final example of the kind of amendment contained in schedule 1 is the first of the amendments to the Geographical Names Act 1966. That amendment is concerned with the gender-specific language in the Act. The House will be aware that it is some time since legislation in New South Wales was couched in gender-specific terms. It is now proposed that this and future statute law legislation will amend older Acts with a view to ridding the statute book of sexist language. Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision consisting of minor technical changes to legislation that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion in the bill. Some amendments in schedule 2 update obsolete references, some correct typographical errors, some omit unnecessary material or insert missing material, some make changes in consequence of amendments made by other Acts, some give effect to previous amendments that could not take effect and one revokes the repeal of an Act.

The revocation of the repeal, which is made by the amendment to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991, is to remove any doubt as to the status of an agreement ratified by the repealed Act. Schedule 3 contains repeals. It repeals amending Acts that are no longer necessary because the amendments have been incorporated in reprints of the relevant principal Acts. It also repeals an Act that is no longer of practical utility. More than 300 Acts were repealed by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills passed last year. Accordingly, only a small number of Acts is proposed for repeal on this occasion. Schedule 4 to the bill contains provisions dealing with the effect of amendments on amending Acts, savings clauses for the repealed Acts and a power to make regulations for transitional matters, if necessary. The various amendments are explained in detail in explanatory notes set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts concerned.

Rather than repeat the information contained in those notes, I invite honourable members to examine the various amendments and accompanying explanatory material and, if any concern or need for clarification arises, to approach me regarding the matter. If necessary, I will arrange for government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised. If any particular matter of concern cannot be resolved and is likely to delay the passage of the bill, the Government is prepared to consider, as has previously been the case, withdrawing the matter from the bill.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.44]: The Opposition supports the proposed legislation.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.45]: The Australian Democrats support the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2). I wish to refer to a number of notable amendments in the bill. An amendment has been made to the Disability Services Act to give full effect to the Commonwealth-State disability services agreement. Amendments have also been made to the Optical Dispensers Act 1963, the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 and the Physiotherapists Registration Act 1945. These all have the effect of not requiring information to be published in the Government Gazette because that information is available for inspection during office hours.

The Justices Act 1902 has been amended to allow penalty notices issued under section 24 of the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust Act to be brought within the self-enforcing infringement notice scheme. The amendment will also allow short descriptions of offences to be prescribed for indictable offences but may be dealt with summarily as well as for summary offences. The amendment to the Guardianship Act 1987 reinstates a restriction which was unintentionally removed by the Guardianship (Amendment) Act 1993. That restriction prevents the Supreme Court making orders for the carrying out of special medical treatment, for example, sterilisation and other medical treatment prescribed by the regulations, on patients who are 16 or more years old but who are incapable of giving consent to the carrying out of such treatment. Finally, amendment has been made to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act (New South Wales) 1987 so that the eligible authority has three months instead of two months in which to submit an annual report to the Minister. This is consequential to amendments recently made in Commonwealth legislation. The Australian Democrats support the bill.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.46], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of the bill, and I commend it to the House.

Page 5360

Schedule 1

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.47]: I move:

Page 2, Schedule 1. After line 36, insert:

AMENDMENTS

(1) Section 474G (Procedure for conducting inquiry):

From section 474G(2)(b), omit "as a prescribed person", insert instead "under this section".

(2) Eleventh Schedule (Savings and transitional provisions):

After clause 10(2), insert:

(3) Despite subclause (1), subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 474G (which confer certain powers on a person conducting an inquiry under Division 4 of Part 13A) extend to a prescribed person conducting an inquiry under section 475 and to any witness summoned by or before the prescribed person.

COMMENCEMENT
The amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 commence on the date of assent to this Act.

EXPLANATORY NOTE
Powers of a prescribed person under section 474G. Item (1) of the proposed amendments puts beyond doubt that the instrument of appointment referred to in that section refers to the instrument of appointment by which a prescribed person is appointed to conduct an inquiry under Division 4 of Part 13A of the Act.

Extension of powers of a prescribed person under section 475. The savings and transitional provisions in the Eleventh Schedule to the Act provide for inquiries under (the now repealed) section 475 to be concluded under that section. Item (2) of the proposed amendments gives a prescribed person who is conducting such an inquiry the powers, authorities, protections and immunities of a commissioner under the Royal Commissions Act 1923 and applies that Act to witnesses at such an inquiry.

The proposed amendments, similar to those made to previous bills of this kind, are not controversial. As I indicated in my second reading speech, the Government is proposing a single amendment to the bill in order to accommodate a minor amendment which has arisen from the current inquiry being conducted by Mr Slattery, Q.C., into the conviction of Mr Kalajzich. Because Mr Slattery was appointed to conduct the inquiry before the Crimes (Review of Convictions) Amendment Act 1993 came into force last Sunday, it was not possible to give him the powers that would be available to him under the Government legislation. This amendment makes clear that Mr Slattery will have appropriate powers for this inquiry. At the time the Government passed that Act it made clear that it was intended the inquiry should be conducted so as to achieve the intended purposes of the proposed legislation. But in the last 48 hours it has become apparent that because of an oversight in the transitional provisions Mr Slattery will not have all the powers of the Act appropriate to be able to complete the Kalajzich inquiry effectively. This further amendment is sought to ensure that can be achieved.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.50]: Could the Attorney General give the House some detail about those transitional arrangements?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.51]: In the Crimes Legislation (Review of Convictions) Amendment Bill which came into effect on Monday, the transitional provisions provided in effect for this legislation to apply to all enquiries, whether they were commenced before or after the date of proclamation. It was found that because Mr Slattery was appointed before the legislation came into effect he would not have the full powers of a royal commissioner to call witnesses, as will be given to commissioners appointed after the proclamation date. Because Mr Slattery was appointed prior to the bill being enacted, he will not be able to require witnesses to attend and give evidence. Clearly that is an oversight in relation to the legislation. It was intended that the commissioner should have all of the necessary powers to properly conduct an inquiry. That certainly was the intention when the Government introduced this legislation. In the drafting it was not anticipated that Mr Slattery would be deprived of his powers. The Government is now correcting that oversight.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: I will bet that Jack Slattery found that oversight.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: He did.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendment, and report adopted.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.55]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The purpose of the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill is to remove the option of sentencing a person to imprisonment for the offence of offen-sive language. Currently the penalty for this offence is a $600 fine or imprisonment for 3 months. The proposed amendments will enable a court to instead sentence a person convicted of offensive language to either a $600 fine or a community service order.

The object of the Summary Offences Act when introduced into Parliament in 1988 by this Government was to consolidate and reform offences against public order. The Government had a clear mandate to reform the law based on its pre-election commitment of reducing street crime.

The Act repealed the Offences in Public Places Act 1979, and re-intro-duced the offences and gaol penalties for offensive language and offen-sive conduct as contained in the former Summary Offences Act 1970.

Page 5361

In his Second Reading Speech and in the Parliamentary debates, the then Attorney General, the Hon John Dowd, QC, emphasised that imprisonment was to be used as a last resort and its use would be the subject of continued scrutiny by the Government.

Recent comments on the impact of this section, particularly in relation to Aboriginal people have reinforced the Government's concerns over the custodial penalty for the offence of offensive language.

Recommendation 86 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody specifically criticised this offence, stating that it should not be the subject of arrest or charge.

Also in early 1993 Amnesty International released a report entitled Australia: A Criminal Justice System Weighted against Aboriginal Peo-ple which singled out the the offensive behaviour and offensive lan-guage provisions as key factors leading to a disproportionate increase in the arrests of Aboriginal people.

The present amendment to remove the imprisonment penalty for offensive language, in conjunction with the existing right to bail and the adop-tion of the Justices (Amendment) Act 1993, which allows police to issue court attendance notices, in lieu of arrest, for prescribed offences including offensive language, will address these concerns.

It will also benefit the economic and social stability of the families of offenders. Their welfare, in particular where juvenile or Aborigi-nal offenders are involved, will be more carefully protected.

Very considerable progress has been achieved by this Government in implementing the Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aborigi-nal Deaths in Custody through the national and New South Wales responses to the Commission's Report. As a further important part of the New South Wales response, the Government considers that it is now appropriate for the imprison-ment penalty for the minor offence of offensive language to be removed.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [8.56]: The Opposition supports the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill, the object of which is to amend the principal Act, the Summary Offences Act of 1988, to change the penalty for the offence of using offensive language in or near or within hearing from a public place or a school from a fine or alternatively imprisonment to a fine or alternatively the imposition of a community service order. Currently the penalty for the offence of using offensive language is the same as that for the offence of behaving in an offensive manner. That is, a maximum fine of $600 or maximum imprisonment for three months. The amendment will change the penalty to a $600 fine or the imposition of a community service order.

The amendments will remove the option of sending a person to prison. The penalty for offensive conduct will still carry a fine of $600 or, in the alternative, a period of imprisonment for three months. I note that the proposal being given effect to by this bill follows recommendation 92 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which was to the effect "that governments which have not already done so should legislate to enforce the principle that imprisonment should be utilised as a sanction of last resort". It is noteworthy that the penalty imposed for using offensive language quite commonly and disproportionately falls upon Aborigines, particularly in western and northwestern New South Wales. A penalty quite often results in Aborigines receiving a term of imprisonment.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody inquired into the high incidence of imprisonment of Aborigines and the tragic outcomes from that, which can include deaths in custody. It is clearly in the public interest and also quite obviously in the interests of Aborigines that their committal to prison for a comparatively minor offence should be minimised, or, in the case of offensive language, eliminated entirely. With regard to an alternative penalty, that is the imposition of a community service order, recommendation 94 of the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was as follows:

a. Sentencing and correctional authorities should accept that community service may be performed in many ways by an offender placed on a community service order.

b. Consistent with the object of ensuring that offenders do not re-offend, approval should be given, where appropriate, for offenders to perform Community Service work by pursuing personal development courses which might provide the offender with skills, knowledge, interests, treatment or counselling likely to reduce the risk of re-offending.

The move by the Government to provide that courts are entitled, in the alternative, to impose a community service order rather than a fine or imprisonment is a welcome move forward. I ask the Government and its advisers to give close consideration to what the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody had to say in recommendation 94 regarding the form of community service work that might be ordered by a court. It is one thing to impose some fairly meaningless task - not exactly painting rocks white but some task that might assist someone else but might not necessarily help the offender - but it is another thing to impose a form of community service work that would not only help society or some section of society, but in addition would help the offender to reform and not re-offend. On behalf of the Opposition I support the measure.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [8.59]: I also support this important amendment to the Summary Offences Act 1988, which will remove the penalty of imprisonment for offensive language. At present the Act provides that a person shall not use offensive language in or near, or within hearing from, a public place or school. The offence currently carries a maximum penalty of six penalty points or $600, or imprisonment for three months. This bill repeals that penalty of imprisonment for the offence of offensive language and provides instead a maximum penalty of $600 or a community service order which shall not exceed 100 hours. The Government's objective in amending the Summary Offences Act in 1988, at which time there was extensive debate, was to consolidate and reform offences against public order. The then Attorney General, Mr Dowd, said when introducing the bill that imprisonment was to be used as a last resort for this offence. He undertook to keep the matter under scrutiny. In keeping with the commitment by the then Attorney General, the Government has now proposed this amendment.

There has been a great deal of public debate about the impact of section 4 of the Act upon Aboriginal people. In particular, there has been a great deal of disquiet about the imposition of custodial penalties for the offence of offensive language. As
Page 5362
has already been mentioned, this penalty was specifically referred to in recommendation 86 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which criticised the offence, stating that it should not be the subject of arrest or charge. In addition, a report by Amnesty International entitled "Australia: A Criminal Justice System Weighted against Aboriginal People" made specific reference to the offensive language provisions of the New South Wales Summary Offences Act as one of the contributing factors to the disproportionate increase in the number of arrests of Aboriginal people.

The Government believes that the removal from the Act of the penalty of imprisonment for offensive language, combined with the existing right to bail and the adoption of the Justices (Amendment) Bill, which was recently debated and which allows police to issue court attendance notices in lieu of arrest for prescribed offences, including offensive language, should address the concerns of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the concerns expressed in the Amnesty International report, and will reduce the overall rates of imprisonment of Aboriginal people. The amendment, therefore, is important and will satisfy many people who have expressed disquiet at the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people locked away because of breaches of the present Act. I support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.3]: The Australian Democrats support the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill. The bill will remove the option of sentencing a person to imprisonment for the offence of offensive language. The court will be able to impose a $600 fine, as is the case under the present legislation, or make a community service order. Street offences legislation originated from the belief that police should be responsible for the general supervision of public behaviour and, therefore, the political and social morality of the community. These blanket powers have always been a source of concern. It has been reported that working-class communities in nineteenth century England resented what they regarded as political surveillance. There has also been considerable debate about the extent to which the State has a moral obligation to regulate the moral life of its citizens. Furthermore, there is the question of what standard should be promoted and whether the rights of citizens, regardless of whether they belong to the dominant group, are infringed. The present offensive language provisions of the Summary Offences Act 1988 are clearly the result of a police ethic which holds that the State should uphold certain values which it is assumed are widely held by the community. Section 4 states:

(1) A person shall not:

(a) conduct himself or herself in an offensive manner in or near, or within view of hearing from, a public place or school, or

(b) use offensive language in or near, or within hearing from, a public place or school.

Maximum penalty: six penalty units or imprisonment for three months.

(2) It is sufficient defence to a prosecution for an offence under this section if the defendant satisfies the court that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for conducting himself or herself in a manner alleged in the information for the offence.

However, police and courts are given very broad powers to determine what is considered offensive. These provisions are similar to those in the Summary Offences Act 1970. The penalty for the use of unseemly words under the 1970 Act was $200 or imprisonment for three months, but the Australian Labor Party expressed concern at the vagueness of the definition of such an offence. Indeed, the Hon. F. J. Walker argued in Parliament at that time:

Such terminology operates only to give the widest possible latitude to the police and the magistrates . . . Sweeping dragnet terminology means that a particular act will be legal or illegal according to the subjective opinions of the police officers and magistrates involved.

The social control elements of both pieces of legislation are obvious. The Summary Offences Act 1970 was enacted by the Askin Government as part of a push to maintain law and order during the height of protests against the Vietnam War. The Summary Offences Act 1988 was introduced following the Greiner Government's push for law and order. The New South Wales Police Association was also calling for powers greater than those afforded police by the Offences in Public Places Act 1979. I opposed the Greiner Government's legislation because it was obvious that the police already had sufficient power. The Australian Democrats believe that the broad definition of the offensive language provisions in the Summary Offences Act 1988 are unacceptable and result in arbitrary social control by dominant groups in society rather than protecting citizens from harassment. The Wran Government grappled with the problem of how to define offensive language in a more precise manner. In 1979 the Summary Offences Act 1970 was repealed by the Australian Labor Party and replaced by the Offences in Public Places Act 1979. The Government then attempted to tighten up the legislation so that only more serious instances of offensive language would incur the penalty. Section 5 of the Offences in Public Places Act stated:

A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, in, near or within view or hearing from a public place or school behave in such a manner as would be likely to cause reasonable persons justifiably in all the circumstances to be seriously alarmed or seriously affronted.

The intention was to draw a distinction between mere rudeness and words which would cause a reasonable person to be seriously affronted. Furthermore, the penalty for causing serious alarm or affront was reduced to a $200 fine. The different approaches to offensive language provisions in the street offences legislation have had a disturbing impact. A 1989 study by Roseanne Bonney of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics examined the first six months of the operation of the Summary Offences Act 1988. The study found that charges of offensive behaviour relating only to bad language increased from 23 per cent of arrests under the Offences in Public Places Act to 33 per cent of arrests under the Summary Offences Act 1988. That information can be found on page 15 of the study. In Bourke, Brewarrina, and Walgett, whose populations all have a high percentage of Aborigines, arrests for offensive language alone increased from 58 per cent of all arrests under the Offences in Public Places Act to 64 per cent of all arrests under the Summary Offences Act.

Page 5363

Raw data collected by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics shows that, in matters finalised during 1990 at Local Court level, 20 people received a fixed term of imprisonment because of the offensive language provisions. However, I believe that the problem seems to lie partly in the highlighting of offensive language as an offence in itself. People charged under street offences legislation have mainly been charged for bad language, but the percentage of people charged for bad language alone in towns where the population contains a high proportion of Aborigines has always been high regardless of the approach taken to the definition of offensive language. According to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board study of street offences by Aborigines in 1982, 56.1 per cent of people in Aboriginal towns charged in 1978 under the legislation were charged with bad language. This compares with 61.1 per cent in 1980 under the stricter definition. The figure for the entire State was only 43 per cent.

Police were also by far the largest victims of offensive language - 43.2 per cent in 1978 and 75.4 per cent in 1980. Moreover, in spite of the intention of the Offences in Public Places Act in 1979, people were still being sent to gaol simply for using unseemly language. In order to answer the question whether making offensive language part of street offences legislation serves any purpose, it is first necessary to examine offensive language as a phenomenon. Linguists tend to divide the vocabulary into whether it is formal or colloquial; they tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive about the language. The editor of the Macquarie Dictionary, Professor Delbridge, stated in his introduction to that dictionary:

. . . it is unrealistic in a lexicographer to interpose personal judgment or even committee judgment, on the basis of taste, between a man and the words he swears by . . .

Judgments as to whether language is offensive or not are largely subjective. Different people will have different standards. It is also most important to remember that the use of language is very much determined by cultural factors, context and circumstance. This is particularly important when considering how the offensive language provisions of street offences legislation affect Aborigines. The Anti-Discrimination Board makes a most pertinent point when it argues that:

Aborigines have, to a great extent, been denied their cultural idiom and had English imposed on them. However, they have adapted English, in many areas, to suit their own needs and requirements.

Consequently, words considered offensive or taboo to someone with an English cultural background may have a slightly different connotation to someone from an Aboriginal background. It should also be noted that there are many double standards in operation with regard to offensive language. There are many expressions of racial denigration which Aborigines find offensive and which are most certainly used by the community, including police officers, and yet there have been no charges laid against the users of this language. The fact that there is a higher percentage of charges involving bad language in Aboriginal towns, and that the words most often used in such cases are widely used in the community, points to other reasons why people are charged for bad language.

The particular context in which the bad language is used is a key consideration. Obviously, the use of language to intentionally insult and harass is unacceptable and should be an offence. However, bearing in mind that police are by far the single largest group of people against whom bad language is used, it can be argued that the offensive language provisions of street offence legislation are an unwitting tool of institutional conflict. Relations between police and Aborigines, for instance, are fragile at best and often antagonistic. Police tend to reflect the attitudes of the broader community and, unfortunately, the conflict between Aborigines and the European settlers of Australia has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. To say the least, Aborigines are marginalised in modern Australian society.

There are many institutional factors which increase the likelihood of Aborigines being entangled in the criminal justice system. There is a tendency to overpolice the Aboriginal community. Police tend to concentrate their resources in areas where they expect trouble. This perception of Aborigines being a source of trouble may arise from historical mistrust, suspicion or prejudice, the high visibility of Aborigines because of skin colour, low socioeconomic status and different cultural notions of public space. Police attitudes may also be based on observed behaviour, for example, drunkenness, without allowance or understanding of the reasons for such behaviour. Aborigines are understandably antagonistic towards figures of authority, for historical reasons and because of the constant surveillance of Aborigines by police. The confrontation is frequently about a challenge to the authority of police, even if only verbal. This is not sufficient reason to charge or gaol someone. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody made a specific recommendation that:

The use of offensive language in circumstances of interventions initiated by police should not normally be occasion for arrest or charge.

There has also been evidence from the Anti-Discrimination Board in its 1982 Study of Street Offences by Aborigines that magistrates have not been examining the nature of the offence - the actual harm which has been caused - and using their discretion to impose an appropriate penalty proportionate to the means of the offender. In spite of the intention of the Offences in Public Places Act 1979, people were still going to gaol for using bad language. This was either because they could not afford to pay fines set by magistrates or because they saw their refusal to pay the fine as an act of defiance.

Careful monitoring of magistrates and whether the recommendations contained in the Anti-Discrimination Board's Study of Street Offences by Aborigines have been put in place needs to be undertaken. The Australian Democrats believe that every effort must be made to minimise use of offensive language provisions of street offences legislation. Even if it is absolutely necessary to use those provisions, gaol sentences for the use of
Page 5364
offensive language are clearly inappropriate. Either monetary penalties should be imposed with regard to the means of the offender and the actual harm caused, or, failing that, a non-custodial penalty such as community service should be served. Specific provision should be made that fine defaulters are given a non-custodial penalty. This approach cannot be emphasised too strongly. I support the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.18]: Honourable members will be aware that recently I introduced my own private members' bill, the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill. I gave notice of that about February or March of last year and it has taken that long to get to the top of the notice paper. I am glad that the Government has moved a little towards what I was proposing in that legislation, that is, to at least remove gaol sentences for offensive language. I wanted to remove the offence of offensive language altogether. It is a fact that some people use what some other people term offensive language as a matter of normal course in everyday life. They use it in their work, they use it in the street, they use it all the time. Unfortunately, what has happened is that this has been used in particular against the Aborigines in this State who are being gaoled in ever-increasing numbers for this and other offences. This is the International Year for the World's Indigenous People and it is alarming to note that, in the past four years, the number of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders being gaoled has increased by 75 per cent from 415 in 1989 to 729 in 1993.

The total prison population has increased by 45 per cent, from 5,261 to 7,632. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander proportion of the prison population has increased from 7.89 per cent to 9.58 per cent - a significant increase. Unfortunately, when Aborigines congregate in public places in some areas they are harassed by police, they then tend to swear. They are arrested for swearing, and often resist arrest and are then charged with assault. Some months ago I asked a question of the police Minister about this issue, and I supplied statistics in that question. Clearly, the number of arrests of Aborigines is out of proportion to the number of arrests of members of the white population. This has caused a problem and that is why the legislation has been introduced. The Government would not be moving in this direction unless it was aware that there was a significant problem. Though only a few dozen or so people have been imprisoned for offensive language in the past two or three years, that is far too many.

In this International Year for the World's Indigenous People we have moved this small step towards protecting those and many others in the community who use language that some consider to be offensive, but which in many instances are ordinary, everyday Anglo Saxon words. For 1,000 years there has been a form of discrimination against the Anglo Saxon language. When the French conquered England in 1066 the Anglo Saxon language fell largely into disuse. French superimposed the old English language and many common English words used in some areas were not used because they were believed to be of low class or offensive. So in a sense what some regard as offensive language others regard as a normal part of the original Anglo Saxon language. The Australian Democrats support this tiny step towards reform of the Summary Offences Act. I ask the Minister, however, what will happen if people are unable to pay their fines? I presume they will be ordered to perform a community service. But if they fail to perform that community service, for whatever reason, what will happen then? What will happen if an Aborigine is unable to pay a fine and, for example, does not turn up to perform his community service?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.22]: I had not intended to speak in this debate until I heard the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and her colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones paint a specious picture of the Summary Offences Act and the offence of offensive language. We often hear the rather naive and facile argument that swearing is the common vernacular of a particular group and, therefore, it is monstrously wrong that they should be arrested for using what is their everyday language. I took the trouble to contact police officers who have the difficult task of maintaining law and order in some of the northwestern towns from which so many of the quoted statistics are derived. I have carefully observed the situations in which interventions are made, and it is ridiculous to suggest that police eavesdrop on people who, in the normal course of conversation, happen to let go an "f" or a "c" or something like that, and march them down to the police station. This loose correlation between the statistics of numbers of police and arrests between the passing of amendments to the Summary Offences Act, which made this an offence, and the rise of police intervention leads one to the false conclusion that what is involved is merely a process of expressing oneself with expletives and vulgarities. It is always a prerequisite of the operational requirements under which police operate that a real offence is committed by way of threatening behaviour.

One policeman said that, provided it was done calmly, people in the community of a particular town could describe a person in whatever terms they chose, no matter how vulgar or offensive the actual words taken literally were, but it was only when they did so with threatening gestures and in a way that created general alarm in the area in which the offence took place that police were in any way empowered to act. It is all right for those who live on the coast, the North Shore or in the eastern suburbs to pontificate about social theories of how rural towns should operate, but it is a different matter to live in those towns. These adjustments to the law were made after careful consideration and in response to a need expressed not only on behalf of the white community but also the Aboriginal community, who take no pride in the fact that these confrontations with police and other members of the community take place frequently and are accompanied by threatening as well as offensive language.

Though I applaud the move by the Attorney General to remove the gaol sentence provision from the Act, it is wrong to suggest that this has been an insensitive move to try to curtail offensive behaviour in the streets of many country towns. I was particularly interested to see in a "Four Corners" television presentation last night what might be seen
Page 5365
to be a real change in public opinion on this whole issue. Many Aboriginal people were interviewed, particularly former and present residents of the Box Ridge settlement near Coraki in New South Wales. They rejected the paternalistic approach to their problems and said that until they accepted the disciplines of society there was really no future for their community. Again, in a conference that I attended in Walgett I was interested to hear how that community rejected the rhetoric that has plagued us perhaps for 10 years, that the solution to their problems was to pump more money into the community instead of getting down to the roots of their discontent. Certainly the parents of the children, and in particular their mothers, do not condone in any way the confrontations and threatening behaviour that are singled out under this section of the Summary Offences Act. I applaud the removal of the gaol sentence option but I believe that it is important to maintain equilibrium in society in many country towns and, I am sure, in many suburban situations in Sydney.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [9.28], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of this legislation, which is an important step forward for the justice system. I address two issues raised by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones relating to his desire that the offence of offensive language be withdrawn from the statute books. In my view, a view strongly held and reinforced by all of the women's groups that I have had reason to meet with, the offence of offensive language should be retained. A number of women have said to me that to walk down the streets of a country town or a metropolitan suburb late on a Saturday, a weekend or evening and be confronted with the abuse that emanates from hotels should not have to be tolerated. To remove that charge would be to encourage that type of behaviour. That would certainly undermine the confidence of the community in relation to that important sector of our justice system.

The second issue raised by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones related to what happens when a person does not pay the fine. The penalty for offensive language will now be the payment of a fine or the serving of a community service order. However, the fines and forfeited recognizance legislation will apply to this offence. Therefore, it is open to the court, in the event that it takes the view that a community service order is not appropriate but is aware that the defendant cannot pay the fine, to have the defendant enter into a recognizance or some other order regarded as appropriate for the offence. If the offender is not able to pay the fine, the community service order may be an appropriate alternative. However, where the person fails to pay the fine, whether it was imposed originally for the offence or was imposed upon re-sentence for a breach of the community service order, the defendant shall be subject to the same enforcement procedures as for other fine defaulters. Under the Government's current seven-day notice scheme, which was introduced by the Government in 1989, fine defaulters may elect to pay the amount of the warrant issued for fine default, seek an extension to pay the fine, seek to have the warrant converted to community service orders or enter into some other arrangements to pay. There are myriad options to enable the defendant to comply with the law.

Only those who do not comply with those vast array of options will be imprisoned. People will be imprisoned because they fail to comply with the law. However, fine defaulters represent only a small percentage of the New South Wales prison population - only 0.08 per cent of all persons who are fined are imprisoned for fine defaulting. Under our system you would have to work darned hard, if I can use the vernacular, to get into gaol for failure to pay a fine. The clerks of the court are usually very lenient and try to help a person who cannot pay a fine to come to some arrangement so they can avoid going to gaol. I take the view that, as the end consequence, gaol must be an option. Public confidence in our justice system will be undermined if the community knows that people against whom a fine is imposed can, at the end of the day, just ignore the penalty. Prison has to be available as an end result, but it is something that should be avoided. I assure the House that I have programs under way at the moment to further provide opportunities for people to avoid going to gaol. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.


Bill read a third time.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.36]: I have an overwhelming sense of responsibility in considering this bill. There is little doubt that this will be a landmark decision of this Parliament. The public has debated this issue at length; almost everyone in the community has a strong feeling one way or the other. I have found few people in the community who are undecided about this bill; in fact, many have very definite opinions about it. In that regard, I find it an awesome responsibility to consider this bill. I, as an individual, and the members of the party I represent, support the concept of anti-vilification legislation. We support the right of people, whoever they are - whether they be male, female, homosexual or whatever - to move about our country at liberty, with
Page 5366
complete freedom of movement and freedom from intimidation. I support that concept as a Liberal, and I believe that my party supports it. However, for reasons which I will explain, I cannot support this bill. I believe that some of the provisions in it need to be significantly rewritten in order to make it a good bill which will service all the people of New South Wales in the best way possible.

It cannot be denied that our State has a law and order problem with respect to the homosexual community which has to be addressed, and addressed as quickly as possible. As has been pointed out in the House many times, since 1990 New South Wales police have reported 13 gay hate-related murders in this city, resulting in the conviction of 19 people, including 11 young people of school age. In so far as the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill seeks to counter these significant community problems and to prevent violence, it is indeed worthy of support.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, I have heard evidence - some of it in camera, so I cannot elaborate on it; but not all of the evidence has been so - that youth workers in the inner city have reported to members of this Parliament a particular problem with regard to the bashing of gay people. I will describe it so that it can be easily understood by all members of the community. When I was a young person it was common for people who were around my age to go into the city for excursions which they called rolling drunks. There is little doubt that some people regard this as an acceptable form of activity. In the vernacular, it might be referred to as poofter bashing. I am sure that no member of this Parliament regards that sort of behaviour as acceptable. I am sure that every member of this Parliament would do whatever was possible to prevent it.

However, I have reservations about whether any Act of Parliament will solve that community problem. These people are bashed, not because people hate them so much, but because they are seen as weak, vulnerable and wealthy and therefore targets for robbery. However, I would not kid myself that hate is not an integral part of the problem, so it deserves to be treated specially in legislation. In some respect I find myself divided in that I can support the objective of the bill but I believe some of its provisions need to be significantly rewritten so that the bill will best serve all the people of New South Wales.

The greatest merit of the bill is that it allows individuals to make complaints in private when they have become victims of vilification and to have those complaints dealt with by means of alternative dispute resolution which can include a settlement for damages. That is a worthwhile aspect of the bill and as a Government member I will seek to preserve that feature in any future bill which seeks to deal with vilification. As a member of the social issues committee I have at other times and in other States heard the suggestion that alternative dispute resolution and a civil resolution of damages for crimes such as rape would be welcomed within the community for very sensible reasons. People who are victims of this sort of violence and this sort of crime - I regard vilification in its extreme form as a crime - find it difficult to seek redress within the courts.

Frequently the offence occurs in circumstances which make it difficult to prove. Some members of the homosexual community in particular would find it difficult to have to parade the details of their sexual behaviour in a public place such as a court for the scrutiny of the defence when pursuing action for such a crime. It is appropriate to give victims of vilification - particularly homosexual vilification or vilification of people on the grounds of their gender - access to alternative dispute resolution procedures in which the details of the offence are heard in private. That is the best feature of the bill. Unfortunately, some of its provisions are so poorly drafted - that is the best way in which I can put it - that in my view it needs to be rewritten completely to get the best possible result. I am also realistic enough to understand that the mover of the bill and many of its supporters understood that for a small moment in time they had an opportunity to act now and to get the bill into law because a member of the Liberal Party, my good friend the Hon. E. P. Pickering, has exercised his right as a member of the Liberal Party to vote on this matter according to his conscience. I can understand why at this moment of political opportunity the supporters of the bill want to go with it as drafted rather than wait for something which I believe would be better drafted and better common sense.

I acknowledge also that to some extent the bill is a bit of a totem for the homosexual community, which has been persecuted fairly solidly throughout the community. Members of the homosexual community have regarded support for the bill as a barometer of community support for them as a group, quite apart from the issues dealt with in the bill. I can understand that some of them might regard my quibbling and the Government's quibbling about some provisions in the bill, to be - if I may use the vernacular again - stuffing around. Nonetheless, as a politician and a person elected to represent the people of New South Wales in this place I have to do my job and make sure that every piece of legislation passed by this House is drafted as well as it possibly can be. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby with respect to the views of Christians about the bill. I feel I have some ability to contribute to the debate because I regularly attend church and have been of a Christian persuasion for some years.

To start with I have to say frankly that whatever views the church has on homosexuality ought to be somewhat irrelevant to the debate in this place, because we are in the business of making laws for all the people of New South Wales regardless of their creed. But as a Christian in a position of leadership it is important for me to give a quick message to those who share my persuasion. As the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby did, I condemn completely some of the outrageous remarks made by people who hold Christianity in the same way as I do. Some have gone overboard in opposing the bill and condemning members of the homosexual community. That is unchristian, wrong, intolerant and out of keeping with
Page 5367
the teachings of the scriptures. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, in her interesting analysis of the biblical teaching about homosexuality, forgot a passage which I think is worth referring to because in my view it puts homosexuality into its proper context in the Bible. I disagree with the remarks of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby suggesting that it is possible to take a view that the Bible is silent on the issue of homosexuality. I do not believe that is frankly true or pays due attention to the text. However, the Bible does not refer to homosexuality extensively, which puts it into a context to start with. Second, one of the passages in the Bible that deals with homosexuality is in the book of Romans, which was written by the apostle Paul. He described a number of sins and said:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

One thing I draw from that passage is that it is fairly unequivocal that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a moral option for people who would be Christians. Then the apostle Paul goes on to describe a series of other sins which he regards as equally abominable as the sin of homosexuality, including maliciousness, coveting, envy, murder, deceit, thieving and even gossip. So if gossip is as sinful as homosexuality we need to get this issue, for Christians, into some sort of context. He lists a whole heap of things to be morally irresponsible. I have to say quietly that I have committed plenty of those things which are outlawed in the Bible, so in that regard I am no different from a homosexual as far as God is concerned. I do not quiver at the knees simply because someone tells me that homosexuals are in the same position as me before God. The matter needs to be put in that context. So in my view there is no special reason for Christians to be particularly overwrought about the provisions of this bill. Many of its provisions are worth supporting; but I would prefer some of it to be rewritten because it imposes restrictions on legitimate freedom of speech. I wish to divide the offence described in the bill into two parts. It essentially creates two offences. One is described in proposed section 49ZT(1) which refers to homosexual vilification being unlawful. It states:

It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of homosexuality of the person or members of the group.

In other words, public statements which are generally regarded as offensive towards homosexuals are made unlawful. Through the rest of the terms of the Anti-Discrimination Act people are able to make complaints about these matters and receive a form of alternative dispute resolution in response. For the purposes of my speech I shall refer to what I call the civil offence of homosexual vilification. By that I mean this offence which, though not strictly a civil offence, is not punishable by a gaol sentence. Serious homosexual vilification, referred to later in the bill under a sub-heading, is committed when a person makes a statement that satisfies all the above criteria for homosexual vilification but includes a threat of physical harm towards any property or person or group of persons, or when a person commits an offence that satisfies all the criteria of the civil offence, and then incites others to threaten physical harm. That offence is intended to be a criminal offence and attracts a penalty of six months imprisonment or a fine of 100 penalty units, or both. That is the criminal offence.

Any person who behaves in that manner behaves in a criminal way. Such an offence is no different from the offence of domestic violence and should be condemned in our statutes. In that respect the bill is good legislation. I have no objection to a bill which seeks to outlaw the criminal offence of homosexual vilification. My main concern is about the flimsy definition of what I term the civil offence of homosexual vilification, which is punishable not by a gaol term but by other serious and stringent provisions. I turn to those provisions to which a person might be subject upon committing the civil offence and refusing to co-operate with an attempt to conciliate a dispute.

If the offender refuses to co-operate in the conciliation effort, and if the matter is referred to the Anti-Discrimination Board and is confirmed as an offence, the offender could be subject to a range of remedies outlined in section 113B of the current Anti-Discrimination Act. They include an award of damages of up to $40,000, an order not to repeat the conduct, an order to perform any reasonable act to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant, an order to apologise, or an order to develop and implement a program or policy aimed at eliminating unlawful discrimination. A refusal to comply with an order of a tribunal carries a penalty of $1,000. Failure to comply with an order to appear at a meeting with the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board can attract a fine of up to $500. Failure to co-operate with the tribunal can also attract a penalty similar to that imposed for failure to comply with a requirement to attend hearings of a royal commission. These amounts are currently fixed in the present Act.

The entire Anti-Discrimination Act is subject to a major review by the Law Reform Commission. A discussion paper being circulated indicates that consideration is being given to increasing the maximum level of damages from $40,000 to $250,000, in line with current Federal penalties. Concern has arisen that the scope of the law is being broadened at a time when current penalties appear to be moderate. At a later time action may occur to increase the penalties for discrimination against race or gender. However, such provisions also catch the measures that might be added to the law today. The chief difficulty in the bill as drafted arises from imprecision of the terms used to define the civil offence of homosexual vilification. The criminal offence is easily defined as including an objective threat of physical harm or bodily damage to a victim. Where the offence is a public statement which the homosexual community may find offensive, the sorts of terms used to define that offence are serious contempt and severe ridicule. Yet there are also defences which include acts done reasonably and in good faith for academic, artistic or scientific research purposes or other purposes in the public interest. Recently the Parliamentary Library distributed to all members an excellent briefing note on homosexual vilification. That briefing note takes two pages to
Page 5368
demonstrate the difficulty of describing what the word ridicule means. I quote the first paragraph of that note:

There is some uncertainty about the operation, though, of the anti-vilification provisions if they are enacted. What does the term "ridicule" mean, for instance, and how is this to be distinguished from "severe ridicule"? As a matter of law it seems unlikely that such a term will be able to be more specifically defined: to others, clearer statements of what is to be proscribed and clearer statements of how the law would apply in practice would be desirable to the situation of awaiting a "test case".

In other words, until the meaning of severe ridicule or serious contempt is tested in court, the provisions are a step into the dark. No one knows exactly what they mean. That creates a problem for the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board in determining who has committed an offence or whether a particular action constitutes an offence, but ordinary citizens will have no idea whether a comment they might make offends the proposed law. That awaits a decision yet to be taken in the courts. Because most of these matters are heard by the Anti-Discrimination Board and do not attract a gaol sentence, many people will cop a lot of harassment before deciding to go to court.

The bill mirrors similar racial vilification provisions that have become law. The provisions are almost identical in terms. To some extent they have had a dry run in the community and people have had a chance to become used to them. However, peculiar decisions have been made by the Anti-Discrimination Board. The Daily Telegraph Mirror published an article on my native country of Ireland. The article gave a rather robust description of that country as being fairly heavily subject to the rule of the Roman Catholic Church. The article was critical of some aspects of life in the Republic of Ireland, but one would not think such an article would be considered vilification of Irish people.

Nevertheless, the Anti-Discrimination Board did, and ordered the newspaper to publish three articles to counter the effect of that one article, which could be regarded by some as accurate. The newspaper had to publish articles on the positive contribution of Irish people to Australia and on the harm caused by racist jokes; also it agreed to print an editorial on the dangers of racism and the benefits of tolerance in society. People will wear a great deal from the Anti-Discrimination Board without protest because they want to get the matter over and done with; they will not want to be hassled by the provisions of the bill. If a problem like this can happen on questions of racism, I expect the situation to be far worse when the board deals with the far more controversial topic of homosexuality.

The loose definitions in the bill are important. They will have an impact on the liberty of the individual and that is why I am particularly concerned about how the bill is drafted. The driving force behind it is said to be a recommendation made by the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board in its excellent paper entitled "Discrimination - the other epidemic". It is true that this particular report recommends the introduction of vilification laws. It needs to be pointed out to honourable members that this important issue - which I have been speaking about for almost half an hour - is disposed of in three pages in this report.

The sole example given to justify the introduction of these laws is one instance in which the board reports that a person with HIV-AIDS was subjected to ongoing harassment by a neighbour. He was subjected to verbal abuse and graffiti on his front door reading, "Die faggot, die" and his property was defiled with faeces. I am sure every member of this House would regard that as an utterly offensive act and would have enormous sympathy for the victim in that particular case. If the person who did that suffered very heavily in the courts, I am sure many honourable members would believe that to be reasonable justice.

That incident, which is regarded as the motivating factor behind bringing in vilification laws, could have been dealt with under the provisions of the Summary Offences Act and the Crimes Act and that would be considered to be reasonable treatment for the offence. Even if those existing provisions were not available to deal with it, there is no doubt that proposed section 49ZTA, which deals with criminal offences relating to homosexual vilification, would have been more than adequate to deal with that particular case. In my opinion there is no reason for the other offence, which I have called the civil offence, of homosexual vilification. The one that does not carry a gaol penalty is almost unnecessary. My other concern with this report, good though it is, is that it makes no attempt to examine the efficiency of one method of attacking homophobia over other potential methods. It simply recommends the introduction of every imaginable legal measure. Whether the authors of this report like it or not, whether I like it or not, or whether any member of this House likes it or not, it must be acknowledged that there is a robust debate within our community as to whether homosexual acts are considered acceptable behaviour.

As evidence of that I refer to a Bulletin opinion poll published late last year in which a bare majority of respondents, 51 per cent, indicated that they accepted homosexual relationships. True, that is a majority, but 38 per cent of the respondents said that they found homosexual relationships totally unacceptable. The remaining 11 per cent were undecided. It has to be acknowledged that our society is robustly debating, and probably will continue throughout our lifetime to robustly debate, whether homosexuality is an acceptable form of behaviour. I am sure everyone has an opinion on that. Accordingly, it is necessary to make provision in our legal system to allow that debate to progress. Certainly the debate should not reach the extremes whereby people are wounded and offended, but a level of robust debate has to be permitted. For my own information I conducted a review of the print media over the last couple of years to look at some of the ways in which this debate has raged, and some of the remarks which might attract attention from this bill.

For the information of the Parliament I quote the types of comments which have been made. Mr Patrick Jones, executive officer of the Armed Forces Federation - the quasi union that operates for the defence forces - said that "heterosexuals still find homosexual activity to be repugnant". His comments
Page 5369
were mild by comparison with those of the former National Returned Services League President, Alf Garland, who, responding to proposals that the ban on homosexuals in the forces should be lifted, claimed that some members of the defence forces "would take their own action" and that it was "likely to be physical". He went on to say, "Homosexuals are sexual deviants who have a medical problem and should not be treated any differently to drug addicts". That is a strong statement indeed.

While I do not accept those comments in any way to be statements of fact, it has to be acknowledged that, unfortunately, a large number of people would support Mr Garland. Even a judge raised the ire of homosexuals by saying, "Even though the Anti-Discrimination Act forbids people to attack homosexuals (sic)" - and that says something about what judges know of the law, because it does not - "nevertheless sodomy is still regarded as unnatural behaviour by most people in the community". The homosexual community would also be likely to take extreme offence at the remark of a police officer who described a park in the Milperra area - in a police report in a newspaper, not particularly dealing with the issue of homosexuals - as "infested with homosexuals".

Even the much respected late Professor Fred Hollows raised strong objections by accusing homosexuals of "recklessly" spreading the HIV-AIDS virus. He said, "AIDS in this country remains a homosexual problem". He went on to condemn the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and proposed the segregation of members of the Aboriginal community who were HIV-AIDS positive. I would not agree with most of the remarks that I have read. Few members of the Parliament would not have regarded Professor Fred Hollows as a person who set some high standards in his personal morality. Yet clearly his comments about the homosexual community and the Aboriginal community would be hotly debated. The difficulty posed by all the above statements I have cited is that I suspect many members of the homosexual community would regard them as comments which should come within the purview of this bill.

For example, one spokesperson for the gay rights lobby in this city, Miss Carole Ruthchild, claimed that a spate of gay bashings which occurred in 1991-92 were "directly related to the propaganda put out by such people as Fred Nile". I also cite those paragraphs to indicate the difficulty of groups within the community who would regard those as being statements made in good faith or in the public interest. What one group of people would regard as vilification, another group in our community would regard as comments in the public interest. I am loath to become involved in choosing between what is good taste, what is politically correct and what is acceptable. I am perfectly happy to legislate against statements which deal with the issue of violence. I have enormous reservations about enacting laws which might restrict any aspect of that robust debate. Though I may not agree with a single statement made, and though I might regard some of those remarks as tasteless in the extreme, I am not sure that those remarks should be unlawful, given that those views are widely held by people of high respectability in the community. I am not sure I could take the final step of making that type of statement illegal, given that it would be difficult to prove that any act of violence actually flowed from any one of those particular comments.

Particular difficulties also arise from the use of the term "severe ridicule". If the purpose of the bill is to prevent violence, it is difficult to understand why the definition of "public act" includes the term "severe ridicule". Ridicule may be painful to endure but it is not likely to have a proximate relationship to potential violence. At the very least this term should be deleted from the bill. I could quote one other instance of where a level of zealousness has been exercised by the Anti-Discrimination Board but I am sure that our colleagues the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will refer to the occasion later when Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile made a comment in a newspaper with regard to the decision by the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to allow homosexuals into the army. He made a comment which I personally regard as absolutely tasteless. A complaint arose as a result of that press release. The complaint was made to the Anti-Discrimination Board by another of our colleagues, the Hon. P. F. O'Grady. I understand why he would complain about that. In any event, because this bill was not in existence the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board was not able to take action but he wrote to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and that reply has been circulated.

The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Mr Mark, said that the comments of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile breached the spirit and intent of the Anti-Discrimination Act. I have little doubt that he probably would have regarded the comments of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile as an offence under that Act. May I contrast those comments with similar assurances given to the public by the Attorney General, the Hon. John Hannaford, when the Government was circulating a bill with almost identical provisions. He said that the comments of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile or similar remarks would not be subject to action because they would be covered by the provisions of the Act which exempt speaking out in good faith or in a matter of public interest. So two perfectly respectable legal authorities have completely different views about what this bill means. That is why I am concerned about its drafting.

The concern that has been voiced to me is not about the thrust of the bill, but about a fear of how it might be applied overzealously by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board or by overzealous complainants. Proving that one should not be subject to the bill will be a very difficult task indeed. The most articulate expression of this point of view that has been presented to me was by Father Brian Lucas of the Catholic Education Commission. He said if the bill were passed he fully expected to be involved in almost non-stop litigation with the Anti-Discrimination Board as a result of complaints about the contents of the Catholic school curriculum whenever lessons canvassed issues such as the family, morality and sexuality. I am inclined to agree that if this bill is passed unamended by this House, it is highly likely
Page 5370
that the Catholic Education Commission and schools which seek to include a religious viewpoint in their curricula will be the subject of complaints under this bill.

I strongly believe that the honourable member for Bligh, who introduced this bill in another place, did not intend the bill to pick up comments like that. However, I am not convinced by the facts or by the advice I have received that this bill is not at least oblique and difficult to interpret when it deals with this particular issue. It is because of that lack of definition that I have enormous reservations about it. It is well-known that the Government would prefer the issue of homosexual vilification to be dealt with in a bill which attacks vilification in generic terms. I have essentially supported that concept. As is stated in the long title of the Anti-Discrimination Act, it is the very essence of the legislation that all members of the community should be treated equally. All individuals in the community are entitled to be protected from threats of violence. The level of violence faced by homosexuals is very serious but, regrettably, it is not a problem that is faced by homosexuals alone. It is almost certain that another two groups in the community suffer even more from threats of violence. They are women and children.

It is very likely that other minority sexual practices such as celibacy, virginity, promiscuity, adultery or prostitution are equally subject to public expressions of at least serious contempt, severe ridicule and, in some instances, hatred. In my view equality demands protection for these people, as well as for people who lead homosexual lifestyles. One of the key factors behind the ready public acceptance of racial vilification laws is the fact that the laws have been universal in their application. Those laws not only provide protection for people of non-English speaking background, but also protect the indigenous people of Australia and members of the dominant Anglo-Celtic culture. They have been effective in resolving and preventing the escalation of disputes between members of immigrant cultures. Regrettably, these amendments to section 49 of the Anti-Discrimination Act will not act in the same manner because they relate only to those of one sexual preference.

One bizarre effect of this bill is that it will protect the homosexual community from the abuse of others but it will not protect the remainder of the community from hurtful comments or actions which may come from within that community towards others. To demonstrate that point, I need refer only to two notable examples of what I believe represents vilification by homosexuals of other members of the community. One infamous tableaux that is a regular presentation at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is a papier-mâché head of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile on a plate. Although the image is meant to be provocative and satirical it could be argued that it is an image of violence which, in the eyes of some, may validate an attack on Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. In fact, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile reports that on many occasions he has been surrounded by protesters who have behaved or acted in a violent or near-violent manner. Another example of what I believe represents vilification by homosexuals of the remainder of the community is the group known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, who frequently heap strong ridicule on Roman Catholic nuns, which is in part directed against their practice of chastity.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: They are Anglican nuns.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Frankly, I do not care whether they are Callithumpian nuns. Nevertheless, that group represents a vilification of the nuns' practice of chastity. I certainly accept the view that those nuns are entitled to believe that they are being vilified and are entitled to protection, just as much as homosexuals, from that vilification. Many Roman Catholics, Anglicans and nuns find that practice very wounding, disturbing and hurtful. I realise that many of the protests are responses to fairly equivalent attacks on homosexuals. I regard all of the statements made by all parties I have described as being in poor taste, but in my view they are not statements which should be made illegal. My preferred position is that they should be tolerated and not subjected to any interference. The best response to outrageous attacks which are made in poor taste is for other members of the community to defend the victims.

An additional problem of dealing with hate-based violence by measures such as homosexual or racial vilification laws is that such laws tend to focus more attention on the victim rather than on the eradication of the anti-social violent behaviour. I would prefer generic laws that generate a mainstream response by the whole community against violence. The current strategy risks are being criticised as artificial. May I perhaps illustrate that in another way. I understand that in Weimar, Germany, a number of people deliberately vilified members of the Jewish race to break the law and to be brought before the courts, so that they could publicly repeat their vilifying remarks and obtain public sympathy and credit for them when they were punished. In my view a bill which seeks to define vilification for one group in the community in this particular way, rather than being a generic response to a problem, risks being treated in the same manner. Regrettably, some people will regard it as noble to commit an act of civil disobedience by deliberately disobeying the provisions of the proposed Act and having themselves punished so that they will be able to make public martyrs of themselves. By doing so, they will undermine the intended beneficial effect of the Act.

It is probably time for a little humour. The supporters of this bill have said that one excellent result of the bill will be the gagging of our colleague who is not present, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Oddly enough, I believe that legal advice indicates that whomever else the bill may gag, it will not gag him. The reason is that he is not only a person with a view about homosexuality, but also a politician who is likely at some stage in the future to stand for re-
Page 5371
election. The famous case of Australian Capital Television Pty Limited v. The Commonwealth (No. 2) and the case that was heard at the same time, Nationwide News Pty Ltd v. Wills, were heard by the High Court and resulted in the discontinuance of the ban on electronic election advertising. In his judgment Justice McHugh stated that it was the right of all people to be aware of the opinions of their elected officials. He said that all electors must have access to the information, ideas and arguments which are necessary to make an informed judgment as to how they had been governed and as to what policies are in the interests of themselves, the community and the nation. I believe that so long as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile stops short of actually advocating an act of violence, regardless of the provisions of this bill -

The Hon. Elaine Nile: Which he has never done.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I accept that may well be the case. Provided he stops short of that, it is highly likely that he is protected by this implicit constitutional guarantee of political free speech and is able to say just about anything he likes. That simply begs the question: if this bill is drafted in such a way that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is free to say whatever he likes about homosexuality, should that right not apply to the rest of the community? What we really need is a bill that simply does not leave Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile out; we need a bill that brings us all in and has the support of the whole community. I now want to deal with some philosophical objections to the homosexual vilification laws, because these philosophical objections are important. A number of civil libertarian academics have raised cogent arguments, in my view, against vilification laws in general, particularly laws which seek to restrict public statements that fall short of advocating violence. I quote an example from the Sydney Law Review by a commentator, Mr Sadurski, who said:

Racists are there, and it is better to let them air their views in the open rather than allow an illusion to grow that the problem has been solved because racist statements have been made illegal. Group vilification is a symptom, not a source, of deeper problems that give birth to hate and contempt by some groups in society. By prohibiting public statements that vilify those groups we may slightly reduce the hurt to the feelings of their members, but at the same time we risk removing the issue of racism from the public agenda. The good of allowing group vilification is that it helps maintain the visibility of a dramatic problem which is there anyway, regardless of the prohibition.

That view has been shared by Hugh McKay, who says in his book Reinventing Australia:

If we regulate tolerance, is it really tolerance any more? If we create laws to prohibit the expression of bigotry and racism, have we addressed the vices of bigotry and racism? If we legislate for non-sexist language, have we solved the problems of sexism (or might a term like `chairperson' be used in a spirit of derision - either by men who employ it as a sarcastic expression of their lingering chauvinism, or by those who object to the artificial distortion of language which it involved)?

It is my view that passing laws does not necessarily solve the problem; it may only mask it and allow it to exist in a more sinister and difficult way. This particular comment has not only been made by people with regard to outlawing racism but by some respectable commentators with regard to homosexual vilification. A similar point is made by the gay activist, Anthony Lean, who argues that while the proposed laws have some value in empowering minorities, they are so narrowly focused that they will only serve to heighten the process of disempowering the non-heterosexual identifying minority. He reports that similar homosexual vilification laws in New Zealand have simply allowed vilifiers to hide behind private conciliation procedures and appeals to their rights of free speech. They have not challenged what he calls "heterosexism" in any meaningful way.

Anthony Lean makes the point strongly that the presentation of sexuality in drama and movies and on television has a great deal more effect on public attitudes towards homosexuality than odd outbursts by extremists. Of course, it is worth noting that this particular bill actually contains a provision to permit vilification within works of art. The statement frequently quoted by my colleague the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith from Voltare is also applicable, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". With regard to this particular issue I have a great deal of respect for the remarks of the famous libertarian, Thomas Jefferson, who said:

We have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors and especially when the law stands ready to punish the first criminal act produced by the false reasonings of some; these corrections are safer than the conscience of the judge.

I believe that vilification laws need to be treated with some caution. I would certainly prefer to rewrite this particular bill so that it was more accurate in the way in which it defined the offence, and I believe we need to seriously address the difficulty that might occur if we make this a private problem when it ought to be out in the open and public. Honourable members will know that I have put a great deal of thought into this particular bill and that when the matter was available for public consultation I wrote and circulated a 20-page report on this subject - because I felt strongly about it - in which I developed some of the research, poor though it was, that I was able to carry out on this particular subject.

I appreciate the comments made to me by the research officer of the Hon. P. F. O'Grady, who said he read my paper with interest and believed that it was a good commentary on the issues. I thank him for that comment and I quote it only to demonstrate that I have not attempted to approach this matter in a bigoted fashion, I have attempted to approach it from the point of view of an objective, logical, rational, and well reasoned debate to try to make the bill as good as it can possibly be. In that vein, I outlined to the Attorney General and to others who cared to listen another form of legislation which may well deal with
Page 5372
this issue in a far better way. I do not suggest that this is where the Government might end up when it receives a report from the Law Reform Commission. I simply put it forward as another way of achieving the same end and I ask honourable members to consider, when they listen to the regime I suggest, whether it would not be less controversial and more accurate in its description of the problem.

I would prefer section 49ZTA of the bill, which is the criminal homosexual vilification section, to contain a requirement that there must be the threat of physical harm towards the property or some person, so there is an objective test that can be applied to any public statement. However, we would probably have to add in addition to that some provision which substantially mirrored the provision of the Summary Offences Act which relates to offensive language. We would need to add to it the words "which cause serious alarm or affront". Additionally, it would be necessary to legislate to give the President of Anti-Discrimination Board the legal discretion to either conciliate complaints made under the Act or to bring them to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions so that it could be dealt with by the courts. I would include in that discretion the provisions which oblige the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, when he receives complaints, to take into account the seriousness of the offence and the express wishes of the complainant to have his matter heard in private.

If there were a regime of that nature and if it were made to generically apply to all forms of vilification, I believe we would have a vilification law which would contain all of the benefits of the current bill, but which would stand out in that it would not be met with such an enormous level of controversy. In my view, almost all of the controversy about this bill arises from the earlier proposed section 49ZT(1) dealing with the civil offence and from the fact that its definitions are so loose that people have been able to make this bill relate to almost anything.

As a means of testing the effectiveness of the regime that I have outlined, I went to some examples of homosexual vilification which have been cited by the honourable member for Bligh in another place. I am not inclined to simply repeat them, because I have reservations about gratuitously repeating examples of homosexual vilification. However, I will refer to a couple because they are well known and I do not believe I am adding to the problem by referring to them. There has been reference already in this Chamber to the Anglican clergyman in Tasmania who was quoted in the Examiner as saying that people should not be afraid to be called gay bashers. That particular remark would probably fall within the terms of the Act I have outlined. There is a specific reference to an act of potential violence. The honourable member for Bligh referred to a person who rang her office and made some critical comments about homosexuals and then indicated that she wanted lynch mobs to address the problem - a specific, objective reference to an act of violence. It would be covered in the bill I have just proposed.

The bumper stickers to which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred earlier would be covered by the regime that I have referred to, because a specific reference to an act of violence is included in the comment. There is need for a provision that refers to offensive language, because a threat of violence would not pick up expressions such as those used to refer to homosexuals, the well-known words "faggot", "poofter" and so forth. The regime I have described would address that need, and if it were generic, the problem would be solved without controversy. I have tried to be as constructive as possible in my examination of this bill. I cannot support the bill because its loose drafting involves almost 50 per cent of its text. It is not possible, though I have tried by consulting with the Parliamentary Counsel, to solve the problem. If that 50 per cent were deleted, the bill would not make sense. I urge honourable members not to pass the bill and to await a further report by the Law Reform Commission on a bill that would do the job better. Sure, it would take more time, but it would be time well spent, because it would have the advantage of being accurately and properly drafted, and it would attract a great deal more community support.

The Leader of the Opposition has already floated reference to an amendment should the House vote to pass the bill. Though I will be voting against the second reading of the bill, I urge honourable members in Committee to support those necessary amendments. Despite the provision in the Anti-Discrimination Act which exempts religious practice there is some concern that that exemption may not refer to religious statements. Therefore the churches, at a high level, have requested honourable members to consider a simple amendment that would enable those concerns to be met. My concern about that amendment generally is that it applies only to people who operate within the Christian church. Other people may want to make robust comments about homosexuality that are not in bad taste and are not necessarily offensive, but regrettably would not be covered by that amendment. Though I am not particularly excited about the bill being passed, and there are limitations to the amendment, for good reason those amendments are well worth the consideration of the House. I have spoken critically of the bill, but I would never want to speak critically of its supporters, because I believe they stand for principles that are decent, just and compassionate. In so far as they are attempting to achieve that I commend their efforts, but I cannot support the bill.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [10.33]: I am obliged to my colleague the Hon. J. F. Ryan for his meticulous examination of the structural drafting and interpretation problems that attend this bill. He has obviated the necessity of my discussing them, because I support entirely his comments on this matter, including his final comments. I shall take a different approach in debating this bill. A dishonest and misleading allegation in this debate that has been widely circulated and is most unfair is that the Government
Page 5373
backed off on its undertaking to introduce legislation to protect the gay and lesbian community from vilification. In my view that is a total falsehood. True, the provisions relating to homosexual vilification in the Government's draft Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Bill were not proceeded with at the time and I inform the House that I was one of those who lobbied strongly against proceeding with the legislation in its draft form.

However, honourable members and the community generally are entitled to know why I opposed the legislation as it stood, and why I similarly have strong views about the current legislation. My stance does not arise from opposition to vilification legislation as such. Indeed, my rationale is quite the opposite. I wish to have the protection of such legislation extended to a broader community. As a former social scientist, I realise the value of vilification legislation. It is educative legislation. It is legislation that challenges certain entrenched societal attitudes and helps to change those attitudes, attitudes that are harmful to equality of opportunity for those in society who are the subject of such vilification, who are the subject of language that promotes violence against them. In particular, while on the subject of sexual vilification, I wish to have the protection of such legislation extended to one community that is currently excluded, and that is females.

In my view it is profound hypocrisy to introduce the concept of sexual vilification but not extend its protection to women - more than 50 per cent of the population - who are both the greatest targets of sexual vilification and the greatest victims of sexual violence. In commemoration of the State day of action on sexual assault on 31st August, while the Government bill was still in the arena of public discussion, and after a great deal of personal soul searching, I took the difficult step for a Government member of calling upon the Attorney General to extend the protection of the legislation to include women. I took this step by making a public statement on 30th August. My press release stated:

Tomorrow, on the State day of action on sexual assault, we need to remember that the vast majority of victims of sexual assault, discrimination and vilification are female. To introduce sexual vilification that excludes females makes no sense at all. Our society is awash in degrading imagery that vilifies women, in degrading pornography, in movies that link sex and violence, in video games where women are victims to be tortured, and in underwear advertisements that treat cutting a woman in half as a joke. I am convinced that such images legitimise violence against women and contribute to sexual assault by portraying women as objects with no right to individual human dignity. Such vilification also entrenches myths, such as the idea that women want to be raped, an idea that is a major theme in pornography.

In making those statements I requested that the Government extend its draft proposals on vilification to everyone on the grounds of their sexuality, but particularly to women. The level of violence which the gay community has suffered has been already alluded to in this debate and in previous debates on the same subject in this House. What of the level of violence experienced by females? One could discuss domestic violence, murder and general assault, but I will not. I could point out to honourable members that according to a United Nations report on 38 different countries, Australia is about half way in the level of male homicide but is sixth in female homicide.

However, because my concern is with sexual vilification, I will limit my comments to sexual violence only. In order to gain a concept of the overall level of sexual violence in New South Wales, last year I extracted the 1991 Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures only for the categories of sexual assault involving rape - that is, the most serious sexual assaults. A conservative estimate is that one in three rapes are reported, though most estimates now suggest that one in four rapes are reported. The figures I used were that 85 per cent of rape victims were female - although estimates suggest the figure may be as high as 90 per cent. The average lifespan of a woman I calculated as 75 years - again a conservative estimate. From these figures I was forced to conclude that the average lifetime risk of a female being raped in New South Wales was at least one in eight. This is not an overall average rate; it is the lowest possible threshold of the level of sexual violence in New South Wales.

I found that figure to be quite shocking. It has been reinforced in discussions with various communities in this State. After meetings I have attended people repeatedly come up to me and say, "Yes, this has already happened to me". I am forced to conclude that my estimate must be conservative; there must be many people who are not telling me these things. On average, one in eight women present at these meetings to tell me that they have been raped, and that confirms my figure. Average lifetime risk is clearly not an indicator of an individual's level of risk. After all, the average family has 2.3 or 2.4 children - I do not know any family which has 2.3 or 2.4 children, regardless of what a certain automobile commercial says. Statistical averages are useful for only one thing: they give a clear indication that sexual violence against women is a huge problem in our society - a problem that has remained unrecognised because we have been unwilling to use figures such as these to gain some idea of its incidence.

My concern about the incidence of sexual violence was confirmed by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in a publication entitled "Adult Sexual Assault in New South Wales, Publication No. 20, July 1993". The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that the annual rate of sexual assault of women aged 18 years and over in New South Wales is about 0.6 per cent of the population. If that figure is averaged out, as calculated in the way I calculated my figure, one sees a similar result. It shows that one in three females experiences sexual assault and one in six females experiences rape, if the figures were extrapolated over a lifetime. That is of serious concern. It is a substantially higher figure than the one that I calculated.

Page 5374

The United States National Victim Center estimates the lifetime risk of being raped as one in eight - that is, those categories of sexual assault that involve penetration. In its invasiveness of the person, its attack on the individual's physical integrity, rape is a horrifically destructive crime; it involves not just physical violence. It is a violation of the very integrity of the person, as can be judged from victims' responses. Many victims have the urge to take repeated showers in the course of a day to try to feel clean again. That is just one common response of victims of rape. It colours victims' responses to the world for many years, and perhaps for life. It can be quite crippling.

Yes, homosexuals experience violence. I am sure that no one who sat in this House and observed firsthand the results of the appalling physical violence experienced by one of our own members, the Hon. P. F. O'Grady, not so long ago would deny that. But is the level of violence experienced by the gay and lesbian community greater than the level of violence experienced by females? I would answer no. Yet the legislation before the House proposes to extend the protection of vilification law to homosexuals, but not to females.

What of the level of vilification against women? How extensive is it? It would be logical to assume in the current debate that there must be very little such vilification, given the fact that females are not considered worthy of inclusion in this law. It is not unreasonable to say that the level of vilification against women in our society is so high that it is difficult to know where to begin. Indeed, I broached the subject with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Mr Steve Mark, some time ago. I expressed my concerns to him about female sexual vilification. He agreed with me.

I said that in the draft legislation, as it was when we were discussing the matter, the Government suggested provisions against vilification of homosexuals but not vilification against women, which is another form of sexual vilification. If it is a huge problem, why had we not included it as part of that legislation? Why have we included only homosexual vilification? The answer Mr Mark gave me was simple but powerful: because the problem is just so big. It is so enormous that it would, in his view, take a lot of the resources of the board simply to start coming to terms with it. How can we start to come to terms with it in a culture where such vilification is so entrenched and widespread?

I will give some examples of how entrenched and widespread such vilification is. I refer to pornography. In my definition pornography is not material that shows relations between consenting adults; it shows violence, condones violence, and presents images of females being degraded. It promotes the perception that females are less than human and less than equal. In the United States alone the pornography industry is estimated to be worth between $7 billion and $8 billion a year. That is greater than the combined total of the movie industry and the music industry. That is the extent of the medium we are talking about. Pornography is an industry that is increasingly built on the degradation of women. Many honourable members probably have the view that pornography is about the semi-soft focus, supposedly artistic shots that one used to see in Playboy in the early 1960s. That is not the truth. The sort of imagery in pornography is increasingly violent and degrading.

I do not want to go into all of this in detail now - that is not the point of this argument - but I refer honourable members to the various papers in the recent volume edited by Catherine Itzin, a United Kingdom academic, published by Oxford University Press called Pornography, Women, Violence and Civil Liberties. In a recent visit to Holland I was informed by Dutch police who specialise in this area of their increasing concern about growing violence in pornography. As a consequence of the increase in violence over the years prostitutes are experiencing much greater violence because of clients demanding from them the sorts of things they are seeing in pornographic movies and magazines. Similarly with X-rated videos, a campaign was successfully run some years ago in this Parliament by female members which resulted in the banning of X-rated videos in New South Wales. X-rated videos are supposedly non-violent but the definition of non-violence appears to be that if a women is smiling you can do just about anything to her that you like.

Looking at the list of titles of publications submitted to the Chief Censor is an educative process. Included in them seem to be a predominance of women's body parts, often grotesquely exaggerated. One title was Raped Playtoy. One would have thought that a magazine with such a title would have been refused classification, but no, it was registered as category 2. Magazines such as Picture and People were not even submitted to the Chief Censor until recently. They continue to provide problems. The classic example of the cover of People magazine, the woman on all fours wearing a dog collar and a tight leash, is the one that springs immediately to mind for most people. It was only one of many images showing women as animals, with animals, subject to violence, or apparently covered in bruises. That is meant to be amusing. Then there are images of naked women on all fours being used as tables for men to rest their beer cans on while they play cards.

And that is not all. The deluge of vilification against women does not stop at the pornography industry; it is endemic in advertising. I refer honourable members to the Berlei billboard showing a woman in underwear being cut in half. That was meant to be amusing. Magistrate Pat O'Shane had some very strong words to say about that billboard. I refer to the Fairfax and Roberts recent advertisement showing a man with his hand down the front of a woman's dress. Many people were very angry about that, but what surprised me was that people were angry only about the picture. It seemed to me that the most powerful message in that advertisement was the caption underneath: "When you see this model in the
Page 5375
flesh you will express your desire for it on sight. And after all we never told you to look but not touch". In other words, that is an invitation to simply help yourself regardless of whether or not the woman wishes to be a part of the experience. In my view it is an invitation to rape. I refer honourable members to the words of Naomi Wolf in The Beauty Myth. She quotes advertising executives:

You have to push a little harder to jolt, shock, break through. Now that the competition is fiercer a whole lot rougher trade takes place.

She explains in brackets that "rough trade" is gay male slang for a sadistic partner. She continues:

Today business wants even more desperately to seduce. It wants to demolish resistance. Rape is the current advertising metaphor.

I refer again to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Mr Steve Mark. He made similar points in his recent presentation to the National Council of Women seminar held in the parliamentary theatrette on 30th August. It was a one-day seminar titled "Men and Women Against Violence". There is so much vilification of women that we as a society take it totally for granted. If a male has a photograph taken that may be even slightly revealing, he will go to court and quite possibly receive a large settlement, as we saw in the recent Ettingshausen case. Premier Jeff Kennett in Victoria sued over a picture that the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald published of him showing him with trick photography apparently naked in a crowd. The reason he protested about such nakedness was that he said it demeaned and degraded him. That is very interesting. It is demeaning for men to be shown naked but apparently not for women. It is very difficult to start explaining to people how such images of women are demeaning and degrading when they are applied to women because such images are so endemic in our culture.

When discussing the magazine cover showing the naked woman on all fours as a dog I have asked people to consider how they would react to a naked Aboriginal man in the same position. Invariably the reaction is one of shock and horror because we know what that image would be trying to convey to us. Yet we take such images totally for granted when they are of women. There are increasingly demonstrated links between degrading and demeaning vilification of women and actual violence. The literature on the connections between rape and pornography is extensive and growing, particularly in relation to material that links sex and violence. I do not propose to go into all of that here. It is a long argument and this is not the place. There is an article that I have read in this month's Quadrant that deals with some of that material, if honourable members are interested in the details. The actual inflicting of physical violence on women as a result of such vilification is not the only reason for opposing -

The Hon. Franca Arena: On a point of order. I have been listening to the honourable member talking about vilification against women at length. It is not relevant to the bill, which deals with vilification against homosexuals. I know that you have conceded a lot of latitude but the honourable member has been talking about violence against women for quite a while. I ask you to ask the honourable member to confine her remarks to the bill.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: On the point of order. The point of this argument is that I consider the bill does not go far enough in addressing issues of vilification. If we are dealing with sexual vilification, there are areas that should be included in the bill. I am simply explaining what areas and why.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have been listening to what the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith has been saying. I have been drawn to the same kind of observation as the Hon. Franca Arena. However, I have come to the conclusion that the honourable member is supporting her arguments by drawing comparisons with other areas of vilification. To the extent that she does that, I will allow her to continue.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: Demonstrated violence against women is not the only reason for supporting the proposition that vilification legislation should cover female sexuality. Widespread vilification reduces the possibility for female participation, female equality, female respect and female dignity in our society. It is a profound violation of women's civil rights and liberties for them to have to exist in an environment that takes so many assumptions for granted. The greatest level of violence exhibited in our society is physical violence and vilification directed against women because they are women. It is no accident that over the past 20 to 25 years, when women have been seeking more equality, more opportunities and the right to be considered as people, our society has seen a substantial increase in vilification of them.

Some men - certainly not honourable colleagues in this House, of course - might feel threatened by such change. Producers of magazines like People and Picture reassure such men by vilifying women and presenting them as animals, objects and things. Legislative protection is needed against sexual vilification, but that provision must include vilification against females, otherwise it would be a mockery. The gay community has a very strong lobby group and the fruits of their lobbying can be seen in the bill. Most women are holding down two jobs. They are working in the community and also have home responsibilities. Consequently, most women do not have the time to become involved in lobbying activities. Therefore, women can create less pressure to have their issues taken up by the community. Women traditionally have been socialised into accepting certain things in our society so there is probably less consciousness of problems in some areas.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said there cannot be generic protection. I do not agree with that. Some groups need the protection of such legislation as an educative tool in the community. Legislation should include these groups, especially women. In regard to
Page 5376
the assertion that the Government had agreed to proceed with the legislation in its current form, the bill was put out for public discussion in draft form. If the public discussion process means anything at all, it must mean that if there is sufficient public disquiet about any aspect of the bill it will be returned and re-drafted. That is precisely what has happened in this context. The Government has not resiled from any intention to extend vilification legislation to include protection of the homosexual community under new sexual vilification legislation. All the Government has said is that at present the drafting of the bill has been less than perfect and other areas need to be considered. I would like women to be included in the concept of vilification on the ground of sexuality. The Government has not gone back on its word, nor have any members of the Government. The matter is still being proceeded with. The Government has stated its intention to do something about the problem.

The bill has the flaws referred to by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. Community participation in this process, if ignored, would have been made a mockery. The Hon. J. F. Ryan mentioned sectionality. He said that one of the strengths of racial vilification legislation was its extension of protection to the whole community, whereas homosexual vilification legislation protects only one group in the community; it protects one form of sexuality over others. The honourable member mentioned examples of the homosexual community being protected while other groups are vilified but are not protected against vilification. The well-known image of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's head on a platter was mentioned by the honourable member. I was reminded of images in the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras that have profoundly vilified women. They grossly exaggerated female secondary sexual characteristics and parodied female behaviour and mannerisms in a way that the audience was invited to laugh at and make mockery of them. I regard such images, in a society with a high level of violence against women and where women do not yet have equality, as extremely disturbing to say the least.

This House has, this very evening, debated the issue of offensive language under the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill. I will not take the liberty of speaking to that measure but I do want to discuss offensive language. In our society probably the worst name one person could use about another - the single most vilificatory word in the English language used in the Australian culture - is to call a person a four-letter Anglo-Saxon word meaning the female genitals. If anything demonstrates the contempt in which women are held in our culture, it is that single small fact. Legislation against female sexual vilification is needed to send a message to the community that some behaviour is not socially endorsed. The intent of such legislation is to reduce violence, and that is admirable. Violence is never acceptable, nor is hate crime. Legislation to protect people against sexual vilification is especially needed. Homosexual vilification is one part of sexual vilification. Homosexuals have been known to be the victims of hate crime. But women are also subject to the deluge of sexual violence that is endemic in our culture. It is a mockery to introduce in this House a bill that purports to take a stand against sexual violence but does not offer protection to those who are by far the greatest victims of sexual violence and sexual vilification. I cannot support this legislation in its current form.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [11.9]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.9]: I raise the question of the F2 tollway. Flawed evidence, concealed documents, publication of false statements and rigged cost-benefit analyses in 1992-93 concerning the F2 Castlereagh motorway are attributed to the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority in a new study in the leading planning journal Urban Policy and Research, published in Victoria by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Department of Planning. The study reveals that there is no case for the F2 on planning grounds -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order. The honourable member is reading a statement at an incredible rate which no other member in this House would be able to take in. He is hoping to get it into Hansard, to be able to publish it, without other members knowing exactly what is being said. I ask that you urge the honourable member to slow down so we know what is being said in this House and so other honourable members can comment if they need to.

The PRESIDENT: Do you wish to speak on the point of order?

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: No.

The PRESIDENT: The purpose of members addressing the House is fundamentally to inform members of the House and not to have matters recorded in Hansard. It is therefore important that members deliver their speeches with appropriate volume, speed and clarity so that other members are readily able to understand. I ask the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to keep this in mind.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The study reveals that there is no case for the F2 on planning grounds, that the public transport feature of express buses with very limited commuter access appears to be no more than an attempt to promote the F2. It enables the Roads and Traffic Authority to claim that it has complied with a recommendation of the Woodward Commission, but in reality -

Page 5377

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member is now speaking so close to the microphone that his speech is distorted.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: - it ignores land use and transport planning principles. Traffic analysis by RTA consultants shows that the F2 would increase Sydney road network congestion rather than deliver the relief promised by the RTA and parliamentary supporters. These facts have been known to the RTA since 1990 but were suppressed. One key document obtained under freedom of information laws shows that the F2 was predetermined since early September 1990, just after the Woodward Commission recommended against it in August 1990. Such predetermination is in violation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which requires a project to be justified in economic, environmental and social terms. This predetermined outcome was supposedly for an impartial study of regional transport needs. This outcome was assisted by manipulation of public opinion involving shire councils and community groups, in the guise of community consultation.

The economic justification in terms of travel time savings was rigged by ignoring the fact that the tollway is to be embedded in an existing network and takes on some of the attributes of the network. Traffic analysis shows that the increase in average network speed is so small at peak periods that the increased travel time savings from a project estimated to cost $650 million are not much greater than those which would be obtained from a minor upgrade of the network. Another myth of convenience used by the RTA and political promoters to manipulate the public opinion is that when the tollway is inserted in the regional network there will be less traffic on local streets, but the opposite is the case because of traffic diversion from the toll road.

The law requires impartiality and a paramount commitment to the public interest from the authors of the environmental impact assessment report. Instead, the report contains demonstrably false statements. It misrepresents, omits or simply fails to address significant arguments which do not support the F2. The document prepared by the RTA as a guide to expressions of interest for the improperly determined F2-M2 also exhibits improper conduct. An indicative model misrepresents traffic volumes and construction costs of the F2 and has asked for suggestions for car pooling. This is an admission at last that congestion will be markedly increased by the F2.

The study recommends reform of the Roads and Traffic Authority to ensure that it has no future influence on transport in the Sydney region. The environmental effects of the RTA activity are too severe to allow the RTA to continue in its present role. It has manipulated the environmental planning and assessment process for the purpose of ensuring a reservoir of future work for its executives and associates. Dismissal of the offending RTA executives who have not only behaved improperly but have wasted $3.8 million of public money is strongly recommended as part of the reform process. Bernard Fisk and Robert Francis Morris must answer to the taxpayers of New South Wales for the way they have promoted this environmentally destructive and economically irresponsible taxpayer subsidised tollway.


The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.14]: I raise the matter of gun control and in particular refer to the statements by the Minister for Police, Mr Griffiths, quoted in the newspapers yesterday. Mr Griffiths referred to a number of issues relating to gun control. In particular, I take up his comments about a gun law committee. Mr Griffiths was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying that while he was Minister he would review the gun laws constantly - a statement many of us would find difficult to believe. Mr Griffiths went on to say that:

Mr Ian Glachan (Lib, Albury) is chairman of the [Parliamentary] Firearms Committee. He is pooling every piece of information that comes in . . .

I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Police in March, which was answered a month or so later. In answer the Minister - Inspector Gadget as he is now called - said that this committee had been set up on 8th May, 1992 by the Hon. E. P. Pickering and that he had reappointed it. The term "committee" is misleading. We have great trouble with this committee. It is referred to as a Government committee, a parliamentary committee, sometimes even a ministerial committee, when it is in fact a political committee. It is a Government backbench committee that does not reflect the Parliament at all.

The committee members were the Liberal Party member for Albury, the National Party member for Murray, the National Party member for Northern Tablelands, the Liberal Party member for Blue Mountains and the Hon. L. D. W. Coleman, M.L.C., another National Party member. I was told in April that this committee is working on an ongoing basis and if, as a result of the review, it is considered further legislative changes are required, the appropriate announcement will be made. We all know that this is a slow moving Government, and that this committee has been in existence for 18 months and has produced absolutely nothing. A cynic like me would have to say that it was set up to produce absolutely nothing. In yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald Mr Griffiths is quoted as saying that he would review the gun laws constantly and that the chairman, Mr Glachan, is pooling every piece of information that comes in. He is obviously pooling it very slowly. Mr Griffiths went on to say:

. . . he was also launching a community firearms consultative committee.

This is presumably a body which will waste the next 18 months. In the Daily Telegraph Mirror yesterday, he was quoted slightly differently as saying:

In the New Year I will be launching a firearms committee and we'll be getting a range of balanced views. I am quite happy to take any steps necessary to improve gun control.

Page 5378

Clearly the Minister for Police is actually taking any steps necessary to delay any possible decision on gun control. If it means setting up a whole range of useless committees - and I apologise to the Hon. L. D. W. Coleman if he feels insulted - then he will set up every possible useless committee he can. To add to the cynicism with which Inspector Gadget is approaching the whole issue, I refer to his answer on 27th October to a question he was asked in the lower House in which he congratulated Mr Glachan on his even-handed chairmanship of the ministerial committee on firearms legislation. He said that it has been nothing short of outstanding. This committee has done absolutely nothing for 18 months, yet Inspector Gadget finds this National Party or Liberal Party member for Albury outstanding.

Minister Griffiths went on to repeat that most frequent comment he makes, that New South Wales has the most stringent firearms legislation in this nation. That is absolute nonsense. A number of States and Territories in Australia have far more stringent firearms legislation than New South Wales. The New South Wales Police Association has on numerous occasions pointed that out. In conclusion, I refer to the excellent work being done by the New South Wales police firearms registry. [Time expired.]

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Mr President -

The PRESIDENT: Does the Hon. R. S. L. Jones wish to speak again on the adjournment?

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: If I may.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member is out of order.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:15:53   :   Update this page