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

The President offered the Prayers.


The Hon. Charlie John Stuart Lynn took and subscribed the oath of allegiance and signed the roll.


The PRESIDENT: Order! I inform the House that I have received the following nominations for membership of the estimates committees in accordance with the resolution of the House of 17 October 1995:

Estimates Committee No. 1

Government members: Dr Burgmann, Mr Johnson, Ms Staunton, Mr Vaughan
Opposition Members: Mr Gay, Mr Mutch
Crossbench Members: Mr Corbett, Rev. Nile

Estimates Committee No. 2

Government Members: Mrs Arena, Mrs Isaksen, Mr Manson, Mrs Symonds
Opposition Members: Mrs Sham-Ho, Mr Rowland Smith
Crossbench Members: Miss Kirkby, Mrs Nile

Estimates Committee No. 3

Government Members: Mr Kaldis, Mr Macdonald, Mr Obeid, Ms Saffin
Opposition Members: Miss Gardiner, Mr Kersten
Crossbench Members: Mr Cohen, Mr Jones

I also inform the House that the following members have been nominated to chair these committees:

Estimates Committee No. 1: Ms Staunton

Estimates Committee No. 2: Mrs Arena

Estimates Committee No. 3: Mr Macdonald.

Petition praying that any attempt to legalise or decriminalise euthanasia be opposed to ensure that the quality of life of the elderly, handicapped and terminally ill is not subject to unjust or unethical procedures, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that any attempt to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide be opposed and that the right to life be supported, received from the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

Petition expressing concern about legal changes that could increase or encourage the distribution or availability of soft drugs such as marijuana, and praying that the House take no measures that could extend the social problem of drug use, and oblige those who are promoting marijuana or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legislation or decriminalisation of their use is introduced, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.43]: I move:

That the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that General Business Notice of Motion No. 1 relating to leave for Members to appear before Estimates Committees be called on forthwith.

I have moved this motion because I understand it is necessary for a formal invitation to be issued to members of the Legislative Assembly, particularly Ministers, before they will be permitted to appear before the estimates committees of the Legislative Council.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.44]: I move:

That General Business Notice of Motion No. 1 relating to leave for Members to appear before Estimates Committees, be called on forthwith.

In relation to this motion, I believe it is not necessary for me to add to my previous remarks.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.45]: I move:

1. That leave be given to the President, Ministers and Officers of the Legislative Council to appear before and give evidence to the Legislative Council Estimates Committees.

2. That the Legislative Council, having appointed on Tuesday 17 October 1995 three Estimates Committees reflecting the distribution of Government Ministers' portfolio responsibilities as indicated below, requests that the Legislative Assembly give leave to the Speaker, Ministers and Officers of the Assembly to appear before and give evidence to the Estimates Committees, should the Committees desire, in relation to the Budget Estimates and related documents.

Page 2134

(a) Estimates Committee No. 1

Premier, Arts and Ethnic Affairs
Attorney General, Industrial Relations
Corrective Services, Emergency Services
Local Government
Police
The Legislature
Treasury, Energy and State Development

(b) Estimates Committee No. 2

Community Services, Aged Services, Disability Services
Consumer Affairs and Women
Gaming and Racing, Hunter Development
Health and Aboriginal Affairs
Sport and Recreation
Urban Affairs and Planning, Housing

(c) Estimates Committee No. 3

Agriculture
Education and Training, Youth Affairs
Environment
Land and Water Conservation
Mineral Resources, Fisheries
Public Works and Services, Olympics, Roads
Small Business and Regional Development, Ports
Transport and Tourism

I realise that this motion is a formality. I hope it will receive the support of all honourable members so that the estimates committees are able to work expeditiously and efficiently.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.48]: I move:

That the following message be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day greed to the following Resolution:

That the Legislative Council, having appointed on Tuesday 17 October 1995 three Estimates Committees reflecting the distribution of Government Ministers' portfolio responsibilities as indicated below, requests that the Legislative Assembly give leave to the Speaker, Ministers and Officers of the Assembly to appear before and give evidence to the Estimates Committees, should the Committees desire, in relation to the Budget Estimates and related documents.

(a) Estimates Committee No. 1

Premier, Arts and Ethnic Affairs
Attorney General, Industrial Relations
Corrective Services, Emergency Services
Local Government
Police
The Legislature
Treasury, Energy and State Development

(b) Estimates Committee No. 2

Community Services, Aged Services, Disability Services
Consumer Affairs and Women
Gaming and Racing, Hunter Development
Health and Aboriginal Affairs
Sport and Recreation
Urban Affairs and Planning, Housing

(c) Estimates Committee No. 3

Agriculture

Education and Training, Youth Affairs

Environment
Land and Water Conservation
Mineral Resources, Fisheries
Public Works and Services, Olympics, Roads
Small Business and Regional Development, Ports
Transport and Tourism.

Legislative Council Max Willis
24 October 1995 President

I hope this motion will receive the support of all honourable members.

Motion agreed to.


Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.50]: I move:

That General Business, Order of the Day No. 1 relating to the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill be called on forthwith.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.51]: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "forthwith" and inserting instead "the next Thursday on which General Business Orders have precedence".

I have moved the amendment because I believe the urgency inherent in the motion moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is not justified. Honourable members should have more time to consider the bill.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Mrs Chadwick Mr Mutch
Mrs Forsythe Mrs Nile
Miss Gardiner Rev. Nile
Mr Gay Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Tingle
Mr Jobling Tellers,
Mr Kersten Mr Ryan
Mr Lynn Mr Samios

Mrs Arena Mr Obeid
Dr Burgmann Mr O'Grady
Mr Cohen Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Ms Burnswoods
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson

Page 2135

Dr Pezzutti Mr Dyer

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.00]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I should like to say a few words of thanks to the Government and to those who have been out there year after year rescuing swans, ibises, pelicans and all the other birds and animals shot deliberately by people who have no regard for wildlife values or for cruelty. I also acknowledge Catherine Blasonato, who is in the gallery, and thank her for her help. I first met Catherine at a duck rescue some years ago. She is now my partner. I also acknowledge Raymond Kidd, who was a duck shooter 20 years ago but then read Animal Liberation and no longer shoots ducks, although he is still a registered shooter. I point out that this is not a gun issue or a shooting issue; this is a cruelty issue and a wildlife endangerment issue. I am quite sure that the Government has no intention of taking away shooters' guns, and never had that intention - and this bill does not have that effect. The legislation has to be distanced from the nonsense circulated in the news media that this is a gun issue. This is not a gun issue; it is a cruelty issue and a wildlife issue. I thank the Government for supporting the bill.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.02]: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "now read a third time" and inserting instead "referred to the Standing Committee on State Development for inquiry and report, with particular reference to its impact on the rice crop in New South Wales, the Committee to report by 22 November 1995."

My concern about the urgency with which the bill is being processed through the House is that it completely overlooks the fact that, because of its wording - and this is according to a legal opinion that I mentioned in the House on a previous occasion - the bill could have a disastrous impact on this State's rice crop in that it specifically bans recreational and sporting shooters from taking wild fowl for those purposes. The legal opinion to which I have referred is that the effect of the wording used would be to stop farmers from contracting out their duck mitigation licences, issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, to recreational shooters. The test seems to be what happens to the ducks after they are taken. If they are destroyed, that would be duck mitigation to protect rice crops; but if they are taken for the pot - as most sporting and recreational shooters would expect to be able to do - that would be considered legally to be recreational and sporting shooting. That is a grey area that should be examined. Before the House agrees to the bill it ought to be satisfied that the New South Wales rice crop will be safe from the impact of a burgeoning population of ducks.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.04]: Call to Australia supports the amendment moved by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. Our group believes that time is needed to consider the effects of the bill. I do not shoot anything, but it is my understanding that the shooting season does not start until May. There is time, therefore, to allow for more consideration of the bill without wildlife being affected. If the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is serious in his concern, he should support the amendment so that the Standing Committee on State Development can receive submissions, hear evidence and report back to the House. That would allow the community, which is involved, to be made aware of this debate and to contribute to it. The House has been ambushed but so has the community. The community did not expect this legislation to be passed. In fact, the Premier gave written assurances that the Labor Government would not introduce this bill.

When a non-government member introduces legislation and the Government supports it, the effect is exactly the same as if the Government had introduced the legislation. This bill would not proceed through the House without the Government's support. This legislation has become a de facto government bill, which breaks a promise given by the Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr. The community should have the opportunity to examine the bill carefully. It may be that some amendments should be made to it. There has been no time for such consideration. Call to Australia therefore supports the amendment and hopes that crossbench members will reflect on it and acknowledge that this is the way in which the House should conduct its business.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.05]: It is not frequently that I speak in support of my colleague's legislation. But in view of the remarks just made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, it should be pointed out that the bill is the result of years of work by my colleague. The bill has been well flagged. Ever since my colleague was elected to this Chamber the community has known that one of his prime objectives as an animal liberationist was to have duck shooting banned, and he has been working solidly to achieve that goal. I am well aware that Opposition members, particularly National Party members, do not support my colleague's campaign. That is their democratic right but, equally, it is my colleague's democratic right to promote the legislation for which he has worked so long and hard.

Nobody could have been in two minds that as soon as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones had this legislation drafted and had the opportunity to introduce it as a private member's bill he would do so, in exactly the same way as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile seeks to introduce legislation that fits the agenda of Call to
Page 2136
Australia and its constituency. The Australian Democrats have never denied Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile the right to introduce legislation, and it is wrong that the Call to Australia group should attempt at this late stage, when the bill has been debated, to delay its third reading.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.07], in reply: About nine months ago the Hon. Pam Allan made a clear promise that she would end duck shooting. The Hon. Bob Carr told shooters that the legislation was not yet on the agenda. It is on the agenda now. The Hon. Bob Carr made no promise not to stop duck shooting. Some years ago I spoke to the Hon. Jack Hallam when he was Leader of the Opposition in this House about this matter. He had been a rice grower and was in contact with rice growers, and he told me that the legislation would not cause them any difficulty because their problems occur some time during the spring, which is about now - not in May or June.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order: is the Hon. R. S. L. Jones speaking in reply? I wish to speak on the bill, and I do not believe he can speak in reply because the House is considering a motion moved by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, to which the only member who can speak in reply is the Hon. J. S. Tingle.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On the point of order: as I understand it, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is replying to the debate on his motion that the bill be read a third time. Before the Hon. R. S. L. Jones was called to reply to the debate you gave honourable members an opportunity to participate in the debate on the third reading, and it was only when no other member sought the call that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones was called to speak in reply.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Further to the point of order: at the time the Hon. R. S. L. Jones sought the call I also sought the call. You gave the Hon. R. S. L. Jones the call and I deferred, thinking that I would have the opportunity to speak and that the Hon. J. S. Tingle would have the right of reply.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Technically speaking, because I gave the call to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, who spoke in reply, the debate is closed. However, it is within the courtesy of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, if he wishes, to defer to permit the Hon. D. J. Gay to speak.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I will defer. I will allow the Hon. D. J. Gay to speak and I will finish in reply.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.12]: On behalf of the Opposition I thank the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for the gracious manner in which he deferred. The Opposition certainly will remember his graciousness.

[Interruption]

It depends upon whom I am gracious to. Some people earn graciousness and others do not get it. Honourable members are talking about the amendment moved by the Hon. J. S. Tingle and I signal that the Opposition will support that amendment. This bill has been introduced under the guise of an Hon. R. S. L. Jones bill. Mark my words: every Labor voter who lives in the western suburbs of Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, the country, Broken Hill or Bathurst knows that this is a Labor Party bill. The Labor Party has divided on this bill no fewer than six times. Although the Premier made a promise to allow sensible duck shooting, as the coalition did when in government, he has gone back on this promise. The Government has gone back on many other promises, including those which specially affect people in rural areas, too numerous to list today. This bill has an impact on the rice and tourism industries and it is a deliberate attack on shooting organisations.

At the last election the Labor Party promised to support the shooters. This bill is the start of the ripping apart of the promises that the Government made to shooting organisations. I am sure, as night follows day, that the next move will be some other silly measure, some draconian measure. It will be the responsibility of the Opposition to alert the people of New South Wales in the time leading up to the Federal election that they cannot trust Keating federally and cannot trust the Labor Party generally. When the Australian Labor Party makes a promise, one can be absolutely sure it cannot be believed. Labor, spelt L-a-b-o-r should be spelt l-i-e. That is what Labor stands for in this State. The Hon. J. S. Tingle has been given many assurances by the Labor Party and certainly has tried to work with Labor. I notice from his public comments that no matter what he tried to do with the members of the Labor Party, they have doublecrossed him. It will be interesting to see at the end of the day what the Labor Party does with this bill. The Australian Labor Party has already doublecrossed the Hon. J. S. Tingle and the shooters of New South Wales; and, given half a chance, it will probably doublecross the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. It will be interesting to ascertain whether the Labor Party will support this bill today.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I trust them; they have never let me down yet.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The honourable member has always been a little silly, and one of the silliest things he could do would be to trust the Labor Party. Many other people have learned to their detriment that no-one can trust the Labor Party. The bill might have been introduced by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones but I guarantee that it is a Labor Party bill and that the Labor Party has voted for it.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You are a liar.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am not a liar. The members of the Labor Party are liars. The former Government made an election promise on this matter and, unlike the Labor Party, has stuck to its promise. That is why I am supporting the amendment of the Hon. J. S. Tingle; it is one further step in protecting the Government's election promise.

Page 2137

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.17], resuming in reply: I am shocked that the Hon. D. J. Gay should abuse the courtesy that I extended to him, and is now telling lies. He told lies when he said that he opposed the bill for another purpose. He also said it was an ALP bill. This is not an ALP bill; I have been working on it for nearly 10 years. In no way is it an ALP bill. It was not written by the ALP; it was written by a lawyer friend of mine. It is my bill, it is a Democrat bill. It is also a Greens bill, because they also support it. It is a bill of the people of New South Wales who support it. The Hon. D. J. Gay is in a minority, a small handful of people. The bill will have no impact on the ALP vote in any marginal seats; though the National Party would love the bill to have that impact. It has nothing to do with guns. The honourable member is on the wrong side of the fence on this issue. More than 70 per cent of the people of New South Wales oppose the slaughter of ducks, and many people who own and use guns also oppose the brutal and callous slaughter of our native wildlife. The honourable member is entirely on the wrong side of the fence and I wish I had not extended him the courtesy of allowing him to speak, because he abused it by telling lies. The Hon. Bob Carr did not make any promises about sensible duck shooting, because there is no such thing as sensible duck shooting. The bill will have no impact on rice growers. We have checked with the rice growers repeatedly and have had extended conversations with Jack Hallam, who knows a lot about rice growing. The rice growers are not callous people.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Jack Hallam?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Yes, Jack Hallam knows a lot about rice growing. As he and the rice growers say, they are not callous people like those supported by the National Party; they are not the rednecks who are supported by the Hon. D. J. Gay. They do not shoot to kill and eat, they do not put down decoys to attract ducks and then blast everything that moves. In the main they shoot to frighten ducks away. I support the rice growers and I support their very fine product. The bill will have no impact on their crop, as will be proved over the next several years when recreational duck shooting is stopped. So far this year 1,900 licences have been issued for culling and mitigating, and no-one lifted an eyebrow about that. The licences were not issued for sport and recreation or for people to get a sexual thrill out of killing ducks, as many do. They were issued purely for crop damage mitigation.

This has to end, and it will. This bill is a Democrat initiative that is supported by the Greens and by all the other animal groups in New South Wales including the World Wildlife Fund, the Humane Society, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There are many more supporters of those organisations than there are duck shooters and other shooters in this State. The Hon. D. J. Gay not only lies but also has the wrong end of the stick on this issue. The Government, by supporting the Democrats' bill, will actually gain votes, not lose votes.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Mutch
Mrs Chadwick Mrs Nile
Mrs Forsythe Rev. Nile
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Tingle
Mr Jobling Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Kersten
Mr Moppett Mr Ryan

Mrs Arena Mr Obeid
Dr Burgmann Mr O'Grady
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Cohen Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Corbett
Mr Manson Mr Macdonald

Dr Pezzutti Mr Dyer

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

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

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Mr O'Grady
Mr Cohen Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan
Mr Johnson
Mr Jones Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Kaldis
Mr Macdonald Ms Staunton

Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Mrs Chadwick Rev. Nile
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gay Mr Samios
Dr Goldsmith Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jobling Mr Tingle
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Ms Gardiner
Mr Mutch Mr Moppett

Page 2138

Mr Dyer Dr Pezzutti

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.


Debate resumed from 19 October.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [3.33]: Before speaking to the bill I congratulate my friend and now colleague the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn on his election to this Chamber. He will be a welcome addition to the Liberal Party team in Sydney's west, and I have no doubt that he will well and truly serve the people of western Sydney. I understand that he also intends to take an interest in the Illawarra area. I have fought more than a few battles with and on behalf of Charlie in order to pursue election to various public offices, and I am pleased that he has finally made it. I congratulate him and his family on the achievement.

I lead for the Opposition in this House on the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill. It is not really an environmental bill; it is primarily about putting money from the environmental trusts into consolidated revenue. In some respects it is a budget bill rather than an environmental bill. The Australian Labor Party has had the environmental trusts in its sights for some years. I recall many occasions when the Treasurer - then shadow minister for finance - criticised the environmental trusts as hollow logs and pledged that when the Labor Party came to office it would abolish the funds. The bill fulfils that purpose. The Labor Party has claimed that the bill is necessary to gain access funds to carry out certain environmental improvements. I was pleased to be part of the former Government, which added 50 new areas to the national parks estate and created 16 new national parks, made the single largest declaration of wilderness under the Wilderness Act, constructed one of the most powerful environmental protection agencies in this country and doubled the budget of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, without once raiding the environmental trusts but using consolidated revenue.

The Government is raiding the trusts, which are an important prudential guarantee of the environment of New South Wales, because it needs money to fulfil the many irresponsible promises it made in the lead-up to the last election. I suspect that if crossbench members had their way they would prefer the $70 million that will allegedly be added to the roads budget this year to be devoted to the environmental purposes the Government has mentioned. I point out to the crossbench members in particular but to the community at large that the bill is about the budget; it has nothing to do with the environment. It is almost a matter of cheek that the Government has already allocated in this year's budget the moneys that will come from the environmental trusts: the line items are already there. The Government presumed that the Parliament would support the bill. Under this Government we will have to get used to that level of arrogance.

It will not be long before the community tires of a government that seeks to rule without consultation, by misleading statements and with unfulfilled promises. The environmental trusts were established to fulfil three main purposes: to channel funds collected by the Government from fines revenue and other money gathered from the public sector into community education, rehabilitation of the environment and research. The bill will enable the Government to gain access to the three trusts established for those purposes. It should be of great concern to honourable members that the funds reserved for the purpose of rehabilitating the environment where there has been significant degradation, either by accident or by long-term neglect, will be put at risk by the bill. The money was put aside to ensure that if New South Wales ever had the equivalent of the environmental catastrophe caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, funds would be available for restoration of the environment.

In its defence the Government would say that one of the final clauses refers to those concerns having priority over any other objects of the bill. What will happen if the money is gone? There is no guarantee that the trusts will earn the same amount of interest in the future. Interest forms the bulk of the income of the funds, and their capital would be reduced if rates fell. I believe in the types of prudential guarantees that the environmental trusts were established to secure, but they will be put at risk by this budget measure.

The Opposition notes the need to tighten the level of accountability on government spending. My colleague in another place, the shadow minister for the environment, referred to the bill as a blank cheque. In many instances the Government seeks to appropriate the money. A wide purpose has been established for the appropriation of the money, but the bill gives precious little detail of the proposals for spending it. I can give no better illustration than the appropriation from the environmental trusts of $60 million for forest industry restructuring. No detail is given about the program other than that $60 million will be appropriated over five years, although brief reference is made to the payment of instalments.

The way the money will be spent and the definition of the program are at the discretion of the Minister. The Parliament will not have the power to
Page 2139
monitor the restructuring to ascertain whether environmental objectives are being met. The bill does not provide a safeguard against the Government using that money for other purposes. I suspect that it might be common practice for the Labor Party to use money ordinarily allocated from the Consolidated Fund for purposes other than additional environmental programs.

The Opposition will move amendments in Committee to enhance the accountability of the Government under the Act. The Opposition is concerned about whether the Government will carry out its intentions. I remind honourable members that during the lead-up to the last election the Labor Party announced three schemes on which it would spend the money in the environmental trusts. First, the then shadow minister for the environment, Ms Pam Allan, said that funds would be used for cleaning up Sydney's waterways. This bill makes no reference to that. That would have more than encompassed the capital and income derived from the environmental trusts. Second, the Labor Party said the moneys would be used for expanding national parks. The bill contains some provision for expanding the size of national parks, but certainly not to the size envisaged by the Hon. Pam Allan in the previous Parliament.

The previous Government significantly increased the size of the national park estate using moneys available from the Consolidated Fund. It also enhanced funding for the care of national parks - something that the Labor Party had not even thought about - by doubling the maintenance funds available to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Finally, almost on the eve of the State election, the Labor Party promised to provide funds for restructuring the forest industry. Though that is the object of the bill, it provides no definition of the restructuring. In another place the Opposition shadow spokesman for the environment moved amendments with a view to removing this measure from the bill. The Opposition has been persuaded, following consultation with the community, not to waste the time of the House by again moving those amendments, but it will move and support amendments to tighten the objectives of the bill.

The Labor Party is proposing to do the impossible. It frequently makes bold claims that it is able to do spectacular things with small amounts of money. The forest industry in New South Wales employs almost 4,000 people directly. One might ask what impact $60 million spread over the five years to the year 2000 will make on restructuring the forest industry. I doubt that the impact will be great.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Where will we get our timber resources?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My colleague interjects about the timber industry. He makes a fair point to which I may refer later. He obviously feels passionately about this measure, and I support his right to do so. The Labor Party will not be able to restructure the forest industry significantly for $60 million, even if it receives the extra $60 million from the Commonwealth Government through its promised dollar-for-dollar matching. The size of the task puts it well beyond the limits of the Government. This statement has been made many times in the media. I refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 May under the headline "Carr forest plan costed". The introductory paragraph stated:

The cost of the State Government's forest policy - a feature of Mr Carr's election campaign - will blow out from $60 million to more than $200 million and lead to the direct loss of more than 500 jobs, according to documents obtained by the Herald.

Other direct effects would be the closure of at least one of the three major sawmills, and the loss of one shift at the HDA [Harris-Daishowa] woodchip mill.

Page 3 of a draft document entitled "Forestry Reform and Structural Adjustment Package - Implementation of Assistance Measures" released by the Department of Land and Water Conservation on 2 August stated:

Preliminary estimates indicate a possible job loss of 1,210 or 33% of the current employment by June 1998 and that by the year 2000, job losses could be in the order of 1,800 or 50% of current employment.

That is the likely effect of a recent decision by the Government to reduce the logging allocation to companies in the New South Wales forest industry by 30 per cent. Other speakers may refer to the significant impact of that measure on the timber industry, but I am endeavouring to point out the size of the timber industry and its impact on the economy of New South Wales. The $60 million, plus the $60 million from the Commonwealth, will have little impact on restructuring the industry. The Labor Party is making a promise which, like its promises to eliminate tolls and halve hospital waiting lists, it will not be able to deliver. I was proud that environmental trusts funded contributions to non-government community organisations for environmental purposes. The Minister in her second reading speech - and this may be another Labor Party unfulfilled promise - claimed that the bill would maintain the current level of funding to local schools, greening programs and other community projects.

The Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill provides for funding of only $850,000. Last year $5 million was allocated for environmental projects, of which $1.27 million was distributed to community groups, $80,000 was distributed to schools for greening projects, and $1.5 million was distributed to local government. Almost $3 million was allocated to community groups. Replacing the $5 million program, including the $3 million which is distributed to non-government community groups, will be a $850,000 program - not even $1 million, not even one-fifth of the amount previously spent under that program. I look forward to the pain the Government will have to endure from the many community groups that will protest in the electorate because they will be unable to continue the important projects they started. The Minister for the Environment in her second reading speech to the bill made some rather extraordinary comments. She said:

Page 2140

It is no secret that some sections of the timber industry are still rooted firmly in the 1950s. Some workers in the industry run around like, as the timber workers union affectionately refer to them, a singlets and thongs brigade. They have a saw on the back of a utility, they drive into a forest, get out of their vehicle and proceed to log without appropriate protective clothing or footwear.

The Minister was giving what was supposed to be a general description of the timber industry. They are extraordinary comments for a Labor Minister for the Environment to make. The term "singlets and thongs brigade" is offensive. The Minister's comment should be added to those that Mick Young is collecting for the Federal Government to illustrate why the Labor Party has lost the blue-collar vote in this State and across Australia. What an offensive thing to say about a community group. It is quite legitimate for members of the Labor Party to have a difference of opinion with people involved in the timber industry, but it is another thing for a Minister to make extraordinarily provocative and elitist statements of such a nature in a second reading speech - speeches that are usually sober and legalistic.

Not content to finish there, the Minister for the Environment made the amazingly broad statement, "There is no value adding or investment in the industry." Is the Minister seriously trying to tell this Parliament that there is no value adding or investment in the forest industries of New South Wales, just archaic technology, outdated logging techniques and industrial accidents? It might be reasonable for the Minister to refer to odd incidents of irresponsible activity - I have no doubt that the forest industry is not immune from certain irresponsible elements, which is the case for most industries - but that is not an appropriate description of the forest industry that I have come to know and respect.

I understand that many offers have been made to the Minister for the Environment to inspect the forest industries in New South Wales, but she has yet to visit a single sawmill in this State. However, she has introduced this bill. I understand also that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Minister responsible for forest industries in this State, has yet to visit a private sawmill. Recently I had the opportunity to visit sawmills in northern New South Wales. I visited the Coffs Harbour hardwoods sawmill at Glenreagh, the Notaras and Sons sawmill at South Grafton, Big River Timbers at Junction Hill, Koppers at Koolkhan, Sly Brothers at Woodburn, and Hurfords Building Supplies at Lismore - which I understand is well known to the Hon. Janelle Saffin.

I saw many sawmills. There were plenty of examples of value adding to their hardwood timber production. People at the sawmills complained because they want to value add even more but are unable to do so because they are unable to secure a stable future for their industry. They would be more than happy to install more equipment to enable them to prepare saw logs to a high level, either for cladding or house building, if they had resource security. I do not want honourable members to gain the impression that I am a redneck supporter of the timber industry.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: You are just a redhead.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am only just red haired - a few highlights have crept in since I became a member of this House. The timber industry will be discussed ad nauseam during this session of Parliament. It is important for members of the Legislative Council, members of the Legislative Assembly and, in particular, the two Ministers involved to visit the timber industry and make some observations for themselves. People in the industry are only too willing to show people their industry, how they proceed and the environmental and management practices they use. They are only too happy to see these practices improved if constructive suggestions can be made. I am concerned that many decisions are being made about the timber industry, supposedly at arm's length, but according to some blind ideology and to fulfil irresponsible elections pledges.

The Minister for the Environment claimed in her second reading speech that there was a great deal of accountability in this bill. She said that the Government had gone to great pains to ensure that the draw down of trust funds occurs in a transparent and publicly accountable fashion. I ask honourable members to compare the claim of the Minister to the sorts of statements we find in this bill and assess them according to any measurement of accountability and transparency. Clause 9 states:

Payments can be made out of capital and income

Payments under this Act can be made out of both capital and income of the Funds.

There is no detail in that clause. In the other place the Opposition voiced concern about the definition. It would prefer a tighter definition of how much of the capital and income of the trust funds can be removed from the funds. Clause 12 states:

Audit by Auditor-General of payments from the Funds

The audit of the accounts relating to the Funds by the Auditor-General under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 is to include an audit of the payments made from the Funds under this Act.

There will be an audit of the funds, the global payments, that will be made under the Act, but the bill makes no provision for auditing the decisions of Ministers under the programs funded by the Act. The Opposition believes that the reports required from each Minister on a six-monthly basis under clause 11 should be audited. The programs should be audited to ensure that they are in accordance with the Parliament's vote of the resources under this bill. The Opposition, in another place, raised the concern that funding for national parks is limited in capital and recurrent expenditure.

Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted.



The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting
Page 2141
the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware that on 18 October the House requested, under Standing Order 18, that documents be produced, the request was communicated to the Premier's Office, and that the documents were to be tabled at noon today? Will the Treasurer advise the House why the requested documents have not been tabled?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I understand that the documents sought by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have been delivered to him. The reason the documents have not been tabled is, as I said in the debate on this matter the other day, that the motion was unconstitutional.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer table the documents immediately, as requested by the House? Is he aware that a failure to table the documents constitutes contempt of the House?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The answer to the first part of the question is no. The response to the second part is: I do not believe so.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, whether there is any truth in the allegation that we are facing an epidemic of HIV1-C and HIV1-E in the heterosexual community? If the answer is in the affirmative, what action will the Government take to inform people of this danger?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am advised by my colleague the Minister for Health, the Hon. Andrew Refshauge, of the following details. HIV-C and HIV-E are two strains of HIV-1, the most common HIV virus in Australia. Of the eight strains of HIV-1, HIV-B is the most commonly found strain in Australia. NSW Health advises that currently no evidence is available to suggest that we are facing an epidemic of HIV-C and HIV-E in the heterosexual community. Australia's risk of exposure to HIV-C and HIV-E is principally through contact with countries in Asia and the Indian subcontinent. NSW Health has extensive programs in place to educate the heterosexual community on safer sex practices. These programs include heterosexual women's projects with the Family Planning Association and the Aids Council of New South Wales, a project targeting women partners of bisexual men, and several projects addressing specific groups based on need and perceived risk. The Commonwealth of Australia conducts HIV screening of immigrants to Australia, and provides travel safe education campaigns for Australians travelling overseas. The New South Wales Minister for Health will refer this matter to the New South Wales ministerial advisory committee on AIDS for ongoing monitoring and review.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Were advertisements placed in yesterday's newspapers claiming that the industrial relations bill was available through the Minister's department, and inviting members of the public to approach his department for copies of the bill? Were officers of the Minister's department advising that copies of the bill were not available and were names and addresses of interested parties being taken so that copies of the bill could be sent out when they are available? Why were copies of the bill not available as advertised? Given that copies of the bill are not available, will the Minister extend the response date to the exposure draft of the bill?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Limited numbers of copies of the bill were available yesterday. There was an unprecedented demand, and further copies had to be printed this morning. This was a minor administrative matter in the scheme of things. More copies will be available this afternoon, and the public will have ample opportunity to comment upon this bill, which has been well received to date.


The Hon. J. KALDIS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. What steps has the Minister taken to promote better services and programs for young people from non-English speaking backgrounds who come into contact with the juvenile justice system?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As we live in a multi-cultural society, it is not surprising that youth from a range of cultural backgrounds come into contact with the juvenile justice system in New South Wales. Young people from Aboriginal, Indo-Chinese, Maori, Pacific islander, Lebanese and many other diverse backgrounds are included in the detention centre population and the community-based clientele of the Department of Juvenile Justice. It is widely known that young people from non-English speaking backgrounds may be doubly disadvantaged because they face special problems involving cross-cultural conflict, intergenerational issues and other difficulties which relate specifically to the migrant or refugee experience. These young people may find it difficult to access services available to assist youth, and may also feel alienated from mainstream youth programs. This is being increasingly recognised by the Department of Juvenile Justice and efforts are being made to ensure that departmental services and programs are sensitive to the special needs of this client group.

In July 1995, a project officer was appointed to examine the needs of departmental clients from non-English speaking backgrounds, and to develop relevant services and programs. Consultation with
Page 2142
departmental clients, staff, community agencies, and ethnic communities will also provide the basis for a juvenile justice strategic plan for young people from non-English speaking backgrounds. Staff training is being provided to ensure that departmental staff are sensitive to cross-cultural issues and are able to assess when interpreter services are needed. Discussions are also taking place with the Ethnic Affairs Commission concerning the provision of supplementary training for interpreters so that they are better equipped to meet the specific needs of departmental clients and their families.

Detention centre schools now offer courses in English as a second language for those clients who need them. Efforts are being made to facilitate consultation and communication with specific ethnic communities, especially where a particular ethnic group is significantly represented among the department's clients. The department has a specialist casework and program coordinator for Indo-Chinese clients. This role includes liaising with the Indo-Chinese community to ensure that casework practices and departmental programs are culturally appropriate for this client group, and to promote access to community-based services after release from detention. In addition, an Indo-Chinese advisory committee has been established in southern Sydney, and this committee has assisted with the development of an Indo-Chinese youth support program in the Cabramatta area.

The aim of the committee is to promote links between departmental staff and community agencies that are able to provide support for juvenile offenders in the community, especially after release from detention. Of course, important implications also flow from these initiatives in preventing youth crime. Consideration is also being given to develop similar initiatives for Lebanese clients and those from other cultural groups. I am awaiting further advice from the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council, which has recently undertaken research on the provision of services to young offenders from non-English speaking backgrounds. This advice will undoubtedly contribute towards further improvements in service delivery in the near future. I assure the House that I am aware that young people from non-English speaking backgrounds who enter the juvenile justice system have special needs. I am committed to ensuring that the department's staff and services are sensitive to those needs, and that new programs and casework practices are always developed in consultation with relevant community organisations.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: Will the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations categorically assure the House that he will not legalise video games showing sex and violence? Will he further assure the House that he will not support a weakening of the laws relating to the legalisation of video sex games which have been passed by this Parliament? Is he aware of the increasing concern among social science researchers about sexually violent material, particularly when it is visual and interactive?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Daily Telegraph Mirror reported today that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General will be considering the introduction of R-rated video games. I am informed that that is wrong. While the industry has been lobbying all governments for a change, the issue will not be open to debate at the forthcoming meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which will take place in the next week or so in Adelaide. Currently, the rules permit ratings up to MA classification, restricting such video games to people over the age of 15, and the Government considers that to be an appropriate maximum level. The Government does not believe that it is appropriate to open up games to R ratings and it has no proposal to do that or to suggest it at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.


The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Has the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations noted the allegations by the member for Eastwood in the Legislative Assembly to the effect that he misled the Parliament with respect to an increase in WorkCover premiums? If so, what is his response?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I was genuinely disappointed by the hyperbolic tirade of the member for Eastwood on 18 October concerning WorkCover premiums. What I said to this House was correct when I blamed the previous Government for the maladministration of the WorkCover scheme. But, in any event, no reasonable person could regard such an argument as constituting misleading the House. No error or distortion of fact has been identified by the member for Eastwood. His allegations, in so far as they are directed at me, are vague, intemperate and wrong. The suggestion that I in any way misled the House about WorkCover premiums is utterly rejected.

Mr Tink's allegations contain no specific or identifiable attack on what I said. As a barrister, he has conspicuously failed to give further and better particulars of any suggestion of misrepresentation. He has not descended to detail. He has been content to make a sweeping and unsubstantiated allegation against me. Whatever arguments may have been legitimately open as to the quantum of increase in WorkCover premiums, everyone agreed that such an increase was necessary, and the Fahey Government cannot escape responsibility for that necessity. The scheme suffered a blow-out of almost $1 billion in costs. Premiums had to rise to ensure that the scheme continued. The member for Eastwood, whom I have regarded as a reasonable person in my dealings with him, attacked me without notice in a forum in which I had no right of reply.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: So you are doing the same thing.

Page 2143

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am responding to an allegation made. If the honourable member does not recognise that, I cannot educate him further.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: On a point of order: the Minister has just said that he is responding to an allegation. Clearly, there are forms of the House that allow him to respond to allegations. However, he is answering a question and he is now, by his own words, giving a personal explanation or a ministerial statement. Hence, his reply is out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Leadership ambitions must have driven the member for Eastwood to what I hope was an aberrant performance. Peter Collins should be worried.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I address my question without notice to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council in his capacity as Leader of the House. Is it a fact that the newly-appointed director of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice, Miss Alex Shehadie, has suddenly resigned in tragic circumstances when the committee is to commence its important public hearings tomorrow on the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill? Is it a fact that allegations have been made that she experienced verbal harassment from a member of this House, which was a major contributing factor in her tearful resignation? Will the Minister investigate the circumstances of her resignation and the serious allegations of verbal harassment, and report to the House at his soonest opportunity? Will the Minister do all he can to ensure the reinstatement of Miss Shehadie as the committee director, because of her high qualifications and experience, so that the committee is able to conduct its important investigations for the House into the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill, which have to be completed by 16 November?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The question asked by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is outside my responsibilities as Leader of the House. The matter to which the question relates would be more appropriately dealt with by either the Clerk or the President. As Leader of the House, I have no control over the running of the Parliament or the running of the Parliament's committees.


The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I direct my question to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. Given that members on all sides of this House have over recent years expressed their support for the innovative parents as teachers program, and given that in the New South Wales Labor Party policy for school education it was claimed that Labor supports the recognition of the role of parents as educators, will the Minister advise the House whether the parents as teachers program, which was significantly expanded early this year from the three pilot projects at Manly, Sadlier and Wagga Wagga, is assured of an ongoing and key role under the auspices of the Department of School Education?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall be happy to refer that question to the relevant Minister for a response.


The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. The Government has indicated on a number of occasions that the proposed industrial relations legislation would be issued for public comment as an exposure draft. What has the Government done to fulfil this undertaking? What is the process that will facilitate the introduction of the bill into the Parliament? What are the major features of the proposed legislation?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order: the Minister has already answered a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on this matter.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: On the point of order: it is obvious that the question asked goes well beyond anything asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition asked a narrow question about the availability yesterday of copies of a document.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I do not need to hear further argument. No point of order is involved.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Government has fulfilled its undertaking in relation to the presentation of an exposure draft and a copy of the industrial relations bill. Copies of the bill were available for public exposure yesterday, and they are available this afternoon. The Government is committed to a comprehensive consultation process in developing the legislation and presenting it to this Parliament. The New South Wales Government formed a working party to develop the new legislation. The working party comprises representatives of government, employers and unions, and has met on nine occasions since April this year. Notices appeared in the newspapers on 20 May this year inviting people to provide comments to the working party. More than 40 submissions were received and have been considered. Submissions on the exposure draft will close on 6 November.

The essential elements of the bill are the integration of the present commission and the Industrial Court into a single body named the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales,
Page 2144
and the retention and expansion of the scope for employers to negotiate enterprise agreements either with unions or directly with their employees. All agreements will be approved by the commission to ensure that no worker is left worse off under a negotiated agreement than she or he would have been under the relevant award. The commission will be empowered to make and vary awards on a flexible basis to suit the circumstances of an individual enterprise or industry. The commission will be given a positive power to review awards and to take action to eliminate discriminatory provisions in awards, including gender wage inequalities. Conciliation will be compulsory and the commission's powers will be enhanced so that it can deal effectively with industrial disputes, including the power to prevent, restrain or penalise industrial action.

Other essential elements of the bill are retaining and improving the unfair dismissals system, allowing people to apply for compensation only when reinstatement is impracticable, and altering the system relating to the right of union officers to enter workplaces to bring New South Wales more into line with other States and federally. Authorised union officers will be required to give employers at least 24 hours notice when they want to inspect records of wages paid. The bill will provide an enhanced role for the commission to deal with discrimination in employment-related matters, including awards, enterprise agreements and pay equity issues. The bill will allow preference of employment for union members but limited to the point of engagement and subject to the merit-engagement principle. The bill will entitle male employees to a maximum period of 52 weeks unpaid paternity and adoption leave, subject to certain conditions, equal to the maternity leave entitlement for female employees. The bill will provide a streamlined, workable and efficient system for registration of industrial organisations which will promote accountability, democratic control and effective administration. The Government has a mandate for the legislation. The Government has consulted and has achieved broad consensual support for the bill. I believe that this House will receive the legislation positively and constructively when it is introduced.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney aware of a report issued by the Women's Legal Resources Centre entitled "Quarter Way to Equal: A Report on Barriers to Access to Legal Services for Migrant Women"? Is the Attorney also aware that women from non-English speaking backgrounds continue to experience significant barriers in obtaining access to legal services? Will the Attorney explain why it is the practice of the Department of Courts Administration not to make interpreters available for first court appearances in the Local Court? Does the Attorney not agree that this could have a significant impact upon a woman's access to an apprehended violence order? Will the Attorney ensure that all chamber magistrates implement a system whereby all people, in particular migrant women, are able to make appointments for advice sessions?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member's question raises a series of substantial matters of concern. I readily accept that women from non-English speaking backgrounds encounter a number of difficulties in the justice system. I readily accept that those matters ought to be specifically addressed. I am broadly aware of the report and of the position of the working party looking into it. I lend my positive support to the constructive examination of the ideas and suggestions that arise from it. I am informed that it is not correct to state categorically that chamber magistrates do not offer an appointment service; the practice varies from court to court. Some chamber magistrates use an appointment system with flexibility to take urgent matters as they arise, whilst others prefer to operate on a ticket system, as it is apparently their experience that that is a more appropriate method for clients in their area.

I have been assured that when special circumstances apply chamber magistrates will make appointments. At the advice sessions resulting from such appointments the use of telephone interpreter services can be maximised for migrant women. My department is taking a number of steps to improve access to services in the legal system and at courthouses for women who speak little or no English. The "Quarter Way to Equal" report on access to legal services for migrant women recommended that chamber magistrates introduce an appointment system for people with little or no English so that interpreters can be present during interviews. My department has established an independent committee to examine the implementation of the recommendations made in that report. I am advised that my department is presently meeting with representatives of relevant bodies and expects to be able to provide me with a report on the implementation of the recommendations before the end of this year.

The Fairfield model court project, which is being conducted by my department in conjunction with the Department of Ethnic Affairs, is placing emphasis on the services provided to the ethnic community in the Fairfield area. It is developing strategies to implement the recommendations of the "Quarter Way to Equal" report and, if they are successful, it can be expected that those strategies will be applied to the court system generally. Further, my department is to undertake a review of access to chamber magistrate services, and the contents of any reports on access to justice by migrant women will be taken into account in that review. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, in a timely and appropriate way, has reminded the House of these difficulties and has reminded me of the need to focus on them. I assure the honourable member that I will keep an active interest in developments to redress the problems to which she has referred.

Page 2145

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I ask a supplementary question. If I understood the Attorney's reply correctly, the committee he has established will not report to him before the end of this year. As it is necessary for a committee of this House to report in 14 days, why can he not direct his department's committee to report more rapidly on this important matter? If the matter is not reported on until the end of the year it will be well into next year before matters improve for women from non-English speaking backgrounds.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the honourable member's supplementary question is twofold. Firstly, I will inquire as to the precise time of reporting in relation to the examination of the "Quarter Way to Equal" report. Secondly, and more importantly, the committee of this House to which the honourable member referred is examining a specific, precise matter - indeed, it is examining a formulated bill - whereas the committee within my department is examining broad matters concerning difficult policy issues and access to the justice system by women from non-English speaking backgrounds. I would have thought that the difference is apparent. One involves a broad analysis of social and legal problems and the other involves a precise matter that ought to be able to be dealt with much more expeditiously.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware of allegations in the media that the Queensland Australian Labor Party has asked for $20,000 to meet with Prime Minister Paul Keating? Is he also aware that when asked about this, the Prime Minister said that it was just normal ALP fund raising? Will the Treasurer assure this House and the people of New South Wales that neither the Premier nor any Minister in this Carr-Egan-Scully Government will be indulging in this practice?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of any such allegations. I am, therefore, obviously not aware of any response that may have been made to the allegations, but I am sure that the Hon. D. J. Gay would have misrepresented any such response. In relation to the third part of the question I assure the Hon. D. J. Gay that the fundraising endeavours of me and my colleagues are entirely appropriate and entirely proper.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order: the Minister has misrepresented me. I assure the House that I have not misrepresented this fact. I am sure some of his colleagues, who are probably better -

The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to a question that I asked two weeks ago about sentences passed on three youths who raped a woman during a home invasion. Has the Director of Public Prosecutions advised the Attorney that he will not appeal against the sentences of five years imposed on these offenders? Has he given reasons for his decision, and can the Minister disclose those reasons to the House? Is the Minister satisfied with the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Will the Minister inform the House whether this is necessarily the final act in this case? Is there any other recourse available to the Minister or to the judicial system to have these sentences appealed or reviewed in light of the real public concern about their leniency? Will the Minister tell the House whether he will avail himself of his power to appeal these sentences?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the first question is yes, the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that he will not appeal against the sentences imposed on these offenders. I understand that in relation to at least one of the offenders the sentence imposed was a maximum of nine years imprisonment, with a minimum of five years. In relation to the second question, as to whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has given reasons for his decision, my understanding is that my office has provided the honourable member with a two-page document outlining some reasons for the decision. I do not physically have with me now the reasons advanced by the Director of Public Prosecutions for his decision not to appeal the sentences, but if it is thought desirable I am happy to publish them.

I would like to take this opportunity to address the important question of the relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General in relation to power to appeal against sentences of this kind. In deciding whether to appeal a particular sentence, the Director of Public Prosecutions acts independently of the Executive Government under the power conferred by the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 and the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, as the Leader of the Opposition in this House and the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly well know, both being former Attorneys General. I have no power to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions with regard to a sentencing decision or an appeal against a sentence. The independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions in making decisions of that kind is of great public importance. It removes sentencing from the political arena, where considerations other than those which must be imposed to ensure the justice system continues to operate independently can come into play. It is critical that when making sentencing decisions all facts are considered, not just the limited facts that achieve prominence in the media.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Why don't you acknowledge, though, that you do have the power to direct him to appeal?

Page 2146

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will deal with that comprehensively in due course. The Director of Public Prosecutions is the best person to make these decisions as he is apprised of all the facts of a particular case and he is the State's expert decision maker on sentencing. The Director of Public Prosecutions ensures that decisions are based on the facts and on proper sentencing principles. It will therefore surprise no-one, least of all the Leader of the Opposition in this place or the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, when I say that no Attorney General has ever compromised the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions by overruling one of his decisions and lodging an appeal against sentence. Mr Collins, when he was Attorney General, did not exercise this residual power in any case; nor did Mr Hannaford, when he was Attorney General, exercise this power in any case. To say that I should now do so is hypocritical, founded on a dangerous attempt to score a cheap political point.

If former Attorneys General Mr Collins and Mr Hannaford can cast their minds back to how frequently they refused to exercise this power, I am sure they will appreciate the force of this point. Indeed, the Government will gladly supply details of the numerous rejections of requests to exercise the appeal power that emanated from both former Attorneys General. One minute they are accusing the Government of interfering with the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions by involving him in political debate, and the next they are insisting that the Government interfere with his independence in a far greater and more dangerous manner. The Government reserves the right to put a view to the DPP about individual cases and to criticise decisions made by his office, but it is an entirely different matter for the Attorney General to seek to interfere in a process which properly ought to be independent of the exigencies of politics. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explore with the Director of Public Prosecutions a process whereby legitimate community concerns are addressed when considering appeals. This could be done in the form of guidelines, and that is an option I am currently considering.

The Leader of the Opposition would in no way be surprised to know that he said in respect of many matters that it was not appropriate for him as Attorney General to interfere with the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to lodge an appeal against the sentence imposed in a particular matter. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition would acknowledge, I am sure, that he said on many occasions that the question of whether an appeal is lodged is one for the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent body constituted under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 and it is neither possible nor appropriate for me to intervene in its decision-making processes. Nevertheless, I will ask the Crown law officers to re-examine this case with a view to further discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions, if that is an appropriate course, having regard to the advice. It was a dreadful crime; it is a serious case and the honourable member is perfectly in order in raising the matter in the House. In keeping with the principles and the constraints that I have expressed, which I think are entirely appropriate in the criminal justice system, we will re-examine the matter.


The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. With regard to an article in the Daily Telegraph Mirror today, will the Minister advise the House about strategies he is pursuing in relation to cost savings in disability services?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I wish to make it clear to the House that there is no threat to services for people with disabilities. Quite the contrary, this Government is committed to ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are met. As the House is no doubt aware, at the very first Cabinet meeting this Government held, in Newcastle -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: You told us that before.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am going to tell you again because it is necessary to emphasise the importance that the Government places on providing services for people with disabilities. At that very first Cabinet meeting after Labor gained office, $50 million was approved for 1995-96 for an extra 300 supported accommodation places for people with disabilities.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Did you go by helicopter? Did you fly up there? How did you get to that Cabinet meeting?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I hate helicopters and I can assure the Hon. Virginia Chadwick that I did not fly by helicopter or any other form of aerial conveyance.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did you pay the toll?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Apparently the Hon. D. J. Gay is so out of touch he does not know that there is no longer a toll payable between Sydney and Newcastle.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about the bridge toll?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The bridge toll is irrelevant. I live north of the bridge, so the question of a toll simply does not come into question. As honourable members would be aware, there clearly is a need for the Government to set financial targets in all areas of its activities. Strategies to meet these targets have been worked out in conjunction with the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, Mr Des Semple, and have been approved for that department to focus on management practices and support services where efficiency improvements can be achieved.

Page 2147

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: More productivity cuts.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I did not say anything about productivity cuts. The last thing I want is productivity cuts. There is to be an expansion in services to people with disabilities through the provision of additional funds for supported accommodation services, the home and community care program and post school options. Financial targets have been set in the areas of support, ancillary, administration and management services where there is capacity for improved efficiencies. The improved strategies that have been developed are in accord with the Government's service policy that was outlined in the financial statement delivered by the Treasurer in June 1995.

In view of the article in this morning's Daily Telegraph Mirror I wish to emphasise to the House the confidence I have in the administration of the Department of Community Services by the director-general, Des Semple. I am also confident that Mr Semple will be open and constructive in his discussions with the relevant unions. I emphasise that I am committed to addressing the concerns expressed by the Health and Research Employees Association through the senior consultative forum that I have set up comprising all relevant unions, the Director-General of Community Services and the Labor Council. More often than not the previous Government would not let the unions through the door. The forum will meet for the first time next week. I also have offered to meet the HREA this week to discuss and address its concerns.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the very grave concern which is held by the chairman and directors of area health boards throughout New South Wales, in particular the Bathurst, Orana, Macquarie and far west boards, over the foreshadowed restructure of health administration in New South Wales? Will the Minister indicate when the plans will be revealed as to how administration will be undertaken in future? Will he give an undertaking to the House that the longstanding tradition of community involvement in the running of local hospitals will not be discontinued in the reorganisation?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As a former member of an area health board I am interested in the important matters raised in the honourable member's question, and I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health for a considered reply.


The Hon. I. COHEN: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Will the Minister explain why the clearing of native forest to establish a plantation is occurring in compartment 323 of Wild Cattle Creek State Forest? In a letter the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Carr, sent to me he stated:

A Carr Labor Government will guarantee that no plantations are established as a result of the clearing of native forests. Plantations should be established on marginal agricultural land and unforested areas.

John Ball, a district forester, stated that the approval for Wild Cattle Creek was given by the previous Government and therefore did not affect this operation. So much for guarantees!

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The question is of a technical nature and it is appropriate that I refer it to the relevant Minister for an appropriate reply.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. I draw his attention to the answer he gave to the House earlier in response to my question about the availability of copies of the industrial relations bill. Can he explain the inconsistency between the answer that he gave and the advice which has been given by officers of his department during question time that they do not have available copies of the bill? Not only do they not have copies now; they have not had copies available to give to the public for the last two days. Can he also explain why, in view of the unavailability of the bill, he will not give an assurance to the House and to the public that the time for responses to the bill will be extended?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is obvious why the Leader of the Opposition is focusing on a matter of trivia and procedure rather than on substance. We have a very good draft bill that has been very well received. The major employer bodies had it last week. It is printed and it is available. It was available yesterday; it is available today.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: It is not.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am informed that it is available. The Leader of the Opposition has his copy, does he not?

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: You sent me a copy, which I received today.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Indeed. I gave you a courtesy copy. The bill is available. I am informed that the department has copies. We have copies in my office if the Leader of the Opposition wants to pick them up.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Is the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations aware that the Minister for Education and Training, as
Page 2148
shadow minister, in a press release dated 7 March 1995 stated that ethnic schools would be exempted by a Labor Government from the payment of charges for the use of schoolrooms. As six months have elapsed since Labor came to office, will the Minister please indicate what steps are being taken to exempt ethnic schools from such charges?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer that question to Mr Aquilina for a response.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the executive director of the new Westmead Children's Hospital has confirmed that two theatres will have to be closed at any one time and that the two closed theatres have the capacity to enable an extra 170 children a month to undergo surgery? Will the Government give a guarantee to ensure that the only children's hospital in New South Wales will be able to operate to its full capacity - as it has been built to do?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall obtain a detailed response for the Hon. Elaine Nile.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Was the Eraring power station funded by leveraged leasing? If so, why was it the only power station so funded? What is the value of the leveraged lease and when will the lease term expire? Which companies provided the funding and what is the return to the companies on funding provided?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The matters to which the Hon. J. H. Jobling refers occurred about 15 years ago. At the time I was not the Minister for Energy and I am therefore in no better position to answer his question than he is. I would have thought that if he wanted me to provide that information he would have put the question on notice.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it a fact that the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Michael Stewart, has been sacked suddenly? Can the Minister inform the House of the reason?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am unaware of the facts or circumstances referred to in the question of the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. However, I shall obtain a considered response from my colleague the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Given that there are now two highly credentialled reports that indicate that all three racing codes in New South Wales face accelerated job losses as well as breeding and capital losses as a result of the New South Wales racing industry being the highest taxed of any such industry in Australia - your Cabinet colleague the Minister for Gaming and Racing in another place has publicly agreed with the reports - when will the Government reduce commission rates on all three codes of racing?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will certainly look at the matter that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised. If he furnishes me with a copy of the two reports he mentioned I will be happy to have them analysed by my office.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women. Did the Minister support the decision to abandon last Friday's scheduled meeting of the Council of Ministers for Women's Affairs? Will the Minister call on the Federal Government to hold the Ministers' meeting before the end of the year to enable the paper prepared in New South Wales, "Women into Politics", to be tabled and debated?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall ask my colleague the Minister for Women in another place to respond to the question.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Attorney General both in his own capacity and as the representive of the Minister for Police. Is the Attorney General aware that in the matter of Regina v Pinkerton heard in 1982 a now convicted attempted murderer, a man serving a 14-year sentence for drug offences, admitted that he had access to a bank account with $350,000? Is the Attorney General aware that no agency of government has made any attempt to locate the $350,000, which he described as his nest egg, and organise its confiscation for the people of New South Wales under legislation relating to the confiscation of profits of crime?

Page 2149

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I would not venture an answer to a question of that specificity without notice. As the honourable member is aware, that matter is being dealt with by way of discussion and correspondence, and that is the appropriate course.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. I am in fact corresponding with him on this case but this has nothing to do with that correspondence. I ask the Minister to consider obtaining an answer as to why that action was not taken.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will certainly consider obtaining an answer.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of a statement made by the President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr David Wheaton, that blood lead levels among children in the Newcastle area are a disgrace and comparable to Third World conditions? Is the Minister further aware that in the report in today's Newcastle Herald the President of the Australian Medical Association did not resile from the statement and pointed out that the acceptable national community average standard for lead-in-air levels was 10 micrograms of lead per decilitre of blood, but that in the Newcastle area a child had three times that limit? Can the Minister inform the House what the Government intends to do about this terrible position of children living within the ambit of the Newcastle lead smelter, whether money will be made available for further remediation, and whether this remediation will be done as a matter of urgency?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asks an important question about public health. I shall refer it to my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain a full reply for her.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. Will the Minister assure this Chamber that the administration of the 3 x 3 scheme will continue to be managed in an ethical and balanced manner by the public servants and the Minister for Roads now that the Citizens Audit Committee has been disbanded? Will the Minister give this Chamber a pledge that the funds from the 3 x 3 scheme will be distributed in a politically impartial manner?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The answers to the questions of the Hon. D. J. Gay are yes and yes.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that during the election campaign Tony Keating, the defeated Australian Labor Party candidate for Maitland, gave commitments that a Labor government would improve access to and across the New England Highway and get more money for rural roads for the local councils? What has the Minister done to fulfil this promise, or is this going to be another one of Labor's broken election promises?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The answer to the first question is no, I am not aware. I will refer the second question to my colleague the Minister for Roads for a reply.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Has a decision to disaggregate Pacific Power yet been taken by the Government? If so, what is that decision? Will the Minister explain to the House what deal was made with the Electrical Trades Union to ensure its support? Will the Minister further explain what has been offered to the honourable member for East Hills and the Australian Labor Party Hunter members of the Legislative Assembly who opposed disaggregation? When does the Minister propose that such legislation will be presented to Parliament?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As I indicated in my media release today, Cabinet today adopted a plan to restructure Pacific Power into two state-owned generators. That plan will be submitted to the government party meeting on, I think, Thursday. I hope that appropriate legislation will be introduced into the Parliament shortly.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: What did you sell off to the Electrical Trades Union?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Absolutely nothing.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: How did you get their support? They were against you.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thought they still were.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it a fact, as reported in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 23 October,
Page 2150
that the Attorney General intends to ensure that the allowance for legal assistance to members of Parliament will be limited to $500 or $600? Does this mean that he is abandoning the scheme of legal assistance adopted by the previous government and former Attorney General for Ministers, members of Parliament and public servants who require legal assistance in connection with their employment? What scheme will the Attorney General put in place for public servants, members of Parliament and Ministers who require such assistance arising out of their employment?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answers to questions one and two are no. The answer to question three is that it does not arise.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I ask a question of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. In view of comments reported in last week's Sydney Morning Herald by the State's new senior magistrate, Mr Steve Scarlett, that Children's Court magistrates are restricted to imposing maximum sentences of two years, specially in the case of juvenile offenders, will the Attorney commit himself to reviewing these sentences to allow greater options in serious matters before the Children's Court, thereby avoiding referrals of offenders to the District Court?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The question of the Hon. J. H. Jobling is timely and important. The answer is, essentially, yes, I will undertake to review those maximum sentences and also the maximum community service order the Children's Court can impose. In a sense I think Mr Scarlett's comments have been misreported or not reported as accurately as they might have been. As I understand, his principal concern is that the Children's Court should be able to deal with the maximum number of cases rather than sending them off to the District Court. As I apprehend the matter, I do not think he was really advocating heavier sentences for juveniles. He was simply saying that his court ought to have greater latitude to deal with more matters rather than their being dealt with by the District Court. I have discussed this matter with Mr Scarlett, and I spoke at the farewell of his predecessor the other day, so I am taking an active interest in these matters.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It is desirable that he handles these matters and not send them to the District Court, is it not?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On the face of it, I think that is a valid point. I have indicated to Mr Scarlett that the Government would sympathetically entertain the sort of submissions he proposes to put forward. He has asked to see me in the next couple of weeks and we will actively review the jurisdiction of the Children's Court to make sure that it continues to be an effective forum to deal with juvenile offences. I can indicate that a constructive approach will be taken to these ideas emanating from the newly appointed head of the Children's Court.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Has the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council had an opportunity to ascertain whether the allegations that appeared in the press of which I spoke earlier are true regarding the Labor Party charging $20,000 to meet the Prime Minister in Queensland? If the Minister has been able to ascertain the truth of those allegations, is he now in a position to assure the House that the Premier of New South Wales and the Labor Ministers of New South Wales will not pursue this course of fundraising?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. D. J. Gay is a funny one. He asked me a question about 40 minutes ago. I have been in this Chamber for the past 40 minutes. I think I had a conversation with the Hon. Elaine Nile, and anyone with eyes could see that I did not leave the Chamber. I have ascertained nothing in the last 40 minutes.

In view of the time, I suggest that honourable members opposite who have further stupid questions might think about them overnight and come up with some sensible questions for tomorrow or put them on notice.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 21 September the Hon. J. M. Samios asked a question concerning the Griffin Theatre company. I have now been supplied with the following answer:

The Premier and Minister for Arts has been advised the Griffin Theatre Company is not the only theatre group to produce Australian works in New South Wales. The Sydney Theatre Company and Belvoir Street Theatre produce Australian works in New South Wales. Next year the Sydney Theatre Company will produce four Australian plays as part of its subscription season and Belvoir Street Theatre will produce two Australian plays as part of its subscription season.

The Premier is aware that the company is presently completing its seventeenth year of theatre productions and this year will be managing the Stables Theatre - one of Sydney's most important theatres.

The company has applied for funding under the Government's Cultural Grants Program for its activities in 1996. The Premier and the Minister for Arts is currently considering the recommendations of the Arts Advisory Council in relation to funding applications under this Program.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 10 October the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question without notice regarding rural water charges. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation has provided the following response:

The rationale behind the recent increases in rural water prices was to bring about pricing reform consistent with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) recommendations, and provide a basis for sustainable water resource management in NSW.

Page 2151

The Government is very aware of its commitments under the water reform agreements of COAG. This agreement (which was signed by the previous Coalition Premier and is supported by this Government) requires all governments to have rural water charges at full cost recovery by 2001.

Clearly, the Government was faced with an urgent need for action. On 5 September 1995, Cabinet agreed to new rural pricing arrangements. These involve the referral of rural water pricing to the Government Pricing Tribunal to ensure that future charges will be set through an equitable and transparent process that will ensure efficiency of services and fair cost recovery.

However, to start the movement towards the COAG target, an interim price increase was considered essential. This was deliberately kept conservative in relation to judgements made about what might be the resultant price rise after the tribunal's inquiry.

An important element of Cabinet's decision is that the increased revenue from the interim charges will be used to improve the management of our rivers and ground water resources and the rural infrastructure that supports regional economies, and not as a revenue-raising exercise as suggested. As well, Cabinet agreed to exempt from the new charges those water users in rural areas that continue to be affected by the drought.

The Government is very aware about the importance of the rural sector to the State and the potential impact of the pricing decisions on regional economies. It is also well aware of issues being experienced by the rural community, and that they will be fully considered in the Government Pricing Tribunal inquiry. The inquiry process is open to the public thus allowing plenty of opportunity for all sectors of the community to participate.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 11 October the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked me a question without notice about the Road Obstructions Special Provisions Act 1979. I have been supplied with the following answer:

There have been several blockade type demonstrations designed to impact upon the effective management of traffic in the vicinity of the international and domestic airports at Mascot.

The Police have an obligation to ensure the free passage of all people, including the thousands of international tourists who visit Australia each year, having a legitimate purpose in visiting the airports and who might be adversely affected by a demonstration. In this regard, the Police Commissioner informed the Government that, in his opinion, the powers conferred by the Act should be available to protect the public right of passage, but used only as a last resort if all other efforts fail to protect that right.

The Act does allow Police to remove vehicles used to blockade a road, and it also allows Police to move vehicles to another place. A person who fails to move his or her vehicle and who is convicted of an offence is disqualified from driving for one month. However, a Court may disqualify the person for up to three years.

A second instance of blockading within three months of the first offence could result in the Court ordering forfeiture of the vehicle.

Dismantling of vehicles would be an option of last resort, and would be carried out only where, in the opinion of the Police, it would not be practicable to take any other course of action.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 18 October the Hon. Elaine Nile asked me a question without notice regarding the hepatitis C epidemic. I have now been supplied with the following answer:

Studies indicate that up to approximately 90 per cent of injecting drug users are infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV). The high prevalence of hepatitis C in the injecting drug user population means that there is an increased risk of hepatitis C being transmitted amongst these people.

Investigators in the area of hepatitis C suggest that needles and syringes as well as injecting equipment are associated with the transmission of hepatitis C. A single act of sharing equipment carries a significant risk of hepatitis C transmission.

NSW Health has several initiatives in place to address this concern. Education and prevention activities are provided through established services in NSW, such as the NSW Needle and Syringe Exchange Program, drug and alcohol services, sexual health services and the NSW Users and AIDS Association.

Counselling services are available through general practitioners, sexual health services, drug and alcohol services, community health services, and specialist hepatitis C treatment services.

NSW Health funds the Hepatitis C Council of NSW under the Non Government Organisation Grants Funding program. The Hepatitis C Council provides information services and support services for people infected with hepatitis C and their families and friends.

NSW Health has allocated $250,000 in 1995/96 for HCV related testing and community based service delivery. Annual funding will be increased to $500,000 from 1996/97.

NSW Health is exploring strategies to improve the quality of hepatitis C data, including data on risk factors. Up to 30 per cent of HCV notifications in Australia have no identified risk factor. Studies of the history of infection suggest that many of those now testing positive for the disease became infected by injecting drug use in the 1970s and 1980s.

The Commonwealth in conjunction with NSW and other states and territories has developed a National Hepatitis C Action Plan. NSW has already implemented several parts of the Action Plan.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 18 October the Hon. J. F. Ryan asked me a question concerning the Ferguson Lodge closure. I have now been supplied with the following answer:

The services provided by Ferguson Lodge to their present consumers will continue, however, the location of the service in the future will be determined through the transition planning process. As a non-conforming service for people with a disability, funded by the Minister, Ferguson Lodge is required to develop a transition plan in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Disability Services Act 1993 (DSA). The transition plan will outline the steps required by Ferguson Lodge to enable the service to reach conformity with the Act. The plan will also identify the proposed physical configuration of the service at the completion of the transition planning process. All transition plans will be independently assessed. The Independent Assessor will provide recommendations in relation to the plan to the Minister.

I am not aware that Sydney University intends to acquire the land upon which Ferguson Lodge presently stands.

Page 2152

Transition plans for non-conforming large residential services are required to be developed in accordance with the Department's Draft Accommodation Support, Policy Statement, "Defining Disability Services".

Particular attention will be noted of the requirement in the Draft Policy that accommodation support services for people with disabilities in NSW should be non-congregate in configuration and that services, regardless of their physical configuration, are to provide accommodation or accommodation support for small groups of people per dwelling.

Alternate small scale accommodation support models will only be considered in cases where it can be justified that some people with a disability are medically frail and require a level of care best delivered in an alternate setting.

Any alternate accommodation support models proposed by Ferguson Lodge in their transition plan will be subject to review by the independent assessor and will need to meet the requirements of the NSW Disability Services Act and associated policies.

In formulating a decision regarding the appropriateness of the transition plan for Ferguson Lodge, inclusive of a proposed location of the service in the future, I will take into account the recommendations of the Independent Assessor, submissions from the organisation and will require that the plan reflects the requirements of the NSW Disability Services Act and the Department's Draft Accommodation Support Policy statement.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Last week the Hon. D. F. Moppett asked me a question regarding crime in Bourke. I have a letter, which essentially answers the question, to the Bourke Shire Council dated 23 October. I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

______

Mr C Dorrington
General Manager
The Council of the Shire of Bourke
PO Box 21
BOURKE NSW 2840

23 October 1995

Dear Mr Dorrington

I refer to your letter on behalf of Bourke Shire Council referred to me by the Hon P Whelan, MP, Minister for Police, concerning crime in Bourke. In particular you indicate your community's concern about vandalism, riotous behaviour by children, truancy, drug dealing, theft of private property and personal assault.

More recently, representations regarding your community's concerns about law and order issues from Mr D Carmichael, the Western Herald dated 27 September 1995 have also been received by my Department. These representations are based on resolutions of a public rally in Bourke on 22 August 1995. In addition to the crime concerns you indicated to Mr Whelan, Mr Carmichael raises the issues of increasing police powers and patrol strength, parental responsibility for the acts of their children and minimum sentences as a deterrent to crime.

I would appreciate it if you and Mr Carmichael would regard this letter as addressing issues raised in both sets of representations.

With regard to your broader concerns about crime and the administration of justice in Bourke, please be assured that the safety of your community and all communities in NSW is a matter of great concern to this Government.

As a measure of the seriousness with which the Government views the issue of personal safety, it is committed to a package of administrative and legislative initiatives aimed at enhancing the security of members of our community and restoring confidence in the institutions responsible for the administration of justice.

Allow me to take this opportunity to briefly outline some of this Government's proposed initiatives.

The Premier has established a Council on Crime Prevention. The Council will be chaired by the Premier and include representatives of the Minister of Police, Commissioner of Police, Attorney General, Ministers for Health, Education, Transport, Community Services, Aboriginal Affairs and peak community organisations. The Council will recommend and oversee the development of necessary legislation, advise on resources for crime prevention and co-ordinate the efforts of State Government bodies which implement crime prevention plans.

To complement this initiative, this Government will establish Local Crime Prevention Committees in high crime areas. Those Committees will include representatives of local government, support services, neighbourhood watch groups, the safety house scheme and other community groups to work with police on local crime prevention initiatives. The Committees will conduct safety audits, identify crime hot-spots and develop and oversee the implementation of programs to solve such problems.

In order to curb behaviour such as, vandalism, riotous behaviour and truancy, which typically involves younger community members, and to deal with youth who commit more serious offences, the Government is implementing a number of schemes. These schemes reflect the Government's concern for the welfare of young people and its commitment to preventative strategies and education policies which aim to divert juveniles from crime and ensure that non-violent first offenders are provided with an appropriate alternative to prison.

The first scheme is the Community Youth Conferencing Scheme (CYC's) which was established in 1994. This is a pre-court offence resolution scheme for juvenile offenders who commit certain prescribed offences and is not restricted to first time offenders. Conferences are conducted by trained mediators who are selected from the local community and include police, teachers, juvenile justice officers and other community members. The conferences address issues of parental responsibility and compensation to victims in their dealings with juvenile offenders. The scheme, while initially being trialed in six sites, will be evaluated before the end of the year.

A second scheme implemented earlier this year was the establishment of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Division within the Attorney General's Department. The overall purpose of this Division is to facilitate and co-ordinate efforts to achieve a reduction in the incidence of crime committed by juveniles through the development, promotion and implementation of effective strategies designed to prevent juvenile crime.

The Juvenile Crime Prevention Division acts as an advocacy body to argue for and build partnerships for the promotion of juvenile crime prevention strategies and is responsible for the establishment of a co-ordinated and integrated approach to juvenile crime prevention between government, community and private sector agencies.

Regarding the issue of parental responsibility raised by Mr Carmichael, please note that presently the Children Parental Responsibility Act 1994 is being implemented on a limited basis to determine whether family responsibility has any role to play in the criminal justice system's dealing with juvenile offenders. But the Act is subject to a review process and will be re-considered in the near future.

To promote safety on our streets, police will be encouraged to patrol known trouble spots. Tougher measures will also be implemented to reduce alcohol related violence, including better policing of licensing laws, patrols of hotels and liquor outlets and increased penalties for supplying minors with

Page 2153
alcohol. Effective school anti-drug and alcohol programs will be funded. Courts will be encouraged to impose orders on people convicted of alcohol related offences directing them to attend rehabilitation programs and requiring that they make a means-based contribution to the cost of such programs.

Mr Carmichael also requests the Government pass legislation prescribing minimum sentences for all offences. Please be advised that the Government does not support the introduction of minimum sentences for violent crimes. I outline the reasons for the Government's position below.

First, because of the wide range of circumstances affecting the commission of an offence and the character of the people involved it is appropriate for the courts to determine an appropriate sentence in any particular case. The court considers protection of the community, rehabilitation of the offender as well as the need for the penalty imposed to deter others and prevent the commission of similar offences. Courts must consider all these varying factors in each individual case and weigh and balance them in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on an offender.

The range of punishments presently available for violent crimes, such as murder, extends up to a life sentence. A court may impose a lesser sentence where the particular circumstances of a case justify a lesser penalty. However, a prisoner will be required to serve the entire minimum sentence imposed before being eligible for parole.

A further reason why this Government does not support the proposal is that it believes that uniform mandatory criminal penalties for like offences are not to be compared with penalties for traffic offences which involve a mandatory loss of a licence. The latter do not involve the potential for a loss of liberty.

Whilst, as I have explained there is no general plan to introduce mandatory minimum sentences, in an effort to ensure that punishments fit the crime, be assured that I intend to review penalties for more serious crimes. To this end I have recently given a reference to the Law Reform Commission requiring it to review the existing sentencing laws and recommend how best to rationalise and consolidate them.

You may also be aware that I recently introduced into the Parliament the Crimes (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill. That Bill provides for mandatory life sentences for murder in certain circumstances and for those who traffic in large commercial quantities of heroin and cocaine.

Thank you for communicating your concerns to me. I trust this information re-assures you, Mr Carmichael and the members of the Community of Bourke that this Government is committed to enhancing the safety of our community while providing adequate programs to divert people away from lives of crime.

As Mr Carmichael has raised issues of policing in his correspondence I have referred a copy of his letter to the attention of the Hon P Whelan, MP, Minister for Police, requesting he respond directly to him on matters affecting his portfolio.

Yours faithfully

JW Shaw, QC, MLC
ATTORNEY GENERAL

______


Questions without notice concluded.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [5.02]: Prior to the interruption of the debate for question time, I was reaching the conclusion of the remarks I wanted to make on behalf of the Opposition generally with regard to the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill. Essentially, the two points I wish to make in conclusion are the Opposition's concern about the lack of detail in the bill about how its two major purposes will be fulfilled, the first of which is the expenditure proposed to be allocated for the purposes of forest industry restructuring expenditure. I refer honourable members to an interesting briefing given by the New South Wales forest conservation groups last Thursday morning in this Parliament.

Honourable members may have been interested in the material presented at that briefing on the scientific ways and means that might apply to measuring the level of achievement in implementing the objective proposed by the Government and in Commonwealth schemes of reserving 15 per cent of the pre-European forest type and biodiversity within the natural environment of New South Wales. The forest groups that presented the briefing outlined a number of ways in which the different forest types available for reservation in New South Wales could be identified on maps of the State. They also looked at the number of those forest types reserved in existing national parks and wilderness nominations. Having gathered this information, they looked at the most efficient way possible to reserve these parts of New South Wales, with a view to achieving the final reservation of 15 per cent of forest types within the State.

The briefing was lengthy, and I did not have the opportunity to stay for the entire presentation. A large amount of work has been put into the project, which includes extensive transparency maps prepared in an overlay fashion and a computer program incorporating information available from the Forestry Commission which can generate similar maps. The presentation was an impressive attempt to end the coupe by coupe, compartment by compartment brawl between environmentalists and the forest industry to work out whether a particular area of the state should be reserved in its natural state or utilised for a sustainable logging operation. All sorts of debates ensue about whether particular flora and fauna need protection.

Too frequently and for too long debates of this nature have been conducted emotionally and largely with a lack of data. People have gone to various parts of the State and said, "This looks like a beautiful part of New South Wales and ought to be preserved." Most parts of New South Wales would fall into that category. I was pleased that an attempt was being made, largely through the voluntary efforts of the New South Wales forest conservation groups, to deal with the subject objectively and scientifically. They are to be commended. I understand that amendments may be moved in an attempt to incorporate this sort of procedure into the bill. I do not anticipate that the Opposition will be in a position to support those amendments. Commendable though the work is, there is not yet sufficient detail to incorporate these sorts of schemes and methods into legislation that would bind the Government.

Page 2154

The Opposition is reluctantly happy to give the Government a free hand with respect to the payments for restructuring the forest industry, though it will inspect the audited statements and reports required under clause 11 of the bill to see how that is achieved. The Opposition also expresses concern about the expenditure allocated for the purchase of national parks. Honourable members may be interested to note that not only is the money to be appropriated from the trusts for the purposes of purchasing national parks, but it might also be appropriated for the broad purposes of implementing related conservation strategies. I am concerned that the funds in the environmental trust funds will be appropriated to the Government's budget for normal operating expenditure of maintenance by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

I am of the view that it might have been better if that expenditure had been limited solely to the purchase of national parks. The Parliament and the community would then have a guarantee that the funds were being appropriated for the purposes of expanding our preservation of the environment, rather than merely maintaining it at its current level. The Opposition takes the view that while the Government is in office - even though 92,000 more people voted for the coalition parties at the last election - it will not frustrate the Government's overall objective and election campaign undertaking to fulfil its program through the passage of this legislation. The Opposition is loath to stop the Government from fulfilling a clearly stated pre-election measure for which it has a clear mandate.

In one sense it is good that the Government will fulfil at least one of the promises it made prior to the election. The Opposition will not oppose this bill; however, it will move amendments, one of which was moved and lost in another place. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that amendment in this Chamber. The Opposition will give serious consideration to amendments that might be moved by members on the crossbenches. The Chamber is almost empty because members of the Government and the crossbenchers are negotiating at this moment. I wish them well.

However, it is a pity that this legislation will be dealt with in only two days. I draw to the attention of crossbenchers - if they read this speech at a later stage - that this time restriction is a good reason for a 10-day rule to apply in this House to bills received from another place. These bills are frequently complex and often require not only negotiations between honourable members but also referral to the community. It is a pity that this negotiation may not occur with this bill. If the crossbenchers request more time in which to deal with this bill, the Opposition is likely to agree to that request. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [5.11]: I am delighted to support the Government's Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill, which will give New South Wales its first chance to settle the divisive and destructive battles that have raged in our native forests for the last decade. It will provide a better future for timber workers and will lay the foundation for a revitalised timber industry in New South Wales. Until New South Wales Labor proposed its bold and creative plan to bring peace to New South Wales forests earlier this year, there seemed little hope of ever resolving the forestry debate. The Australian characterised forestry as "one of the most intractable, divisive and emotive issues in Australia", and it had good reason for that view. The most familiar images associated with our spectacular native forests were images of war; namely, conservationists sitting up trees or throwing themselves in front of logging vehicles, and desperate loggers becoming increasingly angry and frustrated by the protests. The first hope for change in this picture emerged when Labor unveiled its forestry policy.

The key to this policy was Labor's commitment to spend $60 million to restructure the industry, and to provide retraining, redeployment and redundancies to workers displaced by the community's conservation demands. Labor believes that timber workers alone should not bear the burden of changes made for the benefit of the whole community, and it found a way to ensure that timber workers would be protected. For the first time the choice was no longer between jobs or trees - Labor's package found a way to deliver both. The Government struck a balance between development and conservation and gave workers hope of a more secure future, free from the constant threat that conservation demands would take away their resource.

The Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill will allow the Government to provide that crucial $60 million by unlocking the environmental trusts. This aspect of the proposal is central to the successful implementation of Labor's unique and historic forest plan; without it, New South Wales would lose the chance to save more forest than any other State and would abandon timber workers to an uncertain and grim future. The future was black before Labor provided new hope for the timber industry. The former coalition Government did nothing to resolve pressing forestry issues. In fact, it exacerbated uncertainty in the industry and it endorsed a cutting regime that would have resulted in the disappearance of all unlogged old-growth forests within 10 years. The timber industry would have collapsed under that regime. The former Liberal Government also presided over a 13 per cent cut in jobs; that is, 655 workers were cast on the scrap heap without support. It has taken the courage of this Government and broad community consensus to introduce much needed reforms that offer the industry an optimistic, long-term and progressive future.

The bill will assist in delivering a range of measures that will provide a certain and sustainable supply of timber and create long-term job opportunities; also, it will protect the biodiversity of our unique forest heritage. The Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill will allow the Government to fulfil major election commitments
Page 2155
which - in addition to the vital conservation measures outlined by the Minister for the Environment in the other place - will provide the timber industry with much needed leadership. Significantly, the forest industry supports the legislation's intent. The Executive Director of the Forest Products Association Limited on a number of occasions has proclaimed the industry's utter frustration at its unsuccessful attempts to resolve longstanding issues with the former Government, whose forestry policy was characterised by chronic political conflict and widespread community concern.

This Government has already embarked upon a strategy that will provide the only realistic prospect of gaining long-term secure access to log supplies that the forest industry so desperately requires. The strategy will also deliver on conservation objectives. This log supply certainty will be provided through the joint preparation of regional forest agreements by the Federal and New South Wales governments. Such agreements, as well as determining nature conservation reserves, will offer a long-term foundation for investment and employment growth in the forestry industry, which is presently seriously undercapitalised and adds scant value of international quality to our native forest resource.

This restructuring comes at a price, and that is reflected in the measures outlined in the bill before the House. The bill will appropriate $60 million over the next five years to fund the forestry restructuring adjustment package for workers displaced by the Government's commitment to enhance nature conservation and restructure the forestry industry. The package is being developed in conjunction with the industry stakeholders, including the Forest Products Association, unions and conservationists. It will assist in the retraining, relocation and redeployment of timber workers, and, if necessary, provide redundancy payments. This structural adjustment package will be overseen by a tripartite committee comprising employer representatives, unions and the Government. It will be managed by a forestry structural adjustment unit located within the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

The focus of the package will be to prepare workers for the future, not compensate them for the past. It will provide money for workers who relocate to new jobs in the timber industry or new jobs in high employment areas. It will also ensure that forestry workers are retrained for new jobs. This will enable workers to integrate into a revitalised, forward-looking and modern hardwood industry, into the softwood plantation industry and into plantation forestry projects. The Government has already made notable progress in this regard. For example, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation has concluded successful negotiations involving the industry, unions and the Federal Government, which will result in CSR Limited giving preference to displaced hardwood workers in the construction and operation of new timber processing plants at Bombala and Oberon.

This arrangement will be assisted through the establishment of TRAIN, an industry group training company that will provide properly structured retraining and accreditation for the workers in the industry. This initiative was jointly announced at Eden on 20 August by the Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training, the Hon. Simon Crean, and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Hon. Kim Yeadon. In the current year the Federal Government will provide $260,000 to assist in funding this training initiative. These are examples of the tangible progress already made in restructuring the forestry industry, and the successful passage of this bill through the Parliament will ensure that this progress is maintained.

The allocation of funds from accumulated assets in environmental trusts is clear evidence of the priority that this Government places on the need to protect native forests of high conservation value and to restructure the forestry industry. The Government is committed to achieving the necessary restructuring in the timber industry with as little disruption as possible. Those who oppose the bill would deprive workers in the New South Wales timber industry of their first hope of a bright and secure future. Restructuring is imperative for the industry because continued decline is inevitable if nothing is done. Without this bill, workers and their families will suffer without support. Honourable members who do not support the bill will live with that thought on their conscience - they will be abandoning timber workers and their families.

In proceeding with the legislation the Government will place emphasis on achieving the appropriate balance and integration between forestry restructuring and nature conservation beliefs. Balance and integration are the key words. It is not a matter of having one or the other. What the Government has on offer is a combined package, and the legislation under consideration will ensure that this package is delivered - both the forestry restructuring element and the improvements to nature conservation. Finally, and most important, I would like the sound a warning to members sitting on the crossbenches who may feel inclined not to support this legislation, which offers relief and hope to an industry that they have regarded as their opponent. The bill underpins the Government's environmental objectives as much as it supports the industry restructuring. Conservation initiatives, including the establishment of 24 new national parks and the protection of old-growth forests, could well languish for lack of funding if the bill does not get the necessary endorsement from this Chamber. The Government's policy is a package, and both environmental and industry reforms will fail if the bill fails. I urge all honourable members to support this rational, sensible bill, which aims at securing a durable resolution of this State's long-running conflict in the forests.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.21]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill. Call to Australia has given a great deal of
Page 2156
consideration to the bill and has heard briefings on it from the Minister for Land and Water Conservation and from the staff of the Minister for the Environment. Call to Australia is pleased that the proposed legislation attempts to balance the competing pressures of conserving old-growth forests and preserving and/or providing jobs for timber workers, jinker owner-drivers and others deeply affected by forestry policies. It is pleasing that the Government under the leadership of the Premier, Mr Carr, has tried to balance the two objectives.

The balanced approach is important because in debates such as this emphasis is sometimes given to the conservation or environmental issue and on other occasions to the employment issue. The Government's initiative to balance both concerns in the one legislative measure is timely. The forestry reforms have at their heart concern for the fate of the timber workers and their families, which has always been the concern of Call to Australia. Our group has been misrepresented. Lies have been told about the group and about me. Because Call to Australia opposed Clover Moore's private member's bill vicious cartoons were produced denigrating the party and portraying the message that our group does not care about forests, the environment or trees. That bill came at the wrong time and had the wrong objectives.

Call to Australia was requested, through correspondence, by the New South Wales Labor Council to vote against that legislation. The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, also said that the legislation should not be supported. Everyone was telling us not to support the legislation, and we did not want to support it ourselves. Because we did not support that bill, Call to Australia was branded as a group viciously opposed to the environment and as having no concern for the environment. I could probably have taken defamation proceedings about some of the material printed before the recent election and distributed by some of the green groups, with the support of the Australian Democrats. However, that is in the past. Over the years I have made it a policy not to be distracted all of the time into defence against false allegations. It is difficult to defend oneself against false allegations and to provide material to all those who have received false material. It is a tragedy that that has occurred, and Call to Australia hopes that it will not happen again.

The concern of Call to Australia about initiatives such as that introduced by Clover Moore, the honourable member for Bligh in the other place, is that they have not taken the balanced approach followed in the introduction of this legislation. Other initiatives have not seemed to show any concern for the workers in the timber industry. Call to Australia is concerned with flesh and blood, with real people, with families - mothers, fathers and children. People have come to my office and that of my wife to share their concerns and have started to cry within a short time - they were unable to continue the discussion because they were heartbroken, distraught, forlorn and felt that they faced a bleak future with no jobs. People explained that they owed money on their houses but would not be able to sell them because no-one would want to buy a house in a timber town if the timber industry there collapsed. Jinker owner-drivers who had mortgaged everything they had and taken out high-interest loans to pay for their vehicles explained that they would not be able to sell their trucks because if the industry collapsed no-one would want a timber jinker, which is specially designed to carry timber.

The people who came to our offices were desperate. I believe that the stress and the anguish they were experiencing affected both their health and the health of their children, as children soon sense the anguish experienced by their parents. Call to Australia is pleased that in this bill the Government has taken a balanced approach to the issue. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation said that the Government has proceeded from the principle that timber workers alone should not have to bear the burden of changes made for the benefit of the whole community. The Call to Australia group supports that concern. It would be inconsistent for a Labor government to take a heartless attitude towards the concerns of workers. I know that pressures from green groups and others have in the past resulted in a lack of balance in Labor policies, when the Labor Party should have been spearheading the concerns for the workers and the timber industry.

I have on a number of occasions visited forestry communities such as Bombala and Eden, I have tramped through the forests with both timber workers and greens and I have had discussions with Dr Bob Brown, who came all the way from Tasmania to lobby me to support his policies. I am always prepared to speak to people, even if I do not necessarily agree with their policies, because it is my belief that members of Parliament, especially those on the crossbenches, should always be open to the arguments from both sides. I have always tried to listen to both sides of an argument and to be a bridge between conflicting groups - in this case the timber industry workers and those deeply affected by the legislation and the extreme green groups, people such as Dr Bob Brown and Peter Garrett, who also came to speak to me, and green activists here in Sydney who are known to honourable members.

Perhaps the Government has come to realise, as the Federal Government has now realised - evidenced by yesterday's statement - that the Greens have milked the Labor Party for as much as they can get and now the Labor Party is the enemy and the Greens will without mercy fight the Keating Labor Government in the next Federal election. So much for Labor Party attempts to woo and work with the Greens - that is the reward it gets - the Greens have now come out with the purpose of destroying the Labor Party. We shall have to wait to find out how that situation unfolds. It is my personal hope - and that of other honourable members, I am sure - that the Greens will not receive any support from the community and that people recognise the extreme policies of the Greens. Dr Singer, who leads the Greens in Victoria, is known to support abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. He is the No. 1 Greens candidate. I hope that the Labor Party will help to promote knowledge of his policies, so that no-one in Victoria will vote for him.

Page 2157

The Hon. Franca Arena: Who is this?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Dr Singer, the leader of the Greens Senate team for the Federal election, has been preselected. I do not know how genuine these people are in their concern for the environment. Maybe they are using the Greens issue to get votes yet they have another agenda altogether. I think there are similar people involved with the Greens standing for Federal election in New South Wales and other States.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: I certainly had something to say about that last week.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I recognise that the Hon. J. R. Johnson issued a statement that was printed. It is not often that anything any of us says is printed, but I am glad that the statement of the Hon. J. R. Johnson exposing the policies of Dr Singer was printed in the newspapers. I hope those policies filter down to the grassroots level of society. Obviously politicians may be aware of these policies. However, voters of all ages, particularly impressionable young voters, including those who support me, may want to save the trees and vote for the Greens while being unaware of their policies. It is important that voters be aware of the policies of the Green candidates, the character and personality of those candidates, and the issues that drive them to become involved in politics. The Green candidates do not reflect the issues that mainstream political parties in this country have ever stood for. Green candidates take an extreme position that does not reflect either Labor or coalition policy; it is a position which is completely foreign to our society. As Dr Brown said, they not only want to take votes off the Australian Democrats and knock them of Parliament altogether, but they want to knock out the Labor Party and form the government. The objective of the Greens is to become the new government of Australia. Imagine a government of Greens in Australia with that hidden agenda!

I call them the watermelon party, because they are usually green on the outside and their extreme policies make them red, or at least very pink, on the inside. Call to Australia is pleased that the Government has embarked on a major restructure of the hardwood timber industry. The pain of that restructure should not be borne entirely by the relatively few ordinary men and women and their families who are involved in that industry. The timber workers are the backbone of the industry. They are decent, hardworking Australians who live, for the most part, in small country towns that are already suffering the effects of the rural downturn and the pressures of the economy. When I met with the Greens in the south-east forests they took me to an old growth forest. I was told that that forest had not undergone timber cutting. We sat for a while on a huge log, which was about three feet in diameter. The log was covered with grass and moss, and it suddenly dawned on me that we were sitting on a part of a tree that had already been logged.

I said to the Greens that they had told me we were in an old growth forest that had not been logged and we were sitting on a log. It turned out that the area had been logged about 50 years ago and we were sitting in a regrown forest that appeared to be a pristine old growth forest that had never been logged. The forest had regrown to such an extent that the Greens believed the area had never been logged. I was then convinced of the value of regrowth policies and that forests can be logged carefully and reasonably. The forest workers showed me how they enter areas to be logged and put ribbons around the trees to be protected because of the presence of wildlife or for other reasons. The branches of some trees may be shaped in a certain way and may shelter koalas or other wildlife. The trees with ribbons around them cannot be logged; the loggers can only log certain trees. The next coup cannot be logged at all, so a whole area of forest is not logged. Selected trees in the next area are logged. The policy under both Labor and Liberal governments has changed dramatically from the policy that existed years ago of clear felling every tree in sight and leaving only bare ground. That no longer happens.

When this issue is debated on the ABC and show some background film is needed, the ABC always seems to screen as old film of clear felling. The film does not have a date, and it is screened as though the clear felling happened last week. That upsets young people, who believe that clear felling should not be taking place - and it is not happening under the current forest policies in this and other States. That is why I introduced a bill to provide for the conservation of the south-east forests. I was happy to have national parks and to have regulations about the selecting and careful harvesting of trees. That process should be contained in legislation so that people understand the policies that are put in place and adhered to by the forestry industry and by State Forests.

The timber workers were facing the threat of having no employment in the future. Workers in the forest industry are not regarded as having highly skilled jobs, so such workers are not well paid. Although they have specialised skills in the timber industry, they lack the necessary skills to readily adapt to other jobs. It has been suggested that timber workers could get jobs as tourist guides, but would a timber worker want to be a tourist guide? Call to Australia is pleased that the Government is providing a financial package that will assist timber workers in various ways. Certain allocations are made for rehousing. I understand that $20,000 has been set aside for each family. Other provisions are made to transfer timber jinker trucks to other sorts of work where they will be taken over by companies. This package will achieve many things.

It is sad that many city people do not realise the hardship that country people endure. Because of the way timber towns have developed, they have become tight-knit communities. Residents of these towns make a positive contribution to our nation because of their strong family lives and their commitment to the communities in which they live. One does not hear
Page 2158
much about rioting and crime in Bombala by the families of those who work in the timber industry. Those communities are law-abiding and peaceful and need the our support. If the reorganisation of the forest industry results in changes to the locations of sawmills and other sources of employment, honourable members cannot be complacent about the prospects for timber workers and their families. I hope the Government, as it has stated, will put the welfare of the workers at the top of its list of priorities. If the Governments does that, it will maintain the balance about which I have been speaking. The Labor Government admitted that changes would have to be made to protect old-growth forests, and that is why it has introduced this structural adjustment package.

Honourable members are pleased that funds are to be allocated, but where is the money to come from? In its wisdom the Government has decided that the $60 million required to fund the structural adjustment package will come from the environmental trusts. That is a start. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation is hopeful that the Federal Labor Government will allocate a matching $60 million grant to this State. I hope that grant will be forthcoming. Honourable members should support the Government in its efforts to obtain Federal support so that the funds available can be doubled to $120 million. That amount will certainly go a long way towards resolving the problems in the forest industry. Some of the green groups oppose the use of funds from the environmental trusts for the restructuring of the forest industry. They believe the funds are being misused. However, some action must be taken, and Call to Australia congratulates the Government on its good financial management. The money must be found and this seems to be the simplest way to find it. The money in the environmental trusts did not come from the greens but from industry. The Government is justified in building this structural adjustment package on to that initial $60 million, which will benefit timber workers and small business people such as truck owner-drivers.

The policies of Call to Australia have always been consistent. We supported owner-drivers in the agricultural and concrete industries, who were affected by recent changes. Through rearrangement of those industries, the owner-drivers were losing the investments they had made in their trucks because they believed they had guaranteed five-year contracts. Those contracts were not written or signed; they were understandings. I am pleased that we have been able to negotiate with both the former coalition Government and the present Government. Those people, who are in truth small business people with few financial resources, cannot survive if they are suddenly deprived of work in which they can use their trucks. Call to Australia is pleased also that the Government has apparently been able to obtain the support of the trade unions that represent the timber workers and other workers in the industry. That is another important way to make sure that no-one suffers a disadvantage as a result of the bill.

I note that the Opposition supports the bill. It is important that the funds to be released are used for retraining, redeployment, relocation and, as a last resort, redundancy payments. The funds will enable timber workers to take advantage of growing job opportunities in the softwood industry and in other growth industries, and will assist those who remain in the hardwood sector to adapt to new technology and new methods. Encouraging developments are already taking place in one or two companies. Those companies propose to establish large operations in forest areas that will provide job opportunities for many timber workers involved in the restructuring. I hope those companies proceed with their plans. It is no good providing job opportunities for timber workers are in Sydney. The job opportunities are needed where the timber workers are located, where their homes and families are, where their children attend school and where they are part of the community.

The release of these funds will allow the employees and self-employed timber workers to remain, wherever possible, in their homes and in their communities. Those who may have to move will be able to do so with dignity. The relocation allowance will enable workers to move to those parts of the State where there are job opportunities. I am pleased that the Government has struck a balance in its approach to the environment. Attention must be paid to nature conservation but compassion must be shown to timber workers and their families must also be remembered. The burden must be shared by the wider community. I was disturbed by some of the comments made by the extreme green members and groups. They seem to be loath to offer any financial assistance to timber workers. They seem to believe that because timber workers cut down trees, they are the enemy and should be given no assistance at all. That is a disgraceful attitude. These men and women are decent Australians who should be given whatever assistance they deserve. They are not the enemy; they are part of our community. The green groups should back off and allow the Government to move forward with the this legislation. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [5.42]: I should like to say a few words about the human issues involved in this debate. For so long honourable members have heard about the hugging trees, about hugging this and hugging that. Thousands of people in the timber getting industry need to be hugged, and their families, who have been hurting, need to be looked after. They have been ignored; trees have been put before people. As my leader said, there must be a balance. The funds provided by the bill will be only a drop in the ocean. Call to Australia hopes that there will be more to come and that timber workers will be looked after; they are flesh and blood. Two generations ago my ancestors in Queensland were timber cutters, and they had a hard life. I have photographs depicting the work they did, how they did it, and how they lived.

Over the years workers in the timber industry have been ignored by the green groups. Last year when we were down in the Eden area I am sad to say
Page 2159
that one man said to us that he was finished completely; his family had been wiped out. His timber jinker had been filled with dirt and sugar and he did not have the money to have it repaired. He said that his family had been wiped off the face of the earth. The timber workers had been to Canberra and had been told by the union representative to go home. I sat in the middle of a group of women, who all said they should not have gone home; they should not have trusted the Government. So the men could sleep, the women had to go into the forest areas at night and guard the trucks to ensure that nothing happened to them.

This is Australia, and Call to Australia believes in a fair go. The greenies were certainly not giving those families a fair go. A man and his wife, whom we know well, were going through this experience and, at the same time, their son was dying from leukaemia. In addition to the pressure resulting from the attacks on their trucks, particularly at night, and the attacks in the daytime when the greenies dug themselves into the ground and climbed trees, the man and his wife went through hell, as the husband described it, watching their young son die. As the Hon. D. J. Gay said earlier in the debate, forestry workers are a close-knit community. I ordered flowers from a nearby town, and the florist asked if the flowers were for the family I have just referred to. When I said that they were, she said that the whole community had been praying for the boy and for his family. It is easy to talk about the greenies and the loggers, but the loggers are people and we need to look after people.

In the beginning God gave Adam dominion over the birds of the air, the fish and the trees. Man was given dominion over the environment. God expects us to look after the environment, but we should not put trees before people. That is what has been happening, and people have been hurting. Trees have been spiked with metal, and honourable members can imagine what that could do to a logger. Only one side of the story has been shown on television. The loggers' side of the story has never been shown. They have been regarded as mutilators. In this Chamber honourable members are sitting on timber benches and at timber tables. The aim of the greenies is to do away altogether with logging in Australia.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: This will not be the end of it.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: No, but it is a step. Although communities who have lived in particular towns and worked at particular sawmills for generations may face the emotional hazard of being uprooted and moved to other places, people will be encouraged by this bill. Call to Australia congratulates the Government for at least having gone this far. We hope the Government will not back down on the bill as a result of the meeting of crossbench members that is taking place at the moment. Call to Australia is grateful for any assistance that can be given to loggers. For that reason we support the bill.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.48]: The Shooters Party supports the bill and commends the Government for the decision announced in the last hour to refer the Coolah Tops area to the Resources and Conservation Assessment Council. My colleague the Hon. A. G. Corbett and I have been pressing the Government to do this, simply because it seemed to us that the Coolah community is in a unique position and, of all the people in this State, has a case for special consideration. In the beginning, the Government did not want to know about this. As honourable members would know, some time ago four members of the crossbench - the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. A. G. Corbett, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and I - went to the Coolah area. I will not readily forget the 4½ hours we spent bouncing around through a soaking wet forest. I thought we were to attend a community meeting in the town, and I was dressed as I am now. I ended up soaking wet and freezing cold. I was also left with a very strong impression of how hard life can be in forest areas. When we went to the mill, I will not easily forget seeing the women and children whose families worked in the mill and in the town huddled in a leaking mill waiting to say to us, "Please do not let them destroy our town. This is the only thing we have going for us. It is the only work we have, the only home we know, the only thing that we can do that we will be happy to do."

On returning to Sydney we asked the Ministers concerned whether they would consider referring the matter to the RACAC for consideration. We were assured that if the matter were referred to the RACAC it would be asked to consider the compromise option of including a important area of old-growth forest to the east of the national park to provide room for selective logging to continue under State Forests control. As I understand it, that is the proposition to be put to the RACAC. If it finds that a compromise is possible - surely to goodness compromise is the answer to all extreme positions - and the town of Coolah can continue with the milling that has been its main and only industry since 1916 then something will have been achieved. We support the bill. Most of all, we commend the Government for having the good sense and foresight to change its mind, to yield to our importuning and to refer the matter to the RACAC. To me, that is probably the most important thing that has happened during the progress of the bill through the Parliament. I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.


Debate resumed from 17 October.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.53]: I have a T-shirt at home that says on the front that I was mentioned in the Metherell diaries.

Page 2160

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Favourably?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No-one was mentioned favourably in the Metherell diaries; nor was I. The T-shirt is a matter of pride: I was mentioned because of my faith and belief in country towns. At the time of the Metherell affair I fought against my coalition partner in opposition to changes to conveyancing that would be detrimental to country towns.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Metherell diaries were not all accurate.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: They were accurate in that respect. I mention this at the beginning of my speech to show that for a long time I have been fighting the cause of suburban and small country town solicitors - not because I am a solicitor, not because I believe in monopolies, but because I believe in the right of country people to have services available. The matters raised by the National Party previously are relevant today. I am sure that, given a conscience vote, some Labor Party members would support my views. I hope that the minor parties bear in mind where their votes come from. I know that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile support my view on this bill but I am unsure of the views of other crossbench members. Almost all crossbench members of the House live in country areas and are part of country communities. They know the importance of people in those areas.

Time after time Labor has removed a service from a country community and put it into the cities. This forces country communities to close. It is poignant that debate on this bill follows debate on the forestry bill, another bill that will accelerate the demise of country communities. The Carr Government seems relentlessly determined to gut regional New South Wales. It was claimed in the debate on the forestry bill that everyone would win, but that is not the case. As the Hon. J. S. Tingle said, families have been in areas for generations and they will be split and forced to move away. The situation is similar with country solicitors. I am not a solicitor and in some regards I have a healthy disrespect for solicitors.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Is that healthy?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I think so. From the point of view of arguing with people, it is healthy. It is not as unhealthy as what the Government is trying to do to country communities.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: I think you are just a bush lawyer.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Minister for Community Services would know about bush lawyers. Perhaps they are running the Government, which has not taken into consideration the ramifications for people Labor claims to represent. They will not have services. It is a bit rich for the Minister to even attempt to be critical of me on this matter. He is a genuinely caring and decent bloke and his ministry is charged with looking after people. Probably there could not have been a better choice within the Labor Party for someone to have the ministry. Sometimes he does not get the support he deserves. I was shocked to hear the Minister's interjection because he should be looking after the community. This bill does not look after the community; it has a particular political bent and people are not taken into consideration. The small amount of conveyancing left will move to city-orientated people. I have a letter from my local solicitor, Mr Phil Meckiff of Robert J. McCarthy and Company in Crookwell, dated 19 October. He wrote:

At the outset, I believe that the availability of professional legal services in country areas is heading along the same path as the availability of Medical Practitioners . . .

We all know that the lack of doctors in rural areas is another contributing factor to the demise of regional centres.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Is it due only to the greed of doctors?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Not entirely. To say that would be unfair on doctors in general and in particular but it is a fact that there are problems in attracting doctors to country areas. There will also be problems in keeping solicitors in country areas if the bill is passed.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It is the domino theory. Once you take away one, others follow.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: That is correct. It seems to be a hidden agenda, though I do not know why. There are some decent people in the Labor Party, but the demise of regional centres in New South Wales is high on Labor's agenda; it pervades the whole of Labor's thinking.

The Hon. Franca Arena: That is not true.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It is true. If it were not true, why is it that everything Labor does day after day, every piece of legislation it introduces, every promise it breaks, seems to have one basis: the demise of regional New South Wales, and the stupidity of forcing more people onto the eastern seaboard and into already overcrowded cities? That is the direct result of what Labor is doing. Mr Meckiff continued:

I believe that the availability of professional legal services in country areas is heading along the same path as the availability of Medical Practitioners in rural areas. We are a dying race and I believe that when the last of [my partner] Tim or myself retires from practice in Crookwell that will be the end of permanent legal services available in this town and as the firm presently stands the end of at least six jobs.

Six jobs in a small community are very important.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Another nail in the coffin for small country towns.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Exactly. Changes now before this House to the legislation affecting conveyancing procedures will have a dramatic impact on legal firms practising in rural areas of New South Wales. Apart from solicitors practising in large regional centres with populations in excess of 30,000
Page 2161
people, of which there are only half a dozen or so in the State, most rural legal firms rely on conveyancing fees for a substantial part of their gross income. If they do not have access to such fees there is a substantial and actual risk that many of these firms will close and that rural communities will lose the benefit of affordable and convenient access to legal services.

Traditionally, solicitors in rural communities provide a range of services that extends far beyond the work carried out in their legal offices. It is the rare country solicitor who is not involved in a wide variety of cultural, charitable, social, sporting, religious and other community activities. Solicitors bring to those organisations their experience and knowledge. Their involvement invariably means that legal work is performed on a purely honorary basis. I am sure that many members who are involved in rural communities will be aware that local lawyers are invariably the mainstays of charities, church groups, racing clubs and amateur dramatic clubs in rural communities.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: And community-aid panels.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Yes. Many people in regional New South Wales facing drought problems have received pro bono assistance from their local lawyers. That sort of assistance provided by rural lawyers has been just incredible. Myriad forms had to be filled in for drought assistance and many country people found that daunting, but their local solicitors gave them a lot of help. Commonly, solicitors involved with local organisations provide expertise on incorporation of associations, matters relating to the constitution of the organisation, compliance with regulations imposed by governmental agencies - which for the most part are completely unknown to the average layman - the conduct of meetings and sundry other matters. The person who helped me a great deal in preparing for this debate was John McCaffrey. I read in the "Agenda" section of the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 October that Mr McCaffrey said he was involved with numerous charitable organisations in meeting the requirements of the recently introduced Charitable Collections Act - the details of which and even the existence of which are generally unknown within community organisations - and that country solicitors regularly provide pro bono work in this regard. Anyone interested in this matter should read the "Agenda" article to which I refer. It said:

Mr John McCaffrey, who has been a solicitor in Coonabarabran for 15 years, says the demise of the duty solicitor scheme in country towns would have alarming consequences: "The effect on the public is that they might appear in courts on serious charges without legal representation. There is a real risk of that.

"If there is not a lawyer in town and the court is sitting, where does the duty solicitor come from? The legal aid office in Dubbo or Bathurst or Orange?

Mr McCaffrey is from Coonabarabran, and I am sure that the Hon. J. R. Johnson knows where that is, as would most members who are now in the Chamber. Members could well imagine the trip that a legal aid solicitor would have to make to Coonabarabran from Dubbo, Bathurst or Orange. Mr McCaffrey continued:

"Who will pay for the hours of travelling time each way? Can the Government provide a solicitor for less than the private practitioners are providing at the moment?

Mr McCaffrey is saying that if the Government forces the solicitors who are now providing this service out of their jobs, at the end of the day the Government, through the taxpayers, will have to provide a duty solicitor as required under the legal aid or other legislation. To use a favourite expression of the Treasurer, this is very silly stuff. Mr McCaffrey continued:

"But it is not only those who need legally aided representation who will suffer if the country solicitor leaves town. Lawyers play a broad and vital role in rural communities, providing hours of free advice.

"We don't get out the time sheet as soon as someone walks in the door," Mr McCaffrey said. "This has been a devastated drought declared area for the past 12 months and most people can't afford to pay the bill anyway."

I can attest that Coonabarabran has been one of the worst drought-affected areas in New South Wales. Last year with the shadow minister for agriculture I attended a drought committee meeting in Coonabarabran organised by the local pastures protection boards. Mr McCaffrey continued:

"Furthermore, the pro bono work performed by country lawyers extends far beyond free consultations given in the office.

In his 15 years as a solicitor in Coonabarabran, Mr McCaffrey has served as president of the local rugby union club, secretary and vice-president of the racing club, secretary of a nursing home and the honorary solicitor for a plethora of local community organisations and charities.

I must say from my experience with solicitors in other country towns and my own local solicitors, Phil Meckiff and Tim McCarthy, that they are exactly the same. My knowledge of solicitors in Goulburn, including a great member of the Labor Party, Brian Lulham, with whom I played rugby years ago, is that they do exactly the same thing.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Is he in the Labor Party?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Yes. He must have been in one too many scrums.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: He is a very intelligent fellow.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Yes, he is a very intelligent fellow. I wonder what he thinks about what the Labor Party is doing to country solicitors. I am sure he would not be too happy about it. Should law firms in country towns be sent to the wall as a result of the further encroachments now proposed on traditional areas of legal work? The benefit of solicitors being active in their local community will be lost. Much is made of the legal aid scheme that provides representation to any financially disadvantaged person appearing in court on a wide
Page 2162
range of criminal charges. It is often overlooked that the willingness of private practitioners to participate in the legal aid scheme, such as acting as duty solicitors in the Local Court, is fundamental and crucial to the operation of the scheme. Private solicitors agree to participate in the duty solicitor scheme for substantially lower fees than those charged in other areas of legal work.

I know of no country solicitor who depends on the duty solicitor scheme for a significant portion of his or her income. Accordingly, it follows that solicitors agree to do that work at least to some extent on a pro bono basis and in recognition of their obligation to provide necessary services. If private practitioners withdrew from the scheme, one wonders whether the Government could afford to maintain the guarantee to the community that virtually all persons charged with a criminal offence will have access to legal representation. Perhaps the Government should now be warned that the legislative changes it proposes in conveyancing, motor vehicle litigation and workers compensation will have such a dramatic effect on the financial viability of so many lawyers that they may no longer continue legal aid work on the present basis.

If lawyers cease practising in country towns where the Local Court sits, the Government will be forced to expand the services provided by solicitors employed by and paid for by the Government to travel to a court to provide representation. Does this Government really think it can provide such a service for any less than it is now being provided by private practitioners? The answer to that question is no. It will cost a lot more. This is just part of the stupid short-sightedness behind the bill. Lawyers, particularly in country towns, have relied on conveyancing for a substantial part of their practices. Various surveys conducted by the Law Society, the Financial Management Research Centre of Armidale and other institutions have found that conveyancing fees represent as much as 80 per cent of their income.

As part of a service-based industry law firms rely on a relatively high proportion of staff to generate gross fees. If gross fees are affected by the legislative changes proposed by the Government, staff levels will be reduced and there will be more unemployment in country towns. If that is the Labor Party reflecting the views of workers in country towns, it is not the Labor Party the Hon. J. R. Johnson grew up with. I am sure he is terribly unhappy with this bill. I wonder what his true feelings are when he hears his Government deliberately trying to scale down services and disadvantage people in country areas. If law firms close or reduce staff, people will have to leave country towns, seek work in regional centres or cities, or remain unemployed. Such a situation would also result from the forestry bill, which the House discussed earlier. There was talk about all the winners - but not everyone will be a winner; there will also be a lot of losers. This bill creates a lot of losers. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby would be concerned about this bill. She has just moved to Temora, and the people there will be concerned about the loss of their local solicitors and the employment they generate.

Many secretaries are married to farmers and are therefore also engaged in agricultural activities. If they were to lose their jobs the effect on their families would be dramatic. One must ask why this Government is determined to allow conveyancers to act on transactions involving commercial property, including rural land. The legal considerations that invariably apply to such transactions are more complex than with residential property. Referring only to rural land, issues to be taken into account include taxation measures affecting depreciation, standing crops and livestock, the requirements of the Crown Lands Act for conversion of title and payment, rentals and balance of purchase price, enclosure permits and the rights in the nature of permissive occupancies, and issues of access.

Do licensed conveyancers possess the necessary skills and body of knowledge required to deal with those matters and so many others? I am sure anyone who has been involved in country communities knows the incredible problems associated with those estates - with aunts, uncles and distant cousins all becoming involved. It is a legal nightmare. Since the previous Government deregulated legal fees for conveyancing and allowed licensed conveyancers to handle residential property, fees charged by solicitors for conveyancing work have already been substantially reduced. There is anecdotal evidence that licensed conveyancers are complaining that they cannot compete with solicitors on fees in the current deregulated environment. My local solicitor, Mr Meckiff, has said:

In relation to Conveyancing I can only say that I believe we can provide a competitive service to our clients and it will probably not have a serious effect in remoter areas as it would in large rural cities, the suburbs or the greater metropolitan areas, but nevertheless we are already experiencing situations where previously good and loyal clients are having conveyancing work done by licensed Conveyancers in the belief they are cheaper without even obtaining a quote from their local practitioner.

This is of concern. The previous Government computerised the Land Titles Office, which resulted in a reduction in cost and a quicker turnaround. Clients of solicitors are aware that legal fees have been deregulated, and solicitors are constantly asked for quotes to perform conveyancing work. Legislative changes implemented by the previous Government now require solicitors to advise clients at the commencement of any legal work the fees they will charge. Clients have the opportunity to obtain quotations from various solicitors, to negotiate and bargain the fees. The Government should not think that the legal profession's opposition to its proposals regarding conveyancing, workers compensation and motor vehicle litigation is merely an attempt by lawyers to preserve monopolies or maintain high incomes. The changes, if implemented, will affect the financial viability of virtually every law firm in country New South Wales, threaten the jobs provided by many of those firms, and lead to the closure of
Page 2163
some of them. This is not an idle threat. Statistics collected by the Law Society reveal that 568 of the State's one-partner firms generated gross fees of less than $50,000, but by the time the firms paid the normal operating costs the return to the proprietor was negligible. A common perception - one I can only assume that this Government shares - is that lawyers universally are wealthy and derive large incomes through little effort, and that the proposed changes will simply trim their feathers by an insignificant degree. I reiterate that this is far from the case: these changes will affect lawyers, particularly country lawyers, dramatically.

Sadly, the Labor Party is trying to rekindle some kind of class war that died 100 years ago. Australian society has no place for class wars, yet the Labor Party at the Federal and State level continues to try to create class wars. It does so when dealing with matters such as tertiary entrance rank marks relating to certain suburbs, or roads on the north shore compared with those in the eastern or western suburbs. The Labor Party view appears to be that if it cannot fix a problem it can distract people by creating another class war. Keating does it day after day. The Premier of this State should draw people together, not create a class war. Such an approach is unacceptable and should be rejected.

A wider issue that should not be overlooked in this debate is that for many years the viability of small country towns has been affected by the process of regionalisation. The closing of bank branches, the reorganisation of government departments and the growth of regional centres have contributed greatly to a diminution in the quality of life in small communities and the services provided to them. In more recent times a crisis has developed in the provision of medical services when doctors leave country towns and cannot be replaced, and hospitals, ambulance stations and other like facilities are pressured into closing or being scaled down. Do we want the same pattern to develop with legal services?

It would be a little generous to say that the Government did not intend - it almost certainly did - the adverse effects of this bill. Is it the Government's intention to not only preside over, but actively encourage, the decline of country towns? If so, will the Government announce to voters in rural electorates, in places like Broken Hill and Bathurst - the only two rural seats it holds - that it no longer wants lawyers operating in those areas? Is it part of some government blueprint that legal services will now be provided only in a handful of regional centres and along the eastern seaboard of this State? If so, let the Government announce that policy to the electorate. This bill will surely mean the end of legal services in rural communities. Therefore, I will continue to fight it, and at every opportunity I will alert country people to the pressures placed on country towns by the Labor Party through this measure. It is not acceptable.

In conclusion, I call on the minor parties to look carefully at this bill. They should forget their existing perceptions and consider what they are voting for - that is, whether the Labor Party should preside over the demise of regional centres in New South Wales. Some members of the Labor Party are not interested in people in those areas any more; they are not interested in the people they claim to represent. We have seen examples of Labor's lack of interest with the shooters' issue, timber workers losing jobs, and now rural legal practices and the people employed by them.

[The President left the chair at 6.25 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [8.00]: I have lived in the country for a considerable time. Therefore, I took the opportunity to speak both to members of the legal profession in country areas - particularly in the Hunter - and a number of people involved in business and commerce, to find out precisely what they thought about the Conveyancers Licensing Bill. The more people I spoke to, the more concerned I became about the procedures and changes to conveyancing practice that the bill would introduce, particularly in the country but also in the cities. The Parliament has, in the past 25 years in particular, considered significant legislation under what might generally be given the broad-brush heading of consumer reform. Such legislation has typically been passed after extensive consultation with consumers and any interest group that could be found. The common theme of much of that legislation was the recognition that consumers needed protection against the incompetent or fraudulent supply of certain classes of goods or services that particularly affected those who owned or were about to own residential property.

It would be fair to say that some of the reforms introduced have not been entirely successful. The history of licensing within the building industry is one such example. Other changes have been largely successful. The amendments to the Conveyancing Act and the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act requiring the preparation of contracts prior to listing a property for sale and allowing agents to participate in the exchange of contracts have been adopted by the community and represent an important factor in the decline of a most unpleasant practice called gazumping. To that end there has been a great deal of success. It should be noted, however, that a common element in the reforms I have mentioned is their relationship to residential property. The Parliament was of the view that owners and buyers of residential property were in special need of protection in the areas outlined above. It was thought, rightly, that persons involved in non-residential property transactions were typically big enough to look after themselves. Consequently, the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992 embraced what may be described as a similar philosophy. Fundamental to that Act was a definition of conveyancing work, which, as the House will recall, was limited to matters affecting residential property.

The definition of residential property was identical to that used in the Conveyancing Act except that it included land having an area up to but not more
Page 2164
than 10 hectares. The current legislation received assent on 8 October 1992 and commenced full operation on 10 September 1993. The philosophy of the legislation was that the provision of services for residential conveyancing needed to be extended beyond solicitors. A view was held that the solicitors' monopoly of that conveyancing needed to be changed. Vendors and purchasers of residential property can now choose between solicitors and experienced and licensed conveyancers. Approximately 50 persons have satisfied the Conveyancers Licensing Committee of their eligibility under the so-called grandfathering provisions. There is no doubt that their numbers will be increased in due course by persons completing an approved course of education covering the conveyancing of residential property. This bill states that there is no real difference between the sale or purchase of a residential property and the adjusting of rights in any real or personal property, which, of course, must be subject to some limitations. That is not a new philosophy. It was suggested when the 1992 legislation was being considered, but at that time the suggestion was rejected. The Attorney General of the time said:

The limitation to residential property of up to 10 hectares reflects the fact that this is the scope of work within which conveyancers presently operate and thus is within their knowledge. To go beyond this increases the risk to the client concerned. Non-residential property conveyancing is, as a general rule, more complex and carries the possibility of ancillary transactions which add to the complexity and difficulty of the matter.

That was a fair statement and has stood the test of time. Licensed conveyancers were introduced by the former Government and, in the main, have been associated with domestic conveyancing. Whether the additional training and qualifications that would be required to undertake non-residential conveyancing would for the volume of matters that may be concerned be of any benefit to the consumer must be questioned. Nothing that I have seen or heard since the Minister's second reading speech has convinced me that the Attorney General of the time got it wrong, to use a colloquialism. It is foolish and dangerous to suggest that there is no real difference between buying and selling a house or a home unit and buying or selling a business, a farm or shares in a company. It is proper that the House consider a number of examples that make my point abundantly clear.

The sale of a residential property normally involves two key players, a vendor and a purchaser. They are basically free to contract as they wish. In most cases, however, their respective banks may also have an interest, principally in supplying the funding for the deal. That is peripheral, however, to this argument. By contrast, the sale of a business typically involves up to three parties; the vendor and the purchaser are joined by the owner of the freehold of a business. Any deal between a seller and a buyer of a business must be approved by the owner of the freehold. At the least this will involve the transfer of an existing lease, in many cases it may go further and involve the granting of a new lease. The balancing of the interests of the buyer and the seller and of the freehold owner is often difficult and requires a wealth of skills and knowledge well beyond those involved in the sale and purchase of a domestic property. I am aware from my involvement in a number of business transactions and a practice sale of the complexity that may come with the granting of a new lease and in determining many of these factors. The sale or purchase of a business is much more financially complex than the sale or purchase of a residential property. By far the most common method of financing a residential purchase is borrowing from a financial institution. The method and consequences of doing that are well known to the public.

By contrast, however, many businesses are financed innovatively. Bills of sale, chattel mortgages and deeds of charge are not uncommonly used. Vendor finance is another possibility. Clause 4(3)(e) recognises that the role of licensed conveyancers should not extend to giving investment or financial advice. To suppose that a purchaser of a small business can adequately be advised without the receipt of such information would be naive in the extreme and dangerous in particular. The typical residence is usually purchased in the name of the purchaser or purchasers individually. It is relatively uncommon, from the inquiries that I have made, for the purchaser of a residential property to buy in the name of a company or trust, though I acknowledge that it happens.

By contrast, however, it is essential that the prospective buyer of a business - or for that matter an investment property - be advised whether to purchase the property in his or her name or whether to use a different legal structure. Taxation and other financial implications can be dramatic if the incorrect advice is given. Within a year or two years the purchaser may find himself in a situation of his own making. Such advice clearly must be considered financial advice. A purchase or sale of a business often involves the giving and releasing of personal guarantees. Such guarantees may be simple but in a number of cases they may be extremely complex. I am sure honourable members know of the devastating financial effects when something goes wrong and the person giving the guarantee is left to clean up the mess. That cannot be properly explained under the proposition in the Conveyancers Licensing Bill.

The purchase of a residential property typically is for a single price. By contrast, both a seller and a buyer of a non-residential property or business must apportion the price between such things as improvements, goodwill and plant and equipment. It will not do one any good to tell the Australian Taxation Office that one was not well advised or had made a mistake. So far as the tax office is concerned the proper advice should have been obtained. Failure to do so can have a dramatic impact on the financial position of both the buyer and the seller. Under this bill the licensed conveyancer would be precluded from giving critical investment or financial advice to the purchaser.

Page 2165

A sale or purchase of residential property is rarely in trade or commerce. The sale and purchase of most other types of property - in particular the sale and purchase of businesses - is commonly in trade or commerce. The impact of the Trade Practices Act 1974 of the Commonwealth Parliament and this Parliament's Fair Trading Act 1987 must loom large in the sale or purchase of any business. The purchaser who finds that misleading statements were made about leasing a property or that the seating capacity of the premises were overstated has rights and significant remedies under one or both of the aforementioned Acts. If the client has such rights, the licensed conveyancer cannot pursue them in the appropriate court. The conveyancer, with reluctance, must say to the client, "You have rights", which is probably helpful, but must then say, "I am terribly sorry, I cannot pursue them for you. You need to see a solicitor. Good luck." That is a scary prospect for anyone in that position.

What of the business with an associated liquor licence? From time to time I have held a number of spirit licences, Australian wine licences, and restaurant licences in both a restaurant and a vineyard in the Hunter. Therefore, I am well aware that the existence of a liquor licence may not be immediately apparent to a prospective purchaser who consults a conveyancer licensed under this bill to act on the purchase of a restaurant. After the conveyancer has progressed part of the way through the purchase, he will be obliged to tell the client that he cannot complete the process. The client must get part of the work done elsewhere, with obvious duplication of costs, work and time, or the entire file must be transferred to a solicitor.

In these situations costs will rise and the results will be unclear. None of these examples is designed to criticise the exclusions to the definition of conveyancing work in clause 4(3) of the bill. It is proper that those exclusions be there. But the bill is fundamentally deficient in providing an understanding of what is involved in the sale and purchase of, for example, a business. A client of a licensed conveyancer involved in such a transaction will, at best, have to use other professional advisers to complete large parts of even the most basic transaction. That must have an impact on the overall costs of the transaction, create duplications and, inevitably, delay the transaction, and those delays can be lengthy. More important for the consumer - something that should concern the Government - is the risk of part of the transaction slipping through the cracks. That happens even when professional advisers are employed. If this bill proceeds, it certainly will happen. When it does, I imagine the conveyancer will point to the legislation and say, in effect, "It was not my job to do what you said I should have done." That will create monumental legal nightmares and problems.

It is the Opposition's view that a person who is to convey the interests in real and personal property contemplated in this bill - going far beyond residential property - cannot do so with the limited definition of conveyancing work. It is quite proper to limit that definition in the interests of protecting consumers. If the definition is limited, the licensed conveyancer should not do the work. The bill proposes that the licensing and regulatory functions conferred by the existing Act are to be transferred to the Real Estate Services Council, which is to be renamed the Property Services Council. That council has done much good work in the regulation of real estate agents. The Opposition believes that the role of real estate agents and the role of licensed conveyancers are fundamentally different. The regulatory and licensing activities that the council currently pursues relating to agents will be of little relevance to the regulation and licensing of licensed conveyancers.

The bill recognises the fundamentally conflicting roles between real estate agents and licensed conveyancers. Clause 19 allows for multidisciplinary partnerships, but specifically prohibits a partnership with a person who is the holder of a licence or certificate of registration under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 1941. If a partnership between a real estate agent and a licensed conveyancer is inappropriate, what logic is there is having the licensing and regulatory functions of both bodies controlled by a single body? What will be the cost to the community of the Real Estate Services Council expanding to deal with matters already regulated in respect of solicitors by the Council of the Law Society? How much duplication will be involved? Will the reinvention of the wheel be in the best interests of the people of this State? I believe that the public interest is not and would not be served by such duplication.

The bill shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the processes involved in the sale and purchase of non-residential property. To allow licensed conveyancers to enter the field is against the best interests of consumers and to pursue this course, even before the first graduates of the educational program instituted under the 1992 Act have completed their training, is to act in indecent haste. If passed, the bill will not serve the interests of consumers. It will, perhaps, be a boon to the current crop of 50 licensed conveyancers and will increase the income of statutory interest accounts established under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act. Consumers who approach a licensed conveyancer expecting comprehensive and competent advice will, at the end of the day, probably find themselves paying heavily for that advice, and in some cases for the lack of advice that the licensed conveyancers were able to give them. It is for those reasons that I cannot support the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.21]: I oppose the bill. The legislation comes mainly under the portfolio responsibility of my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, who shadows the Minister for Consumer Affairs. However, I shadow that part of the Minister's portfolio that relates to women and I am concerned about the impact the proposed legislation will have on women, particularly women who may have received a property settlement after a divorce and are attempting to establish themselves in
Page 2166
business. Those women may need expert advice, perhaps on the leasing of a shop, the purchasing of a block of units or a small factory, or a variety of matters that would enable them to continue their lives as businesswomen. The advice may relate to investing wisely the very small amount of money they may have received in their property settlement. The explanatory note to the legislation states:

The scope of the conveyancing work that can be performed by licensed conveyancers is extended to encompass all real and personal property transactions, including the sale or lease of land, the sale of a business (including goodwill and stock-in-trade) and the grant of a mortgage or other charge.

The explanatory note continues:

Existing restrictions on the drawing up of mortgages and obtaining consents to subdivision, building and development are also removed.

It is not quite the simple matter that the Government may be suggesting. I do not understand the necessity for a conveyancer to draw up a mortgage when mortgages are available in printed form drawn up by leading solicitors in this State complete except as to details of the capacity of the purchaser to repay, the agreed rate of interest and matters of that kind. It may be dangerous to give licensed conveyancers the authority to obtain consents to subdivision, building and development. Those are highly complex matters that involve a multiplicity of environmental or local government legislation. If they are not handled carefully a great deal of money can be lost and the business person concerned may suffer. The overview of the bill states:

Existing provisions that require licensed conveyancers to have fidelity insurance (to protect clients from defalcations) are replaced with provisions requiring licensed conveyancers to contribute to the Real Estate Services Council Compensation Fund and providing for defalcations to be compensated from that Fund. That Fund is currently the fidelity fund for licensees (such as real estate agents) under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 1941. The existing requirement that licensed conveyancers have professional indemnity insurance is not affected.

The fidelity fund and fidelity insurance are not strong enough to protect clients. I am given to understand that although the Real Estate Services Council Compensation Fund totals $30 million, only $1 million of that is to be made available to licensed conveyancers. If a property development or business deal were to fall through one might well need compensation exceeding $1 million.

I should also like to put the following facts on the record. I was advised by Maurie Stack, President of the Law Society of New South Wales, that when this legislation was first introduced a delegation of local solicitors met the Minister and challenged her to explain why Cabinet had made a decision on 11 July 1995, two weeks before the Minister wrote her first and only letter to the Law Society indicating that she wanted its views and informing the society that it would be kept advised of developments. That is not consultation; it is the issue of an edict with the expectation that everyone will follow it. The Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women explained to members of the Law Society that she had been instructed by the Cabinet to treat its decision as secret.

This legislation has a direct impact on the legal profession, and members of the public may find it strange that the Government did not consider there was a need to consult the lawyers. My second point of concern relates to the educational requirements because the bill does not precisely clarify those requirements. It would seem that the determination of those requirements is at the discretion of the Minister, and that is quite unsatisfactory. However, I am given to understand that the intention is that those who wish to become licensed conveyancers will be required to undertake a two-year course of study at a tertiary institution. The Government has argued that those who undertake the course - which I believe will be at Macquarie University - will leave the university with more knowledge of property matters than solicitors, who may have studied conveyancing as only a small part of their total law degree. I believe that the Government will create a subcategory of lawyers who will be licensed to do much of the work of lawyers, apart from court work.

Students who undertake law at university are required to meet very high academic standards. In fact, to get into a law faculty one now probably has to have a tertiary entrance score in the nineties. Students who do not meet the high academic standards will not gain entry to the law course. Law students are also continually monitored during their four years of study. Perhaps the Minister in reply will inform the House what controls will be in place to ensure that students who undertake conveyancing courses have to meet the same high standards. Why would any student elect to study conveyancing for two years when studying for an additional year or two would result in a qualification allowing that person to practise as a solicitor, allowing a full legal professional career, not just a career in professional conveyancing? Another argument put forward by the Government is that the bill will lead to a reduction in costs. A briefing note prepared by the Law Society of New South Wales on the bill, which I received this month states at point 8:

Solicitors, before the advent of licensed conveyancers, had driven down the costs of their services in relation to conveyancing transactions. The current low level of conveyancing costs is illustrated by the following example. The median price of a house in Sydney determined by the Real Estate Institute in respect of the June 1995 quarter was $220,000. A solicitor acting for the purchaser of that property would charge, on the purchase, costs within the range of $500-$900. The vendor's agent would charge about $6,000. The purchaser would pay New South Wales stamp duty of $5,563.

So it would appear that the main costs to the purchaser are certainly not the costs of conveyancing now charged by average solicitors. The main costs are stamp duty and the commission of the vendor's agent. Now that solicitors are permitted to advertise, any local newspaper in a country town or in the suburbs of Sydney advertises conveyancing charges as low as $500 to $750. So people can have their
Page 2167
conveyancing done at that rate by fully-qualified solicitors. I am happy to admit that before solicitors could advertise they could not be as competitive in conveyancing charges as they can be now. Solicitors determined to make the majority of their business conveyancing can now advertise that fact and their charges. I believe members of the public are no longer concerned that the conveyancing fee is a high cost in the purchasing of a property. The Government argued that the introduction of licensed conveyancers to the marketplace caused the cost of conveyancing to fall. This is a fallacy: lawyers can now advertise, and this is what has contributed to the reduction in cost.

Members of the Opposition asked the Government to consider the large number of solicitors already in practice. In addition, 9,000 students are presently undertaking law degrees at university. Therefore, the sheer number of legal practitioners in the marketplace will ensure that conveyancing costs will remain competitive. There is no reason for the Government to fear that the cost of conveyancing will suddenly rise. Conveyancing problems, particularly in New South Wales, can be extremely complex. The Government seems to assume that conveyancing is always a simple matter. This is certainly not the case in New South Wales, which, unlike South Australia, has old system title. The Minister queried why I was opposed to the bill as similar legislation had worked perfectly well in South Australia. In South Australia all property is Torrens title; there is no old system title. There is very little land which is still Crown land and under Crown lease. New South Wales also has mining leases, water licences, water rights, State planning laws, tax laws and mortgage and security law. It is common to have several different types of title within one agricultural property.

There are also problems related to closer settlement leaseholds. New South Wales has freehold and, as I said before, Torrens title and old system title. Business arrangements can include goodwill, plant, stock, perishables and customer relationships. Whatever some people may believe, it is not a good idea for the Government to extend the conveyancing legislation that was introduced by the previous administration to cover commercial and rural properties. It is a dangerous move, and that is the basis of my concern.

Earlier I dealt with the level of indemnity - only $1 million. That does not provide adequate consumer protection when buildings may cost between $5 million and $10 million, particularly blocks of units or commercial premises. Problems may arise when people are setting up in business. Women particularly may wish to lease property to carry out a small business. The majority of businesses owned by women are hairdressing establishments, gift shops, florists, et cetera. These types of businesses operate successfully in major shopping centres. Yet, as I am sure the Hon. B. H. Vaughan is well aware, leases with some of the major retail shopping centres are extremely complicated and the landlords are not particularly sympathetic towards small business people. They are ruthless in leasing a property to a person with an assurance that there will be no competition and then offering a lease to a person to open an identical business next door, which would result in neither business surviving.

Only today I received a letter from the Australian Consumers Association suggesting that I should support the Conveyancers Licensing Bill in the interest of the consumers of New South Wales. I query why the Australian Consumers Association has had such a change of heart. I refer to a document I obtained from the Parliamentary Library, prepared by the Association of Property Conveyancers Inc., entitled "The Path to Reform of Conveyancing Laws in NSW", dated February 1992. In 1992 the Australian Consumers Association said that licensed non-solicitor conveyancers should not be allowed to deal with any property that comes under old system title. The legislation before the House, if passed, will allow licensed conveyancers to deal with old system title. The Australian Consumers Association now believes this legislation should be supported.

I have received a document from one of the Minister's advisers which says that at present there are 40 licensed conveyancers, none of whom operate trust accounts. Of the 42 licences issued, none has been issued west of the Blue Mountains. I do not understand how the Government can be proud of the fact that licensed conveyancers are in business and none of them operates a trust account. I was in business with a partner as a theatrical agent. We operated a trust account. Travel agents, solicitors and real estate agents have to operate trust accounts. What is so magical about licensed conveyancers that they do not have to operate trust accounts? Perhaps the Minister has an explanation. I believe it is a dangerous move.

Trust account inspectors usually make a thorough inspection of the money that flows through trust accounts. They will not clear a solicitor until every cent is accounted for. But the bill provides that the Property Services Council will fulfil the same role as trust account inspectors if conveyancers decide to operate trust accounts. The operation of trust accounts is optional. If conveyancers wish to have trust accounts, they will, but no-one will compel them to do so. I would be much happier about this legislation if the Government intended to force licensed conveyancers to have trust accounts. I simply cannot understand why the Government has not done that. At the moment the 40 licensed conveyancers are content to use the trust accounts of solicitors who may be involved in property transactions with which they are dealing. That is an admission that they need the assistance of solicitors. I did not find the briefing note particularly helpful. Another document I bring to the attention of honourable members is a Trade Practices Commission draft report, dated October 1993, entitled "Study of the Professions: Legal". The Trade Practices Commission made what I believe to be a dangerous statement. It stated:

Page 2168

New areas of work that could be performed by appropriately trained and/or experienced non-lawyers which are currently within the work reserved to legal practitioners and which, could be made less complex and more standardised through the simplification of laws or tasks. Submissions made to the Commission have identified areas within the definition of legal work which could be performed by non-lawyers with lower level skills and training, because they are relatively simple or routine or because they do not require the training and skills of a qualified lawyer. Suggestions include administrative and welfare law, advocacy, uncontested divorces, simple civil claims, drafting of wills, applications for probate, company and associations incorporation and tax compliance advice. As laws and legal work change dynamically over time, other areas of work may well emerge where a lawyer's qualifications are unnecessary.

That is an amazing statement. I would not like to seek advice from an unqualified person about a divorce, whether or not it was contested. Divorces, even uncontested divorces, frequently involve complex and difficult property settlements, particularly for women. Those property settlements may represent the whole of a woman's income for the remainder of her life. I do not believe that the incorporation of a company or association can be carried out by a non-lawyer. Such work is equally as complicated as conveyancing of rural properties, particularly in New South Wales. I have also received correspondence from the President of the Law Society of New South Wales, Maurie Stack, dated 12 October. The letter stated:

Consumers will be inadequately protected against fraud - lawyers have a proud history of paying 100 cents in the dollar to victims of fraud. We paid as much as $18.5 million to the victims of the late Michael Kandy's fraud. The fund available to licensed conveyancers under this legislation will have a maximum of $1 million available per licensed conveyancer and no claim can be made after 2 years, even if the victim was unaware of the fraud until after the expiration of the 2 years.

That could easily happen. The victim of such a fraud would have no recourse. The letter continued:

Licensed conveyancers will be regulated by the Property Services Council which has no experience whatsoever in setting or enforcing standards of professional conduct for those engaged in work of a legal nature.

A letter from the Law Society of New South Wales dated 10 October stated:

Licensed conveyancers are now to be covered by the Real Estate Agents Fund under Section 75 of the Property Stock & Business Agents Act. That section makes it clear that the aggregate sum which can be claimed for related failures to account against a licensed conveyancer will be $1 million - the $200,000 referred to in the section has been increased by regulation to that figure.

Confusion also exists in relation to the amount of money able to be claimed by people who, regrettably, have received bad advice. I should like to refer finally to a document entitled "A Commentary: Conveyancers Licensing Bill 1992" prepared by Mr White of Hornsby. It was received by the Parliamentary Library on 30 April 1993. With respect to what the Parliament should do, he stated:

1. Reject the Conveyancers Licensing Bill. Even with the amendments to be moved by the Labor Party, the Bill stinks.

That is Mr White's word, not mine. He continued:

It is parochial in the worst tradition of New South Wales politics. The Bill ignores the public interest and the response to the Conveyancing Issues Paper which should be the basis of new law.

2. Parliament should appoint an unbiased committee, containing no lawyers, to properly and honestly examine the regulatory alternatives.

If Mr White believed that licensed conveyancers should not be permitted to deal with comparatively simple transactions involving residential property, I believe he would not resile from his remarks when referring to the legislation before the House, which deals with extremely complex matters. The interests of the people of New South Wales would not be served by extending the licensing of conveyancers in the way the Government envisages. I urge all honourable members, particularly my crossbench colleagues, to think about this matter carefully; it is not as simple as it may appear on the surface. It is with regret that I oppose the bill. However, I do so particularly in the interests of women of my generation, namely, those middle-aged women who have been forced to establish themselves in business and to take responsibility for their futures after receiving little money from property settlements or through wills of partners after being widowed. These women need the best and most expert advice possible; they do not need the services of a licensed conveyancer.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [8.52]: I join my colleagues in opposing the bill. I endorse the comments of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I will address my comments to the parts of the bill relating to the handling of mortgages if this bill passes into law. The legislation will give the new class of operator, the licensed conveyancer, the right to prepare mortgages and give advice that is ancillary or consequential to mortgages. Curiously, the legislation excludes the necessity to give financial or investment advice, yet every mortgage obviously has financial consequences. Therefore, advice is needed at the most basic level by the consumer, the client. Clause 4(2)(a) gives the new class of practitioner the right to carry out the legal work in preparing a mortgage, and clause 4(2)(b) empowers the practitioner to give advice ancillary or consequential to the mortgage transaction. However, clause 4(3)(e) provides that conveyancing work does not include the provision of financial or investment advice. It will be interesting to discover in the Minister's reply whether the Government intended that conveyancing work should not include financial planning advice on matters such as allocated pensions.

Does a professional practitioner, when giving advice concerning a mortgage, give advice that does not relate to financial issues? One cannot imagine that that is so. Financial questions are not only ancillary to a mortgage; they go to the heart of a mortgage. A mortgage is a major investment decision whether one is a lender and borrower. Consumers are entitled to receive full and proper advice from the person giving technical and legal assistance on all aspects of what is
Page 2169
usually the most significant single financial undertaking of their lives. About 70 per cent of homes are owner occupied, and approximately 70 per cent of householders have had a mortgage. Therefore, let us consider curious clause 4(3)(d). Does the Government believe that mortgages work in a vacuum, divorced from monetary consideration and questions of dollars and cents? Does the Government pretend that buying a house is not an investment? Does the Government believe that mortgage work merely comprises a licensed conveyancer filling in a mortgage form with the consequential task of showing the client only where to sign the document?

The day-to-day reality of signing a mortgage is that a solicitor must be satisfied that the borrower knows the nature and quality of the mortgage, and the solicitor must make the borrower focus on its financial aspects. This is the essence of how solicitors protect their clients. Their responsibility is to spell out the client's obligations. A solicitor acting reasonably in the discharge of his or her duty to a client is under an obligation to spell out, for example, the workings of the client's interest payment obligations. Yet the bill effectively removes such an obligation from licensed conveyancers. It is not a question of involved and complex financial schemes, as the preparation and explanation of mortgages is everyday work currently undertaken by solicitors. As previous speakers have noted, the bill has been drafted in haste with insufficient consideration of its terms, and the process has lacked consultation. Certainly, no consultation has taken place with people who may be well able to advise the Government, a point that was made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.

It is not sufficient for a practitioner advising on a mortgage to act out his instructions in a formal way, as though it were a dumb show. The practitioner cannot say, "I cannot advise you about clause X because it involves financial considerations." That would be absurd. Is it really the Government's intention that a licensed conveyancer may respond to a complaint of lack of professional competence by saying, "Well, clause 4(3)(e) of the bill states that I am not entitled to give advice about any financial issues, so that is your problem"? Is it the Government's intention that the licensed conveyancer be empowered to act out the dumb show and simply place the document in front of the client for his or her signature and say, "Just sign the mortgage I have prepared, I cannot answer questions about the money side of the business"? If that were the case, clients would be well advised to go elsewhere for assistance. Government members should remember when they support this bill that it is part of a solicitor's fiduciary duty to give to the client any known information of significance, even if it is outside the retainer for the job at hand. The reality is that proper advice is intertwined, even at the humblest level, with financial advice.

The other side of the picture relates to lenders for whom mortgages are prepared. Solicitors have traditionally conducted mortgage practices involving lending clients' money on mortgage. Sometimes funds are pooled by a number of solicitors' clients. The money is often loaned as part of the administration of a deceased estate or as the investment or loan of compensation or damages paid to accident victims. Does the Government intend to make it permissible for this new class of practitioner to become involved in the lending of customers' money without giving full and proper advice? How can safe lending be undertaken unless the client's attention is directed to financial or investment issues? Undoubtedly, the client makes the decision about whether to invest, but who will provide direction as to the financial issues to be addressed? Who will sound the warnings? People normally attend solicitors to receive the comfort of specialist advice. Is it sufficient merely to prepare a mortgage without reference to due diligence issues, to valuations or to credit checks? These matters are not simply ancillary to the preparation of a mortgage; they go to the heart of the transaction.

Does the Government expect licensed conveyancers to act out the dumb show to which I have referred? The reality is that a fiduciary duty is involved and no escape for failure to perform that duty should be available by hiding behind proposed section 4(3)(e). But there is an even more important issue for lenders of mortgage money. Previous speakers have pointed out the shortcomings in a proposed fidelity fund. It may be that lenders are covered by the fidelity fund provided in this legislation, but there are some covers and there are other covers. Has the Government forgotten the South Australian experience of Hodby and Schiller? I remind honourable members that in that case land agents or licensed conveyancers lent public money on mortgage. Substantial losses were incurred, and the fidelity fund recovered only 60¢ in the dollar. The fund had a limited contribution base due to its small number of members. As for the case in New South Wales, how many contributors to the proposed fund will there be in five years or in 10 years? How long will it take to build a fund of any significance, or would the Government be content to have a repeat of the South Australian experience?

Solicitors in this State have a proven record of standing by their fidelity fund. But the volume of contributors to their fund is high. How long will it be before the new class of practitioners can achieve anything like a significant number of contributors to their new fund? Every working day, banks, housing societies and mortgage securitisers entrust their settlement money for mortgages to their lawyers. They do this secure in the knowledge of the strength of the fidelity fund. I remind honourable members that in recent years lawyers have been levied $10,000 each to augment the fidelity fund to meet possible contingencies. The number of contributors has ensured a sum of great significance.

When does the Government envisage the number of conveyancers in New South Wales under this legislation would be sufficient to generate, by way of levy, a fund sufficient to meet even one substantial claim? The questions I have raised with respect to the
Page 2170
mortgages aspect of this legislation are chilling for both lenders and borrowers. I hope that the Government has some sensible answers to the criticisms of this legislation that have been raised by me and by other speakers. I suspect, however, that the Government is neglectful in this regard. The upshot is that it seems clear to me and to other speakers opposing the bill that the future for New South Wales home owners is vulnerable. I oppose the bill.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.02]: I join my colleagues in opposing the Conveyancers Licensing Bill. I particularly compliment the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby on her most pertinent speech. Her remarks were particularly significant, and I agree with many of them. The Government's proposal to repeal the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992 and to establish a whole new regime is unnecessary and ill considered, and I wish to put it into some perspective. There are currently 53 licensed conveyancers in New South Wales. That compares to more than 13,000 solicitors, to which can be added the figure provided earlier by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby of approximately 9,000 students undertaking legal studies. The regime set up under the 1992 Act is working satisfactorily and the necessary safety nets, identified in debate in this House at that time and considered so necessary, are in place and working for the benefit of the community.

Solicitors are learning to coexist with licensed conveyancers in their limited role of undertaking residential property transactions. Consumers of conveyancing services can be comforted by the fact that the Law Society had a role under the 1992 Act in the licensing of conveyancers, the investigation of complaints and the inspection of trust accounts. In addition, there is a government-appointed and independent body, the Conveyancers Licensing Committee, on which solicitors and conveyancers are represented. That committee is responsible for, amongst other things, the educational standards required by a person before that person can become a licensed conveyancer. At the protest meeting held at Sydney Town Hall on 11 October 1995, at which up to an estimated 2,000 people were present, Bill Macquarie - a solicitor from Wollongong experienced in conveyancing and legal education, who was nominated by the Law Society to be a member of the examination subcommittee of the Conveyancers Licensing Committee - had this to say about his experience as a member of the committee:

I have to say that upon examination most of the applications had a pretty good knowledge of how to handle a conveyancing transaction but there were significant deficiencies in their legal knowledge. In other words they knew how to do the job but not always why it was done that way or the legal background.

The Conveyancers Licensing Committee subsequently engaged me to conduct 3 x 2 hour seminars on legal theory, to improve the legal knowledge of conveyancers and those who attended, about 25, appeared to me to be most conscientious and keen to learn.

I felt that solicitors could learn to live with conveyancers.

NOW the Government of the day wants to change the system dramatically and these changes could make co-existence with conveyancers very difficult.

I will now deal with only four areas of the Government's proposals that are of concern to the Law Society and have been highlighted to Opposition members. Government members will be equally aware of these concerns - the mail they have received and the telephone calls they have taken will have made them aware that they are out of step with many in the community on this issue. The four issues of concern I should particularly like to note are the expanded area of work, educational standards, complaints and discipline, and trust account inspections. I turn first to concern about the expanded area of work. An apparent misconception in government ranks is that conveyancing is easy. Solicitors know that this is far from the truth. While the previous Government took the view that it was acceptable, with appropriate safeguards, for licensed conveyancers to handle residential conveyancing, this bill proposes to expand this area of work.

The amendments will allow licensed conveyancers to carry out all work that can be identified as conveyancing work, including acting on the following tasks: the sale and purchase of all types of land, including commercial, industrial and rural land; the sale and purchase of personalty; leases; the sale and purchase of businesses; the granting of mortgages; and the sale and purchase of company title. I realise that colleagues of mine have already highlighted some of those tasks, and I think particularly of a comment made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby about this work and the point made by the Hon. J. H. Jobling about different aspects of land. The expanded areas of work would of necessity involve conveyancers in matters ancillary to their work, including: complex finance documents such as bills of sale, traders' bills of sale, equitable mortgages and charges; advising concerning the best method for acquiring real or personal property or a business, for example, by an individual, a partnership, a corporation or a trustee; advising concerning taxation, including capital gains tax implications or various transactions; and advising on the Corporations Law.

The expanded areas of work in which conveyancers will be able to practise can be extremely complex and difficult. I am sure that this point is not lost on any Government member, as they would have been lobbied extensively on that point. It could hardly be argued that the community needs conveyancers to become involved in these areas of work. The community already has an oversupply of competent solicitors who can handle the work at competitive prices. For some time solicitors have been able to advertise their costs, and they have been doing so. The cost of conveyancing of all types has been considerably reduced as a consequence. One can only conclude that the Government is more concerned about the 53 conveyancers and those who are studying to become conveyancers than about the real needs of the community.

I turn now to my second area of concern: educational standards. The educational requirements for existing licensed conveyancers to become entitled to practise in the expanded areas of work and the
Page 2171
educational requirements for admission of conveyancers in the future will be under the control of the Real Estate Services Council, which is to be renamed the Property Services Council. The Real Estate Services Council is a government-appointed body that has shown itself to be competent in undertaking its responsibilities in regulating real estate agents and related licensees. How can a body that is primarily responsible for real estate agents establish educational standards for conveyancers that are equivalent to the educational standards for solicitors? If there are to be conveyancers in New South Wales, in the interests of the community they should have training and education equivalent to the training and education of solicitors with regard to property transactions that they are entitled to undertake. At the protest meeting I referred to, Bill Macquarie said:

It would be wrong of solicitors to argue that conveyancers should not be entitled to practice in areas of law in which we are involved if they have equivalent educational qualifications.

If conveyancers are to compete with solicitors in the marketplace, the community is entitled to that protection. The present Conveyancers Licensing Committee has proved adequate for the task of setting educational standards. Why the Government would wish to abolish it and place the administration in the hands of the renamed Real Estate Services Council is beyond comprehension. If the Government's reforms are adopted, the educational bodies that offer conveyancing courses that will lead to graduates being admitted to practice will have to considerably expand those courses to cover the highly complex areas in which conveyancers will be permitted to practice, some of which I highlighted earlier. This aspect of the new regime will be under the control of the Property Services Council. The Minister for Consumer Affairs said in her second reading speech in the other place:

. . . the Property Services Council, which will be charged with the task of setting up an education subcommittee to assess what additional training may be required for the existing licensed conveyancers, and what type of educational courses and practical experience would be necessary for new licences. This subcommittee will have the benefit of representation by conveyancers and legal practitioners to ensure that appropriate competency standards are maintained.

However, at the end of the day, it will be the Property Services Council and the Minister, not the educational subcommittee, who make the final decision. The Property Services Council will have no experience in these sorts of educational requirements and I am concerned that it will apply similar standards to those it has applied to real estate agents. I turn to the third area of concern, complaints and discipline. It is pleasing to note that part 10 of the Legal Profession Act will, for the most part, apply to conveyancers. Complaints about conveyancers will have to be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner, which is the case with solicitors, and if the commissioner forms the view that the complaint should be investigated, it will be referred to the Property Services Council and it will then be the responsibility of the general manager of that council to investigate it.

If the general manager concludes that the conveyancer is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the Legal Services Tribunal will hear the complaint. What experience the general manager, and for that matter the Property Services Council, has had in investigating complaints about unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, I know not. The Law Society Council and its professional conduct committee have had a great deal of experience in these matters, and it is beyond belief that the Government does not take advantage of that experience. The role of the Law Society Council in investigating complaints and deciding whether a solicitor is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct could be likened to a judicial inquiry as to whether a prima facie case has been made out against an accused person. If this is the case, the complaint is referred to the Legal Services Tribunal for hearing.

The nature and experience of the General Manager of the Property Services Council would not equip him to exercise this important legal function with conveyancers. If a complainant is not satisfied with a decision of the General Manager of the Property Services Council, he can at least refer the matter back to the commissioner, who can decide whether to refer the complaint to the Legal Services Tribunal. The next area of concern involves trust account inspections. Under the 1992 Act, conveyancers' trust accounts are inspected by trust account inspectors employed by the Law Society. These inspectors are highly qualified and experienced in inspecting trust accounts of the type that conveyancers must keep. If the Government's proposals are adopted, conveyancers' trust accounts will be inspected by the trust account inspectors who have been inspecting real estate agents' trust accounts. The community is entitled to have the best possible protection against any action by conveyancers. In my opinion that means conveyancers should be subject to the same scrutiny as solicitors.

There is no pressing community need for the changes proposed by the Government. The system established in 1992 has only just started to work and should be left alone. It seems to me that the Conveyancers Licensing Committee has been carrying out its functions well and efficiently. I understand that neither the Minister nor the Minister's advisers conferred with the Conveyancers Licensing Committee to any great extent, if at all, in formulating the reforms. For those of us in Opposition, the extent to which the Government is prepared to seek advice and confer with various groups in the community is of great concern. The Minister and her advisers, I am told, did not confer with the Law Society. If that is the case it is a great indictment on the Minister and the Government on an issue that is important to the whole community, not just the legal community, and not just the Law Society.

There was a wealth of experience within the Conveyancers Licensing Committee and the Law Society that the Government could have called upon
Page 2172
in formulating its reforms, but the Government chose to ignore it. As to whom the Minister and her advisers conferred with is a matter of conjecture, but whatever the case, the proposed reforms are unnecessary and ill considered. They are not required in the interests of the community, and the Government should abandon them. I join with my colleagues in not supporting this bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [9.15], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Before I respond to the debate generally on matters of principle, I will refer to some remarks by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. She said that she would be happy with the bill if conveyancers were required to pay their funds into a trust account. One would hope that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby would have taken the trouble to refer to the bill. If so, she would know that clause 25 provides for what will happen when money is received by a licensee on behalf of another person. It states:

(1) A licensee who, in the course of conducting a conveyancing business, receives money on behalf of another person:

(a) must pay the money, within the time prescribed by the regulations, into a general trust account at a bank in New South Wales and must hold the money in accordance with the regulations relating to trust money, or

(b) if the person on whose behalf the money is received directs that it be paid otherwise than into a general trust account, must pay the money as directed and (if the money is to be held under the direct or indirect control of the licensee for more than the period prescribed by the regulations) must hold the money in accordance with the regulations relating to controlled money.

Thus the bill makes definite provision for the holding of trust moneys by a licensed conveyancer. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby also made reference to old system title, otherwise known as common law title, and queried whether a licensed conveyancer could handle that class of business. Only 4 per cent of all titles in this State are under common law. When I was practising, that percentage was greater, but in the intervening period qualified titles and the procedures that have been introduced by successive governments have steadily diminished what remains of common law or old system titles. The point is not relevant as it is true to say that conveyancers now perform work on all forms of title, including leases, freehold, old system title, Torrens title, Crown title, qualified title and limited strata and community titles. Clearly, it is up to consumers as to whether they instruct a solicitor or a licensed conveyancer to carry out their particular conveyancing work.

It is not a particularly relevant argument to suggest that because this State has common law title and South Australia does not, in some way it is inappropriate that licensed conveyors should perform this type of work. The present legislation already permits conveyancers to undertake work involved in vendor finance and the registration of mortgages. Those opposing the bill have used a number of catch phrases quite repetitively. For example, they have referred to "lack of consultation", "deceit", "there is no monopoly", "dubious reasons", "inconsistencies" and so forth. In closing the debate for the Government I would like to put the true position about all the matters or catch phrases that have been used. A large volume of material has emanated from the Law Society. In fact, members of the House could be said to have been engulfed by it. That is clearly the Law Society's right; any interest group is entitled to do that.

However, we need to look at the matter calmly and to assess the truth of what has been said about hardship to solicitors, devastation of rural legal services and so on. Honourable members ought to remember that New South Wales has just experienced the worst drought on record and that other people in rural New South Wales have also been affected. If a conveyancer sets up shop and offers the residents of a country town conveyancing services at a reduced cost I would have thought, at the very least, that the residents of that town would appreciate having that choice. Small business people, farmers, professional people and local residents of any town should be able to choose whether they use a licensed conveyancer. It is interesting that, generally speaking, country people do not agree with what the Opposition is saying about this bill. The Government has received correspondence from New South Wales Farmers, for example, demonstrating enthusiastic support for the legislation.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: How many farmers?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am talking about the New South Wales Farmers Association, commonly called New South Wales Farmers, which represents farmers in New South Wales. That association has written an enthusiastic letter supporting the legislation. I can say, with justice I would think, that New South Wales Farmers is not usually renowned for its radical political sentiments or support for the Australian Labor Party, either in government or in opposition. However, it has chosen to write to the Government a letter that illustrates that country interests, particularly influential ones such as New South Wales Farmers, support the legislation and are prepared to associate with the Government's objectives in it.

The Liberal Party could be forgiven for overlooking that. However, members of the National Party, who claim to represent country people, will join their associates on the Opposition benches to oppose this legislation and reject the approach made to the Government by New South Wales Farmers. In 1992 New South Wales Farmers wrote to the then Premier, the Hon. Nick Greiner, and conveyed its extreme disappointment that the then Government failed to act to remove the lawyers' monopoly on conveyancing. So New South Wales Farmers can be said to have had an entirely consistent attitude toward this legislation, both in former years and at the present time. In 1992, when the association corresponded with the Hon. Nick Greiner, it said:

Page 2173

. . . conveyancing is one of the more expensive and unnecessary costs connected with buying and selling land.

The association also said:

. . . anything that increases . . . costs is harmful to primary producers, not to mention home buyers and others . . .

That was the view expressed in 1992 by New South Wales Farmers. The farmers association called on the then Government to drop the course it had adopted under pressure from the legal profession, and to go back to earlier proposals by the Attorney General to end the conveyancing monopoly. I am just tracing the course of opinion expressed by New South Wales Farmers. One might ask who was Attorney General when New South Wales Farmers wrote this correspondence in 1992. The Attorney was none other than the Hon. Peter Collins, now transformed as the Leader of the Opposition. The coalition has a history of disregard, at the very least, for the interests of consumers on this question. The Australian Financial Review carried an article recently under the headline "Old Bluster and Pressure over latest crack at reform". It referred to Peter Collins' enthusiasm four years ago for precisely this type of reform and how the then Government completely buckled. It said it would fight to the death to protect the lawyers' monopoly.

There was a reform of sorts in 1992 but the Australian Financial Review, in the article to which I am referring, said, "Now comes the full-blooded version." That was the view of that newspaper. It has been noted many times before, and this is yet another instance, that the Carr Government has done more for rural New South Wales in the six months it has been in office than the National Party did from within the coalition Government during its seven years in office. The reason is that members of the National Party are too busy lunching with their big city associates to have any time for country residents. The National Party members are not here. They have gone bush, apparently.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: They are talking to some of the groups you have alienated.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Far from alienating, the Government recognises that it is sometimes necessary to bring in a reform to assist consumers. The National Party might not be concerned about that, but the Government is. I have been advised that the Law Society has had some 30 people churning out material to fight this reform. That is clearly its democratic right; I do not contest that. But there has been a concerted propaganda campaign against the provisions of this legislation. There was a large rally at the Town Hall; and there has been extensive - the Government would say misleading - political advertising in the media, particularly in marginal government-held electorates; and an incessant deluge of propaganda directed at members of Parliament, particularly those on the crossbenches.

I turn to the argument about lack of consultation. The Government says that there most certainly was consultation between the Government and the legal profession. I am advised that the responsible Minister met with the Law Society, as did the Premier. The result of those meetings was that the Law Society was opposed to the loss of the conveyancing monopoly. That is hardly surprising. Furthermore, although the Government declined to reveal the detail of its bill to everyone prior to its introduction, the thrust of the bill - the expansion of the scope of licensed conveyancing work and the transfer to an independent licensing authority - were definitely discussed with the relevant interest groups. These policy initiatives have been around since before the Government took office, and they are not news to any member of the House, nor to the Law Society, nor to anyone in the State who chooses to take an interest in these matters. Unfortunately, the Law Society appears to take the attitude that if one does not agree with its view consultation has not occurred. Well, consultation has occurred.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: It is not true.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is true. Consultation does not mean agreement; it means talking to people, and that has happened. The Law Society knew that the Government believed that licensed conveyancers were competitors of lawyers and, as such, they deserved to be regulated by a licensing authority not directly associated with those competitors. The Law Society also knew that the Government was considering expanding the scope of work available for conveyancers. There is no secret about that: there was clear knowledge that that was the Government's intention. The Opposition keeps saying that the proposed changes are unnecessary and that they are being introduced for dubious reasons or because of the experiences of the proprietors of one coffee shop. That is patently untrue.

The Hon. S. B. Mutch: You have got that wrong too.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No, I have my facts straight, unlike the Hon. S. B. Mutch. The Government mooted the changes long ago, well before it took office. Government members have received representations for a long time from consumers, small business and farmers, and from conveyancers themselves. The Government has been subject to another form of lobbying campaign. There are two sides to this. The Government intends to listen to all sides in the community, not only the Law Society, although the Law Society is entitled to express its view and it is entitled to be listened to. The bill is consistent with the broad thrust of national competition policy. It creates competition in new areas previously the exclusive province of solicitors. This of itself will provide definite benefits to the public of New South Wales. The Hon. S. B. Mutch has lost interest. He is in transit to the Federal Parliament. He really knows that what I am saying is true in regard to national competition policy.

The Hon. S. B. Mutch: That is absolute rubbish.

Page 2174

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If the Hon. S. B. Mutch aspires to be a member of the national Parliament, and if the electors of Cook are so misguided as to elect him, at the very least he ought to learn something about national competition policy. Allowing licensed conveyancers to undertake a broader range of work is the way to activate the competition to which I am referring. It is not a question of allowing unqualified people to undertake the work. The argument about educational qualifications is very interesting but one should recognise that, while members of the legal profession take four years in the ordinary course to undertake study of a wide range of legal subjects, by no means do all law students, according to my understanding, even do a course in conveyancing.

The Hon. S. B. Mutch: But they do it at the College of Law.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The College of Law has a practical legal training course. As the Hon. S. B. Mutch would know, not everyone can get into the College of Law course. I have a very able legal officer working in my department at Dubbo who has been trying for years to get into the College of Law course. She has passed her law qualifications at university and cannot get into the course.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: It is very competitive.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It might be competitive but it means that she cannot be admitted as a solicitor, and as an unqualified person she has to go cap in hand to a magistrate when she appears in a child protection matter. The Hon. S. B. Mutch should think before he speaks when he talks about what happens at the College of Law. It would be much better if people could get into the College of Law to complete the course. In any event, many law students do not undertake a course in conveyancing as part of their law course. We are talking about conveyancers who study a more confined area of knowledge and the mechanics of executing a relatively simple service. In many legal services that is carried out largely by unqualified people, albeit under the supervision of professional people. Then the work is billed out to clients at professional rates.

The point I am making is that conveyancers are required to complete a two-year course of study. There is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that the Government would let untrained conveyancers loose on the community. Licensed conveyancers must train for two years. They will need to do additional bridging courses to study new aspects of the law, assuming the bill becomes the law. Surely the Opposition would not argue that ambulance officers, paramedics and nurses should complete a degree in medicine before they complete their course. Should child care workers be fully trained teachers? The answer is clearly no. We are talking about a subsidiary type of operative who carries out work in a confined area and not across the whole gamut of legal services. The Government is committed to end what essentially has been a monopoly and to provide for full and genuine competition. A key recommendation of the 1993 Trade Practices Commission report on the legal profession put it this way:

The Commission . . . considers that, as a general principle, the reservation of legal work to lawyers should occur only where it can be demonstrated that the skills and training of a lawyer are strictly necessary.

It recommended that "many areas of legal work which are currently restricted to lawyers be opened to appropriately trained non-lawyers, particularly in such areas as conveyancing". The Trade Practices Commission is a body that concerns itself with fair dealing and open and competitive markets and the benefits that flow to the economy, business and the general community from them. That is precisely the Government's intention with the legislation. In any event, there will be a mechanism by which high standards of educational attainment will be controlled. The Property Services Council, with its subcommittee of educational experts appointed by the Minister, will make recommendations on the types of bridging courses necessary for currently licensed conveyancers or what new courses may have to be established for new applicants. It is envisaged that representatives of the legal profession will be invited to participate in that advisory process.

It was asserted by Opposition members that the clause 4 definition of the scope of work allows a range of services including mortgage arrangements but does not allow the giving of investment or financial advice. There is no inconsistency in this provision. A conveyancer will do whatever is necessary to execute a conveyancing transaction. Financial and investment advice is an entirely separate service and would form no part of the work of conveyancers as defined in the bill. If anything, the Law Society and the Opposition should welcome this measure. Competition policy will be enhanced because this bill seeks to remove the control of conveyancers from the very group with whom they seek to compete for business. This represents a major and decisive step in support of competition policy. The Opposition's argument that costs were reduced because of the lifting of advertising restrictions on the legal profession is unjustified. It was not sufficient simply to lift the barrier upon lawyers' advertising. There were long-held conventions, albeit supported by price control, to ensure that without some further effort major price reform would not eventuate.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You don't believe this!

The Hon. R. D. DYER: How would the Hon. D. J. Gay know what I believe? That is why the introduction of conveyancers licensing laws in 1992 was important, not the fact that there are only 42 licensed conveyancers. The crucial issue is that 42 conveyancers were able to drive such a significant wedge into the long-held pricing convention. That is, without their presence in the market, lifting restrictions on lawyers' advertising would not have been enough to bring down prices. Another argument that has been advanced relates to a claimed duplication
Page 2175
of administration. There will be no duplication of administration. It is important to remember that the real reason for transferring the licensing of conveyancers to another body is to remove a conflict of interest, whether actual or perceived. At present lawyers decide whether conveyancers can be licensed. The bill seeks to change that. The Opposition has talked about duplication, whereas the regulation of conveyancers in future will rest with the General Manager of the Property Services Council, presently known as the Real Estate Services Council.

Therefore, there already exists within the council the expertise necessary to inspect trust accounts; there already exists within the Property Services Council a capacity to investigate fraudulent and other aspects of unsatisfactory behaviour; there already exists within the Property Services Council a detailed capacity to establish and monitor educational prerequisites, including the development of competency standards for property professionals. A point of interest that came to light last week was that one of the large team of campaigners from the Law Society telephoned the Real Estate Services Council to ask how many inspectors it has to examine trust accounts. The society saw fit to imply that the council will not be able to properly monitor trust funds held by conveyancers. The answer was that there are 31 such inspectors.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: That is terrible.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho says that that is terrible.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: There are 42 conveyancers and 31 inspectors?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No, there are 31 people to inspect conveyancers and real estate agents as well. The council had the temerity to ask the Law Society how many inspectors it had. The answer was 16. It is not surprising that not too much more has been heard of that argument. The structure and facilities are there to inspect trust accounts. Contrary to the view of the Opposition, there is no question of the establishment of new and, therefore, duplicative regulatory mechanisms. There is also no doubt as to the capacity of the licensing authority to successfully carry out these licensing and administrative tasks. Opposition members referred to the risk to consumers. Not everything in the bill is new. Admittedly, it repeals the existing legislation, but much of it is re-enacted. Much of the bill retains the procedural provisions as they have existed to date.

It would appear that Opposition members do not understand the difference between the compensation fund and professional indemnity insurance. The compensation fund will replace the current fidelity insurance and cover fraud, theft and failure to account for moneys held by conveyancers. Professional indemnity insurance is the same as the current provision, although conveyancers will be able to choose whether to negotiate individually or as a group. It covers negligence and has the same cover as that for lawyers at present. Concern about coverage and indemnity for conveyancers is, like most other objections raised to this bill, spurious. There is more than adequate protection for consumers. The whole driving force behind this legislation is to protect consumers, not to leave them exposed. Monopolies are inimical to consumer choice and fair competition. No-one could dispute that. The whole purpose of this legislation is to promote competition and provide choice to consumers, be they domestic, rural or small business. The system proposed in the bill has worked well in South Australia since 1883.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: They do not have old system title.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has said that South Australia does not have old system title. I have already addressed that question and pointed out that common law title in New South Wales has reduced to a residual amount of 4 per cent. In ten years time there will be virtually no common law title left. As I have said, South Australia has got along with its own system since 1883. The Government believes that is a sufficiently lengthy pilot program - 100 years. Part of the success story in South Australia is the fact that there has been an evolution of excellent multidisciplinary partnerships, something now permitted in New South Wales. Multidisciplinary partnerships exist and were provided for under legislation enacted by the previous Government with the support of the then Labor Opposition. The Opposition ought to update and embrace the reforms encompassed in this bill. The good oil emanating from the leaky shadow cabinet last week is that it was by no means unified in its decision to oppose this bill. I am reliably informed that it was split right down the middle, along lawyer and non-lawyer lines.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That is not true.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have reliable information. This Government is determined that the interests of New South Wales small business people, farmers and the many thousands they employ will prevail. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Cohen Mr Shaw
Mr Corbett Ms Staunton
Mr Dyer Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mr Jones
Mr Macdonald Mr Vaughan

Page 2176

Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Mrs Chadwick Rev. Nile
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gay Mr Samios
Dr Goldsmith Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Kersten Mr Tingle
Miss Kirkby Tellers,
Mr Lynn Miss Gardiner
Mr Moppett Mr Mutch

Mr Egan Mr Jobling
Mr O'Grady Dr Pezzutti

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [9.55]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [9.55]: I draw the attention of the House to the subject of animal vivisection, which, as I am sure all members are aware, involves testing upon animals for the purposes of medical research. This practice inflicts a great deal of pain and suffering on the animals involved. Sometimes this type of research is unavoidable as it is necessary to help solve many of the diseases and afflictions humankind faces today. Like many other honourable members, I today received a visit from Mrs Elizabeth Ahlston, the President of the Australian Association for Humane Research Incorporated. I listened attentively to her arguments and believe they should be presented to the House tonight.

First, animal tests have not proved to be as effective as they are often hailed to be. Several examples of this can be given. For example, animal testing failed to prove the link between asbestos and cancer when suspicions of this link were first raised. Testing on animals not only failed to prove the link between cigarette smoke and cancer many years ago, but the research was used by tobacco companies to claim that their products were safe for consumption. Likewise, animal tests were inconclusive in detecting the link between radiation and leukaemia and between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis. Also, animal testing failed to discover the complete effects of the polio virus, and this set back its cure for years.

In many cases, effective alternatives to animal testing are available. Clinical studies on humans have greatly benefited the fields of immunology, anaesthesiology and the study of depression. Human clinical studies can prove to be an effective substitute to animal testing in many other areas of research, including cancer research, AIDS research, degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, psychology, psychiatry and toxicity testing. Many viable and effective alternatives to animal testing are available, including autopsies and biopsies, non-invasive imaging techniques, post-marketing surveillance, and in-vitro cell and tissue cultures.

In short, a great deal of evidence suggests that as the difference between animals and humans in medical terms is quite substantial, animal testing is not wholly deserving of the enormous amount of money and time invested in it. Both financial and ethical questions are involved with animal experimentation. I reiterate that I understand that animal testing is necessary in some areas to prevent disease and illness among humans; however, evidence indicates that animal testing can be replaced in many areas by viable alternatives. Where it is possible to make use of these alternatives without sacrificing the quality of research, these alternatives should be exploited. The very sense of humanity that allows us to use animals for testing also places upon us the obligation and responsibility to minimise the pain and suffering we inflict upon them.

It must be understood that significant self-interest is built up in the field of animal research, namely, in terms of finance. It is, of course, logical that people and laboratories, and the organisations and companies they represent, would be unwilling to lose their funding for animal testing. It must be remembered that these people write many of the textbooks and much of the literature that advocates animal testing. Nevertheless, financial gain and efficiency can never be allowed to legitimise the unnecessary practice of cruelty. The evidence raised, therefore, points to the conclusion that much of the defence of animal experimentation stems from self-interest, rather than a public interest based on justifiable medical and social progress. As human beings who purport to represent a civilised society that abhors cruelty in all forms, whether to people or to animals, we must endeavour to shift as much medical research as possible to areas that do not force animals to endure pain and suffering, areas that represent a range of effective and viable alternatives to animal testing.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK [10.00]: Tonight I pay tribute to Rod Blackmore, who retired last Friday from the position of Senior Children's Court Magistrate. Rodney David Blackmore was educated at Summer Hill in opportunity class and then at Fort Street Boys High School. He gained a Diploma in Law through the Solicitors Admission Board in 1967 and has worked in courts administration since 1951. He was Clerk of Petty Sessions in Camden, Clerk of Petty Sessions and coroner in Armidale, instructing officer at Central Criminal Court, Clerk of Petty Sessions and chamber
Page 2177
magistrate at Campsie, Clerk of Petty Sessions and assistant chamber magistrate at the Central Court of Petty Sessions in Sydney and then chamber magistrate in Sydney. He was commissioned as a stipendiary magistrate in 1970. Rod Blackmore was the Parramatta Coroner in 1971 and then the traffic magistrate in Kogarah in 1971-72.

From 1972 to 1977 Rod Blackmore was the circuit magistrate in Maitland. His fine work there and the friendships developed were well in evidence at his farewell dinner on Friday evening, with a strong representation from the Hunter Valley. Rod Blackmore is perhaps best known to colleagues for his work with children and adolescents. It was in 1977 that he became special magistrate at the Albion Street Children's Court. He became Senior Special Magistrate in 1978 and Senior Children's Court Magistrate in 1988, a position he held until his retirement last week. His strong involvement in various committees, councils and reviews is evidence that his commitment to young people extended well beyond the boundaries of his work as Senior Children's Court Magistrate. In addition, Rod was a founding member of the Homeless Children's Association in 1980 and its president from 1984 to 1991. He is still trustee of the Mangrove Mountain Crown Reserve for Homeless and Needy Young Persons.

All honourable members would agree that this State owes a debt of gratitude to Rod Blackmore, who has served the State, our community and some of its neediest members so well and over such a long and distinguished career. His career is even more remarkable when it is considered that both his father, Cecil Blackmore, and his grandfather, Hugh Blackmore, served as New South Wales magistrates - a great trifecta indeed. While I know that Rod Blackmore will continue to serve young people, albeit in a different capacity, I am sure that all honourable members would join me in thanking Rod Blackmore for his work and service on behalf of young people in New South Wales, and wish him a long, happy and healthy retirement.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.04]: Tonight I bring to the attention of the House, and particularly that of the Minister for Community Services, a letter I received today, which read as follows:

Dear Ms Kirkby,

I am writing to ask you to discuss with your colleague in the Legislative Council, Community Services Minister Ron Dyer, developments over the past two months in connection with Department of Community Services residential centres for people with intellectual and other disabilities. My son lives at the 145 bed residential at Peat Island Centre, where he receives the best services he has ever received in his adult life.

We parents believe that the residents benefit from the "village" atmosphere at Peat Island Centre and need continuity in the services provided there. The Department of Community Services is not willing to accept that people with intellectual disability have a right to choose a congregate or "village" model of accommodation, instead of being re-located to group homes isolated from one another and scattered through various suburbs. To justify their position, the Department of Community Services has taken an extremely selective and unbalanced view of the Disability Services Act, 1993 and its Principles and Applications of Principles. Debate about choices in models of 24 hour staff supported models of accommodation is likely to intensify over the next six months.

The Department of Community Services response to parental opposition to forced re-location of residents has been put to unjustified pressure on the staff of Peat Island Centre. Two senior staff members have been moved to other duties away from the Centre. We parents are not aware of any action by staff that is serious enough to make this disruption necessary. Such heavy-handed action affects the remainder of the staff and thus the care of our family members.

Concurrently with this worrying development, a consultancy has been contracted by the Department of Community Services to conduct "consumer training" of particular residents. This "training" occurs in the absence of support for the residents. It is a situation where suggestible people could be persuaded to accept re-location without any consideration of their individual needs.

Could you discuss with Minister Dyer these questionable actions of Department of Community Services bureaucrats?

I raise this issue in the adjournment debate tonight because I believe the letter is important. It reflects the views of some parents and some people with intellectual or physical disabilities. Whereas I personally fully support the integration of people with intellectual or physical disabilities into home-style accommodation, if necessary with 24-hour support, the Peat Island Hospital is certainly in an extremely beautiful location, surrounded as it is by the Hawkesbury River. It could be extremely traumatic for people who have lived there for many years, have made many friends and have made it their home to be relocated against their will. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the policy on the Peat Island Hospital and allow the residents and their families to make a choice in this matter and not have choices imposed upon them by the department.


The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [10.08]: Earlier today in question time Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked a question about the resignation of Miss Alexandra Shehadie from the position of director of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked that the Leader of the House inquire into the circumstances of Miss Shehadie's departure and her possible reinstatement in that position. When he asked that question I noted very shocked reactions from current and former members of the Standing Committee on Social Issues on the Opposition benches. It was indeed a visible shock to those people who had not been aware of her departure yesterday evening. Their shock emanates from the realisation of the worth of that person, having experienced her work on that committee.

Page 2178

What has occurred in relation to the establishment of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice is something of a shame on this House. After all, the committee was designated to begin its operation, along with other committees, in April. The chair was established and members appointed. However, with the protracted wranglings about resources available to committees, the committee did not spring into operation and it was only on 10 October, the week before last, that Alexandra Shehadie, having applied for that appointment three months prior to the offer of the position, actually took up the position. She took up the position in circumstances that were unfortunate in that a contentious piece of legislation was referred to the committee for examination.

Alexandra Shehadie took on that role with no resources for herself and, nevertheless, proceeded to establish the work of the committee. When she left yesterday afternoon she still had not received any resources with which to conduct the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, although I understand the chair of the committee and an officer on loan from the Standing Committee on Social Issues had assisted her to some degree. I stress what a loss Alexandra Shehadie is to the committee system in this House. As an Opposition member and as deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues I have been working with Alex since she started work in Parliament House in October 1991. She was the substantial architect of the juvenile justice paper, which was tabled in May 1992 and is the blueprint for reforms on juvenile justice in this State. She contributed to the youth violence issues paper, which was tabled in September 1993. She worked on the violence in society issues paper, which was tabled in November 1993, as well as the sexual violence report.

The most significant contribution she made was in the preparation and writing of the "Suicide in Rural New South Wales" report. That was an extremely onerous task. She performed that task unaided because the other two committee members were engaged in other inquiries. Alex Shehadie came to work in Parliament with a superb background. She had a law degree and is capable of undertaking diverse research. She had worked in the Macquarie Legal Centre, and as the coordinator of the children's legal service in that centre. Before that she had worked in Baker and McKenzie and had carried out a wide range of general legal work. As a community worker she was a volunteer solicitor in the Inner City Legal Centre, the Redfern Legal Centre and, most importantly so far as I am concerned, she was a project member on the steering committee of the "Kids in Justice" report. Obviously she was eminently qualified to be a committee officer and members of the social issues committee were delighted when she was elevated to the position of director of a committee. I sincerely regret that the Parliament has lost the services of Alexandra Shehadie. It has been a totally unnecessary loss. I pay tribute to the manner in which she always conducted herself in relation to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. She had the most superb manner when dealing with people in controversial, difficult and complex situations. She is a sensitive human being, a fine writer, an outstanding researcher, and I wish her well wherever she now is. [Time expired.]


The Hon. ELAINE NILE [10.12]: When I became a member of this House I took an oath. In that oath I swore allegiance to the Queen, and "allegiance" means I have an obligation to the Queen. On the weekend I was utterly disgusted by an article in the Sun Herald portraying the Queen naked. The article stated:

Sydney artist and republican Garry Shead said he didn't paint the series to make a political statement and hoped people would see the humour and absurdity in his exhibition, The Royal Suite, opened on Friday by Malcolm Turnbull, chairman of the Australian Republican Movement.

However, paintings depicting the Queen standing naked, apart from a cloak over her shoulders, and mounted on a stone statute block with a crown hovering above her head and holding an orb, and another where she is having breast caressed by Prince Philip, are likely to spark anger.

The series of 20 paintings, which took Shead a year to complete, is based on the Queen's visit to Australia in 1954 and features her surrounded by minders and the odd merino sheep and a Blinkey Bill-style koala.

That is disgusting. Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia and respect should be shown to her as the head of State. Yet the republican movement, in this exhibition, is putting the Queen down. Action should be taken and people like Malcolm Turnbull, who is held in high regard, should be reprimanded. The article also stated:

Mr Turnbull said at the opening of the exhibition that the paintings represented the anomalous nature of the monarchy in Australia.

"In a sense they reject the monarchy but do it in a soft, humorous way," he said.

If Paul Keating and Annita Keating were depicted in this way in portraits or pictures, or by statues similar to those exhibited earlier this year in Canberra, I am sure there would be an uproar. At least the Queen's head was lopped off the statue in Canberra by an unknown assailant and smashed. I am sure the Prime Minister and his wife would be utterly devastated if the same thing was done to them as has been done to our Queen. It looks like those behind this exhibition are getting away with it. Australia has not become a republic, but will head that way if this type of action, sending up the Queen and the Royal Family, is allowed. There is nothing funny about this at all. Action should be taken against people behind exhibitions such as this. I would now like to see something similar depicting Paul and Annita Keating.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.15]: I should like to take a few moments to support the speech made in the adjournment debate by the Hon. Ann Symonds. Like her and others of this House, I worked on the Standing Committee on Social Issues with Alex Shehadie. Everything the Hon. Ann Symonds said is correct. It is a shame that Alex does
Page 2179
not still occupy the position to which she was appointed. As I said today in my question without notice, the whole matter should be investigated. It is not simply that she was upset about a lack of staff. She was upset about that, but that was not the final matter that made her feel she had no option but to leave. I have heard from another member tonight that she has said she will never enter this House again

because she feels so hurt. Something should be done to rectify that situation. An apology should be made to her, and she should be fully reinstated in her position.

Motion agreed to.