Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 13 November 1995, Corrected Copy)

The Chairman of Committees (The Hon. Duncan John Gay) took the chair as Acting-President at 11.00 a.m.

The Acting-President offered the Prayers.


The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I announce to the House that a film crew will be present in the House this morning for the purpose of filming file footage of the new member of the Legislative Council and certain proceedings of the House for news purposes.


The Acting-President reported the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Governor:

Peter Ross Sinclair Government House
Governor Sydney 2000

The Governor of the State of New South Wales Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, on relinquishing the administration of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, he re-assumed the administration of the Government of the State on 1st November 1995.

1st November, 1995.

Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill
Commercial Tribunal Legislation Amendment Bill
Co-operatives Amendment Bill
Marketing of Primary Products Amendment Bill
New South Wales Cancer Council Bill
Plant Diseases Amendment Bill
Sports Drug Testing Bill
Stock Diseases Amendment Bill
Stock Medicines Amendment Bill
Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill
Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill
Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill

The Acting-President, in accordance with section 78(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, tabled the following report:

Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 1995.

Ordered to be printed.


The Acting-President tabled an opinion of Mr Bret Walker, Senior Counsel, relating to the Legislative Council's powers to call for the production of documents and related matters.

Ordered to be printed.
The Hon. Patricia Staunton, tabled the report from Estimates Committee No. 1.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. Franca Arena, tabled the report from Estimates Committee No. 2.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald, tabled the report from Estimates Committee No. 3.

Ordered to be printed.


The Clerk tabled documents relevant to the Government's negotiation with Twentieth Century Fox relating to the conversion of Sydney showground into a film complex, lodged with him on Monday, 30 October 1995; Wednesday, 1 November 1995; and Friday, 10 November 1995, according to the resolution of the House of 26 October 1995.


Petition praying that brothels not be legalised, and that the Disorderly Houses Act is fully enforced to close all brothels, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that the rights of parents to freedom of choice in education be supported, and that any attempts to remove the exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act for Christian, religious and other non-government schools, churches and religious organisations be opposed, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.

Petition praying that because of the detrimental physical effects of traffic noise from freeways and tollways, the Environment Protection Authority, independently of the Roads and Traffic Authority, review the Roads and Traffic Authority's night-time traffic noise criteria, received from the Hon. I. Cohen.

Page 2988

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

That the Acting-President be requested to communicate, through His Excellency the Governor, to the President of Israel, Mr Ezer Weizmann and to Mrs Leah Rabin the following Resolution:

We, the Members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, on our own behalf and on behalf of the people of the State, desire to express to the President of Israel and the people of Israel and to Mrs Leah Rabin and the family of the late Prime Minister our deepest sorrow and heartfelt sympathy at the tragic death of Yitzhak Rabin.

We feel a sense of both national and personal loss at the passing of the late Prime Minister and wish to record our admiration of his leadership of the Israeli people and our sincere appreciation of his efforts on behalf of all humanity in the causes of freedom and world peace.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.16]: I move:

That the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith adjudging the Minister guilty of a contempt of the House for failure to table documents in accordance with an Order of the House.

Standing and sessional orders should be suspended to enable me subsequently to move the substantive motion for contempt of a Minister for failing to comply with an order of the House for the tabling of documents. There is no more serious matter than the accusation of a Minister, or any member, of contempt of the House. When such a matter has been raised it is appropriate that the House deal with it immediately. Such an allegation should not be allowed to hang unresolved over the head of a Minister. Suspension of standing and sessional orders will allow the House to bring the matter on for immediate debate so that it can be appropriately resolved.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.18]: The Government supports the motion.

Motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.18]: I move:

That this House:

(1) (a) notes the failure of the Government to comply with an order of this House made on Thursday 18 October 1995, requiring the tabling of documents relating to the closure of certain veterinary laboratories and the Biological and Chemical Research Institute at Rydalmere by 12 noon on Tuesday 24 October 1995;

(b) notes the failure of the Treasurer as Leader of the Government to comply with a further order of this House made on Thursday 26 October 1995 for him to table the documents by 4.00 p.m. on that day; and

(c) notes the continued failure of the Treasurer to table the documents following the passing of a resolution on Thursday 26 October 1995 expressing this House's displeasure with the Leader of the Government for his failure to comply promptly with the earlier resolution, and calling upon him to comply with the Resolution of the House by Monday 13 November 1995;

(2) (a) notes the failure of the Government to comply with an order of this House made on Wednesday 25 October 1995 requiring the tabling of documents relating to the Government's negotiations with 20th Century Fox concerning the conversion of the Sydney Showground into a film complex; and

(b) notes the continued failure of the Treasurer as Leader of the Government to table the documents following the passing of a resolution on Thursday 26 October 1995 expressing this House's displeasure with the Leader of the Government for his failure to comply promptly with the Resolution of 25 October 1995, and calling upon him to comply with the Resolution of the House by Monday 13 November 1995;

(3) notes the failure of the Government to comply with an order of this House made on Thursday 26 October 1995 requiring the tabling of documents relating to the Government's decision to recentralise the Department of Education and the resultant closure of Regional Offices;

(4) adjudges the Treasurer guilty of a contempt of this House for his failure to comply with those orders;

(5) hereby suspends the Treasurer from the service of the House for seven calendar days inclusive of the day on which this resolution is passed. However, if within the period of suspension the Treasurer notifies the President that he is willing to table the documents at the next sitting of the House, the period of suspension is extinguished;

(6) orders the Treasurer, should he continue to fail to table the documents as provided for in paragraph (5), to attend at the Bar of this House on the sitting day next following the expiration of his suspension and explain his reasons for continued non-compliance with the orders of the House. If, at that time he continues to decline to table the documents subject to order, his seat will be declared vacant, without further order of the House being required.

I have not moved this motion lightly. The question before the House concerns the power of the Parliament over the Executive arm of government, its authority over Ministers who represent that arm of government in this House and whether the House is prepared to exert any authority over a Minister who contemptuously deals with a resolution of the House. The matter has not been brought before the House out of the blue; it has been the subject of its consideration on several occasions. The very real challenge to all honourable members is whether they are prepared to ensure that the Parliament's authority is maintained.

I propose that the paragraphs of the motion be dealt with seriatim so that the House makes the initial decision. The House must first decide whether the
Page 2989
Treasurer is guilty of a contempt of this House. I will indicate to the House strong reasons for it to form that view, a view from which it cannot escape. The second decision the House will be required to make is what sanction it should insist upon to ensure that appropriate documents are tabled. As I outlined in the motion, the only sanction is to suspend the Minister from the House until it receives the documents it has requested. This House has not requested those documents just on one occasion; it has given the Minister two opportunities to table the documents.

This is now the third opportunity to table the documents, and the Minister has failed to comply. I emphasise that honourable members must consider three separate issues when dealing with the issue of contempt. The first relates to the requirement, now made on three occasions by this House, that the Minister table documents relating to certain veterinary laboratories and the Biological and Chemical Research Institute at Rydalmere and other places. Not one single piece of paper has been tabled in response to that requirement. The second matter to which I draw the attention of honourable members is contained in the third paragraph of the motion, which states:

(3) notes the failure of the Government to comply with an order of this House made on Thursday, 26 October 1995, requiring the tabling of documents relating to the Government's decision to recentralise the Department of Education . . .

The Government has not tabled one single document in response to that resolution of 26 October. The next matter concerns the development of the showground site. The terms of the motion are:

(2) (a) notes the failure of the Government to comply with an order of this House made on Wednesday, 25 October 1995, requiring the tabling of documents relating to the . . . negotiations with 20th Century Fox . . .

I acknowledge, and the House must recognise, that the Minister has partially complied with the resolution of 25 October. Honourable members will recall that the Minister made available to the House a list of documents prepared under freedom of information legislation. The Minister said that those documents would be tabled but that he would not table certain other documents. That undertaking was observed, and the documents listed in that table were lodged. However, many other documents have not been tabled, and I will come to those in a moment.

The Minister has shown nothing but contempt for the forms of the House because he has not tabled any documents concerning the Rydalmere institute or the education department and has complied only partially with the resolution concerning the showground site. The resolution of 25 October effectively required the Minister to table all documents, correspondence, notes, advices and submissions, including briefing papers, in relation to the in-principle agreement with Twentieth Century Fox. The Minister tabled certain documents in partial compliance with that request. The documents were listed in a table prepared under the Freedom of Information Act. Paragraph (b) of the resolution required the Minister to table all documents relating to the Sydney showground site at Moore Park and the transfer of planning powers from South Sydney Council to the New South Wales State Government.

I draw to the attention of the House that the Minister has not tabled one piece of paper relating to the planning aspects of the Sydney showground. Paragraph (c) of the resolution required the Government and the Minister to table all documents relating to the involvement of Twentieth Century Fox in the showground site beyond the use of the site as a film studio. There has been compliance in part with that paragraph of the resolution. The Minister will say that he has complied with the resolution of the House in relation to the showground site. He will say that he has tabled all the documents other than those he has categorised as commercial in-confidence documents. No doubt he will argue that those documents are subject to privilege and he is not required to table them.

This House should take the same approach that the Senate took to a matter the subject of a Senate report titled "Procedure Committee Third Report of 1992" because it related to a not dissimilar circumstance. The Senate resolved that the Minister for Foreign Affairs table certain documents. He took the same approach initially as that of this Minister and refused to table the documents. When confronted with the threat of contempt he tabled a number of documents that could be said to be those made available under freedom of information. He refused to table the rest of the documents alleging that they were, in the parlance of today's debate, commercial in-confidence documents. Although a number of arguments were used by Senator Evans as to why he should not table specific documents, the Senate insisted upon the requirement that the documents be tabled. The relevant part of that report, page 3, stated:

In 1975, when the government made a claim of crown privilege in relation to evidence to be given by certain public servants before the Senate, the Senate passed the following resolution:

(1) That the Senate affirms that it possesses the powers and privileges of the House of Commons as conferred by section 49 of the Constitution and has the power to summon persons to answer questions and produce documents, files and papers.

(2) That, subject to the determination of all just and proper claims of privilege which may be made by persons summoned, it is the obligation of all such persons to answer questions and produce documents.

(3) That the fact that a person summoned is an officer of the Public Service or that a question related to his departmental duties, or that a file is a departmental one does not, of itself, excuse or preclude an officer from answering the question or from producing the file or part of the file.

(4) That, upon a claim of privilege based on an established ground being made to any question or to the production of any documents, the Senate shall consider and determine each such claim.

Page 2990

The Minister then sought to affirm that he only needed to claim, in effect, the freedom of information documents. He claimed that the extent of the privilege of confidentiality was consistent only with the freedom of information legislation. The Senate rejected those claims with the following comments:

If a minister were to regard all of the exemption provisions of the Act -

that is the Freedom of Information Act -

as providing grounds on which to claim a privilege against disclosure of information to a House, this would considerably expand the grounds of executive privilege hitherto claimed by ministers; for example, the exemption provisions include reference to cabinet documents, Executive Council documents, internal working documents and documents relating to research -

and I emphasise the following words of the Senate committee -

none of which has been regarded in the past as documents which may be withheld from Parliament by reason only that they fall into those categories.

The use of the provisions of the Act as a checklist of grounds for non-disclosure does not relieve a minister of the responsibility of carefully considering whether the minister should seek to withhold documents from a House, or from considering the question in the context of the importance of the matters under examination by the House (the Senate's resolution of 3 June 1992 refers to "a matter of great public interest involving the proper conduct of government and the accountability of Ministers to Parliament"). Senator Evans' consideration of the case in question indicates that he accepts that principle.

Ministers will no doubt continue to take seriously their obligation to give account to the Houses of the conduct of government and to consider seriously the requests or requirements of a House for the production of documents.

I commend those comments for adoption. The intent of the Senate in this document is quite clear: a Minister has a responsibility to table in the House every document which is requested by the House. If the Government maintains that there is available a claim of privilege, that claim must be made in and to the House. That having been done, as paragraph 4 of the Senate's 1995 resolution states, it is then a question for the House to consider such a claim of privilege. In this case, this Government refused to table all requested documents and has not done so notwithstanding the numerous previous warnings of the House in debate on these matters. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that there was a obligation on the Government to table all documents, to identify those privileged documents and then to put in place a mechanism for dealing with that privilege.

That is not a novel approach. Honourable members know that during the past 18 months documents were required to be tabled in the other Chamber. On those occasions the Government of the day claimed privilege in respect of such documents and a motion was moved to ensure that that privilege was appropriately dealt with. In relation to documents that I will refer to as the Water Board documents the other House resolved to require the Government to place those documents in the hands of the Clerk of that Chamber. Limited access was permitted to those documents, they were not to be copied and they were not to be removed from the control of the Clerk. Honourable members will recall that in regard to those documents there was a breach of that requirement by a member who is now a Minister. Mr Knowles breached that requirement and was dealt with.

On another occasion privilege was claimed also in relation to other documents, which I will refer to as the police documents. The Government alleged that the security of individuals would be compromised if certain documents were tabled. As a consequence motions were amended and passed to exclude such documents. The requirement of the Senate as to the obligations of Ministers to the Parliament has been acknowledged in the New South Wales Parliament as recently as during the past 18 months. But our Treasurer chose not to comply with obligations that are imposed upon him; he chose not to table the documents. I submit that that was not an oversight; it was a deliberate decision by this Minister to refuse to table those documents. It was not done capriciously, because honourable members will recall that the Minister stood in this place and indicated clearly that he was not going to table those documents despite honourable members reminding him in debate of his obligation to table them.

The Leader of the House was advised of the procedure that had to be followed if he wished to raise a claim of privilege, yet he chose to ignore that advice. Honourable members will recall also that the Treasurer claimed that his obligation to this House was no greater than the obligation imposed by the freedom of information legislation. Effectively he was saying that this House has no greater authority over a Minister and the administration of government than does any man in the street and, therefore, this Parliament has no authority and the Government is not answerable to the Parliament. Such an attitude flies totally in the face of the findings of the third report of the Senate Procedure Committee. For the benefit of the honourable members who have not had the opportunity to read the document I restate:

If a minister were to regard all of the exemption provisions of the Act as providing grounds on which to claim a privilege against disclosure of information to a House, this would considerably expand the grounds of executive privilege hitherto claimed by ministers . . .

The Senate report refers to a number of examples. I again emphasise the following statement:

. . . the exemption provisions include reference to cabinet documents, Executive Council documents, internal working documents and documents relating to research -

those are the documents that this Minister will not table -

none of which has been regarded in the past as documents which may be withheld from Parliament by reason only that they fall into those categories.

There can be no clearer statement than that of a Minister's obligations to the Parliament. Yet this Minister has blatantly chosen to challenge the authority of the Parliament. I have indicated clearly
Page 2991
that this Minister has no excuse for not tabling those documents. He is under an obligation to do so. A number of authorities have stated quite clearly that he is under such an obligation, but he has blatantly chosen not to table the documents. What should the approach of this Parliament be in such a circumstance? Is the Parliament willing to accept that a Minister may capriciously ignore the Parliament? If that were to be the situation, what would be the role of the Parliament? Will Parliament on any occasion be able to insist that Ministers be accountable to it?

The challenge for each member is to decide whether the House should insist upon accountability. If members do so insist, there can be only one finding by this House: the Treasurer is in contempt of the Parliament. What will then be done to obtain these documents if we are of the view that the Treasurer is in contempt? We have two options. First, we could insist that he fulfil his obligations and not seek to ride roughshod over the Parliament. If we allowed him to ride roughshod over us, the Parliament might as well not exist. The Leader of the House is saying, in effect, that the Parliament has no authority over him, that under a Labor administration the Executive Government is all powerful and it will determine what will and will not be made available to the public.

The second option is that the members might decide to subpoena public servants to appear before the bar of the House. It may be that only by exercising such a power against government employees will material be made available to it. Although that option is available, I suggest it is not a tenable option. Under our Constitution, a Minister who takes the oath and is appointed to Executive Government submits himself to the will of the Parliament and the Parliament must exercise its authority over that Minister. Only by so doing can we ensure good order and good government in this State. Paragraph (5) of my motion will ensure that the House acts within its constitutional powers to obtain these documents. If the documents are still not tabled, the Parliament should then exercise its authority over the Treasurer and suspend him from the services of the House. My motion states that he should be suspended for a fixed period of seven calendar days, during which time he may at any time table the documents as requested in accordance with the rules and procedures of the House.

If after all the Treasurer decides not to table the documents, he should be dealt with in the manner referred to in paragraph (6) of my motion. I hope that stage is never reached. Paragraph (6) of my motion embodies the procedures upon which we are now embarking in order to deal with a recalcitrant Minister. If, after the seven-day period, the Treasurer has not tabled the documents he will be called upon to explain his reasons for continued non-compliance with the orders of the House. If he continues to decline to table the documents, there will be only one option remaining to the House: his seat will be declared vacant.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Are you going to expel me now?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yes. That is the only option we have available to deal with a Minister who has deliberately chosen to challenge the authority of the House. No doubt government members will argue, as they have on previous occasions, that the Parliament has no authority to order the production of documents. In the past this House has sought to invoke Standing Order 18 and to use its inherent powers to require the production of documents. No doubt the Minister will seek to rely on the advice of the Crown Solicitor and the Solicitor General that Standing Order 18 is invalid. No doubt he will also seek to rely on the advice of Bret Walker which was tabled today; it is couched in similar terms.

On several occasions over the last three weeks this House has insisted that the Minister table the documents. On each occasion the Minister has argued invalidity, but the standing orders require him to produce the documents. If the Government believes that Standing Order 18 is invalid, it should take the matter to court. If the court declares that we do not have the power under that standing order, so be it, we will introduce appropriate legislation to correct that. This issue was clearly laid down before the Government and the Minister two weeks ago. Honourable members will recall that on that occasion I indicated that if the Government were to adhere to that line, it would have a two-week period to institute such proceedings, when the House was not sitting. The Government did not choose to do so.

The House has invoked this standing order and has insisted upon the validity of the standing order. Therefore, the standing order should be observed. This standing order is not in any way different from that which exists in the other Chamber - a standing order that was invoked on many occasions by Labor when in opposition, a standing order the validity of which was supported by the former Government, whose parties are now in opposition. The coalition then took the view, which it takes now and which is completely supported by members on the crossbenches, that the validity of such a standing order must be upheld by the House until otherwise determined by the courts. That is our constitutional system, and it should not be ignored by the Government.

Bret Walker in his advice to the House today emphasised clearly that the House has inherent powers which give it the authority, notwithstanding the argument about Standing Order 18, to require the production of these documents. The House has also indicated that it sustains those inherent powers. If the Government wishes to challenge those inherent powers, it should do so by taking the matter to court. The Government is embarking upon an arrogant approach to the Parliament. It has indicated clearly that it is prepared to ignore the Parliament; it is prepared to pull on the authority of the Parliament - if I might use those words. The Leader of the House does that at his own peril. If the House is to maintain its relevance within the system of government, it has to insist upon compliance.

Page 2992

The arrogance of the Government is further compounded. Only last week a number of honourable members received a letter from the Treasurer in which he again indicated his adherence to the view that the power to insist upon the production of documents was unconstitutional, but also invited members to establish a system under which the House would be given power to require the production of documents. The letter suggested, however, that the power to require the production of documents would be limited. That further serves to emphasise the arrogance of this Minister and this Government to the authority of Parliament. The Treasurer questioned, by way of interjection, the approach that should be taken ultimately if he continues to ignore the Parliament. The Treasurer could be expelled if he arrogantly continues to ignore the Parliament.

When the House last had to deal with such an issue, in the matter of Armstrong and Budd, it was taken to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. It is worth reading what was said by one of the appellate judges about the issue of removing a member from the Parliament. I draw attention to this, because it is of significance in relation to the arrogance of this Minister and this Government. What was said by the Leader of the House on the last occasion this matter was debated will ring in the ears of all honourable members. At that time I foreshadowed that this was the track down which he was treading. I indicated that the ultimate sanction was his suspension and removal from the House. The Leader of the House indicated that if the House expelled him, bearing in mind that the Government is in minority in this House, honourable members should expect a similar response from the Government in the other Chamber. The clear threat being that if a Labor Party member is expelled from this House, honourable members should expect the expulsion from the lower House of someone who is not a Labor Party member.

I say to the Treasurer and to the Government: proceed with that threat. This House will not be intimidated by such an arrogant approach. The powers of the House in this regard are clearly established by the court, in the matter of Armstrong and Budd. At the time of that case the Parliament was asked to consider this issue of power. I shall not read verbatim what was said by the court on that occasion; the relevant passages occupy almost two entire pages. The Parliament's powers were made clear by the court. The court said that the House has the power to suspend and the power to expel. That is not something done capriciously, however; it is done for cause. I submit to the House that there can be no greater cause. We do not ever want to suspend a member from the House, either temporarily or permanently, but the power and the authority of this Parliament as a governing institution of this State must be upheld, and can be upheld only by the House insisting upon accountability by Ministers to the House. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.59]: My colleague the Treasurer and Leader of the Government will reply to this motion in detail. Nevertheless, I suggest to the House that he has no case to answer. This is a motion for contempt that has, conspicuously, not been supported adequately by the Leader of the Opposition. There is no case to answer; there is no case made out for the extreme measures contemplated by this resolution. Honourable members should consider what the resolution does ultimately. It seeks to have the Treasurer's seat declared vacant without further order of the House being required. In other words, this is a penal motion of the most extreme kind. The motion is grave in its nature, but where is the case brought to support it? I suggest that the case is non-existent.

The mover of a motion of this kind bears a heavy onus to make out not only a prima facie case but a case that is persuasive on any view, a case which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the member ought to be thrown out of the House. That is not being done with this motion. The Leader of the Opposition has failed the test; he has failed to discharge the onus that lies upon him to show beyond reasonable doubt that these punitive actions ought to be taken. I shall now make a series of points to show that the motion is unsustainable and that any reasonable member of the House should vote against it. First, the Leader of the Opposition relies in large part upon Senate practice. He quoted varies precedents and rulings of the Senate. The Senate practice overlooks the different legal basis underlying the operations of this Parliament compared to the Senate. This is pointed out in the advice of Mr Bret Walker, senior counsel, which has been made available today and distinguishes Senate practice quite clearly. At the foot of page 21 he says:

It should be borne in mind that the Parliament of New South Wales has not enacted any equivalence of its Houses' privilege and power with those of the House of Commons, unlike other Australian Parliaments. It is therefore not right to proceed as if the practices of the House of Commons and Australian Parliaments with equivalent powers and privileges provided correct precedents for New South Wales.

What did the Leader of the Opposition do? He simply ignored that opinion. He relied in a simplistic, knee- jerk way, without proper analysis upon supposed Senate precedents without pointing out, as he should in the exercise of his duty of candour to this House, that the legal advice says that the Senate precedents are simply inapplicable to this Parliament and are absolutely distinguishable. I will return to this opinion on a number of occasions and deal with this aspect in a logical manner. The first point is that the reliance upon Senate precedents is simply misconceived because we are dealing with a different legal situation. That aspect of the Leader of the Opposition's speech is misconceived and is erroneous. I will demolish these points one by one. I am taking one point now but I will move on to a number of other points and show that this motion is fatally flawed.

Let me next consider the nature of the charge, because it is a charge. It is a cumulative series of complaints and criticisms directed at my colleague the
Page 2993
Leader of the Government. It alleges a number of failures and, as a result of the cumulative effect of those alleged failures, suggests that ultimately he ought to be suspended and then, if necessary, expelled from the House or that his seat be declared vacant. The fact is that two of the allegations contained in the motion are manifestly misconceived. That is because complaint is made about the non-production of documents concerning Rydalmere and the Department of Education.

It is clear that the Rydalmere documents are in the custody and control of the Minister for Agriculture, a member of the Legislative Assembly; and it is clear that the Department of School Education documents are in the custody and control of the Minister for Education, also a member of the Legislative Assembly. I would suggest to members that they cannot punish a member of the Legislative Council for failing to produce documents which are in the custody and control of a member of another Chamber. The Treasurer cannot be visited with the failure to produce documents which are simply not in his custody.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: That only emphasises this Government's arrogance towards the Parliament.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As a lawyer the Leader of the Opposition knows that this debate is not about the so-called arrogance of the Government, as he alleges. This is not about that; it is an individual punitive motion targeted at a particular member. One might say all sorts of good things or bad things about the Government - that is a matter for political debate - but this is a punitive motion. It has to be looked at with some precision and some degree of intellectual rigour. The Leader of the Opposition does not advance his case by simply making rhetorical flourishes about the Government - that is a different debate.

Let us concentrate our minds on whether the Leader of the Government ought to be punished in the way contemplated by the motion. Surely no-one here would suggest that a member ought to be punished because of some general and rather low-level political debate about the merits or demerits of the Government? The Leader of the Opposition is not focusing his mind on the correct issue. Let me make the point that, putting it at its lowest, at least two elements of this charge are simply misconceived, because the documents called for are simply not within the possession of the Minister at whom this motion is targeted. I refer to Mr Bret Walker's advice in which at pages 22 to 23 he poses the question:

Do different considerations apply where the papers are under the Ministerial responsibility of a Minister in the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly?

Yes.

The attitude, and in my opinion the powers, which may be taken and exercised by the Legislative Council against one of its own Members who has defied its valid exercise of power in aid of its deliberations are clearly on a different footing from the Legislative Council's relation with a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Obviously, suspension and expulsion are out of the question with respect to an M.L.A. There is also the difficult and presently obscure question of relations between the two Houses on a fundamental issue of privilege. It may well be that a punctilious avoidance of any element of punishment will also avoid any unfortunate dispute with the Assembly.

However, and notwithstanding what I have said about implied powers, I do not regard it as likely that the Legislative Council would be held by a court of law to have an implied power to enforce an order for production of documents by a committal for contempt against, say, a Minister sitting in the Legislative Assembly.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: We are not taking proceedings against a Minister of the other House.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The motion is wrong; the motion is flawed! There is a defect in the charge, so think about it again. Should this House convict someone of contempt and penalise him on the basis of a motion that is fatally flawed? The Leader of the Opposition knows that when you have a criminal allegation, the prosecution has to prove each and every element of it. It is not good enough to prove one element and not the other. So the Opposition has failed on two of the three counts. It has failed.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Keep trying.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It has failed, admit it; it cannot sustain the charges.

The Hon. F. J. Ryan: This is not about punishment; you do not understand what the debate is all about.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I think I have a reasonable understanding, at least as good as that of the Hon. J. F. Ryans. The charge is fatally flawed because the Leader of the Opposition has not proved two of the elements of the charge which are obviously integral to the cumulative series of allegations. The next point I would like to deal with relates to a matter about which I have addressed the House in recent times: from where does this House derive the power to require the production of documents? On the basis of conventional constitutional theory, the theory of Dicey, I accept that as a sovereign entity Parliament ultimately has general powers if it chooses to enact them. However, this Parliament has not chosen, certainly not in an expressed or clear way, to give itself the power to require members or Ministers to produce documents.

Section 15 of the Constitution Act provides that the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly can make standing rules and orders, and sets out the subject matter that those rules and orders may cover. The Leader of the Opposition has not attempted in this debate, neither today nor on previous occasions, to show that Standing Order 18 falls within section 15 of the Constitution Act. I can understand that because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to point to the head of power in section 15 of the Constitution Act that justifies and supports Standing Order 18 of the Legislative Assembly? Nothing in section 15 justifies or supports that standing order. Successive Crown
Page 2994
Solicitors have advised that that standing order is invalid and is ultra vires the powers vested in the Constitution Act. The Solicitor General - for whom I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has great respect, as I am sure any Attorney General who has worked with him would have - has advised that that standing order is not valid or enforceable.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: But he is sometimes wrong.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: In a sense, in an imperfect world everyone is sometimes wrong. That having been said I think there is an overwhelming rational and logical basis for the Solicitor General's view. It is supported by Mr Bret Walker's advice, and I have not heard a single argument to the contrary, certainly not in this House. I have not heard anyone suggest any rational basis for defending this standing order. If someone has a rational argument to put, let us hear it. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to argue in some way that the standing order is valid. The Opposition sugests, if there is no supportive power in section 15, "Oh well, if it is not supported by legislation it must be supported by some inherent power vested in the Parliament."

Armstrong v Budd, the case cited by the Leader of the Opposition, does not support the proposition. Paraphrasing that case before going to precise quotations, it said that the only inherent powers that a House of Parliament has are those necessary for the existence of that House, powers necessary for the conduct of the business of that House. A power to subpoena documents is not necessary for the conduct of a House of Parliament. Chief Justice Herron said in Armstrong v Budd, a case decided in 1969:

For there exist well-recognised overriding common-law principles which enlarge Parliamentary power. As applying to this case the first primary essentials may be stated thus: in the absence of express grant the Legislative Council possesses such powers and privileges as are implied by reason of necessity; the necessity which occasions the implication of a particular power or privilege is such as is necessary to the existence of the Council or to the due and orderly exercise of its functions.

These principles result from cases decided in the Privy Council, the High Court and in this Court. From these authorities derive such well-recognised rights and privileges as for example the absolute privilege of a member as to statements made by him in the House . . . or the right of the House, through its President, to remove, suspend or expel a member for disorderly conduct in the course of the proceedings of the House.

Sir Gordon Wallace, then President of the Court of Appeal, said in the same case:

In the result I am of the opinion that the Legislative Council has an implied power to expel a member if it adjudges him to have been guilty of conduct unworthy of a member. The nature of this power is that it is solely defensive - a power to preserve and safeguard the dignity and honour of the Council and the proper conduct and exercise of its duties. The power extends to conduct outside the Council provided the exercise of the power is solely and genuinely inspired by the said defensive objectives. The manner and the occasion of the exercise of the power are for the decision of the Council.

As a result of that case law the Crown Solicitor, Mr Knight, advised on 26 October 1995 as follows:

In my opinion necessity does not dictate that the Legislative Council has implied power to require the production to it of documents of the subject kind which happen to be in the possession or control of the Executive or a third party, for the purpose of informing the House of their contents. It cannot be said that the production of these documents is necessary to the very existence of the House. Nor can it be said that such production is necessary for the due and orderly exercise of its functions or the proper exercise of the functions which it is intended to execute. While it may be that the information contained in the documents is of interest to members and some of it may conceivably assist them to perform some function more efficiently and effectively, that is not the test for the existence of implied power.

Before this House starts to punish members by holding them guilty of contempt, suspending them or expelling them, honourable members should turn their minds to what power they have to do that. There should at least be some persuasive analysis, some argument before the House, as to where this power is to be found. I have not heard a rational attempt by any member of the House to put forward a source of power for the taking of these very serious steps; and there are grave doubts about the powers of the House to impose a punishment of this character. It must be said at the outset that, on balance and with real doubt, the advice of Mr Walker, which was laid before the House today, was that there was power to suspend in order to prevent a member from taking part in proceedings. Having noted that, I would also say that the opinion indicates the existence of grave or serious doubt about that power. On page 20 of his advice Mr Walker stated:

It is doubtful whether the Legislative Council has a power which is a power to deal with a member for contempt for defiance of an order for the production of documents. First, the old cases including Keilley v Carson, and Barton v Taylor, establish that there is a line between enforcement of a power necessary for the discharge of functions and punishment for past misconduct. Second, it is obviously arguable whether dealing with a member who has defied an order to produce documents is in truth punishment or compulsion.

Enough has been said to show the existence of serious and real doubt about the powers of the Parliament in this respect, and we should deal with this matter not in a heavy-handed but in a sensible way. We ought to investigate the powers and procedures and try to put the position of this House and its practices and procedures with respect to the production of documents into some rational and proper order. Accordingly, I propose an amendment to the motion designed to facilitate a more orderly and sensible consideration of these issues. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "That this House" and inserting instead:

"refers to the Standing Orders Committee for inquiry and report:

(a) the powers of the House to call for the production of documents from the Executive under Standing Order 18 or other inherent or implied powers;

(b) whether certain categories of documents ought not to be disclosed to the Parliament;

Page 2995

(c) the powers of the House to deal with a Member for contempt and to suspend a Member for failure to comply with an Order of the House requiring the production of documents;

(d) whether a Minister should be held accountable for the failure to produce documents called for by Order of the House; and

(e) any related matters.

2. The Committee have leave to sit during any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to make visits of inspection within New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia; and have power to take evidence and to send for persons, papers, records and things; and to report from time to time.

3. That leave be given to Members and Officers of the House to appear before and give evidence to the Committee.

4. That the Committee take evidence from the Solicitor General, Crown Solicitor and other relevant persons.

5. That should the House stand adjourned and the Committee agree to any report before the House resumes sitting:

(a) the Committee have leave to send any such report, minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of the Parliaments;

(b) the documents be printed and published and the Clerk forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the Order of the House; and

(c) the documents be laid on the Table of the House at its next sitting."

The amendment is preferable to giving support to this flawed motion, based as it is on a series of errors. In summary, the errors in the Opposition's argument are first, the fallacious reliance upon reference to Senate practice; second, the fact that certain ingredients of the charge or allegation simply cannot be made out, because the documents are not in the custody or possession of the Minister against whom the motion is moved; third, the absence of power either expressed in the Constitution Act or implied or inherent in the Parliament or in this House of the Parliament; and, fourth, the grave doubt about the powers of this House to punish a member in the way contemplated by the resolution. In the light of all that uncertainty and difficulty, surely honourable members would not support a motion of this gravity when in substance and reality no case has been made out for that support.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.18]: Only two weeks after a similar debate on the authority of the Legislative Council to request the Government to table documents, honourable members hear from the Attorney General a very legalistic argument about why the Government will not accede to the request of the House. Speaking from a layman's point of view, we need to go back to the crux of this matter, does this House have any authority or any inherent power to order the Government or anyone else to do anything? If the House does not have that power, if Parliament does not have that power, honourable members must wonder what standing order is now valid under this Government and what authority this House has to do anything in regard to running the State of New South Wales.

The Attorney General selectively quoted from Mr Walker's advice, which I do not have with me. However, he omitted a number of things which indicate that the House has authority to suspend a member if that member has been found guilty of acting contrary to the will of the House. One would not have had to be a member of this House for too long to know that only a few years ago a member was suspended from this House for contempt of its ruling; so the precedent has been set. The House and the Parliament have the authority to suspend a member. It is spurious for the Attorney General to argue that this House does not have the authority to suspend one of its members, be it the member who was suspended a few years ago or the Leader of the Government today.

The Attorney General said that the Leader of the Government in this House has no responsibility for Ministers in another place who may not have been able to table documents for whatever reason, or for the decisions that they make. I remind the House that in this House the Leader of the Government represents the Premier. A message from this House was conveyed to the Premier by the Clerk. The Premier's representative in this House is the Hon. Michael Egan, the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. He is quite clearly responsible for representing the Premier and the Government in this place.

The Attorney General has a very short memory. Last year the Opposition in another place ordered Water Board documents to be tabled under Standing Order 54. The responsible Minister was in the Legislative Council, not the Legislative Assembly, but he was represented by a Minister in the Legislative Assembly. On that occasion the documents were produced. The message went through the system; the Minister in the Assembly was made aware that the documents were needed in the other place, and they were provided, because that was the will of the Parliament. But on this occasion the Government is hiding behind the extraordinarily veiled argument that the Treasurer does not represent a Minister in another place, and that if Ministers in another place choose not to table documents, so be it. It is a spurious argument.

The House has ordered that the documents be tabled. The first request, for the tabling of agricultural documents, was not complied with. The House then reordered the tabling of those documents. How many times does the House have to address a matter before it is in a position to assert its authority? What will the House do next if the Government refuses to comply with a request that the House makes of a Minister, whether it be for the tabling of documents or any other matter? If the authority of the House is to be impugned, where do we all stand in relation to governing this State and undertaking our responsibilities as members of Parliament?

Page 2996

It should be made extremely clear from the outset that this motion stemmed from the arrogance of the Leader of the Government and from his contempt for the will of this House. Had the Treasurer complied with the previous motions passed by a majority of members, this motion would not have been necessary. However, he has chosen this path. It is the decision of the Leader of the Government in this place not to comply with a decision of the House. Anything that might flow from the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition completely relates to what the Leader of the Government proposes to do about these documents. The debate has been somewhat misunderstood and clouded from the outset, partly because of the enthusiasm of the press for the showground issue. But the showground documents were not the only ones requested - agriculture and education documents were also sought by a majority of members in this place.

Agriculture documents were requested as early as 18 October, but today, almost four weeks down the track, they have not been produced. The Government has no intention of producing them, and this has nothing to do with contracts or secrecy. The Government is trying to brush over decisions that cannot be sustained - the closure of veterinary laboratories at Wagga Wagga and Armidale, the closure of the chemical research institute at Rydalmere, and the recentralisation of education in this State. These are not issues of propriety about documents or contracts that should not be tabled; they are about a government covering up. On 26 October the Treasurer was fortunate enough to escape censure simply by giving an assurance to provide the showground documents, but unfortunately he did so selectively. The House notes that the agriculture and education documents have not been tabled.

The farmers of this State, employees of New South Wales Agriculture and teachers are now asking about the documents they requested. The Minister for Agriculture in another place has contradicted himself in the estimates committees, in the press and in his original announcement about the various reasons why the vet labs at Armidale and Wagga Wagga were to be closed. We need to know exactly on what basis the vet labs are to be closed. Such contradictions only heighten the need for some sort of information to be made available to the public. The Treasurer has failed to comply with the wishes of this House not on one issue but on three separate issues: the tabling of agriculture documents, the tabling of education documents and the tabling of Royal Agricultural Society showground documents.

If the Government firmly believes that this House does not have the power to order the tabling of these documents, it had more than two weeks to test that in the Supreme Court. Why did the Attorney General not take this issue to the court? Why did he try to tough it out? Is it a decision of Cabinet to tough it out or is it a decision of the first law officer of this State? Why would he not have taken this issue to the Supreme Court and have it decided? He knows full well that the Standing Orders Committee's consideration of this matter would be that of a kangaroo court. There is no way that it could resolve this issue, and the Attorney knows this too well. He is using that reference as a subterfuge for not taking this matter to the Supreme Court.

The fact that the Government did not take this matter to court has effectively negated the Leader of the Government's right to enter this Chamber and continue to flout the will of this House. The central issue is that he is refusing to comply with the wishes of this House. If he fails to comply with those wishes, this House has no alternative but to act. The question must be posed: will the Treasurer refuse to obey the wishes of a majority of this House on other issues because he is of the opinion that the House does not have the authority to do anything? I cannot stress strongly enough that should this House not condemn the Treasurer for his arrogance and for his contempt for this House, it will set an extremely dangerous precedent: that a member who holds an opinion contrary to that of the majority of this House does not have to abide by the will of the majority. I urge all members to resile as quickly as possible from setting such a precedent.

By not agreeing to this motion, the House would in effect be advocating a direct assault on the democratic beliefs of our society. I remind the Treasurer of his previous words when he said that this motion was anathema to democracy. I have never heard such nonsensical, contradictory drivel in all my life. Let me remind the House that the Treasurer is attempting to assert his will on the majority of members. To find a more undemocratic notion, one would have to examine the political history of Germany in 1933. Should the Treasurer have problems comprehending the problems of democracy, I suggest he refamiliarise himself with his high school Greek history text, in particular the works of Pericles.

The Treasurer narrowly escaped being censured previously owing to his last-minute promise to provide some of the documents relating to the showground. What happened to the agriculture and education documents? Why were they not tabled? His arrogance and his contempt for the will of this House cannot and will not be tolerated. As has been said on numerous occasions, the Opposition would welcome the Government going to the Supreme Court to test the authority of this House. The Attorney General could well have stood up in this House today and said, "As the first law officer of this State, I am quite happy to take this matter to the Supreme Court and have it tested. Let us wait for a couple of weeks, or however long it takes, to have this matter tested." But it is a joke for the Attorney to move an amendment that this matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

The Standing Orders Committee is in no position to make a legal judgment on whether the Legislative Council has the power to call for the tabling of documents. Put simply, the Government should either go to the Supreme Court for a ruling or abide by the will of the Parliament. That is a clear option, and it
Page 2997
appears the Government has already made its choice. If the Treasurer does not comply with the will of the Parliament, he must face the consequences of being in contempt of this House. It is astounding that the situation should have been allowed to reach the stage whereby extreme actions may now have to be taken. One question continually springs to mind: what does the Government have to hide by refusing to table the documents? The Government is hiding behind legalistic advice which, as has been pointed out in the House previously, was available to the former Government. The former Government did not heed the advice and on numerous occasions tabled many documents requested by the then Opposition under Standing Order 54, and in accordance with the very tight time demands imposed.

I urge all members to seriously consider this important issue. Does the Legislative Council have authority? Does the will of the majority count for anything? Can the Government completely ignore the wishes of this place whenever it chooses and hide behind a legalistic response? Do members of the Legislative Council have responsibilities and an inherent power under the standing orders to act as they see fit and request documents from time to time? Members would not want the action proposed in paragraph (6) of the motion to occur - that would achieve nothing - but the House ultimately has to assert its authority. Otherwise members of this House will be made to run around in circles by the government of the day. They might as well all be paired and go home, because they will not achieve anything unless this Chamber has authority and a place in the democratic process of this State.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [12.33]: I support the motion, but it is with deep regret that I am compelled to do so. I have now served in this House for more than 14 years. I was first elected to it in the time of what I can only describe as the Wran dictatorship, when the Labor Government led by Neville Wran had total control of both Houses of Parliament.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Certainly not in the first term. He got the Wranslide after that.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Yes. I was elected in 1981, which was the time of the Wranslide. In those days the Parliament was a farce. I well remember being told by the Leader of the Government in this House, a man for whom I had great respect for much of the work he did as Minister for Planning and Environment, at the end of a sitting, perhaps when we were leaving the Chamber for a lunch or dinner break, "Anything that happens in here is just a charade. This is theatre. The real business of government is done in Cabinet." I do not know whether he believed that because I was newly elected I was naive enough to believe that statement, but I found it shocking. It made a absolute mockery of any parliamentary sitting. It meant that whatever statements were made on the public record were not regarded by the Government of the day as of any importance and that it was going to do what it wanted irrespective of the opinion of anybody else, what the community thought, what the Opposition thought, and what crossbench members thought. In those days only Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and I were on the crossbench.

Things have changed since then - because of a variety of circumstances. The political outlook of Australia has changed. There were few minor parties in 1981; now there is a proliferation of them. The method of election to this Chamber has changed, and this has made it possible for more members from minor parties to be elected. It is possible that the Government of the day does not like that. I am sure that the Premier has said in Cabinet - he has frequently made public statements to this effect - that he does not like what he regards as the undue influence of the minor parties in the upper House. Of course, it would be much easier for the Government if only Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and I were on the crossbench and members from Better Future for our Children and the party represented by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, together with a Green member of Parliament and another Democrat member, were not on the crossbench.

So the job for the Premier is difficult, but it is no more difficult than that faced by the Federal Government since 1980 when the Democrats came to hold the balance of power in the Senate. The problem has increased since the two Green senators from Western Australia were elected to the Senate. Any Leader of the Government in the Senate has to deal with not only my colleagues but also the Green senators. All this makes a lot of difference: it makes the job of government much more difficult. However, no upper Chamber in Australia has ever been intended as a rubber stamp for the Executive. If the Government does not want this Chamber to be independent, it should proceed with its oft-repeated threat - so far as I am aware the threat has been made since the early 1930s - to abolish the upper House. Instead of trying to truncate the powers of this House and threatening its members, it would be far better if the Government went to the wall and held a referendum on abolition of the upper House.

In today's political climate I believe there would not be any support for abolition of a second Chamber. Honourable members know only too well what happened during the years of dictatorship by the Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government, what people got away with and the terrible effect it had in Queensland. Therefore, I believe that a proposal to abolish this House would not be passed, but at least the Government would be honest in proposing such a question; it would not be hiding behind obfuscating legal argument or the swapping of different legal opinions. Every legal opinion conflicts with another legal opinion. I too could go through the legal opinion signed by Bret Walker, Senior Counsel. I could pick out those sections which fully support the Leader of the Opposition. I have not had time to study the document in detail as I have had it for only a few minutes.

Page 2998

However, I am certain that the Attorney General picked out the statements which he believed would support his argument. This document is not the answer to our problems; the only answer is to test the matter in the courts. The Leader of the Government has said that he wants another conference to consider the applicability of Standing Order 18 because he believes it has no validity and is not applicable. I suggest to him that the easiest way for him to resolve the problem would be to ask the court to decide whether Standing Order 18 can be applied in this Parliament. That course would leave members of this Chamber free to deal with legislation and the completion of the budget debate, and to carry out all their other primary tasks.

I am deeply concerned and unhappy that, apart from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Elaine Nile and me, the members on the crossbenches who are new to this House have not seen fit to sit in the Chamber and listen to the debate. If they do not have a full appreciation of the complexity of this issue, it may well be that because they are new to the Parliament and have little understanding of its function, they may make a decision they will later regret. I will certainly not be in that position because, as all honourable members are aware, I will not remain in this Parliament for much longer. Therefore, I can put my experience into the ring in the hope that I have benefited from my many years in this Chamber and that I understand the issues. If things go badly wrong in future, I will not be affected because I will not be here.

The crux of this issue is not whether documents were supplied to this Parliament about negotiations with Foxtel about the showground, about centralisation of the Department of School Education or about closure of veterinary laboratories. The nub of the issue is whether this House has the power to ask the Executive Government of the day to table documents and to be accountable. That is what I am fighting for: nothing more or nothing less than the accountability of the Government of the day to a sovereign House of Parliament. I found some of the statements of the Attorney General cynically amusing. He made great play of the fact that this Chamber does not have a power similar to that of the Senate because of intrinsic differences about how the standing orders of the Senate should be interpreted. Obviously, the standing orders of the Legislative Council are different from those of the Senate. However, when a point of order is taken in this House about procedure, the President or the Clerk of the Parliaments refer primarily to Odgers, and consult Erskine May only as a secondary source. If Senate precedent is regarded as an authority in resolving points of order, why can such precedent not be used in relation to other matters?

The Attorney General said also that this House had no power to demand documents from the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Education and Training because they are Ministers in another place. But those Ministers are members of Cabinet. They have Cabinet responsibility for the documents, and whatever they decided so far as their departments are concerned, they decided as members of Cabinet. Cabinet approved fully of their actions. Therefore, Cabinet is responsible for the documents. Why does the Government not accept that responsibility and produce the documents? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that the Water Board documents were produced in exactly the same way, and the Minister of the day happened to be a member of this Chamber and not of the Legislative Assembly. I would like to reflect on two statements made by the Leader of the Government in his press release today. The first was that oppositions have a right to protect the public interest by probing, scrutinising and seeking information. I am delighted that he made that statement. His media release continued:

Governments, on the other hand, have a duty to protect the public interest by protecting the efficient working of the process of Government, Cabinet confidentiality, and any necessary degree of confidentiality of information provided to it in business or other dealings by companies or individuals.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the honourable member. Honourable members who wish to conduct meetings should do so in the anteroom.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I supported the call for documents about the showground and the veterinary establishments, but neither the Opposition nor the Democrats requested documents covered by Cabinet confidentiality.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You did.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: In relation to commercial in-confidence material I quoted Senate practice. I said that such documents could be tabled, as they were by the previous administration, so that they could be seen only in the Clerk's office by members and would be regarded as commercial in-confidence. In that way any commercial in-confidence document would be respected.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is not the motion you voted for.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: It is strange that we are talking about commercial in-confidence documents about the showground when there was only one tenderer. What is commercial in-confidence about that? Apparently there was no opposition, although according to a briefing this morning there were other expressions of interest at the beginning of discussions about the use of the showground. I gather that a Dr John Ratcliffe was appointed as probity auditor and he oversaw the process. The argument of the Carr Government about the showground is that it has only picked up where the coalition left off. Honourable members do not know what the coalition had previously agreed. They do not know what the Leader of the Opposition in another place, who was then the responsible Minister, intended for Foxtel.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You should know. Have you seen the documents that were released? I'll bet you didn't even look at them.

Page 2999

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Those documents should be tabled so that honourable members can read them and consider that most important point. The documents obtained by the honourable member for Bligh under the freedom of information legislation are not those required to be tabled in this House.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You just said you did not want the commercial in-confidence documents. Don't contradict yourself.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: In answer to that interjection, and for the benefit of Hansard, I make it clear that I am not contradicting myself. I stated clearly that commercial in-confidence documents could be tabled in this Parliament in exactly the same way as they are in the Senate.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is not what you voted for.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: That is what I agreed to originally. If the Leader of the Government refers to Hansard he will see that I made that statement originally. I have been consistent on this matter. I challenge the Leader of the Government to point out, by referring to Hansard, where he believes I have been inconsistent. The Federal Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Cheryl Kernot, has been trying to obtain information from the Federal Government, particularly from Kim Beazley, about why it is investing public money in the showground, money that she believes could be put to better use. Senator Kernot has received a letter from Mr Beazley, of which I have a copy, but it has not been signed.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Isn't that interesting?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Isn't that interesting! For all intents and purposes that document is useless. In pretending to give an assurance to Senator Kernot, Mr Beazley has sent to her office an unsigned document. I take this opportunity to place on the record a press release relating to a statement that will be made by Senator Kernot at the Australian Local Government National Conference in Canberra. The press release will be issued at 1.30 p.m. today, and it states:

The Federal and state governments were running roughshod over local governments and communities, Democrats' Leader Senator Cheryl Kernot said today.

She said competition policy and urban planning were examples of how "big" government was becoming the captive of interest groups and the ideology of economic rationalism.

The press release continues:

But councils hardly got a look-in during the policy debate.

That is exactly what is happening to South Sydney City Council in relation to the changes in the use of the showground. The press release continues:

Senator Kernot said equally tough questions had to be asked about the ongoing role of local government in the planning process.

She raised concerns about two recent state government decisions - the Fox Studio/Sydney Showground deal and Melbourne's Citylink tollway - where local considerations appear to have been ignored.

Senator Kernot said: 'Fast tracking' and 'cutting red tape' become euphemisms for cutting out the community, doing favours for your mates, and trampling on proper process and - in many cases - basic democratic rights.

For all of those reasons this House has demanded documentation on the three matters. Up to this time, the Government has refused to produce that documentation. Earlier the Attorney General claimed that this House did not have the power to demand the production of documents. The legal opinion, which has now been distributed to all members of this House, explicitly spells it out. Paragraph 20 on page 12 of the opinion stated:

The power of a legislature such as the Legislative Council, or at least its 19th century form, to require the production of documents is obviously similar to a power to compel the attendance of witnesses. In New South Wales, the latter power is contained in the Parliamentary Evidence Act.

Therefore it does not matter much whether legislation has been enacted to codify that power. According to Bret Walker it is inherent in past practice. Paragraph 25 on page 19 of the opinion stated:

For all these reasons, I advise that the Legislative Council does have an inherent or implied power to order documents to be produced to the House, whenever the Legislative Council regards that to be appropriate for the proper discharge of an enquiry being conducted in the House (or committee as the case may be).

That statement also confirms the power of the Legislative Council to demand the production of documents. Bret Walker then states his opinion about Standing Order 18. He admits that Standing Order 18, despite its wording, does not in itself bestow any power. When asked whether Standing Order 18 is valid, he said:

Standing Order 18 is valid, not as a grant of power, but as a regulation of power.

It is a regulation of power that this House is seeking to establish. Bret Walker was also asked whether the Legislative Council has the power to call for the production of documents other than under Standing Order 18, that is, inherent common law powers. His answer was yes.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What about the Crown law office?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: If the Leader of the Government wishes to have the conflict between the legal opinions of Mr Walker and the Crown law office resolved, the dispute could be determined by the Supreme Court, which is far more capable of dissecting conflicting legal opinions than members of this Chamber. That has happened in many Federal cases in the High Court. Therefore, it is proper for the Government, which is now aware that there is a conflict between the legal opinions, to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I don't have standing.

Page 3000

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: A few moments ago the Leader of the Government accused me of contradicting myself. The week before last the Leader of the Government said that if the Opposition went down this path he would ensure that the matter was tested in the Supreme Court. At that time I stated - and I repeated the statement to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile this morning - that if the Supreme Court decided that Standing Order 18 has no validity, we would abide by that decision. Until that conflict has been resolved, according to the legal opinion supplied to us this House has the right and the duty to use Standing Order 18. It is a proper standing order that has never previously been challenged.

When the Leader of the Government was a member of the Opposition his colleagues invoked a similar standing order in another place, and the documents were always provided. At that time it suited the Labor Party to invoke that standing order. Now that the Labor Party is in government, it objects to Standing Order 18 being invoked against it. This is the only time the Labor Party has raised an objection to this standing order. That is the crux of the problem.

[The Acting-President left the chair at 12.59 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.30]: Finally I refer to page 23 of the legal opinion prepared by Bret Walker, SC. In answer to question 7, "Are there any other matters that Counsel deems pertinent?", Mr Walker stated:

My only further comment is to observe that there is precedent for a distinction being observed between what might be called ordinary documents of public administration on the one hand and documents which would attract, in a court of law, so-called public immunity privilege on the other hand. In my opinion, there are difficult questions which cannot be answered in the abstract, and which appear unlikely to apply to documents concerning the closure of veterinary institutions, which will arise one day when the Legislative Council seeks particularly sensitive documents from the Executive. In one sense, of course, the inability to draw bright lines in this area reflects the beneficial tension between Parliament and the Executive.

On the other hand, in my opinion talk of legal professional privilege or the privilege against self-incrimination should be beside the point, at least for the production of documents from the Executive. There is no public policy similar to that underpinning the former privilege in courts and tribunals, which could prevent the Legislative Council examining the legal advice upon which officers of the Executive have proceeded to do something which has attracted the attention of the House. As to the latter privilege, it seems unthinkable that a Minister would resist production of a document which may cast light on deficient administration by claiming the possibility of self-incrimination, however theoretically possible that may be in light of e.g. the common law crime of breach of public trust. It would entirely defeat the salutary function of Parliament to enquire into and criticise the administration of government if that privilege were deemed an absolute answer to an order for the production of documents.

That is a salient point. I had intended to end on that note, prior to the luncheon adjournment. However, on returning to my office I found another press release by Senator Cheryl Kernot, the Federal leader of my party. In Senate estimates this afternoon the Australian Democrats will ask questions of the Minister for Communications and the Arts about the Fox deal. The Australian Democrats Senator for New South Wales, who is also the Democrats spokesperson for communications, will demand answers to critical questions. The press release states:

. . . Senator Kernot said the Democrats attitude to support for the Government's appropriation bill, which includes $7 million to help Fox set up the studio and $25 million for the new Show site at Homebush Bay, would be influenced by the answers provided by Mr Beazley.

"We won't just sign-off on the strength of a throw-away line in the Creative Nation statement or a line in the second reading speech," Senator Kernot said.

Senator Kernot said the Democrats were deeply concerned that the Commonwealth Government appeared to be sanctioning the New South Wales Government's short-cutting of tendering processes.

"The details of this deal have not even gone before the NSW Cabinet and yet the Federal Government is ready to hand over $32 million," she said.

"The NSW State Government has a responsibility to prove to its Upper House and the taxpayers of NSW that it followed due process.

"The Industry Commission recently said that the only way to maximise the advantages of tendering was to have an open and competitive process.

"The Federal Government also has a responsibility to fully explain its role and its obligations in this deal.

"I think this whole deal begs the question whether this is the best use of public money and land. It conflicts with all the work that Brian Howe has done through the Better Cities program to improve quality of life in inner-city suburbs.

"When people start trotting out the line about how many jobs are going to be created we must also ask how that can be guaranteed when we don't even have legislation in this country with strong requirements for Australian content and when we've just seen the number of Pay TV consortiums reduced from three to two."

Because I believe these are also important issues I have taken the time of the House to place on record the position of the Australian Democrats. We are equally concerned about the non-production of documents on education and on the Rydalmere facility and veterinary laboratories at Armidale and Wagga Wagga. In conclusion, and for the benefit of members of the press gallery, earlier I said that I should not be in this House for much longer. Apparently that fuelled some members of the press gallery to think I was on the point of immediate retirement. I was called upon by one of those members in my office during the lunch break. I make it perfectly clear that my retirement is not imminent, although many members of this Chamber might wish that it was. I certainly intend to serve into next year, but it is common sense that I shall not serve until 1998. I place it firmly on the record that I shall retire before the next election, but that does not mean I will retire within the next few weeks or even the next few months.

Page 3001

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.36]: This debate has taken place in this House, in one form or another, on a number of occasions. I do not want to go over the same material that I have previously dealt with. But what is being debated today is a motion not only for my suspension from this House but which foreshadows my expulsion from this House. The final words of the motion are:

If, at that time he continues to decline to table the documents subject to order, his seat will be declared vacant, without further order of the House being required.

In other words, that involves my potential expulsion from this House. So in many ways the motion is very dangerous. At one stage the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said every legal opinion contradicts another opinion. I heartily agree with that. As a Minister of the Crown, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not follow the advice given to me by the Crown law officers. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby also said that the Government, and particularly I, had the option in the last two weeks to go to court to resolve these problems. I have been advised by the Crown law officers that I would not have had the option to go to court in the last two weeks because I would not have had the necessary legal standing to do so. In any event, this is a matter that should ideally be determined by the Parliament and not by the courts. It is ironic that I am the subject of a motion accusing me of contempt of this Parliament.

I do not think there has been a member of this House, and certainly not a Leader of the Government in this House, who has been as cognisant of the rights of this House as I have been. That is exemplified by the fact that a number of changes have been made to the procedures in the House since the present Government came to office and since I became Leader of the Government in this House. Not only are honourable members guaranteed answers to questions on notice within a specified time frame under sessional orders, but any honourable member who wants to ask a question without notice has the opportunity to do so every day. Indeed, on one occasion more than 41 questions were asked during question time. That needs to be compared with the record of governments in the past. Under previous governments the Opposition was lucky to ask two or three questions on any day. The Government has also extended the adjournment debate from 15 minutes every day to 30 minutes every day. That is another indication of the way in which this Government and I as Leader of the Government are cognisant of the rights of this House.

I find it ironic that a motion accusing me of contempt has been moved in this House. I shall quote what the Leader of the Opposition said in his remarks - I noted his comments; I hope that they are 100 per cent accurate. He said: "The Minister will argue that he has complied." Let me make it clear: I am not arguing that I have complied with anything because, for good reasons of public policy and because the Government has been advised by its law officers that Standing Order 18 is invalid, I have been careful not to make that claim. A good reason for that has recently come to light. I will not dwell overly on the events of yesterday when one of the Government's advisers, who happens to be a member of my staff, was mentioned in the Sunday Telegraph. Honourable members will be aware that following that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place attempted to make great political capital of it. I have a transcript of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place on ABC radio this morning. He said:

I think it's a scandalous appointment. It's something which we will be pursuing in Parliament this week. We will get to the bottom of this. We will unearth who this person is and who the Minister was that appointed him.

The Leader of the Opposition in the other place does not have to unearth who the person is because the person involved is in fact employed on my staff and he has taken it upon himself this morning to identify himself. It is scandalous that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and the Opposition were intent on revealing this young man's name. That indicates the sort of reckless purpose to which the unfettered power under Standing Order 18 can be put.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Only if the Parliament agrees.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Only if the Parliament agrees: that is right. But we have no guarantee that the Parliament, the House, will not behave capriciously in these matters. The Government of the day has not only a right to protect the orderly processes of government; I believe that it also has an obligation to protect Cabinet confidentiality and a right and a duty to protect the privacy of individuals and the confidence of information that is conveyed to it by individuals and firms in many circumstances. So as a matter of public policy I do not accept the argument that Standing Order 18 is automatically in the public interest. Indeed, as I indicated, the advice received by the Government is that it is, under the Constitution and under the law of this State, an invalid claim. I will not dwell on that matter, except to say that it is absolutely scandalous that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place said that the Opposition would use the Parliament this week to unearth who this person is. I simply say in passing that he is a marvellous human being and, as I said, it is scandalous that the Opposition has embarked on this course. Of course, there are conflicting constitutional duties of Opposition and Government. In the press release that I issued today, which has been referred to by honourable members, I made the following point:

Oppositions have a right to protect the public interest by probing, scrutinising and seeking information.

Governments, on the other hand, have a duty to protect the public interest by protecting the efficient working of the processes of government, Cabinet confidentiality, and any necessary degree of confidentiality of information provided to it in business or other dealings by companies or individuals.

Page 3002

The Government is certainly not saying that the House should have no right at all to seek the tabling of documents. I object to the purported unfettered claim which the Opposition has made under Standing Order 18. In order to resolve the conflict that arises from the legitimate pursuit of legitimate constitutional roles by both the Government and the Opposition, I have written to the Opposition and members on the crossbenches suggesting that we should find a mechanism to resolve what could be a continuing problem and, undoubtedly, what will be not only an unnecessary but an unedifying conflict if it continues. In response to the call for documents relating to the Department of School Education, I draw the attention of honourable members to the statement of the Director-General of School Education, Dr Boston, who said:

The point should be made . . . that given the passage of the Freedom of Information Act by both Houses of Parliament prohibits the disclosure of certain classes of documents, it would seem odd that disclosure to the Legislative Council of all documents may, in fact, amount to a disclosure of exempt documents under the Freedom of Information legislation.

That is the point. The Parliament has enacted legislation which prohibits the disclosure of information, yet the House purports to have the right to demand the tabling of not only all sorts of information but, indeed, all information on particular issues that is in government hands. That does not serve the public interest. However, it is necessary to resolve this conflict. Not only can that be advanced by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee of the Parliament dealing with the issue; we also need, from outside the Parliament, a bipartisan mechanism to find a way through the conflict. One option put to me at a press conference yesterday is that the task should be given to the Law Reform Commission to make recommendations. That is certainly one option. But there may well be other options.

[Interruption]

I note the derogatory comment by the Leader of the Opposition about the pace of progress by the Law Reform Commission. Given the workload of the commission, perhaps some other mechanism should be tried. I can assure the House that the Government will pursue that path. This issue needs to be resolved so that there is a mechanism that not only protects the public interest but also enables the Parliament to have a legitimate right to see the documents, the disclosure of which would not imperil the public interest. That is something which the Government will be pursuing.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, you will not be pursuing that because you will be handing them over to Parliament, or you will be out of here.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We will see about that. This Government believes in the rights of the Parliament. It also believes that the public interest should be protected. When there is a conflict of interests, an appropriate mechanism is needed to resolve those conflicts, and we intend to find such a mechanism. The Government rejects the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, we support the amendment moved by my colleague the Attorney General. I have every confidence that commonsense will prevail.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.50]: It is helpful that members of the House were given the advice requested by the Clerk of this House, not by either the Government or the Opposition, on the powers of the Legislative Council to call for the production of documents and related papers. We received that document today only when it was tabled in the Parliament. At the time I asked the Usher of the Black Rod whether copies could be made available to us, and they were provided to us before the lunch adjournment. Therefore, none of us has had a great deal of time in which to study the detail of the advice. My quick survey of the document indicates that it upholds the power of this House to call for the tabling of documents.

A very important conclusion made by the authority providing the advice, namely, Mr Bret Walker, Senior Counsel - although I would have preferred that the advice were provided by a Queen's Counsel - was that this House has the right to call for the production of documents. Therefore, I do not believe it is unnecessary to refer this issue to the courts. I remember a speech given by Sir Adrian Solomons, an esteemed long-serving member of this House who was a great authority on the conventions and powers of this Chamber, when we were debating laws to exclude the Government from certain aspects of the law. This became a contentious debate. Sir Adrian Solomons, to the best of my memory, summed up the debate with these words: this House of Parliament is the highest court; we make the laws, and the other courts simply interpret the laws. That is why it is a dangerous proposition to even contemplate referring this matter to the Supreme Court or other such body.

It may sound like ancient history in a mystical sense, but the powers of the Parliament and this sovereign House of Parliament are explained in the advice. This historical place was the first Parliament in Australia. In many ways, all others Parliaments in Australia grew from this place, including the Senate and the House of Representatives in the 1900s. This House has functioned since 1825, from the early days of settlement, although only in a limited way until it became a fully elected and democratic House. This House of Parliament, like others, has intrinsic and implicit powers. I appreciate that the advice explains that Standing Order 18 may be a technicality in that it regulates a power that this House has to do almost anything; that is, to pass motions demanding anything without any clear limitations. In 1922 the Parliament, in its wisdom, formalised these powers in standing orders. The standing order did not give this House the power to call for the production of papers or documents. It simply placed the power in a form which could be understood. In other words, the power was regulated.

If Standing Order 18 did not exist, the power would still exist for this House to pass a motion requesting the tabling of papers on Sydney Showground, on the veterinary laboratories, or on
Page 3003
education. A motion passed by a clear majority of this House has the same power, with or without the operation of Standing Order 18. That is why I am reluctant to agree to the suggestion that the House refer this matter to the courts. By doing that, we would be undermining our position, as though we had some doubt about our powers. The power should not be circumvented or debated in another place - in this instance, in a court. This House should determine its powers, and then insist upon them. It is not open for debate or reference to the Supreme Court or any other court. This is a parliament. The other places simply interpret law. They can interpret Standing Order 18 and argue, as the Crown law advice does, that the standing order is a technicality. As I said, the power exists, with or without Standing Order 18, as indicated in the advice obtained by the Clerk.

It is a question of principle. Under our Westminster system of government, the Opposition wishes to debate the issue and to condemn the Government. All members of this House, especially those on the crossbench, who seek to be constructive, not obstructive - oppositions see merit in being obstructive - will say that the power to call for the production of papers exists, and that we are now considering a question of principle. Both sides of the House should respect the powers of this place. In particular, the Government should forget the Crown Solicitor's advice and uphold the powers of this House. I know that the Leader of the Government claims that the advice from the Crown Solicitor is his security in this matter: it gives him some justification for not cooperating. However, that advice is not relevant to this debate. This is a matter of what this House believes to be its power.

The Labor Party, when in opposition, in the other place demonstrated its complete confidence in its ability to order the tabling of documents. When the coalition was in government, the Labor Party ordered documents to be tabled without hesitation, question or doubt regarding whether the other place had the necessary powers to do so. Obviously, members of the Labor Party believed that the House had the power to order the production of papers; the power was questioned by no-one in the other place. The papers were produced even though it was at great inconvenience and embarrassment to the previous Government. The papers relating to the Pickard appointment to London, and other such matters, opened up a can of worms which brought little credit to the then government. Even though that government knew that the tabling of the documents would cause embarrassment, it obeyed the order and motion of the House. Such a motion was possible only through the absolute commitment of the Labor Party, as it could not have been passed by Independent members of that place as they did not have the numbers.

That is a very important factor in this debate. If that had not happened, and if we were starting from scratch in this debate, we may be considering the matter in a more open way. We might say that the Labor Government is genuine in its concern. But it is not genuine. It seeks not to provide the documents. It is not genuine in saying that there is no legal requirement for the tabling of documents. Government members know in their hearts that the requirement exists, and they are now obstructing the wishes of the majority of the members of this House. It is often said that this is the House of review. If any House should have the power to demand that documents be tabled, it is this House, not the other place. The other place is the House of government. Normally the Government has a majority, but that was not the case over the four years when the coalition formed a minority government.

This Government has a majority, albeit only one seat, and it can cooperate or be obstructive when deciding which documents can be tabled in the other place. Possibly no documents will be tabled in the other place for the next four years because that place has the numbers to make that decision. Their role is not as critical as that of this House. As the Legislative Council is the House of review, any power to demand that documents be tabled should be with this House. This House should be able to review decisions of the Government made in the other place. In the past this House may have been lax in using its powers because of the numbers held by the Government in this Chamber. The right to demand the tabling of documents was demonstrated by word and deed by the Labor Party when it was in opposition in the other place. If it believed that power existed in the other place, it exists more in this House.

If the Government rejects decisions of this House, it treats this House with disrespect and contempt. It is no excuse to say that some Ministers in the other place will not produce documents. When this House passes motions that documents are to be tabled, the Leader of the Government in this place has an obligation to ensure that those resolutions are carried through to the letter. Honourable members acknowledge that there may be certain sensitive documents about the showground site. This morning we had a briefing by Mr Ken Baxter on behalf of the Government. He said there were sensitive documents about the proposed lease of the showground site and the arrangement for the transfer of the Royal Agricultural Society showground activities to the Homebush site.

A company occupies part of the site required for the Royal Agricultural Society and serious problems have occurred in negotiations for the agreement to sell the property. The negotiations have also been tangled up with the development of the site for the Olympic Games. It may be that if some documents were made public, taxpayers would bear the cost, that is, any competitive benefit that the Government is trying to achieve in the negotiations may be undermined. The price of the land may rise or the Fox group may reduce its offer for the showground site and commence bargaining for a better deal. It may say it has been offered more money - and I understand that is so - by the Victorian and Queensland governments, which are trying to entice that company to set up the
Page 3004
studio in one of those States. The negotiators for the Fox company may seek a better arrangement if too many of the sensitive documents are made public.

However, these problems should not undermine the right of this House to demand that documents be tabled. A procedure should be established by which confidential and sensitive documents have restricted release through the Clerk or are made available only to leaders of recognised political parties, in much the same way that standing committees hear evidence in camera. There should be general agreement that the contents of those sensitive documents should not be released publicly. The attitude that members take to in-confidence documents relates to the trust members have for one another and the respect they have for this House.

The first three paragraphs of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition contain factual statements and ask that the House notes the failure of the Government to comply with various orders. Paragraph (4) deals with the contempt of the Treasurer. Perhaps it should refer to the Leader of the Government, which is one of the titles that he holds though it is not as important as his position as Treasurer, as the motion of 25 October requested the Leader of the Government - not the Treasurer - to table the documents. He should act on behalf of other Ministers to ensure that documents are produced and tabled in this House. I have serious reservations about paragraphs (5) and (6) of the motion. I am concerned to ensure that the powers of this House are not devalued when dealing with suspension and/or expulsion of members. Honourable members have referred in this debate to the expulsion of a former member. No doubt that case, involving former member Mr Armstrong, was tangled up with corrupt, if not criminal, activity. I am not aware of all the details of that case, but certainly the circumstances were far different from the circumstances involved in requiring a Minister to table documents in this House.

The expulsion of a member should only be made on serious grounds. The Opposition may argue that it is serious for the Leader of the Government to disobey an order of this House, which is spelled out in the motion which seeks suspension and threatens expulsion. However, if the Opposition makes the threat, it must be willing to carry it out. I propose to amend the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, to which the Attorney General has moved an amendment that would refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration of the power of the House to order the tabling of documents.

Referring the matter to the Standing Orders Committee, as with referring it to the Supreme Court, could imply that this House has lost confidence in its ability to exercise its power. The Government may have to consider reframing the motion so that it does not make a concession that the House doubts its powers. The Standing Orders Committee may have a role in considering the technicalities of tabling documents and how to maintain confidentiality of sensitive documents, but not in deciding whether this House has power to demand that documents be tabled. The proposal to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee is dangerous and should not be accepted. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting instead:

(5) refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for inquiry and report into what sanctions should be enforced where a Minister fails to obey an order of the House to table papers by a certain date.

The Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics could investigate and report to the House, and because of time constraints that would not be until the new year, perhaps March. The committee would report on how best to ensure that the resolutions of the House are carried out and determine what should happen if those resolutions are not obeyed. This is a serious matter that requires more thought. I said that the main thrust of the legal opinion given to the Clerk of the Parliaments was that the House has the power to call for the production of documents and that Standing Order 18 simply regulates that power. The opinion is supported by a great deal of evidence which I believe is correct. Page 19 of the legal opinion stated:

26. I therefore answer the questions I have been asked as follows.

1. What are the powers of the Legislative Council to call for the production of documents under Standing Order 18?

The better view is that Standing Order 18, despite its wording, does not itself bestow any power.

The standing order simply regulates the power and shows how it is to be exercised. The opinion answered the second question, as to whether Standing Order 18 was valid, as follows:

Standing Order 18 is valid, not as a grant of power, but as a regulation of power.

I have made the point previously that Standing Order 18 is valid. The next question addressed in the opinion was:

3. Does the Legislative Council have power to call for the production of documents other than under Standing Order 18, that is, inherent common law powers?

The explanation given is not lengthy or complicated. The legal advice is simply three letters: yes! This House does have the power to call for the production of documents. The opinion gave more details about suspension, expulsion and other matters. At the bottom of page 20 the legal opinion continued:

The Legislative Council must have some way to compel performance of the obligation to produce documents.

The point of my amendment is to ask the privileges committee to investigate how that can best be enforced. On page 23 the question posed was:

Are there any other matters that Counsel deems pertinent?

The legal adviser commented:

My only further comment is to observe that there is precedent for a distinction being observed between what might be called ordinary documents of public administration on the one hand and documents which would attract, in a court of law, so-called public immunity privilege on the

Page 3005
other hand. In my opinion, there are difficult questions which cannot be answered in the abstract, and which appear unlikely to apply to documents concerning the closure of veterinary institutions, which will arise one day when the Legislative Council seeks particularly sensitive documents from the Executive.

Basically that would be a reference to Cabinet documents. The opinion continued:

In one sense, of course, the inability to draw bright lines in this area reflects the beneficial tension between Parliament and the Executive.

On this issue there is tension between the power of the Parliament and the power of the Government. As the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said, when Labor had the numbers in both Houses when it was in office it exercised that power in a dictatorial, belligerent way. It is a temptation for both of the major parties to use their numbers when they have the opportunity. It is good and proper that this sovereign House of Parliament should balance the power of governments. But Parliament also has powers; it is not a rubber stamp and not simply a debating chamber. The power of the Parliament is a true indication of the value of our parliamentary system. If Parliament were a rubber stamp, in many ways it would be devalued. People may question the point of having two Houses of Parliament. However, it is important to distinguish the role of Parliament from that of government. That is what the motion, as amended, seeks to establish. In his summing up Bret Walker, Senior Counsel, stated:

As to the latter privilege, it seems unthinkable that a Minister would resist production of a document which may cast light on deficient administration by claiming the possibility of self-incrimination, however theoretically possible that may be in light of e.g. the common law crime of breach of public trust. It would entirely defeat the salutary function of Parliament to enquire into and criticise the administration of government if that privilege were deemed an absolute answer to an order for the production of documents.

In other words, the Minister has no real legal reason, excuse or objection for not tabling the documents. The Call to Australia group agrees that this House has the right to request that documents be tabled. The motion to request documents should not be abused. The Opposition might get carried away and be tempted to request documents on a multitude of issues. The standing order should be used carefully and thoughtfully, only when justified, and for genuine purposes. It should not be used as part of the political tit-for-tat that occurs between governments and oppositions. I assume that the crossbenchers will have to decide between a genuine demand for the tabling of documents and what might be part of a political exercise. When the request is genuine the crossbenchers should support that request. The Leader of the Government in this House should obey the resolution and fulfil the request. Referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics will establish the procedure and the sanctions, if any, which can be applied should a Minister fail to obey the orders of this House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.17]: This is a watershed motion and one that the House must consider carefully. The Opposition did not lightly decide to move the motion. I address my remarks particularly to the newer crossbench members. Honourable members have had the privilege of hearing from two of the longer standing members on the crossbenches, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. They have many years of experience as members of Parliament, and have had the benefit of examining the powers of the Parliament. This type of debate is rare. Standing Order 18 dates back to 1927 and, as is perfectly obvious, has never been challenged or tested. Therefore, it is appropriate that each party place on record its position not solely in relation to this standing order but in regard to the powers of the Parliament.

Inherent in the motion is a determination of the power of the Legislative Council and the power of Parliament. The logical extension of the Government's attitude is that this House can be no more than a rubber stamp: that is, members can debate and listen to debate. The Treasurer said that the Government has been very generous; it has answered questions and extended the time for private members' statements and the adjournment debate. Though those matters are important they are about members of Parliament talking. What the Opposition has sought to do under this standing order goes further: it seeks to examine the decisions made by government. I could not think of a more important role for a House of review.

A few moments ago Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to the powers of a House of review as a process of checks and balances. The Opposition has sought, under Standing Order 18, to check on the powers of the Government. The Government would have us believe that this House is only a rubber stamp. The issues at the heart of this debate are: what are our powers and what authority do we have? The Opposition has not entered into this debate lightly. It has sought to have documents tabled within a certain period. It has not acted unreasonably. The Opposition gave the Government a long period within which to table all documents relating to education. I contrast that with the way members of the Labor Party, when in opposition, used Standing Order 54 in the other place.

Members on the crossbenches should read Hansard of last year and the year before to establish how members of the Labor Party treated the Parliament when they wanted documents tabled in the other place. I refer in particular to the truck loads of documents relating to the Water Board that were requested by the Labor Party. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. The former Government was not given one week or two weeks within which to provide those documents; the motion called on the Government to table documents that day. We will provide this Government with a reasonable time span within which to gather the documents we have requested. We will
Page 3006
not impose unreasonable restrictions on members of the bureaucracy or the Minister's personal staff. We have acted reasonably in seeking those documents.

On 18 October the Treasurer, referring to discussions with the Minister for Agriculture, said that an attempt would be made to release some of the documents. We were led to believe that the documents would be provided. Today members of the coalition are using Standing Order 18 in the same way that it was used by the Labor Party when in opposition. I was interested in the reference made by the Attorney General to our powers as they relate to Ministers in another place. He made the extraordinary suggestion that we could not really seek documents from the Ministers in the other place. I suppose on that basis we should not ask questions of Ministers in another place through their representatives in this Chamber, or if we do, we should not expect any answers. Of course, that is nonsense. Much of what the Attorney General said, interesting though it was, did not go to the heart of good government and to the powers of this House.

I said earlier that this debate is a watershed debate; we are exploring our powers. Members of the Opposition firmly believe that they have the power - they have the support of the Parliament - to seek the tabling of these documents. That is why we have reached this position today. It is the duty of the Government to provide the documents that we have sought. Leaving aside the question of commercial in-confidence documents, it is within the prerogative of the Government to produce the documents we have sought relating to education, agriculture and Rydalmere. The Government's decisions in those matters have generated a great deal of interest in the community. It is reasonable for members of this Parliament to want to know the basis of decisions taken by the Government - decisions which will have a profound effect on many people in the community.

Members of the Opposition have acted at all times reasonably and within the powers of the Parliament and of this Chamber. We have given the Government ample opportunity to respond; we have not sought to ambush it; we have not made any unreasonable demands. We have requested these documents within the framework of the Parliament and with the support of the standing orders of the Legislative Council. Earlier the Attorney General said that it was not a good idea to draw on Senate precedents but, as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said, we often do. I shall quote two passages from the speeches of two Independent senators in debate on 3 June 1992 - the debate referred to by the Attorney General - concerning the tabling of documents by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in relation to the Marshall Islands. Senator Harradine, who had no difficulty understanding the powers of the Senate or the Parliament, said:

It is my view that this motion is worthy of support. I say that for the simple reason that it is important to ensure that this Parliament, and this Parliament alone, has the responsibility of safeguarding the intent of its Standing Orders and its powers. We need this responsibility not for the purpose of satisfying the egos of members of the Senate who sit in this chamber, but for the very important purpose of exercising our audit and control functions over the executive government on behalf of the people of Australia.

That contrasts with the statement made earlier by the Leader of the Government that ultimately it is for the Parliament, and not the court, to determine its rights. Much the same position has been put in other parliaments. As I do not want to be accused of taking something out of context, in fairness, Senator Harradine referred to commercial in-confidence documents. The Opposition has said all along that appropriate safeguards could be put in place. When members of the Labor Party demanded that documents in relation to the Water Board be tabled, the former Government said that those documents should be made available only to members of Parliament and that they should not be copied or taken away. The former Government accepted the right of the Parliament to see those documents, but it added a proviso. The Opposition is not seeking to jeopardise the showground deal; it wants to be able to say to the community that openness of government is important and that the Government should be accountable for its actions. I quote again from the Senate debate on 3 June 1992. Senator Coulter said:

Nonetheless, it is for the Senate to determine the appropriate criteria by which information is to be guarded, if it is not to be released as a consequence of a question in this place.

He was referring to the criteria to be used in the provision of information through freedom of information. Opposition members and members on the crossbenches agree that the issue at stake is ultimately the right of this place to determine its powers. In the past governments have not sought to question the legal validity of Standing Order 18. Members on the crossbenches should consider this important issue of the power of the Parliament. Earlier, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile moved an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the amendment of Revd Mr Nile be amended by adding at the end of the new paragraph (5): "The Committee is to report by 15 February 1996."

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.30], in reply: I join the Hon. Patricia Forsythe in saying that as regards the powers of this House this is a watershed motion. I indicated in my opening remarks that the challenge to honourable members is to determine what they believe to be the responsibility of Ministers to the Parliament and what they believe to be the powers of the Parliament. Unless those powers are grasped and enforced now, the public might well be justified in asking what is the relevance of the Legislative Council. As I said, the Government has ignored the House's resolution about the documents on veterinary laboratories and reforms of the education department and has only partially responded to the call for the documents concerning the Royal Agricultural Society.

One wonders what it is that the Government is seeking to hide. Why is it that a request from the Audit Office for access to information has not been responded to? In relation to the papers that have been
Page 3007
provided, one might ask why is there a covering letter from Minter Ellison, solicitors, providing draft documents but the documents have still not been made available. One might ask why is there a memorandum from R. M. Johnson to a number of officers in the Department of State Development attaching a revised economic impact statement for the proposed Fox film studio, and why has the revised economic impact statement been removed from the papers. One might ask why is there a document signed by the Secretary for the Arts, who refers to a probity auditor who has acted through the evaluation phase and has advised that as an alternative to going to tender a certain process of evaluation might be followed, yet the report of the probity auditor is deleted.

One might well ask why it is that in another document the probity auditor tells the Government that if it is going to move to exclusive tender then certain preconditions must be observed yet there is no further report about what the Government has done to ensure that the preconditions are met before embarking upon a process of negotiating directly with Fox. Why has the Government not released those documents? Is it because the Government would be embarrassed by the disclosure that it has not acted in accordance with the recommendations of its own probity auditor? The purpose of the Parliament is to ensure that government is accountable in this way. Are members on the crossbenches taking the view that the only access that they as members of Parliament will ever have to documents is by way of freedom of information legislation? Are they taking the view that on no occasion should Ministers be required to table documents?

Members on the crossbenches have, amongst themselves, voted to say that the Parliament should be able to require access to documents. Having asked for such documents, are they now proposing to say that if the Government does not produce the documents then the accountability mechanism will never be imposed? The challenge to members on the crossbenches in determining their role as elected members of the Parliament is to ensure that a Minister is held accountable. This is a watershed motion, and the challenge to members on the crossbenches is that they exercise their powers responsibly in the Chamber. I am staggered at the arrogance of the Leader of the Government and at the hypocrisy of the Government on this issue. The Leader of the Government says that he does not argue that he has complied with the resolution about the showground. He says that he has been careful not to make that claim because - and this shows the arrogance of this Government - the Government has no guarantee that the Parliament will not act capriciously. That is a challenge to each honourable member on the crossbenches.

The Leader of the Government has said that he as a representative of the Government does not trust honourable members on the crossbenches to act responsibly and that he therefore will not accept that Standing Order 18 is in the public interest. The Leader of the Government will not accept, either, that the Government has an obligation not to allow access to these documents. That is the challenge that the Leader of the Government is laying down to members on the crossbenches. I remind honourable members of the advice of Bret Walker and particularly of the answers he gave to several questions. I remind honourable members of those answers in full - not selectively, as was done by the Attorney General. The first question asked of Bret Walker was:

1. What are the powers of the Legislative Council to call for the production of documents under Standing Order 18?

He replied:

The better view is that Standing Order 18, despite its wording, does not itself bestow any power.

Bret Walker in his advice referred to the inherent power of the Parliament to require the production of documents. The next question was:

2. Is Standing Order 18 valid? In this regard see the opinions, quoted in debate by Mr. Egan, of the Crown Solicitor and the Solicitor General.

Mr Walker advised:

Standing Order 18 is valid, not as a grant of power, but as a regulation of power.

In answer to the following question:

3. Does the Legislative Council have the power to call for the production of documents other than under Standing Order 18, that is, inherent common law powers?

Mr Walker said yes. The fourth question asked of Mr Walker was:

4. What are the powers of the Legislative Council to deal with a Member for contempt and to suspend a Member for failure to comply with an Order of the House requiring the Member to produce documents?

The reply to that question took several pages but what Mr Walker was saying is clear: the House does have the power to deal with a member for contempt. The fifth question asked was:

5. Does the Legislative Council have power to declare a Member's seat vacant for failure to comply with an Order of the House requiring the Member to produce documents?

Mr Walker's answer was:

Yes, for the reasons and with the doubts expressed in answer to 4 above.

He then went on to deal with the following question:

Do different considerations apply where the papers are under the Ministerial responsibility of a Minister in the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly?

Mr Walker's answer to that question was yes, and naturally so. He went on to say:

The attitude, and in my opinion the powers, which may be taken and exercised by the Legislative Council against one of its own Members who has defied its valid exercise of power in aid of its deliberations are clearly on a different footing from the Legislative Council's relation with a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Obviously, suspension and expulsion are out of the question with respect to an M.L.A.

Page 3008

That is natural; members of this House can deal only with members of this Chamber. Mr Walker went on to say:

There is also the difficult and presently obscure question of relations between the two Houses and a fundamental issue of privilege. It may well be that a punctilious avoidance of any element of punishment will also avoid any unfortunate dispute with the Assembly.

However, and notwithstanding what I have said about implied powers, I do not regard it as likely that the Legislative Council would be held by a court of law to have an implied power to enforce an order for production of documents by committal for contempt against, say, a Minister sitting in the Legislative Assembly.

That is natural. We in this Chamber would not be able to find a member of another House in contempt, because we can deal only with members of this House. The questions before the House are quite clear. The arguments have not been rebutted by the Government. The challenge now is for honourable members to determine whether they are prepared to exert the authority open to them against a Minister who has clearly shown that he holds this House in contempt. Finally, in accordance with Standing Order 106, I require that the questions on the motion be dealt with seriatim.

Question - That the amendment of the Hon. J. W. Shaw be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Bull Mr Mutch
Mr Cohen Mrs Nile
Mr Corbett Rev. Nile
Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti
Miss Gardiner Mr Ryan
Dr Goldsmith Mr Samios
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jobling Mr Tingle
Mr Jones
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Lynn
Mr Moppett Mrs Sham-Ho

Mrs Isaksen Mrs Chadwick
Mr O'Grady Mr Willis

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe of the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile agreed to.

Amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile as amended agreed to.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I shall now put the motion of the Leader of the Opposition as amended seriatim.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: May I suggest, with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition, that the questions in relation to paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) be put in globo.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: The Opposition agrees.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: There being no disagreement, I shall put the question as suggested.

Paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the motion as amended agreed to.

Question - That paragraph (4) of the motion as amended be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mrs Chadwick Mrs Isaksen
Mr Willis Mr O'Grady

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Paragraph (4) of the motion as amended agreed to.

Paragraph (5) of the motion as amended agreed to.

Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted.

Page 3009


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Andrew Refshauge. Can the Minister explain why the Royal Ryde Rehabilitation Hospital has purchased and renovated three homes, each with about six bedrooms, at a cost of well over $1 million, yet they are sitting idle despite the fact that patients were due to start moving into them from June? Why has the date of the move been postponed until next April? Where has the funding disappeared to?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Health in another place and obtain a full response for the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Attorney General. Has the Government sought legal advice which confirms the capacity of the Government and the Royal Agricultural Society to validly enter into a lease for the showground to complete the contract with Fox studios? If so, why has the Government not made public this advice?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not immediately aware of whether advice has been sought and/or obtained, but it is the prerogative of Ministers to obtain advice from the Crown Solicitor's office. It may be that such advice has been obtained. I am not sure, but I will check on it.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: You are sure.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: That is a profoundly interesting pun. Legal advice to the Government is not normally made public, it is not normally produced. It is the subject of legal professional privilege, a tradition that has a certain continuity between governments of various complexions. On the face of it we would adhere to that policy.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services whether he is aware of recent criticism of the fact that there is no appropriate advocacy for children in this State. What is his response to such criticism? Would he consider appointing an ombudsman for children?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I commend the Hon. Franca Arena for her obvious interest in the issue of children and advocacy. Because I share the concern of the honourable member in relation to this important matter, on 7 August I made a reference to the Standing Committee on Social Issues in the following terms: that the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on, firstly, the degree to which the needs of children throughout New South Wales are being effectively advocated for and promoted in the areas of health, education, law and justice, and care and protection; secondly, the adequacy of the organisation and coordination of existing agencies responsible for children's advocacy such as the New South Wales Ombudsman, the New South Wales Child Protection Council, the official visitors program, the Community Services Commission, the health care complaints unit, and the National Children's and Youth Law Centre; and, thirdly, the adequacy of current mechanisms for redressing children's grievances.

I am pleased to inform the House that the committee, under the able chairpersonship of the Hon. Ann Symonds, has acted swiftly in response to this reference. Advertisements calling for written submissions were placed in newspapers on 16 and 17 September, with a 1 November deadline for receipt of submissions. As at 10 November, 17 submissions had been received. A full day's hearing was held on Thursday, 9 November. Another hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, 29 November, and detailed discussions are planned for later in the month with relevant witnesses in South Australia. The committee has already heard evidence from Mr Robert Ludbrook, Director, National Children's and Youth Law Centre; Mr Greg Andrews, Assistant Ombudsman, Office of the New South Wales Ombudsman; Mr Michael Hogan, Director, Public Interest Advocacy Centre; Mr Adrian Ford, Chairperson, New South Wales Child Protection Council; Ms Julie Sinclair, Acting Executive Officer, New South Wales Child Protection Council; and Mr Morrie Young, Executive Director, Association of Children's Welfare Agencies.

In relation to the third part of the Hon. Franca Arena's question, while it is not my intention or desire to prejudge the findings of the committee, the difficulty with an ombudsman-style model is that it is a complaints-based system, and children are not necessarily in the best position to make complaints. I look forward to receiving the committee's report. I have the utmost faith in the Hon. Ann Symonds and the other members of the committee. I expect to receive that report in May 1996.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Attorney General a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Western Australian Attorney General has introduced a bill to make it an offence punishable by a fine of up to $15,000 or 18 months gaol to view or distribute objectionable material on the Internet? Is it a fact that this new bill will make it an offence to not only possess child pornography on the Internet, but
Page 3010
also to view it? Is the Government moving ahead with similar legislation concerning the Internet so that all States will have enacted similar legislation by 1 January 1996?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile raises an obviously important question, which is surrounded by some technological difficulties. One thing is clear, if we are to regulate the Internet, we need to do it on a national basis and we need to do it consistently because we are dealing with technology that is not only national but international, and there are inherent difficulties in dealing with it. The topic raised by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was dealt with at the recent meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Adelaide in the last week or so. It is fair to say that Attorneys from the various States and Territories, and the Commonwealth expressed concern about material on the Internet. As a parent I empathise with the concern that particularly children might receive material on the Internet that is inappropriate; although, in my house we have not yet come to the expense of providing the relevant modem or connection, but the pressure is on to do so.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Wait until Christmas.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: At Christmas time we might have to do so. I would like to provide as much information as I can to the honourable member to indicate our thinking on this important topic. As I have said, the regulation of offensive material on bulletin boards and for the Internet was the subject of discussion at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General held in Adelaide on 3 November. The Federal Attorney-General and the Minister for Communications and the Arts have released a consultation paper on a proposed regulatory scheme comprising an industry code of practice, an independent complaints-handling mechanism and offence provisions. This scheme was endorsed by the Attorneys-General at their July meeting. Feedback from that consultation is being analysed and model offence provisions are being further developed.

I will be participating in the development of a national code of conduct in consultation with other jurisdictions and the industry, and the development of model legislation containing relevant offence provisions. The Federal Minister for Communications and the Arts has also directed the Australian Broadcasting Authority to investigate the content of on-line information and entertainment services, and to develop strategies for on-line service providers to meet community concerns. The ABA has been asked to report by 30 June 1996. The honourable member may be assured that this is a matter of concern to me and a matter of interest to all the States and Territories. It is a matter we will continue to discuss and develop.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: 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. Will the Government be seeking financial advice from an independent third party, such as a recognised merchant bank, to assess whether the deal between the New South Wales Government and Fox for the showground is fair and reasonable, and in the best interests of the people of New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: My understanding is that that has already occurred and that the answer is in the affirmative.


The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services inform the House of the details of his recent appointment of community visitors to monitor children in care and people with a disability living in accommodation services in New South Wales?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am pleased to note that the appointment of community visitors is one of the most exciting and important initiatives of what is commonly called the CAMA legislation, the Community Services (Complaints, Appeals and Monitoring) Act, and the Government's commitment to citizens in its care. The community visitors scheme enables us to reach out into the community and to ensure that quality services are being provided to children and young people and to people with a disability in the care of both the Department of Community Services and non-government agencies. Up to 2,000 children are in care and more than 6,000 people with a disability are living in accommodation services in New South Wales. The community visitors will go into more than 650 government and privately run services which offer full-time accommodation for children requiring care and adults with a disability. The community visitors will advocate on behalf of people to improve the quality of their care. In particular, they will try to help people who have little or no family support.

The community visitors scheme is an expansion of the official visitors scheme in which, under the previous Government, there were only five people visiting government-run services - plainly inadequate for the task. I have appointed 40 visitors, chosen from more than 600 applicants incidentally, to provide me as Minister with an opportunity to get first-hand advice and an early warning check on potential problems affecting the welfare, interests and conditions of clients. More importantly, the scheme allows consumers to have a voice and to have access to vital advocacy services. Many issues in services will need to be monitored carefully. Some of the more important issues which concern me as Minister include: the overall standard of care and the maintenance of basic human rights for all consumers; establishing, maintaining and preserving vital family and community contacts; behaviour management practices; the level of participation by children and people in care in decision-making processes which affect them; communication; medication, diet and restraint practices in services; and the accessibility of
Page 3011
complaint avenues. Community visitors will report to me and to the Community Services Commission about any problems they can identify in accommodation services. Finally, I note that the visitors include young people who have been in care in the past, people with a disability, advocates and professionals.


The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question. In order to ensure that no other attempts will be made to subvert the public interest in a similar way, will the Attorney General consider applying the provisions of section 82(2) of the New South Wales Public Sector Management Act 1988 in relation to improper conduct as described in section 66(f) to make an example of former Roads and Traffic Authority General Manager, Environment and Community Impact, Maxine Anne Cooper, in relation to deliberate rigging of traffic noise criteria which now guarantee sleep disturbance at night to many people in the Sydney region from traffic noise from heavy vehicles? Will the Government take into account new criteria, uninfluenced by self-serving interests of the RTA, so that noise barriers effective at night in the presence of heavy vehicles can be designed to prevent sleep disturbance beside the M2 and M5 east and sections of the M5 and F3 already constructed with inadequate barriers?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Public Sector Management Act lies within the responsibility of the Premier. The honourable member has raised specific allegations and has mentioned an individual. Obviously I would be profoundly disinclined to deal with the facts and circumstances of the case without adequate advice. So I will take the matter on notice and reserve the right to refer it, if it seems appropriate, either to the Premier or to the Minister for Transport, who is responsible for the appropriate authority.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to an article in Newsweek of 16 October which says that in domestic violence cases in the United States "jury studies show that . . . female jurors are more likely than men to blame the accuser for her injuries". Given that alarming statement, have any studies been undertaken into jury attitudes in New South Wales? If not, can the Attorney General give an assurance that women who are victims of domestic violence are not doubly penalised because of any bias inherent in the system?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: This is a very intelligent and thoughtful question by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Do not be patronising.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I did not mean to be. If I commend the question as thoughtful and intelligent and that is claimed to be patronising I think that is a dreadful overreaction and reflects a rather prejudiced view by Opposition members. I was speaking with sincerity. In jury trials there is a dilemma between the defence of the idea of the jury, lay persons, having an input into the criminal justice system and the possibility of prejudice injecting itself into the trial process. That is a dilemma that thoughtful members would have considered. I am a defender of the role of the jury in criminal trials, despite the defects and aberrations that occur from time to time. A number of very fine lawyers of my acquaintance oppose the jury system but I am a defender of it. I think it injects community opinion into the trial process, whether it be civil or criminal. The problem raised by the honourable member is real.

There is an analogous problem in relation to prejudice against homosexuals concerning the idea that juries may have been influenced by the so-called homosexual panic defence. We are considering whether appropriate directions ought to be given to juries by trial judges to preclude or at least minimise prejudicial views of that kind. I do not know of any real or scientific inquiries into the problem the honourable member mentioned but I will certainly raise it with Dr Don Weatherburn, our criminal statistics expert within the Attorney General's Department, and I will consider generally the question the honourable member raised to see whether a further detailed response is appropriate.


The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: I address my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Given the interest of the media, residents, staff and the local community in the current operation and future of the Peat Island Centre, will the Minister outline for the House what decisions he has taken in relation to the centre?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Janelle Saffin has had a longstanding interest in the process of transition of Peat Island and the welfare of its residents. Peat Island is a large residential centre for people with intellectual disabilities. It currently accommodates 136 clients and has a staffing level of 170. Under the requirements of the Disability Services Act 1993 the State's large institutions are required to close, with the clients moving into community-based group homes. The present Government when in opposition supported the former Government's legislation, the Disability Services Act, which was enacted in April 1993. We continue to be committed to the implementation of the legislation and we are proceeding to implement the Act's requirements despite the obstructive and opportunistic politicking of some coalition members. In this regard I have in mind the member for Gosford, Mr Hartcher, and the member for Eastwood, Mr Tink, who are distancing themselves from their former Government's legislation.

Page 3012

The Peat Island centre has submitted a transition plan outlining how it will conform with the Disability Services Act, and that plan is now being evaluated. I am aware that there is some resistance and concern expressed both by staff and parents regarding the future closure of Peat Island and the transfer of residents to the community. I can assure the House that parents, advocates and staff have been consulted during the formation of the transition plan. However, ultimately the development of the plan is the responsibility of the management of the Peat Island centre. Unfortunately, throughout the consultation process parents have opposed any plan which did not involve maintaining the current facility at Peat Island.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I agree with that. Don't you?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No, I do not agree with that at all. I happen to have visited Peat Island - it is an outmoded and indeed a dickensian facility. It is a requirement of the legislation that Peat Island must close. In addition to that, I cannot countenance the continued operation of an outdated and outmoded institution which could well have come from a previous century. During the Wran Government I was serving on the area health board for Hornsby-Ku-ring-gai when a foreign visitor came to Peat Island to look at the place. At that stage, prior to 1989, Peat Island was operated by the Department of Health. The foreign visitor was heard to ask, "What century does this facility come from?" and he clearly did not have the twentieth century in mind.

I have visited Peat Island and other centres and I have visited many group homes. In these community settings clients are much happier and more well adjusted through having day-to-day community contact than residents who are locked away in dickensian institutions, no matter how beautiful the surrounding scenery might be, as indeed it is at Peat Island. Last Saturday week I visited a group home in Armidale. The residents were expecting my arrival. When I went through the front door a female client enveloped me in a bear hug from which I thought I would never be released. That experience, embarrassing as it might have been, has never happened to me in a large institution. That is one indication of just how happy clients are to see their Minister if they happen to live in a group home.

Let me also assure the House that I have no ulterior motives in revealing the series of investigations that are under way at Peat Island. I have spoken publicly about these matters because the welfare of clients of the Department of Community Services is my overriding concern. If their welfare is not being properly looked after, we will investigate. I will not be seen to be covering up any allegations in the State's institutions. I am not raising these allegations because I am wanting to sell off Peat Island. In fact I am unable to do that as it is owned by the Department of Health, not by the Department of Community Services. I am not preparing the ground to close the Peat Island centre this week, next week or next month. The devolution of these centres is a process which will take several years because of our commitment to the welfare of clients.

Individual service plans will be developed in consultation with parents and advocates for every resident at Peat Island, ahead of their transfer to a community group home. Suggestions that staff levels at Peat Island are too low are incorrect. The staffing levels are appropriate; allegations of mistreatment and poor administration are not. If there are wrongs to be righted then that will be done. Transition planning at Peat Island is under way. The centre will close, but at the heart of all changes will be the objective of the Disability Services Act 1993, which entitles all people with a disability to have the opportunity to live an independent lifestyle in the ordinary community.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Is it a fact that Tamworth's dairy farmers, who supply 14 million litres of milk to north-west New South Wales, foresee severe problems for their industry unless the State Government allows them to pump water from the area's rivers? Is it a fact that members of the local branch of the dairy farmers association claim that plenty of water is being allowed to flow past their properties and out into the western division, where it evaporates or is absorbed? Will the Government review that general allocation policy before there is an economic collapse of dairy farms in the Tamworth region?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member's question is specifically directed to a portfolio held by a member in the lower House. I must confess that it is beyond my expertise. I will certainly refer it to the relevant Minister and obtain an appropriate answer in due course.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. With reference to the Minister's answer to an earlier question from the Hon. Franca Arena regarding children's advocacy, was the Minister, in expressing an opinion in the House about the position of a children's ombudsman, concerned about pre-empting the inquiry of the social issues committee? Is the Minister aware that Ministers in the past have appeared before the Standing Committee on Social Issues to share their views and provide information?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I can assure the honourable member that the last thing on my mind is to prejudice or pre-empt in any way consideration of the reference I have made to that committee in regard to children's advocacy. If I recall correctly, I was
Page 3013
very careful to say, before I made the brief comment to which the honourable member adverted in her question, that it was not my desire in any way to pre-empt consideration of the terms of reference by the committee. I did make a passing reference to the view I have had in the past, namely, that an ombudsman model is probably not suited to the interests of children, given that children by their very nature and immaturity are often not suited to, or in some cases capable of, making a complaint, particularly a sophisticated or detailed one.

I have visited Wellington, New Zealand, where there is a Parliamentary Commissioner for Children. It may well be that the Standing Committee on Social Issues will come to the view that some form of advocacy model is to be preferred to an ombudsman model. However, some organisations in this State have taken the view in the past that an ombudsman is appropriate. For example, I have been aware that the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations has been putting forward a suggestion that there ought to be a children's ombudsman. However, the bottom line is that it is for the social issues committee to advise me of its views, after hearing evidence from the various witnesses it chooses to call.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I ask a supplementary question. Given the fact that the Minister has expressed his opinion at some length, I ask him whether he would be prepared to appear before the social issues committee so that the issue can be explored?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Whether I appear before the Standing Committee on Social Issues is, in my view, entirely a matter for the committee.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Government aware of a report by Dr Diana Kenny, the director of the work and rehabilitation research unit of the University of Sydney, which found that there was inadequate rehabilitation in the work force? Does the Government intend to do anything about the problem?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Government intends to implement a package of initiatives designed to improve the rehabilitation of employees who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses. These initiatives include a requirement to develop a return-to-work plan for all employees who are off work for 12 weeks, the introduction of rehabilitation performance indicators for insurers, the piloting of job placement and job matching services for unemployed, injured workers and the release of accredited training packages for rehabilitation coordinators. It is important for injured workers and their families to play a significant role in the community. These initiatives are designed to facilitate the achievement of that goal. Too often years of experience and skills are lost because of a lack of will on the part of the Government or employers to aid those who have been injured at work to return to work. This involves significant costs to the community and the employer in terms of lost experience, retraining, rehiring and workers compensation benefits.

Some of our initiatives are based on research funded by the WorkCover Authority and conducted by Dr Diana Kenny, the director of the work and rehabilitation research unit of the University of Sydney. Dr Kenny's research - conducted from 1993 to 1995 - found that there was inadequate understanding of occupational rehabilitation, difficulty in the provision of suitable duties and, in many instances, perceived or real conflict in achieving adequate rehabilitation. Reforms introduced during the course of the study include early referral systems and work trials. Those initiatives will build on the reforms so that the emphasis will increasingly be on rehabilitation, return to work, medical attention and other appropriate provision for injured workers, rather than the inadequate solution of damages or a lump sum payment years after the accident.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Will the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council tell the House how many jobs will be created in the Australian entertainment industry by the expenditure for the proposed Fox studios? What is the basis of those estimates? Will the Minister also guarantee that the studio will produce quality Australian programs, rather than cheap international films with little connection to Australia? Has the Government taken any steps to ensure that the Fox foreign investment will be of net economic benefit to New South Wales and to Australia and that the profits from this Government-supported project will stay in Australia?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am staggered that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is so hostile towards the establishment of the Fox film studios in Sydney. The honourable member was an actor prior to becoming a member of this House.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: She wants to make sure that there are jobs for Australians.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It seems to me that every utterance of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby on this issue is directed at denigrating the proposal rather than supporting it. I refer the honourable member to the report prepared by the Kinhill Group on behalf of the New South Wales Ministry for the Arts in July 1994.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Is it a publicly available document?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I understand that it is a public document. If the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti does not have a copy, I will make sure that he gets
Page 3014
one. The Kinhill Group assessed a smaller proposal - for three sound studios - than the Fox proposal. The Kinhill report indicated that there would be economic benefits to the State of about $241 million a year. It also indicated a substantial increase in jobs. There is also a section on tourism. In relation to jobs the report stated:

The additional annual production attracted or retained by the studio facility -

honourable members should keep in mind that the report was based on there being three sound studios; Fox is proposing many more -

would generate approximately 1,200 film industry jobs and 5,600 jobs in other sectors, particularly services (2,600 jobs) and trade (1,300 jobs).

I cannot think of a more positive boost for the New South Wales economy - in jobs for young Australians and for those currently working in the film industry. The report also dealt with the benefits the showground site would offer as the location for a film studio and the clustering effect - how industry benefits from a clustering of activities to do with that industry. The report made a point that should be obvious to all honourable members. Sydney and New South Wales are attracting not just sound studios and not just any film-making company but one of the world's biggest players, the Fox film studio. Fox has an enormous world distribution network and marketing apparatus. Sydney is therefore poised to become the most substantial English speaking film-making location in the world, next to Hollywood. That will be an enormous gain for Sydney.

The Kinhill report dealt with a number of other aspects about the suitability of the showground site. The Royal Agricultural Society indicated that the showground site is inadequate for its purposes. The former Premier announced in either 1993 or 1994 that the showground would move to Homebush. A suitable use for the showground site had to be found. The honourable member for Bligh, Clover Moore, and some of the residents in the immediate vicinity of the showground would prefer the site to become open parkland. However, the previous Government had planned to sell off the showground for residential development or some other purpose. If the Government was interested simply in reaping the best financial return for the site, it would sell it for a residential development or for a regional shopping complex.

The showground site is too significant to be flogged off for the highest dollar return. Its usage by a fabulous new industry will give Sydney a strategic advantage and at the same time allow its character to be essentially retained. The buildings will not be razed, the heritage buildings will be retained and the public will probably have more access to the site day in and day out than they have had before. This facility will actually preserve the character of the showground site. It is a win all round. It is a win for jobs, and it is a win socially, culturally, economically and environmentally.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby says she is not opposed to the redevelopment, but I am staggered that thus far, to my knowledge, she has not said one supportive thing about it. I am surprised also that the honourable member for Bligh so adamantly opposes it. I can understand that residents in the immediate vicinity might want the site dedicated as open parkland, but that would create more traffic problems, unless the park were retained for their exclusive use; people would want to use it, but they would not be able to park on it. Residents living beyond the immediate vicinity of the showground site in the electorate of the honourable member for Bligh are overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal. Many will work either at the showground in the film industry or in associated activities. Many people in the electorate of Bligh already work in such areas.

The redevelopment will be a great attraction for Sydney. Many different occupations are connected to the film industry. Our creative talent - whether actors, directors or make-up artists - will not have to go to London or to Hollywood for a job; they will be able to stay in Australia. This country has produced many great actors over the years who have had to go offshore in order to feed themselves. They have created for themselves a worldwide reputation as great talents. They will now be able to work in Sydney. Sydney will become a major player in the world film industry. I cannot understand the negative attitude of the honourable member for Bligh or that of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby in this House.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I ask a supplementary question in view of the answer the Treasurer has just given the House. Is the Treasurer aware of a recent article in the international Variety magazine in which a senior executive of Fox studios in Hollywood was said to have stated that Fox studios is thinking very carefully about any future film production because few of the many films produced recoup the studios what they cost to make and it is cutting back on production?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would not have thought that was a supplementary question, but I am delighted to take it as an additional question. Does the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby seriously believe that Fox film studios will invest, over the next 10 years or so, more than $100 million in the showground site and not make movies there? I cannot believe that the honourable member would regard it as a serious proposition.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Has his parliamentary secretary, Mr Morris Iemma, member of Parliament, stated in correspondence that a review of the office of justice of the peace is in progress? Is it a fact that no such review has yet
Page 3015
begun? Does the Attorney General wish to instigate a review of the office of justice of the peace? What consultation has he entered into with community organisations such as the Justices Association of New South Wales to discuss such a review?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not aware of any correspondence that the parliamentary secretary might have signed about a review of the office of justice of the peace. I am quite comfortable with a review of the office. Like any human institution, it is not beyond criticism or review. If it is put to me that the appointment processes or the roles and functions of the office should be reviewed, I am prepared to agree to that. I do not see anything untoward, if it be the fact, in the parliamentary secretary having said that office is the subject of a review.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney General state that no such review of the office has begun?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not aware of any current review of the office, but, as I said, if there is a case for such a review it will be carried out.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I direct my question to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is it a fact that Bob Carr, when he was Minister for Planning and Environment, was responsible for protecting flying foxes? Why then is the National Parks and Wildlife Service still pursuing the policy of the last Government of issuing flying fox destruction licences as though they were confetti at a wedding? Is it not also a fact that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has not proceeded with legal action when presented with evidence of shooting without a licence, killing endangered species, and the fact that friends of National Parks and Wildlife Service staff were helping with the illegal shootings? Will the Minister institute a purge of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to remove staff who do not implement government policy of protecting endangered species?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Members of the Opposition might view this question with levity and derision, but I will be happy to refer it in a serious way to the relevant Minister for an appropriate reply.


The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I address my question to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. The Nyngan courthouse has once again been removed from the District Court lists for 1996, allegedly on economic grounds. Will the Minister furnish details of how this decision was reached, and, more importantly, why?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Country listings of the District Court are essentially a matter for the chief judge of that court. It would be inappropriate for me to intervene in those decisions. Obviously the chief judge communicates with me about the areas that should have court lists in particular years, though I regard it as fundamentally a matter for the court to determine. I will undertake to give the honourable member further information on the possible reasons for the view taken by the court on the Nyngan lists. By way of general information I can inform honourable members that Judge Blanch, Chief Judge of the District Court, has recently finalised the calendar of District Court sittings for 1996.

In Sydney there will be 16 more weeks of criminal sittings of the District Court than there were in 1995. There will be 16 criminal courts sitting in the Downing Centre during the mid-year vacation. Civil sittings of the District Court for the Sydney region will be reduced by two weeks. Except for one additional week at Parramatta, there will be no variation for the civil sittings of the District Court for the Sydney west region, but there will be minor increases in the criminal sittings of the District Court for that region.

In country areas of New South Wales, excluding Gosford, Newcastle and Wollongong, criminal sittings of the District Court will increase by 14 weeks - that is, a 6 per cent increase. Civil sittings of the District Court will increase by six weeks, a 7 per cent increase, although combined civil and criminal sittings of the District Court will decrease by 44 weeks. Overall, country sittings of the District Court will decrease by 24 weeks, which represents only a 6 per cent decrease from 1995. The honourable member has raised the specific question of Nyngan. I will undertake to provide him with the reasons for the changed sittings in Nyngan.

I reiterate that the Government cannot intervene in these sorts of administrative decisions of the court. It is very much a question of supply and demand and it is for the chief judge to work out the effective allocation of resources in particular regions and the allocation between civil and criminal sittings. I assume the honourable member will understand my reluctance to intervene in any way on those issues. I will provide some specific facts as to the reasons for the apparent change in Nyngan sittings.


The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: 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, representing the Premier. I refer to the report of the New South Wales Electoral Commission, which states that more than 1,400 invalid plural votes were cast at the last State election. Given that the Government has acknowledged that under the current legislation it is not possible administratively to prevent multiple voting, will the Government consider altering the electoral law so as to require voters to produce proof of identity in future elections?


Page 3016
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I dealt with a similar question earlier.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: It was multiple polling.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It also related to multiple voting.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: Yes, but it was a different angle.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Certainly, I can assure the House that the Minister responsible for electoral matters is prepared to consider any reasonable suggestion made by an honourable member to ensure that the incidence of multiple voting is minimised. Given the reaction to the Australia Card some years ago, I am not sure whether New South Wales voters or, indeed, Australian voters would take too kindly to a requirement to present some proof of identify. Indeed, it could well be that many people would be prevented from voting because, unintentionally, they did not carry such proof on polling day. I am happy to convey the suggestion to the Premier. If he has a response, I will convey it to the House.


The Hon. I. COHEN: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware that Byron Shire Council is proposing to acquire Crown land, over which there is a native title claim, for the purpose of on-selling it to the George Feros Village for the Aged to expand its facilities? Has the Byron Shire Council made an application for approval to the Minister for Local Government for such a compulsory acquisition? Has the Minister given his approval? In view of the native title claim over the land, its 7(B) coastal habitat zoning and the fact that it falls within the Government's coastal land protection scheme, will the Minister refuse compulsory acquisition?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not aware of the particular matter the honourable member raises, but I will refer his question to the Minister for Local Government for an appropriate answer.


The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council what totally new investment deals did the Premier, Bob Carr secure for New South Wales on his recent trip to Korea and Japan.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member's question to the Premier.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, why the Government has axed funding for the vocational guidance service - a service that has been in operation for 70 years and that provides professional advice to those who are making decisions about further education and training.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will refer that question to the relevant Minister.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. I refer to the Minister's reply to my earlier question concerning the valuation of the deal between the New South Wales Government and Fox film studios for the showground. Will any valuations or reviews of the lease arrangements take into consideration the Federal and State funds of up to $30 million that will be put into the site? Will the benefits that this money provides be reflected in the rental obtained for the site?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Government has received from the Valuer-General an assessment of the rental value of the site. I understand that that is the rental value of a clean site. I draw to the attention of the House that total remediation costs for the showground site will be about $85 million, as indicated in the Norman Disney and Young report of about 18 months ago. Under the Fox proposal remediation costs for the taxpayer will be about $30 million. That compares with remediation cost estimates of $50 million if the showground is transformed into a park and, obviously, $85 million if it is retained for Royal Agricultural Society purposes. From the point of view of remediation costs for which the taxpayers will be responsible, this is the best option. Regardless of what happens at the showground, there is a burden on taxpayers to remediate the site. That could only be avoided if the site were mothballed. I do not think that anyone in his right mind would suggest that. It is an important site which needs to be used for a good purpose. Clearly, the Fox proposal is the least-cost option in relation to the remediation costs for which the taxpayer will be responsible.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council whether it is a fact that the Government has not paid the $4 million promised to Waverley Council in order to fix the appalling state of Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach - a promise made in the lead-up to the last election. Is this just one more Carr Government broken promise to the people of New South Wales? Will the Carr Government keep any of its election promises, or will it simply be one more Labor Government elected on a false platform?

Page 3017

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has asked a silly question. This House has before it a budget in which $300 million worth of promises have been kept and commitments honoured. I make the point that at the time of the budget the Labor Government had been in office for only six months of its four-year parliamentary term, and within six months it was able to honour $300 million worth of commitments. There has not been another government in the history of this State that has kept such faith with the people.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I ask a supplementary question, given that the Treasurer did not answer my previous question. With the Sydney Olympics only five short years away, will the Carr Government attend to the many problems of Sydney's main tourist attractions, such as Bondi Beach -

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a supplementary question.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is it a fact that the Government plans to axe 300 positions from the technical and further education head office, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 November? Is it a fact that this reduction in TAFE staff will lead to a reduction in students accepted into TAFE courses? What is the Government doing to prevent the ongoing industrial action across TAFE colleges recommended by the Technical and Further Education Teachers Association, which will take place from the start of the 1996 school year and devastate TAFE students?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I confess to a conflict of interest - my wife is a TAFE teacher. I shall refer the question to the relevant Minister.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In view of the time, I suggest that if honourable members have further questions they should place them on notice.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is no use putting questions on notice because they are not answered.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is absolute nonsense and the honourable member knows it.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 10 October the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked me a question concerning aeromedical retrieval services. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer:

•Five aeromedical rotary wing operators are contracted for medical missions in NSW. Each operator receives $1.01 million annually from the Health Department which advises that this represents between 40 and 65 per cent of the operating costs of each service. Remaining funds are obtained through corporate sponsorship, private contributions and fundraising.

•In addition to the $1.01 million allocated to CareFlight annually for base operating costs, it receives another $510,000 annually from the Health Department for medical staffing, equipment and consumable costs.

•The Health Department advises that it therefore contributes approximately $1.5 million, or 52%, of CareFlight's administrative and aeromedical operating costs, which are reported to total $2.9 million.

•CareFlight also reports other costs relating to its activities, such as fundraising and promotions, and for other services. In addition to the medical missions undertaken for the Health Department, CareFlight provides services to other Government Departments and private clients.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 10 October the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked me a question concerning kangaroo meat consumption. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer:

•The NSW Health Department reports that a study by JMB Robson et al, reported in Communicable Diseases Intelligence on 16 October 1995, was unable to confirm the source of the toxoplasmosis infection suffered by the patient named. However, it found that the rare kangaroo meat she consumed at a function would, on theoretical grounds, be the most likely source.

•The study states that the patient's child was diagnosed with chorioretinitis, an inflammation of parts of the eye including the retina. At three months of age her child was found to have problems with vision.

•The study refers to follow up investigations with people who attended the function. However, at least seven months had lapsed since the event, which may have impacted on the results.

•A Queensland study quoted by Robson et al found a congenital toxoplasmosis prevalence of 0.44 per 1,000 births.

•The NSW Health Department advises that toxoplasmosis can be acquired by eating a wide range of raw or undercooked infected meat, including pork, mutton and beef. I am advised that on current evidence the risk of contracting toxoplasmosis from undercooked kangaroo meat is no higher than from eating other undercooked meat.

•In 1986, the Commonwealth, States and Territories agreed to adopt national uniform standards for food. These standards are now represented by the National Food Authority's Australian Food Standards Code. The Code sets out specific details for the composition and content of various foods.

•The National Food Authority has gazetted standards for game meat and game meat products (including kangaroo) as part of a revised meat standard in the Food Standards Code. These standards are expected to commence by March 1996.

•The sale of kangaroo meat for human consumption in NSW is regulated under the Food (General) Regulation 1992. Kangaroo meat may only be legally sold if it has been harvested, prepared and handled in accordance with a detailed Code of Practice. This Code was developed with technical advice from experts in the field and with the involvement of many Government agencies.

Page 3018

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 1 June the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked me a question concerning sporting facilities for Aborigines. My colleague the Minister for Health has supplied the following answer:

This question would be best addressed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. Nevertheless, the Government remains committed to its pre-election statement "Labor's Plans for Aboriginal Affairs" with respect to Aboriginal people and sport.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 21 September the Hon. Elaine Nile asked me a question regarding Gregory Wayne Kable.

I refer to the answer I have already given in the Legislative Council.

Mr Kable lodged an appeal to the High Court challenging constitutionality of the Community Protection (Gregory Wayne Kable) Act prior to his release from custody. He was granted leave to appeal by the High Court.

Mr Kable was granted legal aid in relation to his appeal. The Legal Aid Commission made this decision after consideration of an opinion from Sir Maurice Byers, QC. In granting special leave to appeal the High Court acknowledged that this is a matter worthy of determination by it. Although the High Court noted that Mr Kable may be released by the time the matter was heard, it also acknowledged that he may still be subject to the Act and so the question of constitutionality was not merely an academic question.

It is estimated that the total cost of the appeal will be approximately $7,500.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 11 October I was asked a question by the Hon. Virginia Chadwick concerning the Hurlstone Agricultural Hich School. The Minister for Education and Training has advised as follows:

(1) The State Rail Authority had proposed the acquisition of approximately 9 hectares at Hurlstone Agricultural High School as part of several proposed railworks in the vicinity of Hurlstone Agricultural High School, including a rail link to Badgerys Creek Airport.

Site meetings have been held since July to gauge the impact of the proposal on the school's current operation. A new proposal reduces the land to be acquired to 4.45 hectares from Hurlstone Agricultural High School and 1.73 hectares from Scots College land to the south of Hurlstone Agricultural High School. The impact of this new proposal is yet to be determined. Currently, the proposal is open for wide community consultation.

Following consideration of the revised State Rail Authority proposal by the school community at Hurlstone and a full assessment of the impact of the proposed route by the Department of School Education, advice will be provided to the Minister for Education and Training. No final decision will be made on the proposal until the end of the consultation processes that are presently being undertaken.

Questions without notice concluded.

Debate resumed from 25 October.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.00]: Before commenting on the budget, it is appropriate to make some preliminary remarks. First I welcome my colleague the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, and acknowledge the first speeches made by the Hon. Patricia Staunton, the Hon. Janelle Saffin and the Hon. M. R. Kersten. The Hon. Patricia Staunton gave us a most interesting speech about women in the nursing profession. She referred to the resilience of the Australian Labor Party - some of which may be needed in the coming months! I was interested in what the honourable member said about casemix, and the clarity with which she explained its philosophy and application. The explanation was probably the best I have heard on this subject. However, it was but days later that the Minister for Health, who perhaps had not heard her fine words, suggested that a form of casemix be introduced in New South Wales. I greeted that statement with alarm, having noted the Hon. Patricia Staunton's speech.

I agree with her comments about workplace-based child care, which gives the greatest satisfaction of all child care to many parents. If the facility is not located on the workplace premises, it is not far away, and parents have a greater sense of security. The provision of such services should not be forced upon employers, but I hope that over time most employers will understand the productivity value of that form of child care. The Hon. Janelle Saffin gave us the opportunity to understand her motivation and ethos, and we all welcomed her to the House. Although I accept her remarks about social justice, she must never believe that the Australian Labor Party has a monopoly on social justice. She did not say that, but I make it clear that issues of social justice matter much to my party as well. I was also interested in her comments about next year being the Year of Regional Development.

I hope that this will not be only rhetoric. When we were in government we had a fine regional development record, having appointed a separate Minister for Regional Development and focused on this issue in a number of ways, including the work of the Standing Committee on State Development, which I chaired. I look with interest to next year and the various announcements to be made. The honourable member's comments about an inland marketing corporation and the concept of a multi-nodal transport system were interesting, and I was heartened to hear them because that proposition was put to the committee to which I referred. I will watch to see how the Government responds to it. The Hon. M. R. Kersten was also recently appointed to the House and made his first speech during the budget debate, and I was interested to hear his comments about western New South Wales. Given that members of this House represent the entire State, we come from a broad geographic area.

Page 3019

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On this side of the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Yes, we have more such members on this side of the House. The member's knowledge of western New South Wales and Broken Hill, added to that of the Hon. D. F. Moppett, from whom we have heard in recent years on rural topics, helps to broaden members' knowledge of these matters. The Hon. M. R. Kersten imparted his knowledge of the history of the area, and his links to the union movement were most fascinating. He understands the needs and concerns of the people of New South Wales, both in the city and country. Added to what the Hon. D. F. Moppett has said over the past few years, he will ensure that all of us city slickers have a better understanding of the life and the spirit of all people of New South Wales.

We all look forward to the first speeches of new members. Members work together closely, particularly on committee work, and therefore it is important to understand what motivates our colleagues on both sides of the House and on the crossbenches. I contrast that spirit with the statement that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods made on the night that the Hon. Patricia Staunton and the Hon. Janelle Saffin made their first speeches. When I heard the Leader of the Government today refer to his concerns about personal remarks made about a member of his staff, I was reminded of my concerns on that night about the personal remarks made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods about a Sydney Morning Herald journalist. That was a bitter and unprovoked attack. I do not often make personal comments about other members - it is not my style, and I do not like to hear other members do it. We should debate issues on their merits, not on personalities. I cannot let the Hon. Jan Burnswoods' speech go by without comment.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It was an absolute shocker.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: It was. The attack on the Sydney Morning Herald journalist by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods was on the basis of no more than his father, the work of his father, whom he worked for and his work as a journalist. I found that attack beneath the dignity of the House, particularly when I noticed that the Premier had praised the Sydney Morning Herald for the same story. It was an interesting contrast in the thinking of some members of the Government. On the same night my colleague the Hon. D. J. Gay and I agreed to yield our place on the speaking order in this debate - which accounts for the fact that I am speaking now, some weeks later - to give the new members an opportunity to speak. Nevertheless, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods would not yield her position in the speaking order to her two new colleagues. I put that on the record because it is not part of the spirit of this House which I have come to understand regarding the way colleagues from both sides work together.

I should like to speak about my colleague the Hon. E. P. Pickering, who recently left this Chamber. I could not allow him to leave without placing on the record the highest regard I have for Ted and Elaine Pickering. I wish them both well and good health in retirement. We know that the Hon. Ted Pickering was concerned for his health, and he now has an opportunity to return to full health. I saw him reasonably recently and he looked well; some of the spirit of Ted Pickering we have come to know is certainly with him again. History will judge him well. He will be judged as a person who was scrupulously honest, a man of integrity and high standards in dealing with other people, the Parliament and the Liberal Party - as evidenced by the way he worked. Nothing demonstrates that more than the dilemma he found himself in when, upon unintentionally misleading Parliament, he felt that he must resign his position as Minister for Police. We all felt for Ted on that occasion. He always to some extent wore his emotions on his sleeve and we recall more than one occasion when tears were in his eyes when he spoke, but he always spoke with the highest of standards. I wish him well. He is writing a book at the moment called No, Minister. I have no idea what he will finally call it. I recall when I was a member of a Minister's staff, before I was elected to this House, and worked with Ted Pickering. When he wanted something done and he received a "No, Minister", he had a great capacity to give his bureaucracy reason to rethink an issue if he thought it was important enough. I might have more to say about that when the House debates the Local Government Amendment (Alcohol-free Zones) Bill.

The former Minister for Police was told that it was not possible to amend even something as apparently insignificant as a local government ordinance prohibiting backpackers from selling cars in certain streets in Kings Cross. However, an examination of ordinances before 1993 will reveal that such an ordinance existed, because at the end of the day the Minister's will prevailed and he got things done. My party has not always been kind in its judgment of Ted Pickering. I guess that was because he was a strong personality and took such a forceful position on many issues, including what he saw as the important moderate position of the party. He was never backward in going in to bat for a colleague or the Premier or if he believed that something needed to be done. As I said in my first speech in this House, I owe a lot to Ted Pickering for my place in this Chamber. Therefore, in wishing him well I must say that I am richer for having had the privilege of serving with him for four years.

I now turn to the subject at hand - the budget. On the last page of his Budget Speech the Treasurer said this budget would give "a helping hand to the less fortunate". I have read that comment many times, as I have read letters from various people who have been particularly disadvantaged by this budget. I think of all the public servants who will lose their jobs or will have to move with their families to a new city or town because of the budget. I think of all the towns and
Page 3020
cities that will suffer because of the loss of various bureaucrats, particularly in regional New South Wales. I think of that statement when I think of the changes to the school transport system. I wonder how parents will relate to that statement when funds to cover the cost of school transport are cut and their capacity to exercise their choice in selecting schools appropriate to them is not so easy.

The school transport subsidy debate has yet to reach the height I suspect it will reach next year as parents reflect on how it has been changed. I note particularly the supposed insignificance of the boundary within which students will have to walk to school being pushed back another 400 metres. In drawing the circle around schools the Government has not allowed for a clear definition of walking distance to schools. A line representing the walking distance from a school - the boundary beyond which students can apply for a transport subsidy - can be easily drawn on a map, but the reality is that it might cross a river or a lake, as it will in Lake Macquarie, or a gully. An example cited to me are students who live in a particular subdivision in clear view of a high school but whose walking distance, because of a major ravine, is 9 kilometres. Yet according to the line drawn on the map those students reside well within the 2.5 kilometre boundary, and they will have to pay for their transport.

I am not sure how the Treasurer's statement about a helping hand to the less fortunate will apply to those students. I am not sure how it will apply to young people who will receive no assistance through employment programs such as the get started program. I am not sure how that statement will apply to the Sydney City Mission or other organisations that will have their funding cut because of the axing of employment programs. Women will miss out on employment programs because of cuts in funding. The people of western Sydney expected to get an extra $20 per week in their pockets with the removal of the tolls but now the infamous broken tolls promise will ensure they do not have that extra money, despite western Sydney receiving additional funding in another form.

This budget is a let down for the ordinary men and women of New South Wales. It is big on the bottom line but short on providing support for people as individuals. The Opposition differs greatly from the Government because it is concerned about individuals. The bottom line and the big picture must be focused on, but not at the cost of individuals. I will show that many individuals will suffer from this budget and that it is, therefore, a budget of deceit. I do not say that lightly, but no-one can say it is a budget that will give a helping hand for the less fortunate when the fact is that it will clearly disadvantage groups and individuals through a range of programs.

Labor's famous identified savings documents did not mention cuts to the student transport subsidy, employment programs, capital works maintenance programs or ethnic affairs funding, which my colleague the Hon. J. M. Samios so eloquently described in his budget contribution. Those matters were not mentioned - yet this was one of the key documents upon which this Government came to office. For those reasons, this is a budget of deceit. Let me now turn to some of its programs. I am most concerned about the youth unemployment programs, the abolition of which is clearly a broken promise. What a nonsense it was to say, as the budget papers do, that such programs are no longer needed because of strong employment growth.

When the Government was framing the budget, members would have been working on it over the months leading up to 10 October when the budget was presented. However, the Government must be embarrassed by last Friday's Sydney Morning Herald headline "The jobless jump rocks Labor". That headline would have rocked Labor in New South Wales also because the budget is predicated on growth and employment. The new unemployment figure for Australia is 8.7 per cent - 740,000 Australians now out of work. But what of the young people? They are forgotten in this budget. Despite anything the Government might say by way of rhetoric, we still have an extraordinarily unacceptable rate of youth unemployment. It is a nonsense to suggest that such programs are no longer needed because of strong employment growth. There is no employment growth! These figures are the second set that show there is no employment growth.

The programs were to assist the young unemployed. On 11 October the Sydney Morning Herald reported that only 10 days before the election the Minister for Education and Training reaffirmed that youth employment programs were a strong commitment of the Government. On many occasions when my colleague the Hon. Virginia Chadwick was the Minister she alluded to the fact that she regarded it as a Labor Party intention to abolish these programs. But each time she said it, she was contradicted by the former Opposition. Clearly there was an expectation that these programs would be maintained, but they have been cut. I will focus on those programs because the Government has got it wrong.

The programs are meant to target people who may have no real chance of long-term employment, even in a period of employment growth. The former Government targeted young people who slipped through the net, who missed out on schooling, perhaps through long-term absence, frequent changing of schools, or lack of discipline. They have no long-term future employment unless they can be helped by a variety of programs. The former Government was proud to support the get started program, which it initiated and to which it allocated $5.24 million. A few minutes ago the Treasurer talked about the $300 million this Government has committed; $5.24 million is a small fraction by comparison yet so many young people will miss out.

Last year's budget documents said that the get started program was aimed at assisting 4,000 young people, including school leavers, and allocated $1.36 million more than the previous year's funding.
Page 3021
That increase was in recognition of the high incidence of youth unemployment. The get started program provides support for two weeks of intensive job-seeking by participants and four weeks of structured on-the-job training. By targeting school leavers the get started program provides a direction for young people making the transition to employment and perhaps further training. It helps them avoid the trap of chronic unemployment. Honourable members spoke earlier about social justice. I could not think of a more deserving, important group to assist. This program is about their future and also about the future of the nation.

Of the people assisted by the former Government in the previous year, 54 per cent found work or went on to further training as a direct consequence of that program alone. What a good result for such a small outlay! Another program was work assistance, which was funded with less than $1 million and was aimed at assisting young people between 15 and 25 to get a job by offering four weeks of structured on-the-job training, thus the term "work experience". This Government has cut this program yet claims the budget will give people a helping hand. Honourable members would have received numerous letters on this issue from affected groups. I cite one I received recently, which I am sure honourable members opposite would have received, from Workplace for Youth, an organisation in Nowra. This most interesting letter stated:

These programs, particularly in rural communities, are unique; and the services that they provide to young people are not duplicated elsewhere.

In other words, it is fulfilling a need in the community that no other program has been able to do. The letter continued:

Therefore, young unemployed people will now be left with no aid or assistance when it comes to breaking the cycle of their unemployment, and acquiring the skills and experience necessary to give them the break they need to gain employment.

The key factor for the unemployed, particularly young people who may have never had any experience in the Workforce is gaining work experience.

That is what the Opposition recognised and sought to do through the previous budget. The Government, in what can be described as a most heartless decision, will challenge the very people least able to help themselves. Maybe it is a long time since honourable members opposite attended school but for many young people leaving school the idea of setting foot in a TAFE or some other education institution - particularly if they had a bad experience at school - is not something that they do easily; they need a less threatening environment. Many programs are conducted by community-based organisations and have been working, but they have been cut for no good reason except the premise that they were no longer needed. Well, they are needed. They are needed as much now as they were in the past. One has only to look at last Friday's employment statistics to show that the need is there. My view is that the Government has now cast these people aside, but of course that means that others in the community will have to pick them up.

Recently I travelled with some members of the Federal Liberal Party, including the shadow minister for youth affairs, Senator Ian Campbell and New South Wales Senator John Tierney on the coalition's youth bus. We travelled through coastal New South Wales and visited Lismore and Grafton. The message we got wherever we held our forums was the importance of these programs. Local government youth development officers highlighted to us how they were fearful about funding cuts. They certainly alerted me to what was going to come in the budget. The Government has not enhanced the budget of local councils but it will probably fall on the shoulders of local government through the youth development officers to pick up programs such as these to find a way to assist young people. The burden will fall on them and they will have to underpin many of the services provided to young people.

I condemn the Government for its action. Although this is outside my portfolio area I can think of no action for which the Government deserves greater condemnation than doing this to young people - who of course are our future. Had I made this speech a week or two ago I might have said something quite different. I might have condemned the Government for its failure to provide the women in work project with funding for the current year. The women in work program was allocated $102,000 in the last budget and provided vocational training and education for women in prison. It had a very good success rate. I am pleased to report, having niggled the Government for some time about this program, that during the adjournment of the Parliament the Department of Corrective Services announced it will now pick up this program. I am delighted about that because the program was most valuable for a significant group of people who might otherwise have missed out on skills that in the long term might keep them in steady employment and assist them to start a new life.

I wish to comment on a number of areas in the women's portfolio. I am pleased to acknowledge, as I did to the Minister, that the Government has increased funding for the court assistance program. This program builds on the coalition's domestic violence program. Given that this has been one of the areas of the budget that the Government has highlighted I am surprised that the Government has, at the same time, axed the domestic violence advisory council - a specialist body designed to advise the Government. Instead, that work will be picked up by the Premier's Council for Women, which is not a specialist body but a general body that has arrived with some fanfare. I understand that the Premier has not yet met with its members.

Any initiatives to assist reduce domestic violence are important. Honourable members should not seek to score points about domestic violence; they should try to solve the problem. One way the Opposition
Page 3022
sought to solve it was through the domestic violence advisory council, a specialist body focused on that issue. I welcome increased funding for domestic violence through the court assistance program. With that in mind, and given that funding has been promised in the budget, many groups are wondering whether they will get an allocation. Last week I visited the Bankstown domestic violence liaison committee to hear of its concerns. On 3 November it commenced a court support scheme and it intends to follow the Redfern best practice model. When I met with members of that committee they expressed concern that as yet they have not had any offer of assistance from the Government for the funding of a position of coordinator, someone who would be available to administer the scheme.

While I welcome the increased funding in the budget, I note that Bankstown is one of the few local government areas in that region that does not have a funded coordinator position, and a group as important as the Bankstown committee is still wondering whether it will receive funding. In the past the committee sought funding from the area assistance scheme, which is administered by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Last week I was not able to tell the committee whether funding would remain with the area assistance scheme or whether it may become the responsibility of the Minister for Women. I urge the Government to make an announcement in that regard as soon as possible. I was disappointed that there was only one reference in the Budget Speech to women, and that was to women's health. I looked at the budget papers to determine which line item referred to women's health and, unlike the budget papers for the previous year, there was no reference to it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There was a whole booklet on it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: As my colleague the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has reminded me, the former Government published a booklet. I have yet to see this Government's detailed account of how it intends to provide that money for women's health. I asked both in this House and at the Estimates Committee for Consumer Affairs and Women whether the Government would honour its clear election commitment to reintroduce the women's budget statement to outline the impact of the Government's policy on women. That was promise number four in the Government's 25-page booklet on women's policy. That is another broken promise. The Minister stated clearly that the Government has no plans to produce that document this year. Will it be produced in the future? I look forward to its reintroduction. In its period in office the former Government took a whole-of-government approach to this matter and produced many documents relating to women and funding. I look forward to this Government setting out its plans in this regard. Sadly, for the moment it is another broken promise.

I turn briefly to the funding for local government in the budget. By and large this budget is a status quo budget. There are no new programs for local government. The programs introduced by the coalition Government have been maintained. However, I bring to the attention of honourable members some of the Government's plans for local government. I note in particular that the budget papers refer to increasing the role of the department in the development and monitoring of the national competition policy for local government. I am sure all honourable members would be aware that New South Wales will have the carriage of the implementation of the Hilmer principles relating to local government. In April next year the Council of Australian Governments will have to deal with the statement embodying competition policy and its impact on the State and local government.

Given that the budget papers note the role that the department will play, I wish to place on record that numerous people in local government are concerned about the issue, for no reason other than that they lack information and consultation. Although broad-scale seminars are now being organised, people from a number of local councils have said to me that detailed discussions at specific local council level are lacking. They would like greater consultation. If COAG is to deal as early as April next year with the national competition policy issue, the Government must step up the consultation process or it will leave disaffected a significant group within the broad government process. To a degree I support the principles in the Hilmer report relating to the Trade Practices Act and the introduction of the competition principles agreement. I am on record as stating that I broadly support the Hilmer report. However, I am concerned that local government has no idea where the principles will take it.

In many businesses of local government the Hilmer principles will challenge how local government has done many things in the past and how it will do things in the future. Local councils will need to know more than they do at the moment when they prepare their next budgets. Although in broad principle I support many of the Hilmer proposals, I put on the record that local councils are worried and confused, particularly small and isolated rural councils, for whom many of the principles of competition seem quite irrelevant. Recently I received a circular that refers to various training programs for local government. Earlier this year one of those training programs was operated by the department. The good old principle of user-pays and a bit of competition policy led the department to charge those attending the seminars $330. However, local councils were basically required to attend. It was decided that the user-pays principle had gone too far, and I understand that councils are no longer required to pay to attend those seminars.

The Minister must pay close attention to the Hilmer principles when allocating resources. In addition to the COAG meeting, by June of next year clause 7 of the competition principles agreement requires each State to publish a statement which specifies the application of the principles to particular local government activities and functions. There is already uncertainty about the significance of recent
Page 3023
amendments to part IV of the Trade Practices Act, which open up all local government business activities to provisions governing anti-competition behaviour. At the next Local Government Association conference, which will be held next weekend in Wagga Wagga, councils will demand specific information from the Government about these issues. They are already demanding increased consultation. The Government must ensure that individual councils are not disadvantaged. It must clarify whether councils will be reimbursed for any loss of financial benefit resulting from changes that are likely to occur. Sales tax and payroll tax exemptions are high on the list of local council concerns at the moment.

Recent correspondence I have received from the Minister seems to clarify that. It seems that many people in local government are uncertain of their position. It is important for the Government in the period ahead to better clarify the position for local government. Local government is keen to modernise and to be modern, but it needs better consultation and better leadership from the Minister in that regard. I mentioned earlier that, with one or two exceptions, this budget is a status quo budget in regard to local government. Capital works funding provided to local councils for things like sporting facilities will be reduced, but the bushfire levy will be increased. One matter of great concern that has been highlighted is the drought relief subsidy which involves the Valuer-General's charges.

If this budget is supposed to be a status quo budget, the status quo has not been maintained in relation to these charges. A letter written to the Minister for Local Government by the Local Government and Shires Association places on record the strong concern of local government about this issue. One might think that not only was the drought well and truly over but that local government could get on with its business as though the drought had never happened. The reality is that local government has, in the nature of decisions it has taken, attempted to assist local communities. By putting off decisions local government would otherwise have made, it has attempted to shore up local communities and give relief to individual ratepayers. The letter to the Minister for Local Government read as follows:

RE: DROUGHT RELIEF SUBSIDY - VALUER GENERAL'S CHARGES

The vast majority of NSW has been subjected to one of the most debilitating droughts on record.

Rural NSW particularly has suffered years of crop failures, faced mounting debt, and has been subjected to other ravages of nature including bushfires, flood and severe frosts.

The downturn in the economy, in addition to diminished returns on the greatly reduced levels of production dictate that financial relief continue for the short term.

One such practical and welcome form of drought relief granted in the 1994/95 financial year was the drought-relief subsidy of $2.95 provided for the valuation of non-residential properties, to reduce the net valuation charges to councils to $3.00 per valuation.

It might be stressed that farmland valuations constitute well in excess of 50% of the non-residential valuations serviced by the Valuer-General. Continuation of this subsidy for the 1995/96 financial year has been strongly anticipated by Local Government, and its continuation will greatly benefit the local economy of those ravaged by continuing droughts.

The Government Pricing Tribunal of NSW has now announced its decision, following public submissions and public hearing on 7 September 1995.

The Tribunal has decided to continue at the level of the 1994/95 charges, and it is at this level that all councils have prepared their Management Plan as publicly exhibited, including Revenue Plans, Pricing Policies and Fees and Charges.

Councils in drought areas have similarly planned financially for the drought-relief subsidy to continue until at least 30 June 1996 because of the continuation of the devastating drought.

Councillor Peter Woods, author of the letter as President of the Local Government and Shires Associations, said in the final paragraph:

I understand from discussion with Treasury that the recent State Budget contained no specific allocation for this vital subsidy, and I request that urgent re-assessment be made in order that the perceived commitment to drought relief may continue.

That aspect has not been given a great deal of coverage in the metropolitan news media, but it is one of the most heartless aspects of the budget. Because of the drought, local government has put off many of its programs in country New South Wales. It has in many ways provided relief to local communities. It is not too much to ask of the Government that the subsidy be maintained for a further year. At issue is a sum of $2.95 per valuation - a subsidy from big government to the smaller elements of government, to many of our smallest councils. The Government is calling this budget a helping hand for the community. It should seek to help less fortunate councils by maintaining the drought-relief subsidy on Valuer-General charges so that local government can use its other resources to assist the community.

As would be expected, I shall make a brief reference to the electorate of Manly, an electorate I have come to know well and love in recent years. I have taken note of the various promises made by the Government with regard to Manly and I will be watching closely in the coming years to find out when and if the Government honours any of its commitments to Manly. I am particularly focused on the promise regarding the interchange. In the election document provided by the Australian Labor Party candidate for Manly, Brian Green, who described himself as the candidate for Manly with experience and vision, it was stated under transport - the first item addressed in the document - that Brian Green and a Carr Labor Government were committed to a new and accessible interchange. Mr Green was echoing the promise made to the people of the Manly peninsula by the previous Government - a commitment we regarded as most important not only for Manly but, because Manly is an important gateway, for tourists.

Page 3024

I note that the budget makes no allocation for the interchange. I sought advice from the Government as to the reason for that. I have been told that the committee that examined the need for a new interchange has been re-formed. That is one way to put off a promise - send the issue to a committee. The Minister in a letter to me said that the committee was to report by June 1996. It is well known that the next State budget will be delivered in May 1996, so the interchange will not feature in next year's budget either. It will be well into 1997 before there is any likelihood of budgetary allocation for the interchange. The Minister for Transport also suggested to me that the committee was asked to report on the options within the $8.5 million promise made to the people of Manly by the previous Government. The people of Manly had expected the promise to be honoured, in terms of advice given them by their Labor Party candidate. The expression "within the $8.5 million" could mean a great many things. I suggest that there is the potential for a very much downgraded commitment to the people of Manly.

I know that the Minister for Roads is on record as describing that area as the area of the rich and as saying that there will be no more funding for roads and other transport in that area. It is clear that the area is on the Minister's hit list. I hope that the attitude of treating the north shore and the Manly peninsula as an area not deserving of any facilities is not one that permeates the whole of the Government. The Government will rue the day that it disregards whole sections of the community. If the Government wants to be a good government then it will learn to be a government for all of the State, as was the previous Government. The previous Government was proud of what it was able to do by way of a commitment to all of New South Wales.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: We represented all of the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: We did represent all of the people, and we were proud to provide facilities across New South Wales. When I hear of the Minister for Roads making a statement about the commitment the Government would have to the so-called rich areas of the north shore and Manly-Warringah, I can only say that the promises made by the Labor Party candidate -

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Tell us about western Sydney.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I would not have enough hours left in the day to do that. The commitment of the previous Government to western Sydney was strong, because there was a need there, a need that the previous Government inherited from the former Labor Government.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You wasted money on Eastern Creek. That's about all you did.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: What about the hospitals at Penrith and Nepean? What about the schools built in western Sydney? At the moment my focus is on the Manly-Warringah area. The Government will rue the day that it selects some groups at the expense of other groups in the community. I have noted the statements made by the Minister for Roads on a previous occasion. I only hope, for the sake of the people of Manly and the people of New South Wales, having regard to the importance of Manly for tourism and as a place visited regularly by people from across the State, that transport facilities in that area are enhanced and that the Government honours the commitment made by the previous Government.

The Hon. J. KALDIS [5.49]: It is customary for Government members to commend the budget, and for Opposition members to search for weaknesses in the same budget. Honourable members have just heard from the Hon. Patricia Forsythe about what she claims are weaknesses in the budget. I am in the fortunate position that I do not have to do an extensive search to find the good things in the budget because the press has done it for me. Not only did the metropolitan print press and electronic media praise the budget highly, it was also received enthusiastically by the regional press. On 18 October the Newcastle Herald spread the words "Budget wins: buildings, beds and blackboards" on the front page. Furthermore, in the same paper journalist Tracey Stinson analysed the impact of the budget in the Hunter region. She praised the allocation by the State Government of $311 million to the Hunter area. In the Border Mail of Albury I have read "Budget is a winner" and, in very big letters, "Labor's Act of Grace". Other regional papers wrote: "There will be no sackings - Egan", "Future looks good for schools", "Police coffers win a boost", "Health back on the rails", "$170 million for north coast" and "$22 million for new hospital".

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Where?

The Hon. J. KALDIS: That is on the north coast. The Pastoral Times wrote "What the budget delivered". The Manning River Times wrote "Bypass $15 million budget . . . certain to ease delay concerns" and the Inverell Times wrote "Rural NSW takes half the State's total road budget". I could go on and on to illustrate the never-ending support and excitement generated by the budget. So I take this opportunity to congratulate and commend the Treasurer on the award-winning budget. In what was claimed by the Sydney Morning Herald as the toughest in New South Wales history the Premier, Bob Carr, and the Treasurer, the Hon. M. R. Egan, have dug deeply, cutting the decaying roots of waste generated by the previous coalition Government. In 1995, its first year in office, the Labor Party Government presented a tough but solid budget that delivered core election promises on health, education, safety, the environment and welfare.

Former Premiers Nick Greiner and John Fahey failed to grasp firmly the reins of fiscal reform. Those reins have now been secured by the Labor
Page 3025
Government. Most importantly, the new budget was extremely clever, boasting no new taxes and no tax increases. Labor's initiatives are in stark contrast to the previous Government's mismanagement. The 1995 budget is the epitome of Labor Government values: doing what is best for the people of New South Wales right from the start. The Labor Government is definitely doing things right, increasing spending in the most vital sectors such as health, and slashing waste in unnecessary areas, burning once and for all the hollow logs that once cost taxpayers money. Members of the Opposition are finding it tough to criticise the State's latest budget. They are probably astonished at how well all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit together.

The major criticism of the budget by the Opposition are the cuts to the school transport subsidy scheme. This issue appeared on the front pages of many regional and metropolitan newspapers. Perhaps teenagers will have to ride their bicycles or walk a little further to school, but the State's hospitals and education system will receive approximately an extra $100 million to provide better health, and better schooling for our children. Three new hospitals, $64 million of new funding for the waiting list reduction program, and a number of special programs in Aboriginal and mental health are part of the record $5.5 billion devoted to health this financial year. More than $5 billion has been allocated to education, another key commitment of the Labor Government. The State will have five new schools, 339 new teachers, an expansion in the TAFE budget, and computers and technology in government schools.

The appointment of an additional 150 police officers - the first of 650 promised to be appointed in the next four years - is the first step towards achieving record police numbers. The overall budget for police and emergency services is a little more than $1 billion, an increase of $50 million. In the community services budget, funding has been allocated for the provision of an additional 60 specialist child protection officers. The home and community care program will receive a record $239 million to assist the frail, the aged and people with disabilities. I was pleased that Wagga Wagga, an electorate I visit frequently, received approximately $27 million in funding in the capital and maintenance program. Other electorates I am involved with are Hawkesbury, which received $10.1 million; Georges River, which received $700,000; and Monaro, which was allocated $16.3 million. These four electorates have gained significantly from the budget, especially in health, education and welfare. I would also like to address the budget for ethnic affairs.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What happened to the grants?

The Hon. J. KALDIS: Wait a minute and you will hear.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith): Order! There will be no communication across the Chamber.

The Hon. J. KALDIS: As honourable members may recall, the Labor Government established the Ethnic Affairs Commission. The commission continues to promote the value of cultural diversity and the rights of individuals and groups from non-English speaking backgrounds. It provides the Government with ethnic affairs policy advice and services, as well as a comprehensive language and translating service. I am pleased by the additional funds allocated to ethnic affairs, particularly the extra $600,000 for interpreters. The 24-hour emergency interpreting service provided by the Ethnic Affairs Commission will be extended to the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice and the courts.

No longer will the people of New South Wales have to pay for the former Minister travelling by helicopter to liaise with ethnic communities, or for the thousands of dollars in Cabcharges spent by only one staff member. There will be no more videos featuring the former Minister, which cost taxpayers almost $50,000, and no more bills for $90,000, which was spent in only 10 months on jet setting, hospitality and flowers. The $1.5 million allocated to the grants program will be spent on the ethnic communities. The previous Minister spent more than $540,000 on his office; $200,000 of his blow-out was funded by the grants program.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The ethnic communities do not ever see their Minister these days. When was the last time Bob Carr attended a meeting of members of the ethnic community?

The Hon. J. KALDIS: I have seen him on at least a dozen occasions and he will attend a gathering of the ethnic community next Wednesday.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Will he? It will be the first time in three weeks.

The Hon. J. KALDIS: He has just come back from overseas. The ethnic communities of New South Wales have benefited greatly from the budget and every cent allocated to those communities will be spent on them and only on them. A performing government has to be tough on minor issues and more permissive in vital areas in order to eliminate State debt. Up until now no-one has had a plan to eliminate State debt, but the Carr Labor Government is committed to the future. The people of New South Wales will benefit from a reduction in tax and an improvement in services as a result of the debt being paid off.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: When?

The Hon. J. KALDIS: Soon, during the four years of the Carr Labor Government. The people of New South Wales are extremely fortunate to have a government that has realistic goals and values. Somebody once said that to win one has to select a goal, determine a course of action that will bring one to that goal, and then hold to that action until the goal is reached. The key is action. The Carr Government has taken action by tabling a budget that is realistic
Page 3026
and will be beneficial for many years to come. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said that as Minister for Ethnic Affairs Bob Carr does not attend many functions for the ethnic community. The Premier is taking good care of ethnic affairs and he attends many, many functions.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [6.04]: I propose to speak very briefly in this budget debate.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There is not much to say, is there?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I would like to spend a lot of time talking about the very good things that are being done in the area of corrective services, particularly in regard to support for Aboriginal and women prisoners. However, I have decided to speak very briefly today and about only one issue. The Legislative Council was meant to sit today - a day on which it would normally not sit - in order to complete the budget debate. It is interesting to note that after a full sitting day there have been only two contributions to that debate.

I want to talk about something very serious that is happening in this House, that is, that we are losing our so-called family friendly hours. It is an absolute disgrace. It is happening in both Houses and it happens in every Parliament in Australia - the absolute belief that law-making can happen only in the middle of the night. The House has been sitting for long hours for many weeks, sometimes for three nights in a row. If both political parties are serious about attracting more women to Parliament, they must become serious about the issue of family-friendly sitting hours. Honourable members tried very hard to change the view of the former coalition Government about this issue, but to no avail; the sitting hours were as bad at the end of that period as they were at the beginning of it.

Both major political parties claim to be serious about this issue. I am afraid I cannot include the National Party in any attempt to get women into Parliament as it has not even addressed the matter. The Liberal Party has refused to take on board the issue of a quota but somehow still believes it will attract women into Parliament even though it supports old-fashioned sitting hours. Why do parliaments continue to sit at night? I will tell honourable members why. It is a hangover from the days when it was a second job; it is a hangover from the days when men did their day's work as merchant bankers or lawyers and popped into Parliament in the evening to pass a few laws. We should modernise; we should work from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. as most other white-collar workers do. No-one has yet convinced me that laws cannot be made between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The problem with late night sittings is not just that members of Parliament get tired, often get drunk and make silly decisions -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Mandatory breath testing for politicians!

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Then we would have members sneaking down the back corridors to escape the breath trolley. Quite seriously, at the moment the only women attracted to a career in Parliament are women with no children or women whose children have grown up.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But you have young children and Wendy Machin has young children.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: If I had known quite how bad the sitting hours were I would not have stood as a candidate for Parliament. Both parties were still promising family friendly sitting hours, and I believed them.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: I can understand why the honourable member believed us, but she was silly to believe her colleagues.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I am horrified to discover that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. D. F. Moppett obviously approve of these stupid sitting hours.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do not.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I am sorry that the honourable member believes that the present sitting hours are acceptable.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do not. The honourable member has misinterpreted what I said, and has done so deliberately.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: What is the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti's view about the sitting hours?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I think they are appalling.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I am glad that it is now on the record that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti believes the sitting hours are appalling. Not only are the long nights dangerous in terms of silly decision making but they are dangerous in terms of occupational health and safety issues. Even nurses demand a 10-hour break between shifts. Often when the sittings finish at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night and, as in the lower House, start again at 9 o'clock the following morning, honourable members are simply not getting a long enough break. Certainly, those members who have to drive back to places far out in the western suburbs of Sydney would not even get a six-hour or seven-hour sleep, let alone an eight-hour sleep.

It is quite clear that bad decisions are made at two or three o'clock in the morning. One has only to consider some of the great disasters that have occurred in the world. The inquiry into the Exxon Valdez oil spill found that one of the reasons for that environmental disaster was that the crash occurred at three o'clock in the morning when everyone was at a low ebb. Why has it been impossible to change the sitting hours? Both parties promised to change them, but neither party has done so. Why has it been
Page 3027
impossible? It has actually been impossible because decision making in both parties is still in the hands of men. I have a view that the late night sittings suit men.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: They do not suit me.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: The Hon. Ron Dyer says that they do not suit him. Right from the start he has been consistent in his support for my view that we should have more sensible sitting hours. Unfortunately, the average male politician quite likes sitting up late at night in the parliamentary dining room, drinking beer, engaging in male bonding, wandering around feeling important, and being followed by the attendants who are also forced to stay up all night when we have to sit all night. All the lights in the building are on - it is a terrible waste of money - and all the catering staff are on overtime. But the people I feel most sorry for are the poor Hansard staff, who do a fantastic job. But when we go home at three o'clock in the morning they have to stay until five o'clock in the morning, finishing the Hansard reports.

An interesting decision was handed down in the European Court in the Danforss case, which found that any extension of working hours which could not be justified by the nature of the industry, for example, a power station that has to operate 24 hours a day, was indirect discrimination against women. If only parliamentarians were covered by the Anti-Discrimination Act - which, unfortunately, they are not - I would be the first person to take a case using the precedent set by the European Court that the extraordinary sitting hours cannot be justified. There is absolutely no reason for us to sit around the clock to pass laws. It is indirect discrimination against women to have such extended hours.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Members filibuster in the budget debate and talk about irrelevant subjects.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: The Hon. D. F. Moppett thinks that it is irrelevant for me to talk about family-friendly sitting hours.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What does it have to do with the budget?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: It has to do with decision making in this Parliament, which is what the budget is all about. The budget funds the Legislature.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: If you sit more days, what about country members leaving their families for long periods? Have you thought about that?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My view is that we should sit three days a week and sit longer sessions. We have not been sitting for four months of this year.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But country members would never see their families.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Country members can see their families -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: On visiting days, that is what you are going to say.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: It is quite clear that the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti do not believe in family-friendly sitting hours.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do. But you should ask Wendy Machin. She leaves home on Monday morning and gets home on Friday for a three-day parliamentary session. Do you want to cut that about? That is ridiculous!

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My view is that we should set down more sitting weeks in a year. No-one has ever convinced me that we need four months off in the middle of the year. I know that a lot of members swan off to Paris or New York during that time. I know the honourable member opposite swanned off to Rwanda. My view is that if the major parties are serious about getting women into Parliament they will move towards family-friendly sitting hours.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You are in control; do something about it.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: We are not in control of this Chamber. I think the last few votes have shown that.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [6.14]: As a member with a young family, I would like to comment on the contribution made by the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann about family-friendly hours. I have discovered that it really does not matter whether I am in the House or attending to other duties: as a politician my duties have never allowed me to have family-friendly hours. The community expects its politicians to be on the job for something like 80 hours a week. It does not matter whether I am here, working at home, or visiting community groups that frequently meet at night, I see increasingly less and less of my family, much to my family's disgust. However, I would support the honourable member in her efforts to have this House sit at times which at least give us the opportunity to go home, if we need to.

This Parliament also needs to address, and I know it has been called for many times, the opportunity for parliamentarians to place their children in workplace care on the occasions we need to bring our children in and care for them whilst our partners are working elsewhere, or simply to have the experience of seeing our children. The availability of some sort of workplace care would be useful. I realise that the arrangements would be novel: probably an occasional-care centre operating contrary to traditional hours and conditions. But it should be possible for a Parliament building based in the city, with a lot of people working around the clock, to make workplace child-care arrangements that service members of Parliament. Without wanting to be in any way partisan, I would at least support the spirit of the remarks made by the previous speaker, even if I might comment on their detail.

Page 3028

In relation to the budget, I would like to join with other speakers who have commended new members of the House for their maiden speeches. One of the advantages of being a member of the Legislative Council is that the tradition of the first speech is well honoured and maintained. Regardless of the political colour of the person giving his or her first speech, virtually the entire House comes out to listen to it. I would dearly love to see that tradition continue. This House should not follow what happens in another place, where only the members of one's own faction come to hear the person making his or her traditional first contribution to public life. It is a tradition that this House honours with great pride.

The political origins of the person making his or her first speech does not matter; all honourable members take the trouble regardless of their position in the Parliament, whether they be Ministers or backbenchers, to listen to the member making that contribution and congratulate the member on doing so. We have had some excellent contributions to this House in the last few weeks. I listened thoughtfully to the contributions made by the Hon. Janelle Saffin and the Hon. Patricia Staunton. Whilst I will argue with those honourable members opposite from time to time, they will be arguments based on substance and goodwill.

There is no doubt that those honourable members bring with them a rounded wealth of experience unmatched by other honourable members in this House. It will be a pleasure to deal with people of such intellectual integrity. I also compliment the Hon. M. R. Kersten, one of our newest coalition members, for his first speech. When I listened to his speech I felt that I had some greater experience of what it must be like to uphold the traditions of Broken Hill, from where he comes. A lot of bad things are said about Broken Hill in the city of Sydney, so it was indeed a pleasure to hear someone give a description of that town's traditions and history which brought it great pride.

I suggest that the Hon. M. R. Kersten should check to see whether he broke the record for the longest first contribution to this House. In any event, his speech, like the other two speeches I have referred to, was of great substance. It traversed many areas of concern to people in the country. Labor members must feel terror when they visit constituencies in the bush or speak to people in rural areas. I know of no political party which is treated with more electoral contempt than the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. I accept that the Carr Government may have made some attempts to show concern in the time of the drought but people in the bush are hurting directly as a result of policy decisions of the Carr Government. They do not know what new decision from Macquarie Street will impact adversely on their lives. I am proud that the coalition has a new member who will bring concerns to the House as forthrightly and directly as the Hon. M. R. Kersten did in his first speech to this House. I also welcome another new coalition member to the House, the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn. He and I go back a long way in political battles around the western suburbs of Sydney, around the Campbelltown area.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Were you on the same side?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Absolutely.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: With the support of Elizabeth Kernohan.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Indeed, with the support of Dr Elizabeth Kernohan. We have fought battles against our Labor opponents in Campbelltown. Some we have been able to win, at least in the public domain, but more often than not we have lost at the ballot box. In many cases the tricks and deceptions wrought on the people of Campbelltown have not brought great distinction to our opponents. I know the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn will distinguish himself in this House as an extra Liberal Party representative from the western suburbs of Sydney. I have no doubt that he will bring the concerns of ordinary working people and of people in the developing suburbs of outer metropolitan Sydney as forcefully as they should be brought to the attention of the Carr Government. A distinguished political career awaits him as he continues his service in the Legislative Council. This may not have been where he intended to make his mark for the Liberal Party but all members on this side of the Chamber will serve their party wherever they are called to serve it.

I also pay tribute to the Hon. Ted Pickering. I have waited some time to pay this tribute so that I could speak without time constrictions and from the heart to say what needs to be said about the contribution made by our former colleague. Ted was respected on all sides of the Chamber as a great parliamentarian. He was a forthright defender of the rights and privileges of the House. He defended them not only from the Opposition benches; he defended them as the Leader of the Government in this House. Few members of this House who have risen to high office have treated the House with more respect than the Hon. Ted Pickering did during his ministerial service. I have seen him negotiate for hours on end with members on the crossbench, making sure their concerns were listened to and that the Government did not ride roughshod over them. As other speakers have said, Ted Pickering in part obliterated the sins of earlier governments which because they had the numbers in this House rode roughshod over all members of the House, including government members.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: What do you mean? Ted Pickering controlled the numbers in this House.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: It is true that Ted Pickering was a great one for controlling the numbers in this House, but there is no doubt that he did so with utmost respect for those who were casting their votes. More often than not, Ted Pickering was able to gain support for proposals by the force and weight of the arguments he was able to bring to bear; it was
Page 3029
not often by deal making. I met Ted Pickering for the first time in 1987. I was approaching him to seek his support in my first run for preselection for the Legislative Council. His comments were remarkably straightforward. He believed that I should not have his support and he told me directly why. I learned a great deal from his remarks and finally achieved preselection for this Chamber largely by following the advice he gave me then. He told me what I needed to do.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: "Stick with me, kid."

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I made sure that I did what he said. It may interest the Hon. Ann Symonds to know that when I ran for the Legislative Council, although I had the support of the Hon. Ted Pickering to be on the ticket, I did not have his support for having my spot on the ticket. I understand that he expressed disappointment at the result initially. However, he was a big enough man later to compliment me on my achievement in being elected and, at a later time, the contribution I was making in the House. I learned a great deal from him not only at the time of our first meeting but later when I worked for three years on his staff. I know of no parliamentarian who worked harder at a difficult portfolio, as the police portfolio was. He felt passionately and worked hard.

All members of the House recognised his pursuit of his objective of a modern, corruption-free Police Service which had the best police practices in the world. I accept that Ted was not necessarily loved by all members of the Police Service while he was Minister, particularly in the later years he was in the portfolio, because many of the issues he raised were tough. Those same issues need to be faced even now. Unfortunately, the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service is showing what happens when such issues are not dealt with in the manner in which Ted would have had them dealt with. Ted received enormous support from his wife. Elaine Pickering is a wonderful lady who took on the role of a politician's wife with zest and zeal.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: What is the pay like?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The pay is not very good; that has to be said. Elaine Pickering relished some of the features of political life which, I have to say, my partner does not enjoy much. Elaine made a contribution to the people of New South Wales, particularly when Ted was police Minister. She worked very well with members of the police women's auxiliary to raise funds for police legacy and the chapel, which has been built and decorated at Goulburn. It was a great pleasure to observe the latter part of the career of the Hon. Ted Pickering. I and a number of other people had lunch with him at the weekend. I told him that I suspect that not until my children are teenagers will I lose more sleep over a person than I did over him. At the time of many of his battles I was serving him as a member of his staff or was a backbench supporter. I remember receiving abrupt phone calls on a couple of occasions from very senior members of the former Fahey Government. It was sometimes very difficult to support Ted in those circumstances. It is a great loss to the Parliament that the Hon. Ted Pickering is no longer a member. Honourable members will be pleased to know that he has lost a great deal of weight and is looking better, as many former members do after finishing their service in this House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. F. Ryan.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.30]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [6.30]: I wish to express support for the doctors and health workers who this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald called for marijuana to be used for medical purposes. It is unfortunate that a valuable therapeutic substance is being withheld from patients with a variety of medical conditions which respond favourably to its administration. There is a growing body of evidence that cannabis has a beneficial effect on a number of chronic conditions. Conditions such as glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, depression, epilepsy, paraplegia, quadriplegia, and chronic pain all respond to marijuana. In addition to being beneficial in the treatment of such chronic conditions, cannabis also assists to control the nausea and vomiting that result from chemotherapy when all other remedies have failed. This has been known for more than 20 years. In the United States Dr Lester Grinspoon encouraged some of his medical colleagues to conduct a scientific study on the use of cannabis, and their results were published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in 1975.

Cannabis also can help patients with advanced AIDS to gain weight. Cannabis was first used as a medicine more than 5,000 years ago. Nicholas Culpeper in his work listed all the conditions in which the use of cannabis was indicated. Its use was once respectable, and even Queen Victoria was given cannabis by her court physician. The invention of the hypodermic syringe in the 1950s increased the use of opiates for fast pain relief. As cannabis is not water soluble it is difficult to inject and so its use as an analgesic was bypassed. The late nineteenth century saw the development of synthetic drugs like aspirin, chloral hydrate and barbiturates, and this further diminished the use of cannabis.

Because of the desire to stop the recreational use of cannabis a number of laws have been introduced throughout the world that have adversely impacted on people with medical problems. The 1938 Marijuana Tax Act in the United States was one of the first of these laws. The American Medical Association led a campaign against that legislation because it believed
Page 3030
cannabis use had to be retained for its medical properties. However, that campaign failed. Prohibition has meant the withdrawal of cannabis use for medical purposes. I admit that many drugs have adverse side effects. For instance, it is estimated that in the United States each year 500 to 1,000 people die of aspirin-induced bleeds, yet aspirin has a benign reputation. Any adverse side effects of cannabis must be balanced against the benefits it can give.

Severe glaucoma, which does not respond to usual drug treatment such as pilocarpine drops, has been shown to respond to cannabis, which restores intraocular pressure to normal. Cannabis offers people with severe glaucoma who are facing the onset of blindness an alternative treatment that may well benefit them. I have spoken to a young woman suffering severe glaucoma whose ophthalmologist confirmed for her the benefits of cannabis but nevertheless counselled her not to use the cannabis, which could have assisted her, because its use was illegal. There is now a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol available - dronabinol - which is given orally. The use of dronabinol medically is controlled by both State and Federal legislation and by regulations in New South Wales. These controls are impeding the use of what is increasingly acknowledged to be a beneficial substance.

The procedure for prescribing dronabinol is convoluted. Doctors - and only some doctors - are allowed to prescribe dronabinol, and they must first apply for permission under the Federal Therapeutic Goods Act to use a cannabis derivative. After that approval is obtained the doctor must apply to the Chief Pharmacist in the Pharmaceutical Services Branch of the Department of Health for permission to treat each individual patient under section 29 of the New South Wales Poisons Act 1966. A proposal is before the New South Wales Minister for Health to dispense with this provision, to speed up the process. I urge the Minister for Health to adopt this proposal as an interim measure. However, my concern is that dronabinol is not the ideal form of administering cannabis because its absorption rate is too variable. Too little absorption and the patient gets no relief; too much absorption and the patient becomes intoxicated. This latter condition distresses some people. The personal use of cannabis leaf provides a more predictable effect, and for this reason many people prefer to use the natural product.

Recently I had lengthy discussions with a woman who suffers from bouts of severe back pain that are the result of a serious car accident in 1971. She can use only cannabis to relieve her pain; she is allergic to legally available pain-killers. A few months ago her next-door neighbour reported her to the police and she was charged, convicted and fined. She should be able to use a small quantity of cannabis to relieve her pain without fear of prosecution. Why should she be denied that relief? Someone suffering from multiple sclerosis who will probably live for 40 years should be able to self-administer cannabis. Unfortunately, frequently people who attempt to do this are harassed by the police. In Western Australia a man has been reported, fined and convicted nine times in this regard. The natural product is certainly cheaper and more effective than synthetic forms of cannabis. It is difficult to justify forcing people to pay for pharmaceutically prepared substances when they can grow their own cannabis at a fraction of the cost. I urge the Government to introduce medical necessity as a ground for the use of marijuana.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [6.35]: I place on record the concerns of Mr Ray Webb of Abbotsford who has written to me about a most important matter. The information that he provided me is of such concern that I wish to bring it to the attention of all honourable members, and it is best that I do so in Mr Webb's words. He wrote:

Throughout the state, and no doubt throughout the Commonwealth, every person living in institutions run by the Community Services Department is presently being assessed to ascertain whether it is possible for them to be moved to live in the general community.

I see this as a direct attack on the rights of people who cannot speak for themselves or fend for themselves in the outside world.

My experience with the handicapped commenced in 1960 when my daughter was born.

From the age of six weeks to 18 months, Leisa spent almost half of her life in the Children's Hospital at Camperdown.

By the age of two, she was a full time resident at Greystanes Private Hospital in Leura, run by Matron MacDonald. She lived there for three years.

At five years she moved to the Revesby Centre for Handicapped Children (the Whitehall Private Hospital) run by the Intellectually and Physically Handicapped Childrens Association of N.S.W.

Finally, at age seven, Leisa was admitted to Stockton Hospital and has lived there since. Today, she is a happy, protected resident. Stockton Hospital has been her home for 28 years.

The attention, care and love she has received from the staff at Stockton has been tremendous.

This dear sweet handicapped daughter has developed as far as possible under Stockton's specialised guidance and she lives a happy and safe life. Despite many changes of staff over the 29 years that I have been interested in Stockton Hospital, their attitude has always been totally professional and compassionate. Leisa, however cannot look after herself. She would be a danger to herself and others if transferred to the outside world where she did not constantly receive 100% protection and attention within the security of a closed environment.

Leisa's experience can be taken as fairly typical of the thousands of full time residents in hospitals like Stockton around Australia.

The Support needs assessment document covers 22 pages. The compilation of these reports by the nursing staffs around the country must have taken thousands of hours.

It is a pity so much time and effort was wasted when the whole exercise was unnecessary for the exact capability of each resident is constantly assessed by the regular nursing and medical staff in the course of their professional duties.

To have a family member admitted as a resident in one of these Government Hospitals is a long and involved process. I don't know how long it might take these days but thirty years ago it took between five to six years with regular interviews and assessments several times a year.

Page 3031

There was no hope of having any person admitted if there was any way it could be seriously demonstrated that they could cope in the outside world.

Rather than meddle with the poor intellectually handicapped people, the Department of Community Services would do well to consider handing the whole business of running such places back to the Health Department. The Health Department pioneered these services over many years and did, in the main, a very good job.

I have raised this important matter as I recognise, through the words of Mr Webb, the concern of parents who fear for the safety of their adult intellectually disabled children under the changing policies of the department. I also put on record my admiration for the courage of such parents. It must have been difficult for the Webb family to ensure that Leisa was properly provided for. The ongoing concern of Ray Webb shines through in his letter.

Most importantly, Mr Webb's letter is not about general theories, ideologies or abstract ideals. It is about an individual - his daughter, Leisa. Government policy finally comes to realisation at the level of individuals and their families, who are affected. I place this information on the record for the benefit of all honourable members, but particularly members of the Government. I will seek a response to Mr Webb's concerns from the responsible Minister, the Hon. R. D. Dyer. I know he is concerned about the intellectually disabled, and I shall write to him in due course.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.40]: I bring to the attention of the House the work of a dedicated and diverse group of people who are leading on a most important project in the hope that their elected leaders will follow. I refer to the activities of the Friends of Cockatoo Island and their efforts to shake some action out of Federal and State decision makers. They have already taken the lead on an opportunity that rarely comes along at this stage in the evolution of a city - an opportunity that must be embraced and well thought out. Years of indecision and dithering have seen Cockatoo Island left in a derelict state. It has the potential to become the jewel in the crown of Sydney Harbour and, despite its current status as yet another contaminated former industrial site, must remain in public ownership and be rejuvenated.

Cockatoo Island is the largest island in Sydney Harbour and is worthy of special attention. It is enormously rich in heritage value. It has been a prison, reformatory, naval and commercial dockyard, ammunition store, and produce store in the earliest days of white settlement. I am reliably informed that some of the convict-built structures are older than those at Port Arthur in Tasmania. The 12 remaining convict-built underground grain silos were hand hewn out of sandstone. The barracks and guardhouse were also convict built and remain the only complete examples in their type in Australia. The island's remaining industrial heritage is equally remarkable and must be preserved for future generations. I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to meet with the Friends of Cockatoo Island and take a boat trip to the site on a wet and wind-lashed afternoon in mid-winter this year.

Momentum is gathering for action to be taken before any more of the site is damaged, and an international design competition has been conducted by landscape architecture students from the University of New South Wales to provide the kind of direction that is currently lacking from government. The issue of what to do with Cockatoo Island must not be relegated to the too-hard basket any longer. Equally important is that the people are given the opportunity to play a primary role in deciding what will happen to Cockatoo Island. I congratulate the visionaries who conducted the competition and the judges who very wisely chose to regard the prize-winning entries as a set of ideas.

Personally, I confess that I am tempted to pick the best and most outstanding ideas and to combine the outstanding features from the designs that can both complement each other and serve the public. In particular, there is a unique opportunity for the best of our sculptors to assist in the conversion from industrial site to public use. The stark quarried sandstone faces around the island are begging for the hand of artistic human intervention to assist the transition from despoiled industrial site to an island that should be part of the Sydney Harbour National Park. Ninety-two entries were received from Australia and around the world. They came from as far afield as Finland, Thailand, Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States of America, Chile and Spain.

This project has attracted almost as much international attention as the Sydney Opera House design, and will certainly cost far less in order to complement the opera house and provide a focal point at the opposite end of the harbour. Designs submitted have included proposals for a national memorial to honour prominent Australians; the permanent home for the National Maritime Museum; an industrial heritage museum utilising the unique power station on the island; a prison in combination with multiple public use; a necropolis; a ferry interchange and water taxi depot; a public park and convention centre; Australia's cultural vatican; a sculpture park; and a centre for the study, creation, exhibition, research and performance of the arts.

There is also a proposal to cover the entire island in ficus, Moreton Bay fig and other species in order to let them take over and swallow the previous human occupation of the island. The proposal plans to shut the island for 100 years and then, after the strangler figs and other species have completely taken over all the buildings, allow the public to wander over it via a system of suspended walkways. I fully realise that some form of commercial involvement will be necessary in order to realise the potential of Cockatoo Island. It is the diversity of possibilities and combinations thereof that make this opportunity such a unique and exciting one. I call on honourable members to focus on all these possibilities. [Time expired.]

Page 3032

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.45]: I wish to put on the record a tribute to those citizens who received the 1995 good citizens' awards at the annual citizens dinner held in Parliament House on Monday, 6 November. These awards have been presented since 1983 through the Australian Festival of Light and Community Standards Organisation. The awards are serious awards. I mention that because, as some honourable members know, the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann and others have instituted their own awards, including one called the Elaine Award. I understand that this year the Elaine Award was given to Dame Leonie Kramer, who has served as Chancellor of the University of Sydney. She is an outstanding woman.

Dame Leonie Kramer was given the Elaine Award as a measure of sarcasm because, in the opinion of those who presented the award, as a woman she had done the least for the sisterhood. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann and others seek to attack with sarcasm those women they choose to be recipients of this so-called award. It is unfortunate that Dame Leonie Kramer was chosen. She is an outstanding woman and leader in our State and nation. At the function on Monday, 6 November, a serious award - for national leadership - was presented to Senator Ron Boswell. As honourable members will know, he is the Senate leader of the National Party in the Federal Parliament. His citation read:

Senator Boswell has strongly supported Christian Family Values. We thank God for Senators such as Ron Boswell who are prepared at much risk to their political career to stand up and be counted for Christian Family Values.

The second award was given to Piers Akerman, a News Limited columnist for the Daily Telegraph Mirror. He received the award for service through the media. Mr Akerman's citation read:

Piers Akerman has made a very important contribution to the development of constructive political debate in Australia. He is a fearless commentator on current issues. We salute journalists such as Piers Akerman, who present the truth without fear or favour.

Piers Akerman is not frightened to object to the so-called politically correct view that other members may hold. A third award was presented to Graham and Sandra Ross of Radio 2GB. They received the award for service to radio. In accepting the award Mr Ross commented that it was the first award they had ever received for services rendered and it was, therefore, all the more special. Their book Our World of Gardening is an Australian best-seller, and they have just completed the publication Practical Guide to Gardening for Reader's Digest. Their three-hourly programs on Radio 2GB each Saturday and Sunday morning have been broadcast since 1980. Their citation read:

Graham and Sandra are multi talented persons who have made an outstanding contribution to Radio, TV and Horticulture in Australia.

James Whitehall received an award for youth leadership. He is a student at the University of Wollongong and has been a leader of Youth for Australia. His citation read:

In spite of his heavy University study program, James has given time to promote the Cause of Christ on the University Campus and defend Christian Family Values. James is to be congratulated for making a brave stand in a difficult environment and for giving a lead to other students on Campus and throughout NSW.

The final award was given to Dr Mark Tronson of the sports and leisure ministry. He is also the Australian Cricket Association chaplain. He received the award for services to sport. His citation read:

Through Dr Tronson's efforts and other supporters the Sports and Leisure Ministry has grown to now providing 120 Australian professional sports with chaplains, a wide network of Christian Athletes and associated sports ministry areas.

Dr Tronson is known for having established the Sanctuary Lodge Ministry in Moruya, which is on the south coast of New South Wales, where athletes from the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra can stay for rest and relaxation. Senator Boswell said in his address:

It was easy to be negative about the challenges facing Australia as some facts of the situation are sobering and depressing. Inherent in the word "challenge" is also opportunity - a chance for redemption and growth.

The senator also said that the "social challenges facing Australia are about returning sovereignty to the family by making those bonds strong again with a right mix of economic and social instruments". He also said that the "schedule in the Northern Territory euthanasia bill, which is the form signed by the patient requesting a lethal injection, contains less formal signing requirements than a roadworthy certificate for your car". He said further:

No matter what the challenges facing us - and they are not small - it is how we tackle them which is the key. Do we as individuals stand up and be counted in isolated efforts - or do we band together in common agreement, joining forces so that we are strong enough to influence the goings on in the corridors of powers? I believe this last suggestion is the only realistic alternative available to those who really want to tackle the challenges facing Australia at a Commonwealth level.

[Time expired.]


The Hon. I. COHEN [6.50]: I refer to the Roads and Traffic Authority traffic noise fraud. About 50 per cent of residents in the Sydney region are exposed to an undesirable level of road traffic noise, according to a 1993 study for the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council - ANZECC. The affect of this noise on sleep is especially acute for those who live along tollways and freeways that carry truck traffic at night. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the Roads and Traffic Authority hired an environmental manager whose contribution to the problem of noise consists of an "interim" traffic noise policy and other stratagems giving little or no protection to residents living near those roads. Maxine Anne Cooper, now director of the environmental management branch with the Brisbane City Council, has an unenviable record of
Page 3033
community manipulation and deceit, fuelled by ambition, with no corresponding achievements of any significance in environmental protection.

The history of the so-called interim traffic noise policy is a sobering reminder of what can happen when bureaucrats are given power and are corrupted by that power. In six years with the RTA, Cooper appointed no-one under her with superior knowledge who could threaten her position. This formula has preserved the mediocrity we observe today. In 1990 the deficiencies in the RTA's knowledge of traffic noise and its effects were plain to those who attended the Woodward commission of inquiry into what is now the M2-east tollway. The Roads and Traffic Authority employed Dr Renzo Tonin to conjure up acceptable criteria for road traffic noise levels. Tonin managed, by misrepresenting the work of international experts, to give the RTA and Cooper what they wanted; namely, noise levels which would provide cosmetic noise barriers of minimum height.

Later in 1990, a consultant Dr Stephen Samuels, who was then with Mitchell McCotter, was employed to endorse what Tonin had developed. Samuels is an example of a good scientist compromised by RTA patronage. Therefore, the flawed noise level criteria came into being, and these were shown by others eminent in the field to be of little value in designing noise barriers effective against sleep disturbance from truck noise at night. Tonin also introduced actimetry to Cooper. This concept of measuring sleep disturbance according to body movement is useful to the RTA as it is likely to underestimate sleep disturbance. Tonin also recently applied the RTA's useless 55 decibel night noise criterion to the M5-east motorway enabling its impact to be misrepresented.

What is wrong with the RTA's night noise criterion? At night, the background sound in a neighbourhood falls and truck noise becomes a major part of a heavily modulated sound with high noise peaks. The RTA determines noise barrier heights by averaging truck noise and, therefore, severely underestimates the actual values. For example, residents living 100 metres away from a line of trucks on the F3 freeway will have sleep disturbing noise reduced by only one-quarter by barriers designed according to the RTA's 55 decibel night criterion. The RTA uses the same defective averaging method to identify residences for noise insulation grants. Members should note that fewer trucks producing a lower average can still inflict the same prevalence of sleep disturbance as a larger number of trucks producing a higher average, because the maximum levels of noise are similar. However, residences in areas where the average level is below 55 decibels are not eligible for insulation.

The anonymous spokeswoman for the RTA who replied to criticism published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 November 1995, tried to obfuscate the issue in an attempt to defend the RTA over its misrepresentation of this and other matters. It would be difficult to find a worse example of the legacy of deceit and incompetence already demonstrated. Additional apologia for the RTA's deplorable record on traffic noise were published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 8 November 1995. This time the RTA's consultant, Vipac Engineers and Scientists Limited, sprang to the RTA's defence. Vipac was responsible for false predictions of aircraft noise impact used by Kinhill Engineers Pty Limited in its environmental impact statement for the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport's third runway. Vipac claimed in the Sydney Morning Herald that the RTA was "always anxious not to underestimate noise levels".
<
In 1991 Cooper and the RTA took advice from Griffith University that the averaging process was invalid at night. In twisting this advice to produce an opposite conclusion that enabled underestimation of noise levels, Cooper clearly felt no such anxiety of the type asserted by Vipac on behalf of the RTA. Moreover, this distortion was published on behalf of the Government in the RTA Environmental Manual volume 2, still citing the original source to give it credibility. This scientific fraud by Cooper and the RTA is far more serious than a fraud which merely relieves victims of their money. Unless the RTA is forced to revise this material, the tens of thousands of people already suffering sleep disturbance in the Sydney region will be joined by many others because of inadequate barrier design.

This corruption pervades every road environmental impact statement produced in New South Wales. Moreover, consultants will not get RTA work unless they conform to these defective criteria. Dr Robert Bullen of Mitchell McCotter is one consultant who is content to design barriers for the M2 knowing that they will be ineffective. This is confirmed in his appreciation of the problem prepared for the RTA in 1993. Not surprisingly, Cooper made no attempt to reveal this report. Her use of the word "interim" in front of RTA policies is thus revealed as a manipulative tactic. We are, therefore, facing something more than a corrupted traffic noise policy. We are witnessing the corruption by the RTA of a profession that could have been - [Time expired.]


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [6.55]: I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that Sydney City Council is likely to close the "Boy" Charlton Pool in the Domain. Before 1880 this pool, which was open to the harbour, prevented sharks entering through its wooden outside frame. In 1880 the Port Jackson Swimming Club was established - probably the first in Australia - and held regular races at the pool. "Boy" Charlton produced mammoth feats and created world records in that pool in front of some 5,000 people as he beat the world record holder at the time. The pool was concreted and further refurbished in the 1960s. The council promised faithfully to restore the pool to its former glory and usefulness. Each year about 100,000 swimmers go to the pool and approximately 300 city workers use it every day. There are very few places in the eastern suburbs for people to use Olympic pools
Page 3034
and few places for recreation of that type in the harbour. This pool is a safe and sure venue for healthy, outdoor activity and is part of the fibre and history of Sydney. I call on the Sydney City Council to rethink its position. I call on the Government to ensure that these historic swimming baths are not lost to the people of Sydney and Australia.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.58]: Earlier today I drew to the attention of the House the shooting of flying foxes. I said that shooters licences are being issued like confetti at a wedding. At present the National Parks and Wildlife Service issues licences that allow the shooting of 25 grey flying foxes and 25 red flying foxes per night per property. No black flying foxes can be shot as they are classified as schedule 12 species. Licences are issued without environmental impact studies of any kind being undertaken. Approximately five working days is taken to process the licences. It is virtually impossible to distinguish black flying foxes from grey flying foxes from a distance during the day, and at night that task is totally impossible.

If licences are issued, a National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger would have to be present when shooting takes place. This would have a twofold effect: the National Parks and Wildlife Service would be aware that correct numbers and species are being shot; and if a charge were levied to cover the wages of the rangers, in all probability shooting would cease. The National Parks and Wildlife Service does not have finances available to cover the cost of providing rangers for these occasions. A number of cases of illegal shootings by individuals have been reported. Northern Rivers wildlife carers have received complaints about a Duncan Woodhead of Johnson Lane, Alstonville, firing 80 shots per night. He now times his shooting to coincide with the police shift change-over. It is impossible to catch him and prosecute him.

Last year Alan Craig of Craigiburn, Old Byron Bay Road, Newrybar, found flying foxes, which had been shot the previous night, in nets and still alive. His workers informed him daily of this and nothing was done. The flying foxes were left hanging, still alive, for five days. Workers advised the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the Friday that flying foxes had been shot on the Thursday. The following Tuesday workers advised the coordinator from Northern Rivers wildlife carers, who went to the property with a national park ranger, Colin Browne, who had originally issued the licence. They rescued the flying foxes that were still alive. These were shown to the coordinator who, along with local veterinarians, made the decision to euthanase all seven flying foxes, including a schedule 12 black, as the injuries were so severe that they had little chance of survival.

In the meantime Alan Craig has said that he will continue to shoot flying foxes with or without a licence as he is confident that both the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will not fine him or take legal action. This appears to have been borne out as the RSPCA did not pursue action in the case of the seven injured flying foxes as it was unable to line up one person with one act of cruelty to one animal. The NPWS did not proceed with legal action either as it felt it had insufficient evidence. Although one black flying fox was shot, no licence was in force at the time, and Alan Craig admitted that friends were helping him with the shoot, which was illegal. Complaints have been received about a Ross Nielson, who, on a property at Teven, is firing at least 30 shots per night. His neighbours contact the police nightly as the shots not only kill wildlife but also are being fired across their properties as well. Licences should not be issued to kill flying foxes; no-one has any idea what numbers remain. The numbers of black and brown flying foxes are certainly declining where I live. We should ensure that orchardists use tight netting so that the birds - [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:14:42   :   Update this page