Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 23 November 1995, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 23 November 1995

______

The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I invite the attention of honourable members to the presence in the public gallery of veterans of World War II and the presence in my gallery of various distinguished visitors who are visiting us today as the Parliament commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II on 15 August 1945.

AUSTRALIA REMEMBERS COMMEMORATION: 1945-1995

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.04]: I move:

That this House commemorates the 50th Anniversary of the end of World War II on 15 August 1945 and remembers with respect and appreciation those citizens who gave their lives in the defence of Australia between 1939 and 1945, together with all Australians who have participated in defending the freedom of Australia in World War II.
This has been a year when Australia has celebrated victory, remembering the end of World War II in Europe and in the Pacific, remembering the coming of peace after six long years of war. Victory is always bought at a price, not measured in currency but in the lives, suffering and sacrifices of ordinary men and women. The suffering and loss in two world wars and other conflicts in which Australia has been involved spanned the whole community. Here in Sydney, in fact a few minutes away from this very Chamber, on the morning of 1 June 1942, 19 young Australians and two Englishmen died, the first and, one would hope, the last casualties of war in this city.

They were asleep in HMAS Kuttabul, one of that series of wooden boats so well known to Sydneysiders which had been pressed into service as a dormitory at Garden Island for sailors in transit. On the night of 31 May, three two-man Japanese midget submarines attempted to enter Sydney Harbour. One was caught in the net, the other two got through. The prime target in the harbour was the cruiser USS Chicago and at 12.30 next morning one of the submarines, M-24, positioned itself to fire a torpedo which, however, went under the cruiser to hit a stone wall under the wharf at which the Kuttabul was moored. The explosion lifted the ferry, shattered its timbers and she sank. The 19 Australians and two Englishmen, most of them sleeping, were drowned - caught in the wreckage.

They were a cross-section of young Australians, all of whom had volunteered for service. There were seven from New South Wales, from a variety of community groups. There was Thomas Watson from Haberfield, a 24-year-old tram conductor; Bert Smith, aged 18, a farm worker from Taree; Les Robson, a 19-year-old clerk from Leichhardt; John Gannon, a steelworker from Port Kembla; Les Bland, a 20-year-old clerk from Paddington; Sydney Butcher, a 21-year-old miner from Kurri Kurri. There was one professional naval officer, Petty Officer Howroyd, from Penrith. Among the other Australians were: from Victoria, a fitter, a builder, a clerk and a boilermaker; from South Australia, two farm workers and a clerk; from Queensland, an apprentice plasterer and a farmer; and from Western Australia, a 23-year-old clerk.

There religions were recorded as Church of England, Catholic and other denominations, as the military tag put it, and, as well, the clerk from Adelaide was buried with Jewish rites. Both the Royal Navy personnel, Frank Kirby and David Trist, had previously survived being torpedoed and were on their way home. For some of the Australian families the parental loss would have been borne alone. Three records of New South Wales sailors showed mothers who were widows. Against the toll of a million dead in a vast and terrible war, the death of these young men, so near to this place, can perhaps seem small but to call the roll of names and their backgrounds is a reminder that behind the impersonal big figures of the historians there are individuals and their families.

There was no lack of big figures in World War II. In our three services, the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army, and the Royal Australian Air Force, just over 27,000 men and women died. Most of these deaths occurred in the Pacific, in the war against Japan - some of them on Australian soil. More than 9,000 - one in three - died in the war against Germany. More than half of these were in the fierce air battles over Europe which went on until the very end. It is sometimes forgotten in Australia and in certain other countries how considerable our contribution was to the war against nazism. There were civilian deaths too: Australians in New Guinea, caught by the invasion; some of the brave coastwatchers in the islands north of Australia who played such an important role; and in Australia the casualties of the bombing in Darwin and Broome.

Closer to home sailors died in Australian waters. Off New South Wales in 1942 and 1943 17 ships were sunk by mines and torpedoes - some foreign, some Australian. Surprisingly, no consolidated tally exists of how many of our sailors were drowned but, to take two examples, the records show that 36 lives were lost when the Iron Monarch was sunk off Montague Island in February 1943 and that in April of that year
Page 3802
the Wollongbar was torpedoed off Port Macquarie with a toll of 32 dead. Australia was a nation with a population of only seven millions but it sent abroad 550,000 men and women in the three services - one in 12 of our population. Australians served in ships in the Arctic convoys to Russia, in the Mediterranean, in the Battle of the Atlantic, as well as in the Battle of the Coral Sea and in the Philippines naval clashes that finally crushed Japanese sea power.

The army served in Libya, Egypt, Palestine - where my father served - Lebanon and Greece. In the Pacific, soldiers fought in Malaya, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Ambon and Timor, as well as in Papua New Guinea. I have already spoken of the RAAF's contribution in Europe. In the Pacific the RAAF was in action in Malaya from the first hour of the war. All this prodigious effort from a small country had to be supported by a vast reorganisation of our resources at home. Before the war Australia was basically a primary producer; by the end it had a platform to build an industrial nation. It was not only a matter of supplying our own forces but also of providing under lend-lease a significant proportion of the food for the American forces in the Pacific. This meant sacrifices for civilians through rationing and shortages. The challenge to Australian industry was great. To take only one example, we had no optical instrument manufacturing industry but by the end of the war we had mastered the necessary technology.

It was on the home front that the contribution of women was so important. But before looking at the record we should pay tribute to the 53 nurses of the Australian Army Nursing Corps who died in the Malayan campaign, in action, by massacre and through illness in captivity. As well, 11 nurses died when the hospital ship Centaur was torpedoed off the Queensland coast in 1943. Women provided an important part of the armed forces' resources, although it might be noted that the first suggestion that women join the armed forces was met with savage criticism, even - I must be frank - from members of my own party. At the peak there were 20,000 women in the Australian Women's Army Service, 18,000 in the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force and 2,000 in the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service. Women in particular played a vital role in radio message interception, enabling the breaking of Japanese codes, a story that has only recently been told. There was also a Women's Land Army with 3,000 members working to bring in the harvest with the men away.

Wartime industry could not have functioned without women. In June 1944 there were 716,000 women working in industry. In the crucial munitions factories more than 50,000 women were employed, one in three of the work force. Their pay was two pounds a week, a little over half the male wage, but they did get the munificent sum of one shilling and sixpence a day danger money! Apart from those women who worked in industry there were those who, like the widowed mothers of the three young sailors from Garden Island, gave so much. A war leaves widows, orphans and bereft parents.

We have been proud to have a repatriation system which can withstand contrast with any other similar system in the world, a system which meets our continuing obligations. But no payments of money later can compensate for the losses the families suffered. The repatriation system also had its role in the continued caring for those who were suffering from the effects of their wounds. The overall statistics for the wounded give no breakdown of the gravity of the wounds, nor the long-term effects. The repatriation hospitals throughout Australia are closing now but for generations they have helped those who suffered long after the victory parades were over. In New South Wales we were fortunate to have for most of the war William John McKell as Premier. New South Wales was the heartland of our industrial growth and the hub of much training effort for our armed services. All that effort required the development of our State infrastructure far beyond the need of the time between the wars. Bill McKell brought to this task a sure touch in handling people on all sides, his industrial background helping him in smoothing the way for functioning industrial relations.

Most importantly, as the Premier of the nation's largest State, he was a loyal and vital support to our great wartime Prime Minister, John Curtin. When John Curtin took over as our Prime Minister in October 1941 it was on the eve of our greatest national crisis. Within months men were to die in Sydney Harbour and our sailors were to drown a few miles off our coast. Now in hindsight we know that Japan backed off an invasion attempt on Australia but there was always a significant faction within the Japanese navy which wanted an invasion. In the first months of 1942 we could see only the real possibility of invasion. In that climate the British wanted to throw one division of our few remaining trained troops into the losing battle for Burma, but Curtin did not flinch from firm refusal. When General MacArthur came - a man not always the easiest ally - John Curtin handled him diplomatically and patiently. He carried the burden of leadership without respite in those days and in the end paid the price. I can only quote the judgment of Paul Hasluck as Official War Historian before his later careers:

Curtin, a wholly committed man who had given everything he could and who had done so much good for the war, became one of the most tragic casualties of the war.
There might be disputes about other wars but we can say with certainty that World War II was a just war. The vileness that was nazism had to be resisted and destroyed. Japan had fallen under the power of a warped military ruling class which was prepared to wage war. But for all the war's justness, as in all wars, there was a terrible price to pay. I cannot say that I move this motion with pleasure given that price, but I can say that it is indeed an honour to lead for the New South Wales Government in acknowledging those who paid the ultimate price. I commend the motion.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.18]: I am honoured and humbled to second the motion of the Treasurer to remember those
Page 3803
Australians who bravely fought for this country to maintain the way of life of which we had become so proud. I am honoured to be able to speak of those ordinary men and women who became the heroes defending this country, and humbled because the task they successfully executed was so massive and performed dutifully without question. When one remembers the day of happiness that was the end of six years of war - the homecomings, the family reunions and the security of peace - one is forced to remember those who fought and died for their country, those who were injured and those widows and children who lost so much.

On 3 September 1939 Prime Minister R. G. Menzies announced that Australia was at war. World War I had turned into a bloodbath and the conflict in Europe, combined with the ever-increasing threat from Japan possibly requiring Australia to mount home defence, meant Australians were anxious. However, the dedication to preserving our democratic society, preserving our way of life from the aggressive, imperialist attitude of fascism, overcame all, and Australians went overseas to fight. Our troops were sent to the Middle East and the Mediterranean to defend Egypt, where they were victorious, and to Greece, where they suffered devastating losses. Australians went on to defend Syria, to fight off the blitzkrieg tactics of the Germans in order to safeguard Tobruk, often using hand-to-hand fighting. And our troops were fundamental to a turning-point victory in World War II at El-Alamein. Victory in Europe gave a sense of joy, but loss in the Pacific was a growing problem.

In 1941 Japan entered the war, bringing Australia closer to devastation than it had been previously or has been since. The Japanese were rolling southward like a typhoon, overrunning Malaya, capturing impregnable Singapore, an event that impacted on my family, with the death of my mother's first husband in the initial attack on the island, and taking prisoner almost the entire 8th Division of the Australian forces. The Japanese accomplished this all in less than three months, and their war machine did not stop there. The Dutch East Indies fell soon after and following a brief resistance the Japanese took Rabaul. Finally, by April 1942, the Japanese were delivering heavy bombing raids on Darwin. The Australian troops faced the mud bath of the Kokoda Trail, where they suffered losses and were gun fodder for poor tacticians, causing untold loss and suffering. However, they were ultimately victorious and Kokoda joined the Australian honour roll, along with Milne Bay, Markham Valley and Shaggy Ridge.

The steamy jungle, difficult terrain, tropical illnesses and a determined enemy made it tough going, but finally the Japanese were driven out of New Guinea and General MacArthur's island hopping, aided by the solid support of Australian troops, was under way and Japanese surrender was in sight. The dark days for our troops in the Pacific only mobilised the troops at home and they rallied to help those abroad. Stiff measures were introduced domestically - rationing of petrol, clothing and foodstuffs; controlling manpower; and conscription. Meanwhile, air-raid precautions were introduced, trenches were dug in parks, schools and homes, and a blackout was introduced during the most crucial days of the war.

Women played a key role in releasing men for combat duty, taking up the tools of industry: the peak figure for women in the services reached more than 52,000 in 1944. At this stage nearly 750,000 women were in industry or in the forces. It was a national and cooperative effect to defend democracy, to preserve freedom. Then on 15 August 1945 the most devastating war of all time was over: 34,283 Australians had died, 180,864 were wounded, and 23,058 had survived the horrors of prisoner-of-war camps. The end of the war is what we celebrate, a return to normalcy - if there is such a term - a return to a safe, democratic society. We should always recall the end of the war and thank those who fought for our country. We remember lest we forget.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.24]: I feel very privileged to be here today to support the motion before the House and to participate in this commemoration to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II. It is an occasion for us to honour and remember those thousands of dedicated and courageous Australians who sacrificed their lives and served in defending our country so that we can today live in peace and in freedom. Our nation is very fortunate to have enjoyed this peace and liberty in the past 50 years and Australia Remembers reminds us that we cannot take it for granted. The men and women who fought unselfishly for what they believed in and won are an inspiration to us all. Their strength, their sense of duty and their faith instils in us the values of what it means to be an Australian. We cannot imagine the suffering and despair they endured or just how deep their feelings must have run. However, I believe it is important that our generation must try to understand what their deaths mean for us. Although there are many accounts of hardship throughout the war, I would like to share with the House the experiences of my uncle, Dr Peter Hendry, who was then a medical officer in the 8th Division of the Australian Imperial Force and who is present in the gallery today. He recounted:

I was a young doctor in the 2/10 Field Ambulance, a unit whose members went through the short but bitter campaign in Malaya and Singapore and were taken as POWs together. Two thirds of the unit were sent off to Borneo and died on the infamous Sandakan death march. Most of the other third were sent to Thailand and Burma to help build (and I use the word again - infamous railway) myself with them.

I remember struggling through the jungle paths on our way from the Bangpong railway siding up to the Burmese border. We had been cooped up for days in steel trucks with little room, insufficient food, intolerable heat and no toilet facilities except through the doors of the trucks or beside the railway line at the infrequent stops.

We had been on the march for days. The men were exhausted, many had fever and most had diarrhoea. Mates were helping mates. As the march progressed from day to day more and more were casting their meagre belongings away and those who were relatively stronger were helping their weaker mates.
Page 3804

I recall buying a pewter mug from a shop in Singapore in early '42. Early in our captivity, when things were still feasible, one of our instrument boys engraved it for me. But when we set out on our long march north to work on the railway, I tossed it away. No point in burdening yourself with bulky souvenirs.

Weeks later, 100 miles north, with lots of fellows dying of tropical diseases and malnutrition, I had the job of burying a poor chap who had died of dysentery. Among his few belongings was my once-elegant, now sorry looking mug. He'd found it where I discarded it and he obviously hadn't been deterred from carrying it during those awful weeks.

None died on the actual march but there were some too weak to continue and despite protestations a number of these had to be left behind at each stopover.

I remember two officers, one a Roman Catholic padre and the other a brigade captain who were so exhausted at the end of one of the day's marches that they could hardly drag one foot after the other and their feet so blistered from the march that their boots were full of blood. When told that they would have to stay overnight and rest, the captain said, "And get separated from my men - no way!" The padre said, "I've joined this army to look after the souls of these my boys and there is no way you're going to make me give them up now!!" They both kept going.

Mates wanted to stay together so toward the end of the march there were some who were virtually carrying their fever ridden mates.

Finally the march was completed and in mud and slush in continual rain those who survived were dragged off to work: to work without sufficient nourishment under the brutal bashings of the Nipponese soldier engineers whose only aim was to complete the railway on time.

The result was that the weaker succumbed to malnutrition, dysentery, malaria and cholera. And those who died first were often those who exhausted themselves helping their mates. And I have not forgotten the sight of one of those who hardly made the finish of the march - but did survive - kneeling with tears streaming down his face holding his dying mate's hand: the mate who had helped him survive.

I am very proud to be associated with this commemoration today. It has taught us to be stronger, to appreciate what we have and to honour the memory of those that made it possible for us to have a secure future. It is important that we keep on remembering lest we forget.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.29]: The Australian Democrats support the motion before the House. Today, as Australia remembers, I want to remind honourable members not of the landing at Gallipoli, the charge at Beersheba, or the defence of Tobruk, but of the Kokoda campaign. The first time Australians fought to defend their homeland against a direct threat, without the protection of great and powerful allies, they fought along the Kokoda Track. Young men of the Australian Imperial Force and young militiamen faced the Japanese in New Guinea, along a jungle track that nobody at home had ever heard of. These were young men, unprepared and underresourced. There is no more tragic and damning story than that of the raising, deployment, equipping and training of the battalions that were sent to New Guinea. Following the war, the Barry commission report found that:

The troops were of the average age of eighteen and a half years, and had received no proper training. They were in the charge of inexperienced officers who appear to have had little or no control over them. They were inadequately equipped in every way; in particular, they were without much of the equipment necessary to give them any reasonable prospect of maintaining health . . .
Peter Brune, in his book Those Ragged Bloody Heroes, made the point:

. . . it is more than a little ironic that the direct defence of the last fortress before the Australian mainland was to be initially undertaken by a small detachment of so-called "chocolate soldiers" from a brigade which . . . was apparently amongst the least trained, worst equipped and most inexpertly led forces in the entire Australian Army.
The term "chocolate soldiers" was used largely by members of the AIF to describe the militia, whom it was presumed, wrongly, would melt under the pressure of the heat of battle. History demonstrated how inappropriate that term was. The problem of living and dying confronted Australian soldiers daily on the Kokoda Track in the high Owen Stanley mountains. Their first ordeal was to endure the track itself. Distances were measured not in miles but in painful, muscle-wrenching hours clambering up steep mountain sides and down equally steep thousand-foot descents into narrow gorges. Along the worst sections of the track the path rose 1,200 feet up the famous Golden Stairs, dropped 1,600 feet and then rose another 2,000 feet to the other side.

These young soldiers carried between 50 and 70 pounds of equipment, most of which was found to be unsuitable. Some had half a blanket; others had nothing to keep them warm. They were fed so sparsely that most lost between two and three stone in a matter of six to eight weeks. It was in this mountainous, rain-soaked jungle that the young soldiers of the Second AIF and the Australian militia met and fought the Japanese, who were a brave and determined enemy. Of all the bloody engagements and battles along the Kokoda Track during July and August 1942, as the Australians fell back in a fighting retreat to Imita Ridge, none was more fiercely contested than the battle of Isurava. In front of this small Papuan settlement, General Tomitaro Horii threw the full weight of his South Seas force of five battalions. Facing them was the exhausted 39th Battalion, the 53rd Battalion and men of the 2/14 and 2/16 battalions who, as they arrived from the long struggle up the track from Uberi, were rushed forward to meet the Japanese attack. The account of the fighting at Isurava is full of instances of individual heroism and self-sacrifice.

Australians always value a soldier as much for his humanity as for his ability to withstand the grim tests of battle and terrain. Remember the man with the donkey, John Simpson Kirkpatrick, who rescued dozens of his wounded mates on Gallipoli. The spirit of Simpson lived on Kokoda in 1942. There are hundreds of stories that illustrate the care and compassion with which these young soldiers of the Kokoda Track tended their weak, wounded and sick. Tribute must also be made to the so-called fuzzy wuzzy angels of the Kokoda Track. Amidst, and in spite of, such great adversity these brave young men held the line. Those young veterans emerged bloodied but unbowed, the human spirit braced by the bonds of mateship and fortified by a fierce, unyielding pride. In 1922 at St Andrews University J. M. Barrie, the creator of Peter Pan, delivered an essay on courage. I quote from part of that essay:

Page 3805

Courage is the thing. All goes if courage goes. What says our glorious Johnson of courage: "Unless a man has that virtue he has no security for preserving any other." We should thank our Creator three times daily for courage instead of for our bread, which, if we work, is surely the one thing we have a right to claim of Him. This courage is a proof of our immortality, greater even than the gardens "where the eve is cool". Pray for it.
The chocos, in spite of what was said of them at the time and has been said of them since, had courage. Today I feel very proud to have the opportunity to take part in this commemoration. Today I pray for them, for their descendants and for their memory.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.37]: It is a great pleasure and a privilege to support the motion before the House:

That this House commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the end of World War II on 15 August 1945, and remembers with respect and appreciation those citizens who gave their lives in the defence of Australia between 1939 and 1945, together with all Australians who have participated in defending the freedom of Australia in World War II.
It is fitting that we share in this special occasion as Australia remembers the end of World War II. Lest we forget; we shall remember them - not just today, but every day. We remember them on Anzac Day every year. I was in the Citizen Military Forces- Army Reserve for nearly 26 years. I studied military history at various times for promotion to different ranks. That gave me a deep understanding of the sacrifice and commitment of Australian servicemen in various parts of the world during World War II. I am aware of their sacrifice and courage in the face of death.

My participation in this debate is not a formality; it comes very much from my heart. My wife and I feel strongly about the events of World War II. We have often used our overseas visits to make a pilgrimage to the various battlefields in Asia and Europe. In the late 1980s my wife and I visited Thailand to physically travel the River Kwai, to travel on the railway that still exists, though in a dilapidated state, to visit the prisoner of war sites, to visit the huge war cemeteries and to pay tribute to the thousands of young Australians buried there. We visited the grave of my wife's young cousin, Gunner Keith Wright, aged 23, who was a member of the 8th Division. He was captured at Singapore and moved to Burma to work on the railway where so many died.

It was a privilege for my wife and me to gather in the prisoner of war chapel that has been rebuilt near Changi prison to offer prayers to honour those who died, their wives, children and family. We were reminded again of the sacrifice and bravery of young Australians. As other speakers have said, citizen soldiers made up the bulk of the Australian military forces that fought across the battlefields of the Middle East, Tobruk, Greece, Crete, North Africa, El Alamein, Burma, other parts of Asia and Europe. In celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II, my wife and I decided to spend some time at our expense conducting a pilgrimage to the European battlefields of World War II, particularly to visit the many cemeteries where thousands of men and women from the free nations of the world are buried, including Australians, who helped to ensure the final victory and stop Hitler in his tracks.

We visited Duxford, the Royal Air Force headquarters for the Battle of Britain, where many young Australians served in Spitfires. Their success and sacrifice halted the invasion of the United Kingdom and destroyed the might of Hitler's air force. We later visited Southampton, where troops gathered in assembly areas for operation Overlord - it was not an invasion but the freeing of Europe - the greatest seaborne landing in history. We walked along the Normandy beaches of Utah and Omaha. We visited the battlefields and were reminded of where my father fought in World War I in the bloody trenches of Flanders. We visited many centres and towns that are now part of history: Gascogne, Malm�dy, where the Schutzstaffel murdered many helpless United States prisoners, Arnhem - A Bridge Too Far - and some German cities such as Cologne.

The most moving part of our pilgrimage was our visit to the huge war cemeteries where thousands of young Americans, British and Australians who paid the supreme sacrifice lie buried. A huge memorial, in the shape of a powerful young man, at a cemetery in France had at its base the words from the old hymn "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the . . . Lord." That reminded me of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends", as our Lord himself set the example on the Cross at Calvary.

Let us never forget the brave men and women who gave their lives for our nation. They did so for "God, King and country", but also for their wives and children, for their families, their friends and for future peace and prosperity, which we now enjoy in Australia. They purchased it with their blood. I am reminded of the book The Fatherland - honourable members should read that book if they want a chill - which portrays what would have happened in our lives in the horrible circumstance of the nazis winning World War II. Yes, Australians have made a lasting impact on the history of the world: the Anzacs did so in World War I and again with great honour in World War II and other wars. I would stress that this was not done through force of arms, modern technology or overwhelming numbers, but through sheer courage - what we commonly describe as guts. It was achieved through courage combined with mateship, that indefinable unique spirit of Australians. Mateship is even stronger today between the comrades who served together 50 years ago. We salute each one of you on this day of commemoration, as we shall salute you each Anzac Day in the coming years. As representatives of millions of Australians who faithfully served our nation in peace and in war, we salute you.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [11.45]: As we approach the conclusion of the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II it is time to remember the sacrifices of so many who gave their
Page 3806
lives in the service of freedom, those who were wounded or maimed and those who remained at home to carry out essential services. It is a time to remember that 56 nations found themselves at war between 1939 and 1945. But whereas in Europe the comprehensiveness of Axis defeat and the immediate reality of a new balance of power with the end of hostilities precluded further war, in the Far East the end of the Japanese war ushered in a period of upheaval and revolution that was to last some 30 years before the forces of local nationalism and communism and great power interests resolved themselves in such a way as to produce some form of settled and recognised order in the area. However, technically, it is in this same area that the last unfinished business of the Second World War remains.

It is a time to remember that Germany and Japan attempted to wage wars with unlimited ends, but limited means ended in disaster for Japan, predictably, but for nazi Germany less so. Of the two, Germany's was the greater defeat. The nation that prided itself on military power and prowess lost the war after holding potentially decisive advantages that should have provided her with victory. She did not merely lose the war; she ceased to exist thereafter. It is essential for all Australians to realise and remember the sacrifices that were made during the Second World War. The service casualties from a gross enlistment in Australia of around 993,000 people in World War II killed in action or dying as prisoners of war in the Royal Australian Navy were 1,900; in the Australian Army, 18,713; and the Royal Australian Air Force, 6,460 - a total of 27,073. The number wounded in action was 23,477, and the number made prisoners of war was 22,264. The human cost is not known with the accuracy of the numbers that were killed during the Second World War from across the nations. Germany and Japan lost about 7.4 million and 2.1 million dead respectively.

The two naval powers were spared the horror of continental warfare and wars of racial annihilation. Britain lost about 430,000 and the United States about 220,000. The Soviet Union, including the Baltic States, lost perhaps 22 million. It has been alleged that of all soviet males born in 1923, only 3 per cent were alive in 1946. Certainly, the war represented a lost generation for Eastern Europe. Yet compared with the cost that would have been exacted by a German victory in Europe and a Japanese victory in the Far East - the physical, moral and intellectual enslavements of continents - perhaps the human cost involved in the destruction of evil was not great but small in the balance of history and a small price to pay for ridding the world of depraved wickedness.

We remember the men in the Royal Australian Navy whose ships fought in the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific; the soldiers who fought in the Western Desert, Crete, Burma, Malaysia and New Guinea; the airmen who flew in the Battle of Britain, the Pathfinders and the prisoners in Europe, Singapore and Burma. We remember the Aboriginal coastwatchers, the fuzzy wuzzy angels and all those deserving our recognition. It is a time to remember those who did not leave our foreshores to fight the enemy overseas and a time to remember those who worked so hard for the country in the factories and on the farms providing the supplies so vitally needed to fuel the Australian war effort. I think particularly of the Australian Women's Land Army that was established in July 1942. The purpose of the land army was to supplement Australia's supply of rural labour engaged in food production. Women aged between 18 and 50 who were not from rural families or already employed on the land were eligible to join.

Land army members were obliged to go where directed and to undertake any work they were allocated by their employers. I recall that at the launch of "Australia Remembers" at the showground a Mrs Williams who joined the land army told us a tale about how she went to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and was taught how to drive a tractor. One day she got bogged and had to walk back to the homestead, where she saw the boss. She told him that the tractor was bogged. He said, "Bad luck. There's the shovel." So she had to get the shovel and go about digging out the tractor. What a wonderful thing it was that those women gave of themselves to keep our food supplies going. It is easy to forget just what they did.

We will remember, too, those who have done so much to help the victims of war - the widows, the mothers and the grieving children - whether through voluntary agencies such as the Returned Services League, Legacy and other veterans organisations or through the repatriation department Australia has a proud record of care for its veterans and war victims, and we should remember with a real sense of gratitude the men and women who have given so much. I congratulate the Hon. Con Sciacca, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and I fully support this coordinated initiative to ensure that all Australians will remember the horrific years between 1939 and 1945. It is as members of Parliament that we honour all those who served so gallantly in that horrific war. Indeed, it is "A Time to Remember".

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN [11.52]: I share with honourable members the words of Sir Robert Gordon Menzies:

It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.

Great Britain and France, with the co-operation of the British Dominions, have struggled to avoid this tragedy. They have, as I firmly believe, been patient; they have kept the door of negotiation open; they have given no cause for aggression. But in the result their efforts have failed and we are, therefore, as a great family of nations, involved in a struggle which we must at all costs win, and which we believe in our hearts we will win.
I constitute in a small way here today a link between those who fought and died and those who were children during the war years. I can remember distinctly not the words but the sombre and resonant
Page 3807
voice of Menzies on that night. This is a day for reminiscence. In my family home in Clovelly, Sunday night was the night that some neighbours and my family played pontoon - a card game that is also known as twenty-one. I can remember as an eight-year-old child sitting up in bed when the radio was suddenly turned up very loudly. I heard that voice, that man, advising my family and my father's friends that Australia was at war. Children can always sense tension in a household, and I assure honourable members that that announcement stopped the card game.

Australia was a different place at that time. It accepted the notion that if Britain was at war, so was Australia. That acceptance was something with which we were all quite comfortable. I had no idea of what was ahead - I was too young - but it was obvious to me as an eight-year-old that war would affect all the families in the land and all the children in the land. Through 1939 to 1945 my generation experienced the brownouts, the blackouts, the air-raid drills, the sandbags all over schools, the brown sticky paper on the windows, the hoods on motor vehicle headlights and the charcoal burners on the roof of those vehicles. I remember the marches through the streets, and particularly the marches up Martin Place of the Australian Imperial Force, the navy and the air force. I remember the food rationing; that to go to the local shop it was necessary to take ration coupons. I remember the army at the showground and the Kensington racecourse, the latter no longer there, of course. We had an air-raid shelter in our backyard.

I also remember, and with even greater spontaneity, the day on which Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and the evening on which Singapore fell. All that had gone before in our community from 1939 to December 1942 was as nothing compared with the tension that became fright. My parents were frightened, and as a consequence the children were frightened. Clovelly 40-odd years ago was a small and insular suburb. The casualty lists began to shock our little community. Young men who were no more than 10 or 12 years older than I were killed, particularly those from Clovelly and anywhere else in Australia who joined the air force. I knew those young men - they were big boys when I was a little boy. I remember them at school, and I remember their families - not them, because we never saw them again. By the time I was 12 John Curtin was my hero, and he has remained so to this day. His voice was brittle, honourable members might recall, but his delivery and his words were inspiring. I say: rest in peace John Curtin. This is a really memorable day for those of us here. I am prompted to repeat words from a song we use to sing at school, "God bless this lovely morning land, Australia."

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON [11.58]: I am honoured to be able to speak on this occasion, the occasion that marks the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II, and in doing so support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government. It is appropriate and proper that we move this motion at a time and on an anniversary when we pay tribute to peace rather than to war. War, I believe, is a scourge on humanity, yet we seem incapable of avoiding it as a means of resolving conflict, whether that conflict have an ideological, ethnic, religious or other basis.

It is almost as if we accept as given that well-known phrase that those who cannot remember the past, and learn its lessons, are condemned to repeat it. As part of this world we demean ourselves in the horror of war and then, exhausted, we sue for peace. I pay tribute on the occasion of the anniversary we remember today to the role of women in two spheres of wartime activity: firstly, to those women who, as nurses, played such a magnificent front-line role in caring for the casualties of war in circumstances of extreme bravery and commitment. They were very much part of the front-line of conflict.

Secondly, as has already been commented on today, I pay tribute to those women who came to the fore in every sphere of civilian and family life in this country and who kept the wheels of industry and agriculture turning over, and did their very best at the same time to maintain the family unit in trying circumstances. I grew up in Townsville, North Queensland. That city was very much a staging post in this country for troop embarkation and supply lines in the Pacific and New Guinea. Growing up in Townsville I learned not only from my own parents but also from other women who talked about their role in Townsville during the war when playing their part in maintaining the many essential services. I was able to be part of that oral history, which is what it was, by listening. They emphasised the important, but often unacknowledged, critical role of women during those years.

Finally, on a personal basis, I pay tribute to the memory of my father, who was - and I stress the word "was" - a typical example of the young Australian male who answered the call for active service during World War II. He paid a heavy price. In so many ways his experiences exemplify the courage that is lauded in war time but is also the waste that is war. My father served in the 2/9 and later 2/11 Cavalry Commando Regiment in the Middle East and New Guinea from June 1941 to February 1946. Also, on a voluntary basis - which is hard to imagine today - he submitted himself to chemical warfare research undertaken by the Australian Army between December 1943 and March 1944. For that he received what I will call a certificate signed by General Blamey, Commander-in-Chief, Australian Military Forces, which states:

Your Commanding Officer has brought to my notice your name for your voluntary act in submitting yourself to dangerous trials and experiments in chemical warfare research - Dec `43 to March `44.

I congratulate you on your devotion to duty and the fine example you have given to your comrades. I have directed that an appropriate note be made on your Record of Service.
It is very difficult to comprehend that or to see it in any light other than absolute futility. My father's devotion and his fine example, noted by General Blamey, led to his painful death from cancer some
Page 3808
years later. The relationship between his participation in those experiments and his cause of death was never disputed by the army or anybody else, and was never in doubt. The legacy he left, of course, was my mother's entitlement to a war widow's pension. I do not need to be reminded of the waste and futility of war. In paying tribute, as I have today, I can only continue to hope that one day mankind may see the wisdom of permanent peace and then people such as my father will truly not have made their sacrifice in vain.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [12.04]: I am proud to support the motion and I am honoured and humbled to be in the presence of the veterans who are in the House today. In 1933 General Sturdee warned that Japan would pose the major threat to Australian security. He said that the Japanese would act quickly, they would all be regulars, fully trained and equipped for the operations, and fanatics who like dying in battle, whilst our troops would consist mainly of civilians, hastily thrown together on mobilisation, with very little training, short of artillery and possibly of gun ammunition. General Sturdee's assessment proved prophetic, but our political leaders did not heed the warning. Military historian Dr David Horner said, "It is now generally agreed that the Australian defence policy between the wars and until the fall of Singapore was, at the best, naively optimistic, and at the worst, some might say, close to treason." Whilst our political leaders may have neglected their defence responsibilities, our Diggers, represented by the veterans with us in the House today, answered the call. In paying tribute to their sacrifices I refer to wartime journalist Osmar White, who captured the spirit of the Australian Diggers on the Kokoda Trail when he reported:

At Eora I saw a 20-year-old redheaded boy with shrapnel in his stomach. He kept muttering to himself about not being able to see the blasted Japs. When Eora was to be evacuated, he knew he had very little chance of being shifted back up the line. He called to me, confidentially:

Hey, Dig, bend down a minute. Listen . . . I think us blokes are going to be left behind when they pull out. Will you do us a favour? Scrounge us a tommy gun from somewhere, will you?'
Osmar White went on to write:

It was not bravado. You could see that by looking in his eyes. He just wanted to see a Jap before he died. That was all. Such things should have been appalling. They were not appalling. One accepted them calmly. This was jungle war - the most merciless war of all.

I was convinced for all time of the dignity and nobility of common men. I was convinced for all time that common men have a pure and shining courage when they fight for what they believe to be a just and shining cause.

That which was fine in these men outweighed and made trivial all that was horrible in their plight. I cannot explain it except to say that they were at all times cheerful and helped one another. They never gave up the fight. They never admitted defeat. They never asked for help.

I felt proud to be of their race and cause, bitterly ashamed to be so nagged by the trivial ills of my own flesh. I wondered if all men, when they had endured so much that exhausted nerves would no longer give response, were creatures of the spirit, eternal and indestructible as stars.
The late Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Honner, Commander of the famous 39th Battalion at the battle for Isurava, lamented:

How, then, do we remember them? Survivors of the bomb-loud battles of the ragged and the bloody might muse where sleep the brave whose gathered bones rest in the hushed, unsanguined beauty of Bomana. There they might review long lines of mute memorials immaculately dressed for that ultimate parade, seeing again the familiar names of the fallen - and almost their once familiar faces. And they might scan again the sundered years of their severed lives - "19", "18", "17" - and ponder the ravished promise of their perished youth. They died so young. They missed so much. They gave up so much - their hopes, their dreams, their loved ones. They laid down their lives that their friends might live. Greater love hath no man than this.
In paying tribute to our troops and to all other Australians who made such great sacrifices in our war effort we should ask ourselves if we truly appreciate and respect the sacrifices our veterans made for the freedom we enjoy today. For example, our Government has reduced our military forces to the extent where we can now put our entire navy, army and air force into the Sydney Cricket Ground, and we would still be able to sell tickets! There are echoes of General Sturdee's warning in this neglect of our defence force today. The national symbol under which our Diggers proudly fought, our Australian flag, is continually derided by our own Prime Minister, surely an unworthy insult to our veteran community.

Australian schoolchildren know more about the Alamo than they do about Isurava, and more about Davy Crockett than they do about Private Bruce Kingsbury, VC. That is surely an indictment of our education system. Our debt to the fuzzy wuzzy angels in Papua New Guinea has not been settled, and 53 years after the war they are still waiting for the pay our Government promised them in 1942. The governments of Greece and Malta struck a special commemorative medal for Australians who fought for the defence of their respective countries. Our own Australian Government declined to honour our veterans in a similar manner, but went for the cheaper option of a cardboard certificate instead. Mr President, I regret to say that the occasion of the commemoration of the end of World War II would have been more aptly titled "Veterans Remember - Australia Forgets"! I am reminded of a poem sent to me by a digger about two years ago, titled "Anzac Day". It signals to me why we should never, ever forget. I would like to share that poem with those present here today:

he marched alongside Diggers, marching six abreast,

and did his best to keep in step, with the Diggers by his side.

A Digger said "Whose medals Son?" to which the boy replied,

he died up in New Guinea, up on the Kokoda Track."

Page 3809

but the Digger said, "Don't worry Son, I'll tell you why."

"all us Diggers knew he was here, it's like that on Anzac Day."

but the Digger went on talking, and he started to wave his hand.

"to keep Australia free, and to fly our flag today.

"But the price was that some soldier, his precious life must give,

"Somebody had to pay the price, so our Diggers paid the bill.

"And I hope you can understand, these words I've said to you.

"His face changed expression, and he said, with a beautiful smile,

"I know he did, I know he did, all the bloomin' way!"

On Kokoda Day in 1990, Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Honner reminded us that time may dull even the untarnished gold of their emblazoned battle honours; but the loom of ages cannot blur the pure oblation of their lives. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them. Lest we forget.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [12.13]: Mr President and honourable members, I support the motion before the House. Today this House is privileged to be able to pay rightful honour and homage to all those valiant, brave and noble Australians who served their nation in the great conflict of 1939-1945 in many fields of battle. They comprised the cream of our nation's youth. Some returned and some lay on foreign sacred soil, having given their all. When the call to arms bugle was sounded the young and the not so young heard it loud and clear, as their fathers had heeded the call some 25 years before.

Little did the forces involved in the 1914-1919 conflict think that some of them would again be called to fight, on the same battlefields, the same foe of yesteryear, along with their sons, while their daughters and wives again kept the home fires burning as well as playing other major roles at home and abroad later on. The men took up arms, not with relish or avarice for other lands, but with a sense of duty; and many never observed the shores of their beloved nation again. In all areas of conflict they fought with tenacity and with supreme, raw courage, their valour and fighting quality observed by all with awe from near and far. The despatches from the field told of unprecedented heroism, and it made our nation's people and leaders proud of their constant endeavours.

Many from this Parliament served. Indeed, our colleague the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith, who has already made a contribution, was one of them. In the gallery is the Hon. Sir Asher Joel, who also served. Many other personnel have joined us today. With the concurrence of the House I seek leave to incorporate the names of all members who were in the armed forces or who materially assisted the war effort in the permanence of the official proceedings in today's Hansard.

Leave granted.

______

Page 3810

______

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Happily, some are participating in the proceedings today. As a schoolboy I, like many others, dreaded seeing the telegram boy, the monsignor, the parson or the Salvation Army officer coming into the street because, although in the main they were going to give comfort, one always thought the worst. But sometimes it was a joy: the knowledge that a missing father, son, sister, brother or husband was alive but a prisoner of war. Many of their comrades did not forget their responsibilities to the fallen and to those who subsequently died and left widows and children. They came forward and founded Legacy to render succour and guidance to all who needed it, and thankfully it continues to this day. Their efforts were meritorious; gallant men and women personified in the person of one of our honoured guests today, Sir Roden Cutler,

VC, who happily joins us for this commemoration, a man who served in war and peace with enormous distinction. Each time I recall the poem -

I think of the dome at the War Memorial, each star in that dome representing an Australian service person. But the stars of the firmament next to the Southern Cross tell me of those real stars of the conflict that shine brightly on the land which they served. I am indeed privileged to have taken part in this very special tribute to honour the many who gave up their lives, or much of their lives, to preserve our unique Australian way of life. We will be forever grateful for their great, noble and honourable deeds. May those who rest in peace, and their kin who were left behind, be content in the profound and firm knowledge that the peace that they gave their lives for we have enjoyed; a secure peace for over 50 years. This is their great legacy. You, as representatives of them, have honoured this Parliament today by your presence. May the peace secured continue to eternity. May God bless your fallen comrades and you who honour them with us today. Australia will always remember, as we do today, and future generations will continue to call them blessed.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [12.20]: I am proud to support the motion and humbled by the task and by the presence of so many great Australians. We sit here today to continue to deliver the freedom, justice and equality that so many people died for. We remember those who served in the war and those who, whilst at home, worked so hard to support them - those who gave up loved ones and who missed out on grandfathers and grandmothers. We remember and revere those who died. I remember my grandfather Bazzo, who arrived in Australia in 1880. He sent seven sons to the war. His firstborn, my uncle Jimmy, died as a prisoner of war in Changi. My grandfather Pezzutti sent four sons to the war. We celebrate the tradition forged by our service men and women and the high reputation they have gained through their involvement in war. We celebrate their honesty, doggedness, fairness, have-a-go attitude, courage and pride in being Australian. And we celebrate mateship. I especially join my colleague the Hon. Patricia Staunton in paying tribute to the doctors and nurses who served to save lives and alleviate the suffering of so many of our troops. Today we remember and commemorate the end of the Second World War, but Australia moved on to be involved in many major conflicts where aggression has had to be met: in Malaya, Vietnam and the Middle East; and Australian forces have served with the United Nations in many areas with equal distinction. I am proud of the sitting members of Parliament who served in the armed forces. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate a list of those members in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Page 3811

______

NAME	RANK	MEMBER/YEARS	SERVICE
ARTHUR, Joshua	Captain	MLA Hamilton/35-50 Kahibah/50-53	Army 40-45 N.Africa
BATE, Henry	Lieut.	MLA Wollondilly/38-49 Macarthur/49-72	2nd AIF Armoured Corps 40-45
CHAFFEY, William m.i.d. (twice) US Bronze Star	Major	MLA Tamworth/40-73	2nd AIF 41-45 2/5th Independent Co.
CLAYTON, Sir Hector m.i.d, ED	Colonel	MLC 37-73	DAQMG 39-42 MCG 43-45
COLVIN, Arthur	Colonel	MLC 32-55	Army medical Services 39-45
CURREY, William VC	Sergeant	MLA Kogarah/41-48	Staff Sergeant Training 39-45
KNEESHAW, Frederick m.i.d.	Major	MLC 34-49	Essential Services 41-43
FITZSIMONS, Herbert	Major	MLA Lane Cove/30-44 MLC 55-70	Army Medical Directorate
LEE, John	Captain	MLA Botany/20-27 Drummoyne/27-30	2nd AIF 40-43 US Army 44-45
LLOYD, Herbert	Brigadier-General	MLA Parramatta/29-30 Mosman/32-41	GOC 2nd Div. 40-43 1st Div. 43-44 2nd Army 44-46
MALONEY, James		MLC 44-71	Aust. Min. to USSR 43-46
MARTIN, Clarence	Major	MLA Young/30-32 Waverley/39-53	2nd AIF New Guinea
MITCHELL, George	Major	MLA Oxley/41-44	2nd AIF 40-44 New Guinea
PRATTEN, Frederick	Lieut.	MLC 37-76	2/5th General Hospital 42-44
ROBSON, Ewan DSO, CBE	Lieut.-Col.	MLA Vaucluse 36-57	2nd AIF 39-45 New Guinea & Borneo
ROSS, James	Major	MLA Kogarah/32-41
STEELE, Thomas	Lieut.-Col.	MLC 34-61	2nd AIF
TURNER, Henry	Lieut.	MLA Gordon/37-52	2nd AIF 40-44 6th Div. Greece, Syria, New Guinea

______

Page 3812

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I particularly remember members of this House who served - Sir Hector Clayton, the Hon. Frederick Kneeshaw, the Hon. Frederick Pratten and the Hon. Thomas Steele. I am but the sitting member who has most recently served with the Australian Defence Force. I was honoured to serve with an Australian Army contingent. Though I served relatively briefly, I learnt an awful lot about mateship and mutual support in such trying circumstances. I am proud of our members who came back from that war to serve
in this Parliament. I note the presence in the Chamber of the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I draw attention to my dear friends who also served in the war, the Hon. Dick Evans, DFC, and the Hon. Beryl Evans. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list that I have compiled of the 82 members of Parliament who returned from the war.

Leave granted.

______

NAME	RANK	MEMBER/YRS	SERVICE
ANDERSON, Keith	Pvte.	MLA Waverley/61-62	2nd AIF Middle East/Pacific
ANDERSON, Sir Kenneth	Lieut.	MLA Ryde/50-53 Senator 53-75	2nd AIF 40-45 8 Div. Signals P.O.W. Malaya
ASKIN, Sir Robert	Sergeant	MLA Collaroy/50-73 Pittwater/73-75	2nd AIF 41-46 2/31st Bn New Guinea & Borneo
BARRACLOUGH, Lindley		MLA Bligh/68-75	2nd AIF 45
BEALE, Jack	Engineer on Munitions Works (Essential Services) Hon Lecturer - Air Force Reserve	MLA South Coast (1st elected as Independent) 1942. Joined Lib. 1948-73
BEGG, Colin	Lieut.	MLC 1955-64	2/1st Aust Inf. Bn 41-45
BLACK, Ivan		MLA Neutral Bay/45-62	RANVR English Channel, N.Sea P.O.W. Germany 42-45
BOWEN, Lionel		MLA Randwick/62-69 MHR Kingsford Smith 69-75	12th Field Reg. 1942-45
BRADLEY, William		MLC 1940-49	WW1 Veteran Reserve list WW2
BREWER, Ronald	Warrant officer	MLA Goulburn/65-74	7th Light Horse 38-40 joined RAAF 1940 discharged Med Unfit in 1942 joined 2nd AIF, Small Ships Co. New Guinea 42-46
BROWN, James	Lieut.	MLA Raleigh/59-76	2/4th Bn 2nd AIF/40-45
BRUXNER, James	Pilot Officer	MLA Tenterfield/62-76	2nd AIF 1st Armoured Brigade 41-44 RAAF 44-45
CAHILL, Frederick		MLA Young/41-59	RAAF 39-41
CAHILL, Thomas	Corporal	MLA Cooks River/59-73 Marrickville/73-	2nd AIF 42-46 31/51st Bn New Guinea & Solomon Is.
Page 3813 CLOUGH, James	Reg. Sgt Major	MLA Parramatta/56-50 Eastwood/65-76	2nd AIF 39-43 2/1st Bn N.Africa, Syria and Palestine
COEN, Morton	Ci Personnel Off for Aust & US Army	MLA Bligh/65-68	Australia
COX, Geoffrey DSO, MC, ED, CMF	Brigadier-General	MLA Vaucluse/57-64	2nd AIF 39-45
COX, Peter		MLA Auburn/65-	2nd AIF 43-45
CRAWFORD, Geoffrey DCM	Sergeant	MLA Barwon/50-76	2nd AIF 40-45 N.Africa & New Guinea
CRAWFORD, Jack	Major	MLC 1970	2nd AIF 39-45
CUTLER, Sir Charles	Lieut.-Col.	MLA Orange/47-75	2nd AIF N.Africa & Pacific
DOIG, Benjamin	Lieut.-Col.	MLA Burwood/57-65	2nd AIF 1939 Controller-Artillery Inspection 43-45
DUNBIER, Rowland		MLA Nepean/65-71	RAAF 12th Sqdn. New Guinea
DURICK, Vincent		MLA Lakemba/64-	CMF 1941 2nd AIF
EARL, Clarence	Corporal	MLA Fairfield/53-62	2nd AIF 40-44 2/13th Bn. 9th Div.
ELLIS, Sir Kevin	Flight-Lieut.	MLA Coogee/48-53 /56-62/65-73	RAAF/RAF
ESKELL, Stanley	CMF Brigadier	MLC 58-78	Staff Corps 39 2nd AIF 42-45
EVANS, Richard DFC	Fighter Pilot	MLC 69-78	RAAF India & Burma
EVANS, Hon. Beryl	Flying Officer	MLC 84-95	RAAF
FERGUSON, Laurie		MLA Merrylands/59-62/68- Fairfield/62-68	2nd AIF 42-46
FISHER, Colin	Captain	MLA Upper Hunter/70-	2nd AIF 40-45
FLAHERTY, James	Trooper	MLA Granville/62-	2/7th Commando Sqd. 42-46 New Guinea
FORD, George		MLC 64-66	2nd AIF 41-45 New Guinea
FORD, Leslie		MLA Dubbo/59-64	RAAF 39-45
FRASER, Donald		MLA Gordon/53-62	2nd AIF
FRENCH, Henry		MLC 73-88	Merchant Navy 38-45
GRIFFITH, Ian	Lieut.	MLA Sutherland/56-59 Cronulla/59-78	RAN 42-45
HAMILTON, Raymond	Lieut.	MLA Namoi/41-50	2nd AIF 35th Bn.
Page 3814 HEALEY, Clive		MLC 70-	2nd AIF 40-46
HEALEY, Richard	Signals Officer	MLA Wakehurst/62-71	RAAF 42-45 458 Sqd.
HUGHES, Sir Davis	Sqd.-leader	MLA Armidale/50-53 /56-73	RAAF 39-45
HUMPHRIES, Edward	Major	MLA Gosford/65-71 MLC 72-78	2nd AIF
JACKETT, John		MLA Burwood/65-78	2nd AIF 40-45
JACKSON, Harold	Warrant Officer	MLA Burwood/65-78	2nd AIF 40-44
JAGO, Arnold	Captain	MLA Gordon/62-73	2nd AIF 40-45 Middle-East & New Guinea
JARVIE, Milton MC, ED	Major	MLA W.Suburbs/25-27 Ashfield/27-35	39-45 War Area Officer
JOEL, Sir Asher	Lieut.	MLC 58-78	2nd AIF 42 RANVR/RAN 44-45
JOHNSTONE, Lewis		MLA Cobar/65-68 Broken Hill/68-	2nd AIF 41-45
KIRKBY, Hon. Elisabeth	Sergeant	MLC 1981-	ATS
LEWIS, Thomas	Lieut.	MLA Wollondilly/57-78	2nd AIF 2/3rd Commando Sqd.
LLOYD, Herbert	Dir-Gen Recruiting	MLA Parramatta/29-30 Mosman/32-41	2nd Div. AIF 40-43 1st Div. AIF 43-44
McGINTY, Laurence	Lieut.	MLA Willoughby/57-78	AMF 42 RAN 42
McKAY, Thomas	Wing Commander	MLC 66-78	RAAF 40-45
McMAHON, John	Sergeant	MLA Balmain/50-68	Royal Engineers 39-45
McPHERSON, Herbert	Major	MLC 64-73	2nd AIF
MADDISON, John	Lieut.	MLA Hornsby/62-73 Ku-ring-gai/73-	2nd AIF
MANYWEATHERS, Richmond		MLA Casino/64-68 MLC 68-78	RAAF 42-45
MAUGER, Stephen	Sergeant	MLA Monaro/65-76	RAAF 40-45
MITCHELL, Harrie	Major	MLA Burwood/38-41	2nd AIF
MOORE, Harry		MLA Tuggerah/81-88	2nd AIF
MUTTON, Lerryn	Pilot	MLA Yaralla/68-78	RAAF 42-46 93rd Sqd.
Page 3815 NEILLY, George	Stoker	MLC 54-59	RAN 39-44
OSBORNE, Clive		MLA Bathurst/67-	RAN 39-45
PARK, Noel DSO, ED	Hon. Colonel	MLA Tamworth/73-84	2/2nd AIF 39-45
PARR, Leslie	Major	MLA Burwood/51-56	RAAMC 41-43
PETERSEN, Wilfred		MLA Kembla/69-71 Illawarra/71-	2nd AIF 42-46
REID, Albert	Lieut.-Colonel	MLA Young/27-30/32-41 Senator/49-62	2nd AIF 41-43
RICHARDSON, Jack	Pilot Officer	MLA Ashfield/52-53	RAAF 42-45
RIGBY, William	Private	MLA Hurstville/59-65	2nd AIF 40-42
RUTLEDGE, Thomas m.i.d. (twice)	Lieut.-Colonel	MLA Goulburn/20-25	2nd AIF 40-42
SADDINGTON, Leicester		MLC 52-62	Newcastle Emer. services 39-45
SHIPTON, Percival	Corporal	MLC 64-72	2nd AIF
SLOSS, Albert		MLA King/56-73	2nd AIF 41-45
SMITH, Robert	Lieut.	MLC 74-	RAN 43-47
SOMMERLAND, Ernest	Instructor	MLC 55-67	2nd AIF 41-45
STEPHENS, Stanley OBE		MLA Byron Bay/43-73	2nd AIF 2/17 Bn. 39-45
TAYLOR, James		MLA Temora/60-	2nd AIF 40-45
THOMAS, Norman	Flight Lieut.	MLA Bondi/32-41	RAAF 40-45
TULLY, Laurence		MLA Goulburn/46-65	RAAF 42-46
WADDY, John OBE, DFC, m.i.d.	Sqdn. Leader	MLA Kirribilli/62-76	RAAF 40-45
WADE, William		MLA Newcastle/68-	2nd AIF captured Crete P.O.W. Germany & Poland
WILLIS, Sir Eric CMG, KBE	Major	MLA Earlwood/50-78	2nd AIF 41-46 New Guinea & Phillipines
WOTTON, Roger	Lieut.	MLA Burrendong/68-71 73-	7th & 2/5th Aust. Field Regts. Royal Aust. Artillery

______

Page 3816

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: We should also remember the migrants who came to Australia and served in the war. I acknowledge also the huge number of people who were interned during the war, migrants who were caught up in the security system. On a lighter note, I remember my grandfather telling me about the slaughter of his racing pigeons, whilst he had seven sons off at war, in case he should send messages to Mussolini. We know that many people suffered from their internship. We hope they have been able to put that behind them. I recognise the prisoners of war too, especially the Italians, who also contributed to our war effort. Many of them came back and stayed to help make Australia the great country it is today. We celebrate also the humanitarian spirit exhibited by Australia in opening its doors after the war to refugees from all around the world. I shall conclude my speech by quoting from former Minister for Justice and Vice-President of the Executive Council the Hon. R. R. Downing on the motion on 18 September 1945 to celebrate the end of hostilities. He said:

While we might be proud of the part we played and thankful for the part that the United States of America has played in helping to help defend Australia, nevertheless we must not forget Great Britain. In the early days of the war Great Britain stood alone. She had lost her Continental allies, and stood against what was then considered to be the world's greatest military power. It was the indomitable courage of her people under the guidance of Mr. Churchill's inspiring leadership that eventually led her to glorious victory.
That was said in the context of thanking our service men and women but I think we should also remember today our wartime allies. I am proud that this country, my country, has never been invaded and pray that my children will never have to fight in a war. I remember, and I will work to ensure that my children remember, the sacrifices of so many.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.27]: I support the motion to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II. I humbly speak as a representative of the Greens and an activist in the peace movement. Today I pay my respects to the men and women who fought for the ideals and conditions we enjoy today. I also mention the nurses and the women and men who worked at home in support. It is with a sense of gratitude that I speak about those who made the supreme sacrifice for the rights of all Australians and for all the people of the world to live in dignity. As a worker for peace I recognise the aspirations of those who work in appropriate ways in defence of human rights and democracy and understand the inspiration of a society working as one on the war effort during the Second World War. While many amongst us are prepared to sacrifice their lives for those ideals, we must learn from history. We should insist on the resolution of conflict by negotiation, arbitration and persistent attempts to resolve issues in a non-violent manner. As a person of Jewish faith and descent, on this auspicious occasion I feel compelled to acknowledge the darkest aspects of World War II in the nazi holocaust in which six million Jewish people were exterminated in the most horrendous conditions along with people of other races and other mind-sets - any other culture outside the mind-set of Aryan nazism and fascism. Homosexuals and gypsies also perished in the most horrible conditions.

From the holocaust grew the modern state of Israel, its military leadership renowned. One such leader was Yitzhak Rabin, who led his country in war and with even greater bravery showed wisdom and courage to be at the forefront in pursuit of peace. He was a tragic casualty of that peace. As speakers before me have done, I shall draw attention to others. Although I am too young to directly remember the war years an image that has remained with me is that of the fuzzy wuzzy angels helping the Australian servicemen during World War II on the Kokoda Trail. It is deeply imprinted in our minds and in the textbooks for future generations to see. I refer also to the Timorese who, today, are still fighting to enjoy the freedom and peace that we take for granted. A recent article from the Sydney Morning Herald, stated:

There's been an unusual floral tribute at the Cenotaph this week - flowers spread across a charred log and a cross made from pieces of charred bush timber. It's the work of the Australia East Timorese Association, in memory of the victims of the Dili Massacre on November 12, 1991, and of the 40,000 Timorese who died under Japanese rule, many of whom hid, fed and supported Australian soldiers.
They must not be forgotten. It can be as difficult to work for peace as it is to oppose one's enemy. Among the brave old soldiers I have spoken to in recent times the desire for peace and justice is strong. I feel a growing together of our society as the years mature us all; that we can understand the bravery of all involved. I am happy and humble to support the motion.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [12.30]: My generation was the first this century not to remember a world war as a personal experience. However, it affected many of us profoundly. My father was posted overseas when I was six weeks old, and when he returned three years later he and I were total strangers to each other. At least he did return, unlike so many others. In this important commemoration I wish to record my admiration for his courage and the courage of my uncles, on both sides of the family. All of them who were old enough to enlist did so. The youngest of them, Flight Lieutenant Lawrence Williams, who served in Dutch New Guinea and Borneo, is here with us today.

My father, Pilot Officer Cecil Herbert, was one of those often forgotten Australians who were seconded to the RAF, where he flew the Stirling Bomber "B for Beer" with number 38 group, in one of the moon squadrons. They were called that because they flew at night, on moonlit nights, under the enemy radar, ferrying supplies and people to the Resistance in Europe. My father also got to fly over D-Day four times, over and back twice, dropping paratroops in the pre-dawn and towing gliders later in the morning. To have flown over the greatest armada in the history of the world must have been an extraordinary experience, although CV and his crew at the time were more interested in making it home again. No wonder their part of Operation Overlord was called Operation Mallard, for they were indeed
Page 3817
sitting ducks for enemy fighters.

The survival rate for pilots such as my father was very low, but not as low as that of rear gunners - about four missions. My uncle Norman Williams was one such rear gunner. He was an Australian with the Halifax Pathfinders, flew an astonishing 99 missions - and came home again. He downed at least eight enemy night fighters, two on the one mission and one of these when he had been shot, his gun turret had jammed and he had to direct the pilot how to manoeuvre the plane so that he could get the enemy in his sights. To all those uncles and my late father, and to every brave man and woman who endured those years, put their lives on the line, and in many cases lost them so that I and my generation might grow up in freedom, I want to say just two words - inadequate though they be - thank you.

The PRESIDENT: Honourable members and distinguished guests, it is my very great pleasure to be associated with this motion. I would like to extend to all our visitors today a very warm welcome to the Parliament - the Parliament of the people of this State. I thank you for coming, veterans, representatives of veteran organisations, and representatives of the consular corps. I thank you for joining with your Parliament today in this great motion of remembrance.

The word "remember" means to keep in the memory, to not forget, and to bring back into one's thoughts. I calculate that indeed there are not more than 10 members of this honourable House who have personal recollections of World War II because they were either but babes or were born after the war. I am one of the members who have childhood memories of the war. I was but four years old when war was declared in 1939 and, like my colleague the Hon. B. H. Vaughan, I remember vividly those words intoned by the then Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, "Fellow Australians. It is my melancholy duty . . .". It came over the wireless, as we called the contraption in those days, in our living room.

But still as a small child I did not know what war meant, even though I saw it and remember it: the banner headlines, that stark one word "War" on the front page of the newspaper in the village of Tyalgum, 15 miles west of Murwillumbah where my family lived - a place well known to the Hon. J. R. Johnson and the Hon. Ann Symonds. As a child I watched with bewilderment the old men and those medically unfit form themselves into the Volunteer Defence Corps, wearing their rather silly maroon-dyed uniforms and drilling with broomsticks because they had no rifles. Still I did not know what war meant, but I soon learnt as time progressed: it meant that my father and my beloved brother Eric went away to the army and my other brother went to boarding school. They were no longer there to entertain and amuse their baby brother.

It meant that my mother and I left the secure warmth of our family home and followed my father and brother Eric to their various places of postings, as a result of which I attended 13 different schools in three years and lived in numerous places of temporary residence, usually with relatives. I remember it meant food rationing, permits to travel, blackout curtains, air-raid sirens, air-raid shelters and air-raid drills at school, and air-raid wardens knocking on the door at night to say they could see a chink of light. It meant horrendous newsreels at the movies which would not pass the censor today. It meant recruiting rallies in Martin Place, which I witnessed, where that glorious Australian Gladys Moncrieff would stand up and beat out "Land of Hope and Glory". I know that Sir Roden Cutler remembers that well.

But soon I came to understand that war was a very serious business and that my country was in mortal danger. This was sheeted home when one morning I found my mother sobbing inconsolably over the news that a young man - 23 years of age I think he was - who had been the local schoolteacher and had boarded with our family, had been blown to pieces on a battlefield in Crete. He has no known war grave, because there was nothing to bury. These were my childhood memories of war. When it finished I was 10 years old and I witnessed the great victory parade in Sydney. It was not only a celebration of victory but I remember clearly it was a celebration of relief and thanksgiving that those horrendous years were over. During one of those years, after the Japanese submarine raid on Sydney, because of fear of a Japanese invasion, I was dispatched to the country, as were thousands of other children, to live with an uncle. It was at Mendooran, near Dubbo, that I met my first prisoner of war. He was a very charming young Italian called Bruno. He certainly was not a farmer, and he was even less of a soldier. He was a sculptor. He spent his prisoner-of-war days doing sculptures which adorned the homestead garden. I became his helper. These are my memories of the war. I learned names such as New Guinea, where my brother served; and the Philippines, where he also served. I remember the joy my mother displayed when she received his letters.

Honourable members and distinguished guests, I remember with great gratitude and pride the service given to this country and to its children, such as me, at the time. I remember the sacrifice of the Australians who gave themselves to World War II so that people such as I might live in peace and security. That service is epitomised at its best by the presence today of one of Australia's most distinguished citizens, Sir Roden Cutler. I am honoured to have been commissioned in the same regiment as he, as was the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, and Sir John Carrick and Brigadier Sir Frederick Chilton, who are in my gallery. I am greatly honoured that you have come today to join us in this celebration of remembrance.

Motion agreed to.

Page 3818
The PRESIDENT: I ask all present to stand whilst I recite the Ode:

They shall grow not old,
as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them,
nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun
and in the morning
We will remember them.

Lest we forget.

[Members and officers stood in their places for the Last Post and Reveille.]

[Mr President left the chair at 12.46 p.m. The House resumed at 2.38 p.m.]

DEPARTMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Annual Report

The President tabled the annual report of the Department of the Legislative Council for the year ended 30 June 1995.

Ordered to be printed.

PROZAC

Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. D. J. Gay agreed to:

That General Business Notice of Motion No. 34 relating to the Committee reference on Prozac be called on forthwith.
The Hon. D. J. GAY [2.44]: I move:

That as a matter of urgency and in view of public concern both in Australia and overseas, the Standing Committee on Social Issues investigate and report on:

1. The evidence available regarding the drug Prozac to ascertain whether a more detailed inquiry is required.

2. Whether this drug should be further restricted.

3. Possible inappropriate prescribing of this drug.

4. Mechanisms for monitoring the use of this drug and its effects and side-effects on individual patients.
Prozac was introduced to the United States in 1987 by Dista Products. This company is a division of Eli Lilly and Company, which also manufactures Prozac in Australia. As a State member of Parliament I am very much aware that the registration of new pharmaceuticals is a Commonwealth responsibility exercised by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and registration is based on assessment of quality, safety and efficacy, and also involves the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. However, that certainly does not mean that we should wash our hands of any perceived problems in New South Wales.

Prozac is available in New South Wales on prescription, and by prescription only. Prozac was approved for use in the treatment of major depressive disorders in Australia in 1990, and to date it has not been approved in Australia for any other disorders. However, Prozac is now widely prescribed in Australia for depression, both mild and clinical. It is also being prescribed for eating disorders, panic disorders, social disorders and other phobias, despite the fact that it has never - I emphasise this point - been approved for these uses. Currently, the community has concerns that Prozac increases suicidal and violent behaviour. I am alarmed at how widely Prozac is prescribed by general practitioners and mental health workers for any degree of depression, regardless of how slight it might be and regardless of any prior mental evaluation by a psychiatric specialist.

General practitioners justify their excessive prescription of Prozac by the fact that one cannot overdose on Prozac; therefore, there is no danger in widespread use of the drug. But that is not a good premise on which to act. Despite the claims made by pharmaceutical companies and the medical society that Prozac is safe - that is, that one certainly cannot overdose on it - more objective studies as well as many concerned past Prozac users and family members have found many mild and severe negative side effects associated with the drug. The mild side effects include an activation or an energising feeling similar to that found with stimulants such as amphetamines and cocaine: these are nervousness, anxiety, agitation, nightmares, sweating, tremors, drowsiness, a dry mouth, diarrhoea, anorexia, weight loss and, the most widely claimed symptom, insomnia.

As insomnia is almost always a symptom associated with Prozac use, doctors must prescribe Valium to allow for sleep. As a result of the highly addictive character of Valium, the mixture of both drugs can lead to overdose and even death. The withdrawal symptoms experienced while coming off Valium are so bad that they are considered worse than those associated with heroin. Death can result from withdrawal from heroin. The danger is not with the Prozac itself, but with the prescription of Valium. This is a very risky situation.

The extreme negative side effects include hyponatremia, which is a depletion of sodium in the blood; mania, which is a mental derangement marked by great excitement, frequently followed by violence; craze and/or passion; paranoia; violence; depression; and akathisia, which affects one's motor skills and causes the knee to move around constantly, or a sense of restlessness. Other extreme negative side effects include the development of intense suicidal preoccupations, loss of sex drive, and fatal drug overdose when taken with other drugs. The case studies conducted on Prozac - those which have been used to approve its use by regulatory institutions - indicate that it is important to keep in mind that certain groups are usually excluded, based on certain conditions.

This exclusion includes patients with hypersensitivity to antidepressants, the likelihood of a poor compliance or the risk of suicide. All patients
Page 3819
used in these studies are heavily monitored by professionals in the fields of psychiatry and depression. Therefore, they are better able to assess progress and any evidence of adverse effects that may occur. Generally, because general practitioners are able to prescribe Prozac without submitting their patients to mental examination, the masses of people who are prescribed Prozac are not screened for hypersensitivity to antidepressants, let alone one as controversial as Prozac; nor are they monitored by the general practitioners who are allowed to prescribe Prozac. Patients who could be hypersensitive to antidepressants such as Prozac could be at great risk by using Prozac which could prove, and has proved, to be fatal.

Various case studies have been conducted. I will refer to one which makes a comparison between Prozac and its cousin, an alternative antidepressant, Zoloft. Both have similar side effects; however, they are much more severe in Prozac. The first published comparative study on the efficacy and safety of Prozac in major depression, with its cousin Zoloft, found that: first, accompanying medication had to be used in 60 per cent of Prozac patients, compared with 40 per cent of Zoloft patients; second, in the Zoloft group adverse events were mostly described by the patients as mild, but in the Prozac group the severity was described mainly as moderately severe; third, agitation, anxiety and insomnia were more frequent in the Prozac group than in the Zoloft group; and, fourth, adverse events led to the discontinued use in 15 per cent of the Prozac patients, compared with 7 per cent in the Zoloft group. In the Zoloft group 13.5 per cent discontinued prematurely because of clinical improvement, yet only 9.6 per cent discontinued because of therapy failure. In the Prozac-treated group 10.7 per cent discontinued because of clinical improvement and 19.6 per cent because of therapy failure.

Finally, adverse events such as agitation, anxiety and insomnia were found to be much higher in patients using Prozac, and accompanying drug treatment was initiated during this study on 30 per cent of the Prozac patients in comparison to 12.5 per cent of the Zoloft patients. This reflects the increased agitation, anxiety and insomnia reported by patients. The conclusion of this first published study was that further investigation was warranted because of the demonstrated poorer toleration for Prozac. The major point here is that at least one antidepressant is available which has almost 50 per cent less adverse effects and has not been implicated in any suicidal tendencies or deaths. That is an important point; there is at least one antidepressant that is clearly much better than the one that is illegally in widespread use within our community.

My concern, as well as that of others, is that Prozac has become overwhelmingly popular because of its cocaine and/or amphetamine-like lift and not because people are solving their problems or because they are feeling better about life while using it. It is illogical to endorse a drug such as Prozac that has serious adverse side effects and serious controversial tendencies, when a drug such as Zoloft has been proved to be much safer to use. Virginia Patterson and Heidi Kone of my staff have undertaken a great deal of research on this topic and played a large part in the preparation of my submission. With them I recently interviewed a very experienced and well-qualified mental health worker who is in charge of a crisis centre in Sydney. She is familiar with Prozac and deals daily with patients who are taking it. She is concerned about the way Prozac is prescribed and used. First and foremost, she felt that people with a wide variety of mental illnesses, ranging from trauma to mild or major depression, were prescribed Prozac by their general practitioners who had made no mental evaluation of the patient and had no knowledge of what the problem was or how it manifested.

Instead of referring patients to a mental health specialist for diagnosis of the problem, and more appropriate types of treatment such as counselling and/or therapy, general practitioners would prescribe Prozac as a cheap alterative. No evaluation was done as to whether a patient may have any adverse side effects to Prozac based on mental history and current mental condition. There was little, if any, monitoring of patients by their general practitioners. Honourable members should note that as a rule general practitioners are neither qualified nor skilled in the field of mental illness to make any type of conclusion or detect any type of adverse side effect, even if they took the time to monitor their patients' success.

A large number of the patients on Prozac were also prescribed Valium to counter the side effect of insomnia commonly experienced by Prozac users. Because these patients were so heavily drugged by the Valium, mental health workers could not properly assess their problem. Valium is an addictive drug and its mixture with Prozac heightens the possibility of drug overdose. As I said earlier, the greatest problem with prescribing Prozac with Valium is that death can occur in a patient that chooses to come off Valium. Patients on Prozac were found to act irrationally, to be incoherent, hyperactive, angry, anxious, agitated and frightened. They seemed to feel good for the first few hours after taking Prozac and then to feel badly after the initial effect began to wear off. This is typical of any type of amphetamine such as speed or cocaine.

Studies done by the regulatory institutions responsible for the approval of drugs, such as the Food and Drug Administration in America and the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia, found the following results in regard to the approval of Prozac. The studies used for drug approval were financed, constructed and supervised by drug companies using doctors that they hired. Controlled studies by these drug companies last for only four to six weeks. Prozac patients were monitored for only two years prior to the drug being approved for the open market. Seriously suicidal patients and hospitalised patients were excluded from these studies, yet general practitioners, without any experience, are now prescribing these drugs for the very group of people excluded from the studies used to approve the drug.

Page 3820

I hope the Government will not tell me that this is a Federal problem and that I should not be worrying about it. I sincerely hope that the Government would give me that courtesy. Many patients involved in the studies were allowed to take sedatives and minor tranquillisers to overcome Prozac's stimulant-like side effects, vastly compromising data interpretation. Researchers weeded out the case studies that showed negative results and used only a few that provided positive feedback to effect approval.

The drop-out rate in most studies was very high and the actual number finishing the trials used for approval was very small. Many statistical manoeuvres were required to make the studies look positive. America's FDA analysis, omitted from its published conclusions, originally determined that Prozac is a stimulant like a drug. Prozac's effects are the same as and indistinguishable from those of stimulants such as amphetamines and cocaine. Prozac causes activation or energising, nervousness, anxiety, insomnia, nightmares, sweating, anorexia, weight loss and, in extreme cases, hypomania and mania. There was also evidence that Prozac could produce behavioural abnormalities consistent with stimulants, including paranoia, violence, depression and suicide. Patients on Prozac lost touch with themselves and others and perceived this as relief from depression. It disconnected the patient from the rest of the world and from his or her real life issues. A report on the television program 4 Corners some time last year found:

In the United States Prozac is being used not only for depression but for obesity, eating disorders, panic disorders, social disorders and many more.
I suspect the same is happening in Australia. Prozac is being prescribed for a range of conditions despite the fact that it can only be obtained on prescription and has only ever been approved for the treatment of major depressive disorders in Australia. It has not been approved for anything else, yet it seems that it is being handed out like confetti. Coming back to the 4 Corners program that dealt with the American findings, the program stated:

In an interview with a male user of Prozac who was very overweight and had begun taking Prozac (6) years ago to lose weight it was found that he was still at the same weight and was still using Prozac, but was not sure why. In addition, doctors now had his wife and his 14 year old daughter on Prozac but was not sure why.

Thousands of people were being prescribed Prozac by general practitioners under the false pretence that it is risk free.
I referred earlier to the risks. Prozac will not kill people as a dose of cyanide will. In other words, a patient cannot overdose on Prozac. The risks are related to the side effects from stopping Valium treatment and to suicide.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Is it addictive?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I do not believe Prozac is terribly addictive. It is the Valium that the patient has to take at the same time that is addictive.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Is it available under the national health scheme?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I do not know. It does have value in certain circumstances. My concern is related to the overprescribing of Prozac. I do not want the drug banned. As I said earlier, I want it re-evaluated because I believe it has a use. What concerns me is its widespread use, which was never approved. It has grown like Topsy, and that is quite alarming. The 4 Corners program stated:

The Surgeon General in America has been called upon by the public to further investigate the effects of Prozac, but big business was using its power to prevent further investigation.

Prozac is considered a mind drug capable of changing your personality, but it is not possible to determine whether that would be good or bad.

Pharmaceutical companies are using the public as an Experiment.

Warning bells are going off, as they did with silicone implants, Dalkon shields and Copper Seven, and Prozac is another tragedy being allowed to happen by result of lack of regulation by federal institutions.
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It is another trial on women.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I understand the Hon. J. R. Johnson's concern, but it is certainly not a trial on women; the drug has been used throughout the community, unfortunately. Despite the many potential dangers, private drug companies have been allowed to dictate to our regulatory institutions what drugs can and will be approved for the public. It seems that drug approvals are not necessarily based on safety, effectiveness or long-term accurate studies of effects, but are adversely swayed by the profitability of big business, and its ability to influence. General practitioners are using the drug Prozac as an instrument to ensure their economic stability and a quick turnover of patients.

Prozac is no different from illegal drugs such as amphetamines or cocaine, because it is now being used by the general public as a form of speed. Prozac is not always effective in solving the problems of depression; it is used to mask the problem temporarily. Prozac can cause violence and promote the act of suicide; Prozac, sadly, has become a cheap alternative to solving the problem of mental illness. Prozac may be effective for those few mental illnesses that are caused by chemical imbalance. The evidence that has been given to me indicates that there is a proper role for the drug in the treatment of mental illness caused by a chemical imbalance.

However, many who suffer depression and mental illness caused by personal trauma and stress-related problems cannot be cured by drugs. The prescribing of drugs is the wrong treatment for those conditions. Only counselling and personal development will help them to overcome their problems. It is this group of people who are being wrongly prescribed Prozac, and it is that group that is suffering the most. The group includes people who have been sexually abused as children. The public is now at great risk as their health has become secondary
Page 3821
because the therapeutic goods administration and the pharmaceutical services branch of the Department of Health, together with the Commonwealth, have allowed the laziness of doctors to go unchecked and unregulated.

We have failed to provide the citizens of New South Wales with protection and we are condoning the use of drugs as an alternative to dealing with life's problems. We are sending a message to our young people that popping a pill will solve their problems. That is my reason for moving as a matter of urgency, and in view of the concern in Australia and overseas, that the Standing Committee on Social Issues investigate and report on the evidence available regarding the drug Prozac to ascertain whether a more detailed inquiry is required. I am not asking for the drug to be banned because it has its place. I know this is a Federal issue but I ask that the committee investigate the matter. I know the committee has a very busy program and already has three matters on its books.

It is important that the social issues committee look at the possible inappropriate prescribing of the drug that I have detailed to the House today. I could give further evidence of the results of interviews and recount my personal knowledge of the matter. Many honourable members have spoken to me since I detailed this matter to the House. I gave notice of the motion in June and the Government has not suggested that anything in the motion was other than appropriate.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [3.08]: Prozac is an antidepressant drug that was approved for use in the treatment of major depressive disorders in Australia in 1990. It has not been approved for any other purpose in Australia and is available in New South Wales on prescription only. Prozac is available in more than 30 countries worldwide. I am advised that early media attention given to Prozac focused on claims that the drug increases suicidal and violent behaviour. Similar unsubstantiated claims have been made in the past concerning other antidepressant drugs, mainly by groups opposed to the use of any psychotropic drugs in the treatment of mental illness. There were also claims that Prozac made people more confident and assertive, even if they were not depressed.

I am advised that the claims of adverse reaction, however, are not borne out by scientific evidence. Further, the drug is considered by the psychiatry profession, and supported by clinical trials, to be a useful and relatively safe drug that offers some advantages over other antidepressants, including safety in overdose, that is, it is less toxic. It is not effective in all cases of depressive illness and does have some side effects, such as nausea. The registering of new pharmaceuticals such as Prozac is a Commonwealth responsibility exercised by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Registration is based on assessment of quality, safety and efficacy and often involves the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs last May released its report "Psychotherapeutic Medication in Australia". The inquiry was commissioned in June 1992 with terms of reference requiring it to review the use of psychotherapeutic medication in Australia. The inquiry was required to pay particular regard to:

(a) prescribing patterns of general practitioners, psychiatric specialists, and non-psychiatric specialists;

(b) the effects of mixture of medications and other substances;

(d) existing guidelines on the use of psychotherapeutic medication and availability of alternatives for the treatment of people with psychiatric conditions; and

(e) levels of community support for people on psychotherapeutic medications.
The committee's conclusions contained a recommendation that Australian Statistics on Medicines, published by the Commonwealth, include in its annual reports the following information:

•measures to ensure that prescribed drugs are the most appropriate;

•details of procedures for monitoring patients on long-term medication;

•surveys on prescribers and consumers to establish their awareness of the range and effects of the prescribed drugs;

•research undertaken to minimise adverse effects of medication;

•surveys conducted to establish whether consumers and practitioners are aware of the range of drugs available for some illnesses; and

•monitoring of quantity of drugs prescribed by individual prescribers.
More recent media reports on the use of Prozac based on local experiences have been favourable. The Sydney Morning Herald on 28 August 1995 in a front-page story reported that "five years after Prozac was released in Australia many fears and promises surrounding the anti-depressant drug have not been realised. But . . . it has revolutionised the treatment of depression". In view of the Commonwealth's responsibility for approving drugs for use, and funding the monitoring of drugs and the adverse reactions of people to them, and the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report "Psychotherapeutic Medication in Australia", investigation -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It really is a bit tough when some bloke down in the office makes up his mind that they are going to oppose it, prepares this speech and you have to deliver it. It is not fair on you.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. D. J. Gay will appreciate that the House has given him leave to raise this matter this afternoon during private members' business. My duty in the Chamber is to represent the health Minister, which is precisely what I am doing. The view of the health Minister, and one would presume the Department of Health, is that this reference to the social issues committee ought not to be made.

Page 3822

The Hon. D. J. Gay: That is why we have got this problem in New South Wales. But I will not interrupt any more.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I would ask the honourable member not to take the matter personally. I am representing the health Minister. I am delivering his response in an official capacity. I was about to conclude my remarks. In view of the Commonwealth's responsibility for approving drugs for use and funding the monitoring of drugs and the adverse reactions of people to them, and the Senate Standing Community Affairs report on "Psychotherapeutic Medication in Australia", investigation of the prescription of Prozac by the Standing Committee on Social Issues at this time would appear inappropriate and an unnecessary use of resources.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [3.14]: As the current chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues to which it is proposed the reference be made I feel obliged to respond to the motion moved by the Hon. D. J. Gay. In one sense the committee should regard the proposed reference to it of this highly complex and important matter as an acknowledgment of the committee's reputation for a high standard of work and an indication of the extraordinary success the committee has had with its recommendations in influencing legislation and government policy and programs. It is more than a compliment; it shows the Hon. D. J. Gay has a high regard for the committee and its operation. Perhaps not all honourable members are aware of the committee's current workload. We are in the process of completing a long and detailed report on the incidence of sexual violence in Australia, which we hope to be able to table this year, but the current operations of the House make this seem more remote day by day.

The committee has already begun an inquiry which has enormous community interest and which is of particular consequence for the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services and his guardianship role within the community. The children's advocacy inquiry is long overdue, and we must address it with alacrity and put all our resources and energies into completing it as soon as possible. Those two inquiries are in operation. I have also announced a third inquiry that is of major consequence for social justice and the rights of children - the inquiry regarding the children of imprisoned parents, which of necessity will be very detailed and difficult. The committee will have to give full attention to that inquiry over a period. Notwithstanding that workload, the committee also has received by motion of this House a further reference relating to the injustices in the status of Aboriginal people in our society, with particular emphasis on the need to examine the desirability of allocating dedicated seats for Aboriginal representation within our Parliament.

I have outlined all the inquiries before the committee to demonstrate its extensive workload. Every member of the committee is convinced of the need to proceed with those inquiries. They are regarded as matters of the utmost importance in social policy and justice terms. There is no question of our wishing to resile from any of the references or to proceed with them in any way that would undervalue the importance of the inquiry. While I am keen for the House to be conscious of the work program of the committee, I have some additional remarks to make about the nature of the inquiry proposed by the Hon. D. J. Gay. Honourable members know that the question of registration of new pharmaceuticals is a Commonwealth responsibility, which is exercised by the Therapeutic Goods Administration Act. That registration is based on assessment of quality, safety and efficacy, and often involves the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. The Hon. D. J. Gay knows that last May the Commonwealth Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs released its report "Psychotherapeutic Medication in Australia". The inquiry was commissioned in June 1992 and the terms of reference required it to review the use of psychotherapeutic medication in Australia. The inquiry was required to pay particular attention to:

(a) prescribing patterns of general practitioners, psychiatric specialists, and non-psychiatric specialists;

(b) the effects of mixture of medications and other substances;

(d) existing guidelines on the use of psychotherapeutic medication and available alternatives for the treatment of people with psychiatric conditions; and

(e) levels of community support for people on psychotherapeutic medication.
The committee's conclusions included a recommendation that Australian Statistics on Medicines provide information in its annual reports on the following:

•measures to ensure that prescribed drugs are the most appropriate;

•details of procedures for monitoring patients on long-term medication;

•surveys on prescribers and consumers to establish their awareness of the range and effect of drugs;

•research undertaken to minimise adverse effects of medication;

•surveys conducted to establish whether consumers and practitioners are aware of the range of drugs available for some illnesses; and

•monitoring of quantity of drugs prescribed by individual prescribers.
That is a substantial inquiry and it has made useful, pertinent recommendations, which I think would provide some satisfaction to the Hon. D. J. Gay and others who are questioning the manner in which psychotherapeutic medication is distributed. I have outlined the heavy program of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. Nevertheless, the committee should be at such a stage in its development as an agent of the Parliament to be flexible enough not necessarily to undertake a four-
Page 3823
year inquiry, such as the sexual violence inquiry, but to undertake an examination or take evidence from a group of experts that would give honourable members authority to determine whether in the committee's assessment the citizens of New South Wales, for whom they have responsibility, deserve a further inquiry or examination into the way in which the operation of a Commonwealth Act and the medical processes in this State are affecting their constituents. Therefore, it is not beyond the committee at some stage - and I certainly would not determine at what stage, given its workload - to focus sharply on whether a need exists for an additional range of investigations. That is all I wish to say on the matter. I offer my contribution in the hope that my remarks will be taken into account when responses to the proposal are determined.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.24]: The Hon. D. J. Gay seeks an inquiry into the drug Prozac. As honourable members are aware the honourable member has moved that the issue be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues and the chair of that committee, the Hon. Ann Symonds, has just made her contribution to the debate. I was concerned when the Hon. D. J. Gay informed me that he wished to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. Frankly, I do not believe that the committee has the expertise to deal with this problem.

I fully support the observations, information and evidence put forward by the Hon. D. J. Gay. However, if the matter comes before the committee, I fear that two groups of psychiatrists will push their respective points of view and the committee will be unable to make a determination. The committee members are lay people without medical or psychiatric training. Honourable members will be aware that I have a close association with the medical profession. For many years I was married to a member of that profession and my youngest son is a psychiatrist. When I learned that the Hon. D. J. Gay had given notice of his motion, I asked my youngest son what I should do and how he felt about it. As a psychiatrist he is strongly of the belief that in certain cases Prozac has value and, therefore, it is proper that he be able to prescribe it. But that is not happening. If my information is correct, general practitioners who have no detailed knowledge of mental illness or mental disability are prescribing Prozac. The drug is promoted by the drug firms and it seems an easy option for general practitioners to give it to their patients.

I have read every word the Hon. D. J. Gay said in this House today. Unfortunately I was not present when he made his presentation but he paid me the courtesy of sending me his speech notes. Everything the honourable member said is 100 per cent true. Unfortunately, I do not believe that members of the Standing Committee on Social Issues can evaluate that information because they are not qualified to deal with a bombardment of conflicting medical evidence. This problem would best be dealt with through strong representations to the Federal Government and the New South Wales Minister of Health to make this drug - a valuable drug in some cases - available only on prescription from a psychiatrist. Prozac should not be prescribed by general practitioners, as they may lack the training to gain an insight into the problems of their patients. The prescribing of Prozac is just another easy option.

General practitioners have too often, in good faith, taken the easy option with drugs that down the track have been discovered to be damaging and against the best interests of the patient. It is ironic that the next motion on today's notice paper relates to the Sydney Olympic Games and the following motion, which will be moved by my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, to the misuse of cannabis. If ever a drug has been misused in the western world it is the drug Prozac. If honourable members are to talk about drug misuse, they should discuss Prozac as well as cannabis.

Therefore, I agree with my colleague the Hon. Ann Symonds, who is the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, that this is not a matter for the committee to discuss. The Minister for Health should raise this issue with his Federal and State colleagues. He should raise the issue with the Federal Minister for Human Services and Health to ensure that Prozac is a drug of value in certain cases but should be prescribed only by registered psychiatrists, not by general practitioners. That is not unusual - many drugs used in the treatment of mental illness are not able to be prescribed by general practitioners. Prozac should be put into that category. That would not be very difficult for the Government to do. The Minister for Health should be able to do it quickly; it would not take him weeks or months.

I have already explained to the Hon. D. J. Gay that, although I did not dispute anything in his presentation, I do not believe that this is a suitable reference for the social issues committee. I am privileged to be a member of that committee, which was chaired by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith under the previous Government and is chaired by the Hon. Ann Symonds under this Labor Government. That does not mean that I believe that the matter the Hon. D. J. Gay has brought before the House is not very serious. This drug is being abused; it is being overprescribed. There could be serious repercussions as a result of that overprescription.

I would hope that the Hon. Ann Symonds could go to her colleague the Minister for Health and say, "The committee has reservations about this drug. Can you please restrict the right to prescribe the drug to psychiatrists only and not make it so readily available? In the interim, can the matter be referred to the National Health and Medical Research Council and to the Federal Minister for Human Services and Health? Can we take a close and serious look at the way this drug is currently being prescribed?" I believe that the Doctors Reform Society and the College of General Practitioners would support that view. The ethical members of those associations accept that the drug is being overprescribed, and possibly with dangerous effects. Regrettably, I cannot support the motion. We need to have further debate on this subject.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.

Page 3824

BALLROOM DANCING

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [3.34]: I move:

That this House congratulates all those concerned with dancesport in Australia on the inclusion of ballroom dancing as a sport for the Sydney Olympic Games.
The International Olympic Committee has granted ballroom dancing provisional status with a view to its inclusion in the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. The decision was made at an IOC executive meeting in Monaco. Ballroom dancing has been placed on a two-year trial, after which it can apply for full acceptance in the official summer Olympics program. It is only fair that I state that I have a personal interest in this activity. I have been the State patron of dancesport for some years, a title I treasure as a privilege and honour given to me by the dancesport community. In 1988 then Premier Nick Greiner asked me to represent him at the Australian National Dance Association's bicentennial ball at Town Hall. I had never been to a ballroom dancing function. I had learnt some dancing at school, but I do not profess to have any proficiency at it.

At this function I learnt a number of things. I learnt how popular ballroom dancing is. I estimate - and I am informed that it is quite modest - that some 20,000 people participate in ballroom dancing at all levels in this State. It is a popular activity for people of all ages. Ballroom dancing is a physical activity in which everyone, from small children to retirees, can participate - and they do. Therefore, ballroom dancing is a particularly important community activity. People get together, dance in groups and have partners - it is a social event. Ballroom dancing is also exercise and a sport. It is a feast for the eyes, as I learnt at that first ball and as I have appreciated on many subsequent occasions. A great deal of effort and care go into the preparation of costumes and the presentation of each couple that performs.

The audience has a particular treat: it enjoys the level of technical expertise of the performers and also their visual presentation. Ballroom dancing is extremely athletic. Those who think it is just a gentle waltz around the ballroom would be very surprised at the physical stamina that is needed, particularly at the competitive level, which is what I am talking about when I refer to dancesport. After getting to know the ballroom dancing community I was approached by various people, particularly those involved at the amateur level, to seek recognition of it as a sport in New South Wales. Western Australia had already acknowledged ballroom dancing as a sport, but no other State had. I worked with the representatives of the dancesport community, both amateur and professional, to assist them in making a submission for ballroom dancing to be recognised as a sport.

I acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith, who was a Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing. He made ballroom dancing a sport in this State. New South Wales became the second State in Australia to accord dancesport that recognition. Other States have subsequently followed in our wake. The ballroom dancing community did not forget that. It is for that reason, I believe, that it made me a patron. A couple of years later the Australian Dancing Board awarded me a Golden Brolga award, which I treasure. It stands in a place of prominence in my office. However, I do not claim the credit for that. It is fair that I share that information with the House. Really, the credit for the work involved in making that submission belongs entirely to the dancesport community. The many different organisations involved in dancesport came together and worked as one in the preparation of a superb submission, which I was very proud to present to the Minister.

After a great deal of work on the part of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing, the goal was finally achieved and ballroom dancing became a sport in New South Wales. I should like to share with honourable members some of the background of this sport, but before doing so it is only fair that I point out that I am not the only parliamentarian in New South Wales who has an interest in ballroom dancing. At many functions I particularly enjoy the company of Mr Pat Rogan, the honourable member for East Hills, and his wife, Eunice. Eunice has been involved in the ballroom community for many years, and both Pat and Eunice are strong supporters. It is only right that I acknowledge their contribution to dancesport in this State. This is by no means a party political exercise. Dancesport belongs to all of us. Certainly Pat Rogan would endorse that.

Ballroom dancing as we know it today evolved in England at the turn of this century and enjoyed rapid, if somewhat uncoordinated, development throughout its first two decades. The early 1920s saw the commencement of efforts to put ballroom dancing on to an organised footing, and subsequently those efforts led to the formation of the English Official Board of Ballroom Dancing, now known as the British Council of Ballroom Dancing, in 1929. The intense popularity of this type of dancing with the public of the day caused this social activity to spread like wildfire to all parts of the globe. Two short years later, in 1931, the formation of the first dance teachers organisation in the Southern Hemisphere took place at the Sydney "Sword's Club", carrying the name of the New South Wales Dance Teachers Society, which ultimately was changed to the Federal Association of Teachers of Dancing.

The rapidly changing ballroom scene necessitated the spread of information through meetings and lectures. The association gradually expanded. Notable teachers who joined at this time were many, but I mention two in particular: John Butt and Ann McDonald. I know John Butt, son of the original John Butt, who is the principal of the Australian College of Physical Education, and I know Ann McDonald and her daughter Margaret Markham, who is the principal of the McDonald College. They have gone on, in their way, to contribute strongly to sporting and physical education and to dancing tradition in New South Wales. The heritage of ballroom dancing and its history in this State has spread far beyond original ballroom dancing to many other areas.

Page 3825

The Federal Association of Teachers of Dancing Australasian Championships were inaugurated in 1945, but with the association's activities spreading to neighbouring countries, together with the enormous success of the championships, it became necessary to consider a more appropriate title for the championships which would allow the opportunity for representation from other countries. Ultimately, the more suitable title of South Pacific Championships was agreed on, and has been more successfully promoted since 1947. I have been fortunate to attend the most recent annual South Pacific Championships. The championships this year celebrated their fiftieth, golden, anniversary. I congratulate the association on that major achievement. In a country with a history of recorded settlement that goes back little more than 200 years, a golden anniversary covers a span of almost a quarter of this country's recorded history, which is no mean achievement.

Dancesport itself, the sport of competition dancing, has evolved in further ways. It now has a highly organised international competition structure and is conducted in Australia at the highest competitive level. Competition dancing is a sport in which Australians can be proud of their achievements as competitors in national and international tournaments. Australian competitors have won most major international and world championships over the years. In that regard I make particular mention of our latest champions, Paul Green and Karen Rufus, who come from New South Wales and who won the World Ten dance championship recently. The ten dance competition is the most rigorous and demanding of all professional dancesport. It is the international gold medal among gold medals for dancesport. New South Wales is indeed privileged to have those two superb athletes as its representatives. I have had the privilege of presenting to them Premier's certificates for their contribution to sport in our State, in Australia and internationally.

But why is dancesport a sport, and why should it be a sport? I should like to share briefly with honourable members some of the reasons for that. Competition dancing requires physical strength similar to the physical strength required in ice dancing. Indeed, many ice dancing sequences are derived from dancesport. Dancesport also requires agility and coordination to manoeuvre and maintain shapes and lines. These skills are similar to those required in a multitude of sports as diverse as diving, sailing, surfing, basketball and even football. The critical requirement of maintaining shapes and lines, however, probably aligns competition dancing most closely with gymnastics. I note the popularity of gymnastics. When the summer Olympics sports are televised, gymnastics is one of the most overwhelmingly popular sports. That is because gymnastics not only requires athleticism of the highest degree but is also magnificent to watch.

Musical interpretation is another requirement of competition dancing. All competition dancers are required to demonstrate an appreciation of music and different rhythms, in exactly the same way and for the same reasons that gymnasts are required to demonstrate musical interpretation in their floor exercises. Stamina is an essential requirement. Dancesport competitors proceed through heats to semifinals and finals. In each championship section competitors must perform five dances for two minutes per dance in each round. I have attended evening functions at which dancers have competed in repeated events, so they do not compete in just five two-minute dances but return perhaps 10 minutes later to compete in another round of five two-minute dances in a different form of dance. The physical demands are enormous.

From an athletic viewpoint, a 1986 study conducted by the University of Freiburg in Germany demonstrated that the muscle exertion, measured by production of lactic acid, and breathing rates of dancesport competitors performing one competition dance of approximately two minutes were equal to the muscle exertion and breathing rates of cyclists, swimmers and Olympic 800-metre runners exerting themselves over the same period of time. Consider, however, that a dancesport competitor repeats this performance five times in each round and that a finalist in a World Ten dance championship will have repeated this performance 30 times. The German study's methodology was repeated in a recent Australian study, the results of which were published in the authoritative British Journal of Sports Medicine. Discipline and team work are also necessary components of dancesport. Competition dancing is essentially a team sport. The team may be a single couple or comprise up to 16 members in a formation team competition. The discipline of 16 competitors performing up to 13 changes of dance tempi while constantly coordinating their floor positions with other team members far exceeds that of many other team sports.

Finally, competition dancing requires grace, style and, like ice dancing and gymnastics, fluent movement. Also, attractive grooming is essential to success at competitions. It is also relevant to note how competitions are judged. Judges make their decision based on their assessment of the execution by each couple or team of standard technique, combined with the complexity of movement and correct interpretation of the rhythms appropriate to the dance style being performed. Judging dancesport is similar to judging gymnastics or ice dancing in this sense, except that an additional essential element for dancesport is that competitors must demonstrate their floor craft, that is, their ability to move around the competition area without obstructing other competitors - a tad tricky when all the other competitors are moving around as well!

Perhaps in one sense it does not matter at all whether competition dancing is viewed as a sport. Ballroom dancing in its broadest meaning also falls within the definition of, and is a significant contributor to, Australia's recreational sports activities, through dance classes and social dance nights at dance studios, balls and clubs. Dancesport is competitive, but of course ballroom dancing goes
Page 3826
much further than competitive activity. Many thousands of people in this State enjoy ballroom dancing each week, and it is increasing in popularity because it is such a splendid form of social activity. It not only provides companionship and entertainment but also encourages physical fitness.

However, it is also acknowledged that the pinnacle of any sport is pure artistry, and the dancesport competitor strives for that goal no less than a competitor in other activities. The image of ballroom dancing in general has been that of an older person's activity, assisted no doubt by the continuing popularity of the old dance movies. The problem is that although this image is far removed from contemporary dancesport, it is still a substantial inhibitor to a broader participation in both the competitive and social sides of ballroom dancing, particularly among the younger generation. However, this image is gradually changing and both ballroom dancing and dancesport are booming as a result. An indication of this in the early 1990s was when the International Dancesport Federation was granted membership to the General Association of International Sporting Federations, which is often called the second pillar of the Olympics. This was a precursor to granting that body provisional membership of the International Olympic Committee earlier this year.

Dancesport in Australia is governed by the rules and regulations of the Australian Dancing Board, which is the Australian member body of the International Council of Ballroom Dancing. Two competitive categories are involved, namely, professional and amateur. All competitors register annually with the board. In the case of amateur dancers, that competitive registration leads in tandem to membership of the Australian Dancesport Federation, the Australian member body of the International Dancesport Federation. The main thrust of registration is the maintenance of fair competition and uniform rules for all participants in whatever style they choose to pursue, be it modern, Latin American, new vogue, old time or exhibition.

I hesitate to introduce a negative element into this debate; however, I must draw to the attention of the House an article published in the Sun-Herald on 23 April of this year, not long after the IOC granted provisional status to ballroom dancing with a view to its inclusion in the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. The article by Simon Kent was nothing less than snide. It tried to make a joke out of the entire activity, as though dancesport were not athletic and popular and should not be included in the Olympic Games. I will not repeat the article, which sought to turn ballroom dancing into a joke: it compared ballroom dancing with water ballet, skateboarding, roller-skating, surfing and trampolining. Water ballet has certainly received some negative publicity and public reaction in recent years. However, if dancesport is not a sport, how can ice dancing be a sport, as ice dancing is an offshoot of dancesport? Ice dancing is one of the most popular events at the winter Olympics, just as gymnastics is one of the most popular events at the summer Olympics.

Therefore, it makes no sense to have those activities as stars of the Olympic program, while dancesport is supposed to be some sort of joke. It is not a joke; it is a very important activity in our State, with very many dedicated professionals and amateurs involved. People of all ages are passionate about their sport, and they deserve the recognition gained for dancesport. These people deserve to have dancesport recognised by the Olympics. It is excellent for Australia to have dancesport as part of the 2000 Olympics Games, because we are very strong in this area. I was informed that the Chinese had already committed themselves, in anticipation of Beijing winning the 2000 Olympic Games, to include ballroom dancing at least as an exhibition sport as part of those Games. Why? Because ballroom dancing is spreading like wildfire through China. An acquaintance of mine, who is not involved with the dancesport community, returned from China a year or so ago and informed me that when she rose one morning just as the light was breaking, she looked out across the park and saw literally hundreds of people practising their ballroom dancing.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: I have seen them doing Tai Chi.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: The honourable member rightly points to Tai Chi. My first assumption upon hearing this story from my acquaintance was to say, "Are you sure that this was not Tai Chi?" She answered, "No, it was ballroom dancing." This was interesting. Practice space is at a premium in many parts of China, so practising early in the morning in public parks is one of the few opportunities available. Dancesport is extremely popular in China and, as my informant tells me, is expanding rapidly. I commend all those involved with dancesport in New South Wales and the rest of Australia, particularly those with whom I have had the good fortune to work and to get to know during my years of association with this marvellous sport.

A number of organisations deserve specific mention. In the amateur area of the sport, I particularly commend Vince Bain who has been Federal President of the Australian Dancesport Federation, and Barry Fisk, also from New South Wales. I am loath to make special mention of people because I know that the names of many people who undoubtedly deserve mention will not be mentioned. Nevertheless, it is important that I place the names of at least some of those people on the record - they deserve it. I refer to, from the Australian Dancing Board, Lindsay Paul, and from the Federal Association of Teachers of Dancing, Robert and Leigh Steele. I also mention Enyd Connelly, Doreen Kay-Sewell, Phillip Logan, Margaret Reeve, Brian Duncan, Alex Shembri, Doug Newton, Allan and Pat Crane, Barry Clarke, Judy Graham-Clarke and Charme Burdekin.

I do not announce these names in any order because that task would be beyond me. The scholarly Neville Boyd is the author of many books on ballroom dancing and the godfather - if I may call him so - of
Page 3827
the new vogue repertoire. I include in my list the Australian National Dance Association that introduced me to ballroom dancing. I give special commendation to Des Matthews because he has been such a good friend to me over the years and I have a very high personal regard for him, as indeed I have for many others in this area. Sue James is also involved with the Australian National Dance Association. I mention also the late Joe Loves, OAM, who was a beloved figure in dancesport and is sadly missed. Finally I commend the people who make dancesport possible for all of us and for the community to enjoy: the dancers. Many hundreds, indeed thousands, of people participate in ballroom dancing on a competitive level and work hard to create such joy, not only for themselves but also for the whole community. Those dancers are absolutely wonderful and I consider myself privileged to have known so many of them during my years with the ballroom dancing community.

The Hon. Franca Arena: You did not say anything about the joy that the film Strictly Ballroom gave us.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: The Hon. Franca Arena rightly reminded me about the joy that Strictly Ballroom has given to the community. Strictly Ballroom has taken ballroom dancing to the wider community. The film is partly responsible for some of the ongoing resurgence in the popularity of ballroom dancing, although its popularity was increasing substantially prior to the release of that movie. It must be remembered that Strictly Ballroom is a parody and one really has to have love in one's heart to be able to parody something effectively. It must be something one knows well and it must be done lovingly. I believe that that was the spirit of Strictly Ballroom. All the members of the ballroom dancing community that I know have taken the film in wonderful spirit and are very fond of it.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: It received seed funding from the coalition Government.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: It did indeed get seed funding from the coalition Government, as the Hon. J. M. Samios, the shadow minister for the arts, so rightly points out, under the sports ministry of the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith and the arts ministry of the Hon. Peter Collins. Together with a number of members of this House I had the privilege of seeing Strictly Ballroom in the parliamentary theatrette long before it was commercially released. We had to wait months before this wonderful, joyous event could be shared with the rest of the community. A couple of things came across strongly in that movie. One was the spectacular nature of dancesport and the second was the great fun involved in ballroom dancing. I finish my contribution by again commending all those involved with dancesport and ballroom dancing in this State. I thank them for the joy that they have brought to the whole community. I commend the motion.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [4.04]: I have great pleasure in congratulating all people concerned with dancesport in Australia on the inclusion of ballroom dancing as a sport for the Sydney Olympic Games. It is appropriate that the country that brought us Strictly Ballroom should bring ballroom dancing to the Olympics. I agree with the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith that Strictly Ballroom was a great movie. I am proud that an old school friend of mine, Antoinette Albert, was the producer of that film. Of course, when she was at school she was known as Popsey Muir. She took over the difficult job of producing the movie when her husband died in the middle of the production. She has produced what is now an Australian classic. It is totally proper to have ballroom dancing included as an Olympic sport. After all, for many years we have had similar sports in the Olympics. We have had ballroom dancing on ice included as an Olympic sport - otherwise known as ice-skating or figure-skating. Who could forget the wonderful activities of Torvill and Dean, not to mention the not-so-wonderful activity of Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding - especially Tonya Harding.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: What did they do?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: It is alleged that Tonya Harding knee-capped her rival. She should have gone into politics rather than the Olympic sport of figure-skating.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: It was not her. That is unfair; it was a bloke.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Yes, that is right, of course it was a bloke that did it. I make the important point that we already have ballroom dancing on ice at the Olympics and we have ballroom dancing in tights at the Olympics, known as gymnastics. Why not have ballroom dancing included as an Olympic event? I will now proceed with the correct line analysis, the socialist, feminist analysis of the sport of ballroom dancing. I could say that we have line dancing and correct line dancing.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Are you a correct line dancer yourself?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I have never been known to partake. I know that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile believes that ballroom dancing should not be included because he thinks it is parading half-naked women on television, throwing their legs up in the air.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: As long as they wear neck-to-ankle gear.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: They are to wear neck-to-ankle gear and not throw their legs up in the air. This is the correct line analysis, the socialist, feminist analysis: ballroom dancing is not an elitist sport; it takes place in clubs and community halls around Australia. There is enormous community participation in ballroom dancing. Like netball, it is more participated in than watched. One of the problems with sport in Australia is that the sports everyone watches, such as rugby league, are not being played by the community. Sports such as netball are played by millions in the Australian community but they do not get much television coverage.

Page 3828

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is improving now.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Yes, I know it is getting much better. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service have been very good at putting women's sport, such as netball, on television. To continue with my correct line analysis, ballroom dancing is non-violent, unlike many sports in the Olympics. To participate in ballroom dancing one does not need great strength or speed, but one relies on hard work and practice, which means that it is also non-discriminatory. Both men and women participate equally in ballroom dancing. However, there is a small problem which I think we can address.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Women move backwards.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: That is right. The small problem is that men lead. There is a famous comment about Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, that she did exactly the same, but backwards, and in high heels. Of course, we can address this problem by a minor change to the rules about who should lead in ballroom dancing contests. This is my socialist, feminist, correct line analysis which, if the honourable member had not been talking in the background, she might have heard.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Restrict it to two females.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Maybe the couples could be judged to be a male-female couple. As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has suggested, it would be more ideologically correct to have same sex dancing in the Olympics.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: I am trying to help you solve the problem of who will lead. There will no longer be a problem.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: As I said, a slight change to the rules would mean that there could be alternate leads. It may be that the man could lead in the South American dancing and the woman could lead in the classical waltz.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Who should wear the tulle?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Who should wear the tulle would depend on who had the best legs, presumably - although Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said it has to be neck-to-knee gear. In that case it would not matter who wore the tulle. I want to make a very important point about sexism in sport and in the sports which are allowed in the Olympics. I want to put on record my belief that women's water polo should be an Olympic sport. I am very proud of the Australian world champion women's water polo team. I think it is sad that this team of young women who have shown enormous grace, agility and strength cannot participate in the Olympics when the men's teams are allowed to compete in the Olympics. Who could forget the 1956 Olympics when that unseemly brawl broke out between the Hungarians and the Russians? But was it not a great game? Men's water polo has been an Olympic sport for many years and women's water polo should be included also. Once again I extend my congratulations to those involved with dancesport in Australia.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [4.12], in reply: I thank the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann for her kind and supportive comments. I am delighted that New South Wales is unanimous in its support of the ballroom dancing community, as I know the ballroom dancing community will be.

Motion agreed to.

[Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted at 4.15 p.m. The House continued to sit.]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

ETHNIC AFFAIRS COMMISSION

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. Is the Minister aware that there is an inquiry into the future of the Ethnic Affairs Commission? Is he also aware that there is no representative of the Ethnic Communities Council on the review panel of the Ethnic Affairs Commission? Is he able to indicate whether the Government intends to appoint a representative of the peak ethnic group structure to that review panel?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I must admit I was not aware that there was no representative of the Ethnic Communities Council on the review panel. I shall take up the matter with my colleague.

SYDNEY WEST AIRPORT

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. Is it a fact that on Tuesday night the Federal Opposition was joined by the Australian Democrats to block the sale of Sydney airport and Sydney West Airport? Does this mean that Badgerys Creek will not be completed in time for the 2000 Olympics? What can the State Government and the people of New South Wales do about this sorry state of affairs to make Mr Howard aware of what they think of him and his policies?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I regret to bring to the attention of the House the fact that it is the Federal Liberal Party's John Howard who has cynically blocked the Federal Government's airport leasing legislation. Mr Howard has taken that stance not on the basis of any reasoned policy position but
Page 3829
purely for partisan political purposes. To prevent the development of western Sydney's most significant infrastructure development for no reason other than to shore up a 3 per cent lead in his marginal seat of Bennelong, is cynical to say the least. This action is cowardly because John Howard knows that if, by some remote chance, he were to be elected as the Prime Minister, he would have the power to open up the east-west runway immediately. He knows that this is not a solution; he knows that his strategy is unsafe. He has said so on many occasions and he is simply playing politics.

The development of Badgerys Creek airport is fundamental to solving the long-term air traffic needs of Sydney and of New South Wales. In relation to the second part of the honourable member's question about the impact of Mr Howard's decision on Sydney's ability to host the 2000 Olympic Games, the Government's response is that Sydney will be able to cope with one airport for the Olympic Games. The games are not under threat, nor should people be deterred from coming to Sydney. However, Mr Howard's decision will tarnish Australia's international reputation at a time when the eyes of the world are on Sydney. How can anyone who aspires to be Prime Minister allow something like that to occur? Mr Howard's decision is certainly a setback. We will now have to develop alternative arrangements and some of these may cost taxpayers money.

Mr Howard's decision, if implemented, will mean an effective reduction in the number of flights that are able to use Sydney for passengers and cargo at the time of the games. It will mean a delay in the processing of passengers and baggage. It really is a very, very dumb but typical Liberal Party decision. All the arrangements for the Olympic Games have been going well. The facilities and the infrastructure at Homebush Bay, such as the Royal Agricultural Society's move and the rail link, are under way and the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games has just got its first marketing partners. I might say that the bringing forward of the relocation of the Royal Agricultural Society to Homebush has a number of advantages. It will enable the Royal Easter Show to be held at a more suitable location at an earlier date, and the Government will be able to better spread out both the construction activities at Homebush Bay and also the financial -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did John Howard do this, too?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, not at all. If the honourable member had listened, he would concede that I am saying something sensible.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: We cannot hear you.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sorry about that. If the honourable member's colleagues would keep quiet I would not have to raise my voice. I was making the point that the early relocation of the showground will not only be beneficial for the reason that it will enable the RAS to get to a more appropriate and more adequate site - in terms of size - more quickly; it will also have the added advantage that it will spread out the construction work at the Homebush site and also spread out the impact on the State's finances. As I said, the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games has just got its first marketing partners. Mr Howard now comes along to throw a spanner in the works. We will have a successful Olympics - there should be no question about that - but the 250,000 international and domestic visitors who visit Sydney at the time of the Games will be inconvenienced by John Howard's decision. On the third part of the question, the Government and the people of New South Wales know that Mr Howard is behaving like a candidate running for the first time in a seat that he has no chance of winning. This is also a major test of the leadership of Peter Collins. The interests of New South Wales are on the line. Peter Collins has the chance to make a difference. I doubt whether the current Leader of the Opposition in the other place has the capacity to do the job. Perhaps the Leader of the National Party in that House does. In the interests of the people of New South Wales I urge -

The Hon. Franca Arena: John Hannaford may move to the lower House.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Once upon a time there was a move for that to happen. Honourable members might remember that the Hon. J. P. Hannaford ran for the seat of Lane Cove and was done like a dinner by Kerry Chikarovski. We all had great hopes for Kerry. She became the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party before the last election. After the election she was dumped. Now we know that the person who was responsible for her dumping, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, is himself the subject of complaints from his own colleagues. He is one of the 10 that they are targeting in an attempt to put some life into the Opposition. In the interests of the people of New South Wales I urge all honourable members opposite to contact their Federal colleagues to seek a reversal of the Federal Opposition decision.

NATIONWIDE BUILDING INDUSTRY DISPUTE

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Is the Minister for Industrial Relations aware of a letter from the Master Builders Association of New South Wales to the Premier alleging that claims by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union to achieve pay increases would add between 30 per cent to 35 per cent to building costs in this State over the next 18 months? Further to my question asked yesterday, is the Minister now aware that the CFMEU has scheduled a national strike of all building workers for 6 December of this year? I again ask: what action will the Minister take to avoid the impact of such a strike on the economy of New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Mr President -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Answer the question!

Page 3830

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As usual, I will answer the question. As I have indicated in this House before, I am aware of a letter from the Master Builders Association to the Premier dealing with claims by the relevant unions in relation to wages.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You weren't aware of it yesterday.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I indicated that some time ago. I also indicated to the House that I have discussed this matter with relevant officers of the Master Builders Association. As I have said in the past in the House, it is unsurprising that there are wage claims in the building industry, as there are in other industries at present. There are understandable demands for wage increases, given the very moderate level of wage movements over the past few years. I believe the situation is containable and under reasonable control, although I must say also that, essentially, claims about wages in the building industry are claims dealt with in the Federal jurisdiction. They are claims about a national building award under the jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and the New South Wales Government can exert only a limited amount of influence or control in respect of such claims. As I have also indicated in the past, obviously the Government and the Department of Industrial Relations are monitoring the claims carefully and giving advice about them to relevant agencies.

I remain to be convinced that we are facing a national stoppage in the building industry. It may be that the honourable member is correct in his assertion, but my information does not support him. There is apparently some disagreement between the relevant building union and the Commonwealth Government about taxation issues, which obviously have nothing to do with this Government, but the best of my information indicates that this will not lead to any general national stoppage impacting upon the building industry in New South Wales. But if information that there is a more serious problem than I at present perceive comes to my attention I will take appropriate action in that regard.

LABOR COUNCIL DONATIONS

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. If a large corporate group donated considerable amounts of money to the National Party for advertising and staff at our head office during a State election campaign and the party owed this corporation $2 million, and if the coalition parties had won government rather than Labor and made favourable amendments to legislation affecting the group, would the Attorney General believe that that warranted an Independent Committee Against Corruption investigation? Can he inform this House how this would be different from the situation he engaged in with the New South Wales Labor Council?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Subject to relevant laws about election funding and donations, the answer is no. Therefore the second part of the question does not arise.

ABORIGINAL YOUTH DETENTION

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Further to the release yesterday of the third report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, will the Minister inform the House what is being done about the overrepresentation of Aboriginal youth in the juvenile justice system?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Soon after becoming Minister I was alarmed to learn that under the last 12 months of the former Government's administration the number of young people in custody had risen by 20 per cent. I was informed that from March 1994 to March 1995 the number of young people in detention rose from around 400 to over 500, with Aboriginal youth disproportionately represented in this increase. Although Aboriginal youth comprise only 1.8 per cent of the youth population, they comprise approximately 25 per cent of the population of juvenile detention centres in this State.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is not the issue. Answer the question!

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is very much the issue. The matter referred to by the Federal body is clearly the overrepresentation of Aboriginal youth, indigenous people, in juvenile detention in this State. I have made it clear to the Department of Juvenile Justice that I consider that this situation is unacceptable and must be addressed as a matter of priority.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What are you going to do about it?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti wants to know what I am going to do about it. The question might well be asked: what did his Government do about it over the last seven years?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is not the question.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: That was not the question but it is very interesting to speculate on why the previous Government did so little about the matter in the seven years in which it held office.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I want your answer.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am going to give the Hon. Dr. B. P. V. Pezzutti an answer. I will not accept complacency on this matter and I believe that there are a number of significant measures which can be introduced by the Department of Juvenile Justice in an attempt to reduce the number of Aboriginal young people who are admitted to detention centres. I acknowledge that the role of the Department of Juvenile Justice is limited to some extent as the department is simply the recipient of clients referred by the police and the courts. Nevertheless, the department can influence court decisions by ensuring
Page 3831
that a credible range of community-based supervision programs are available to the courts when they are sentencing juveniles. The new Director-General of the Department of Juvenile Justice, Mr Buttrum, has been working closely with the department's Aboriginal staff to develop new community-based programs for Aboriginal youth to provide alternatives to detention. I understand that some innovative ideas have been developed, and departmental staff are in the process of consulting with local Aboriginal communities.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Who is the new director?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti should pay attention.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I was listening but you went very quickly.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If the honourable member was listening, he was not listening closely enough because I said that the new Director-General of the Department of Juvenile Justice, appointed by His Excellency the Governor as recently as yesterday, is Mr Ken Buttrum, formerly a very senior officer of the Department of Community Services.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Are you aware of the complaints about him down at the Wagga Wagga centre and the fact that Michael Easson had to come in to try to mediate the problems?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about complaints against officers, he should have been concerned about some goings on in the Department of Juvenile Justice when he was Minister, which have been revealed by the Auditor-General. The Leader of the Opposition is the last person who should be having misgivings about the Department of Juvenile Justice because when he was Minister he did precious little to bring his officers into line.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: That is not true.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is true. It has been demonstrated by the Auditor-General in his report, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that very well. The failings occurred while the Leader of the Opposition was Minister, and those failings have been identified by the Auditor-General. I understand that some innovative ideas have been developed and that departmental staff are in the process of consulting local Aboriginal communities. I expect to be able to make some announcements in the coming weeks, although I do not wish to pre-empt these consultations by speculating on the types of programs that may be introduced. Significant issues also arise for Aboriginal youth with the interaction of child welfare and juvenile justice services.

I am aware that there are particular problems concerning the coordination of welfare and justice services when Aboriginal children as young as 10 are refused bail and placed in custody for apparently minor criminal offences. These cases often involve a range of extensive welfare problems. I believe that if these are addressed more comprehensively by the provision of adequate welfare assistance, in some cases it will influence the police or court to grant bail, rather than place a child in detention to await a court hearing. It is significant that I am responsible for both the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Community Services as this will ensure that the two departments cooperate more effectively than they have in the past.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: This is not an answer to the problem.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is spending too much time in the Andrew "Boy" Charlton pool. He really ought to listen to what I am saying. I am quite sure that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has a question about the Andrew "Boy" Charlton pool because the Opposition gets so desperate when question time is nearing its 60-minute duration minutes that the Andrew "Boy" Charlton pool is always raised.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On a point of order: Standing Order 81 states:

No Member shall digress from the subject matter of any Question under discussion; and all imputations of improper motives, and all personal reflections on Members shall be deemed disorderly.
The Minister has digressed and imputed an improper motive to me; he has made personal reflections on me, and I ask that he be declared out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The reference to "question" in Standing Order 81 is a reference to the question before the Chair and not to a question without notice. No point of order is involved.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I would not have thought that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti swimming in the Andrew "Boy" Charlton pool was an improper activity. I have indicated to both the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Community Services that cooperation between the two departments needs considerable improvement. The two directors-general of the respective departments are now meeting regularly to discuss and rectify the problem to which I am referring. There obviously is a range of complex social issues that contribute to the unacceptably high level at which young Aboriginal people are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. However, I believe these measures have the potential to reduce the number of Aboriginal youth entering into detention in this State.

PEAT ISLAND HOSPITAL

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Further to the statement made in another place by the honourable member for Gosford, will the Minister explain to the House the true situation at the Peat Island centre?

Page 3832

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I acknowledge the interest of the Hon. Patricia Staunton in ensuring that this Government puts an end to the disinformation about Peat Island that is being disseminated by the Opposition in another place. In another place I have been accused of making ill-founded and mistaken comments about Peat Island. It is the member for Gosford who is guilty of making ill-judged comments. Mr Hartcher says that my comments that Peat Island must close have caused great concern. Surely he is aware of the Disability Services Act that was passed in April 1993 by the previous Government with the full support of the then Labor Opposition. It disappoints me greatly that Mr Hartcher and his colleague the honourable member for Eastwood now appear to be distancing themselves from the landmark legislation of the former Minister, Jim Longley.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: On a point of order: it is perfectly clear that the Minister is using question time to give what amounts to a ministerial statement or explanation. It is inappropriate for question time to be used in this way as other opportunities exist in today's program to enable to Minister to do that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I acknowledge the experience and knowledge of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick. However, there is no point of order.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It appears that the position of the Opposition on Peat Island is to hold it up as an ideal example of the merits of institutionalised living for people with intellectual disabilities. I cannot support this position. As I have said before in this House, Peat Island is an outmoded, outdated, dickensian institution. There is no place for Dickensian institutions in New South Wales in 1995. The legislation requires that Peat Island and other large residential centres be closed. I will not back away from this legislative requirement; indeed, I cannot back away from it. However, as I have said before on many occasions, the devolution of these institutions will be done gradually over a period of five to seven years. Mr Hartcher further doubts my ability to be able to give a life-time guarantee of care to the clients of Peat Island and other large residential centres.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Are you going to offer us one?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I made this guarantee, if the honourable member had been listening, on behalf of the current Government and with a genuine belief that the social conscience of future governments would compel them to abide by it. Mr Hartcher says I can only speak for the term of my office. His cynicism and lack of bipartisan support for this guarantee concern me, because I am anxious to ensure that the future care of the department's clients is properly addressed for a much longer period than my tenure as Minister, which I hope will be for some time yet. In another place Mr Hartcher has also questioned staffing levels at Peat Island. I state again that the staffing levels at Peat Island are adequate. It has a staff of 166 caring for 136 residents. I must continue on this theme of correcting Mr Hartcher. It is tiresome having to do so, but the member for Gosford raised the unfortunate matter of a sexual assault that took place over a nine-month period at Peat Island.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You raised it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I raised it in the form of an inquiry at Peat Island. I made a statement about it, and yesterday in another place Mr Hartcher made a statement mentioning it partly. I have made it clear that the investigation by Dr Moira Carmody is into the staff handling of the assault allegations. Mr Hartcher asked what the staff could have done about a man with severe intellectual disabilities displaying an affection for a female resident. The staff could have, and should have, done what it took them nine months to do: separate the two people so that the undesirable contact could not take place. Mr Hartcher made an allegation that I may have been sexually assaulted by a woman who embraced me in a bear hug on a recent visit to Armidale.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: And you survived.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I not only survived, but I can inform the House that the genuine affection displayed on that occasion is a far cry from unwarranted sexual advances and did not constitute sexual assault. I have been enveloped in a bear hug by the Hon. Franca Arena. The inquiries under way at Peat Island are not designed to cast aspersions on the staff. The intention is to address and rectify any situation that may adversely affect the quality of life of the department's clients.

GWYDIR RIVER FLOODS

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Is the Minister aware of the major rains in the Moree area, the flooding in the Gwydir River and the consequent flooding of the rivers and streams in that area? Why does the Minister refuse to allow irrigators surplus flow pumping to store some of that water for future use? The Minister has cut back the allocation for this month from 60,000 megalitres to 16,000 megalitres. Will he ensure that the Government's commitment will be honoured?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Minister for Land and Water Conservation shows great capacity and competence. I have complete faith in him. I will refer the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the Minister for an appropriate response.

PASSIVE SMOKING

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for
Page 3833
Aboriginal Affairs. Did the National Health and Medical Research Council yesterday call for tough legislation to ban smoking in cars carrying children because of the serious health dangers of passive smoking? Has the National Health and Medical Research Council also called for increased restrictions on smoking in all public places, including shops, hotels, restaurants, prisons, child-care facilities and even outdoor sporting and entertainment venues because of the dangers of passive smoking - with over 100 deaths from heart attacks caused by passive smoking? What urgent action will the Government take to prohibit smoking in cars carrying children? Smoking is a health risk to other passengers and can cause accidents when drivers are distracted by looking for and lighting cigarettes.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I saw the press report in this morning's press.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: You have time to read papers but your leader hasn't?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I scan the newspapers when I get up, because I regard that as rather important. I find that because of the sensitive grouping of portfolios for which I have responsibility news radio stations tend to ring me from 6.20 a.m. onwards for comment.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What time do you get up?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is none of the honourable member's business what time I get up.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Chair will not tolerate further frivolity. The Minister will proceed with his answer.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I read the press report. I do not always see everything that appears in the Dungog Chronicle, but I read the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: That is an insult to the people of Dungog. Why did you select them?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is an example of a country newspaper that I could not possibly read every day. I cannot read all the country newspapers. If I might turn my attention to the question that has been asked, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to comments made by the National Health and Medical Research Council concerning smoking in cars and the possible problems occasioned to car occupants as a result of passive smoking. The National Health and Medical Research Council has some concerns about that matter. I am not sure of the scientific or medical merits of its concerns. However, I shall be delighted to refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health for a considered reply to be furnished to the honourable member.

STOCK MEDICINES

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. In view of the renewed concern about the widespread use of veterinary steroid preparations by sportspersons, will the Minister inform the House whether the national drugs and poisons scheduling committee, a subcommittee of the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council, has recommended a rescheduling of veterinary steroids so that they cannot be so easily obtained by young athletes in New South Wales? If there has not been a rescheduling, will the Minister indicate to the House why that has not occurred?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The supply and possession of all steroids are subject to stringent control under poisons legislation that is administered by the Department of Health. Steroids for human use are available on prescription only and in amounts that accord with recognised therapeutic standards. The Department of Health routinely monitors the prescribing of anabolic steroids by medical practitioners. When the prescribing of anabolic steroids is suspected of being for non-medical purposes the medical practitioner concerned is counselled and warned by departmental officers. Cases may also be referred to the Medical Tribunal. The New South Wales Medical Board has issued a statement that the prescribing of drugs, such as anabolic steroids, for non-medical purposes - for example, for the enhancement of physique or sports performance - constitutes professional misconduct and could lead to deregistration.

Initiatives to prevent the misuse of anabolic steroids include a major review by the Department of Health of the distribution of veterinary anabolic steroids, the establishment of a temporary clinic for anabolic-androgenic steroid users or past users at the St Vincent's Hospital drug and alcohol service, a confidential hotline for patients who require information or counselling available through the Alcohol and Drug Information Service, two New South Wales Department of Health pamphlets on steroid use - "Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids: Information for Medical Practitioners" and "Anabolic Steroids: Let's Get the Facts Right" - for adults who use steroids or may be thinking about it, and a telephone advisory service for health professionals provided by the New South Wales specialist drug advisory service.

The Commonwealth therapeutic goods legislation requires all veterinary preparations and treatments to be registered by a product sponsor with the national registration authority. Stringent conditions for registration apply. The New South Wales Department of Health continually monitors the distribution of veterinary steroids, in line with its responsibility for the administration of the poisons legislation. Issues relating to professional practice may be referred to the Board of Veterinary Surgeons for investigation by that body. The continued availability of veterinary testosterone in injection form is under consideration by the national drugs and poisons scheduling committee, which is actively consulting farmers and agricultural groups. Restriction on the availability of
Page 3834
those products would have significant economic ramifications for sheep farmers, and this issue is being examined closely.

STOCK MEDICINES

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I have a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's answer, can he say specifically whether the Federal Ministers, in conjunction with Ministers from all States - and I refer to health Ministers and agricultural Ministers - have recommended the rescheduling of these veterinary steroids, which are now being used by humans with very dangerous effects? It is the rescheduling alone of veterinary steroids about which I am concerned.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall refer the matter of detail raised by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby to the Minister for Health for subsequent advice to me and, subsequently, to her.

STEAD FOUNDATION BEQUEST

The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: I address my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Has the Government taken any further steps regarding the allegations of a breach of trust in relation to the Wirrimbirra Sanctuary?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As I informed the House recently, representations have been made to my predecessor and me alleging that the National Trust of Australia (NSW) had not complied with the terms of a charitable request under the will of the late Thistle Yolette Stead, valued at $1.2 million. Mrs Stead died, I am informed, in 1990. Probate of her will made on 17 October 1986 was granted to the executors, Alan Charles Clark and Wendy Elizabeth McCarthy. The testatrix devised certain land at Watsons Bay to her stepgrandson and his wife subject to a charge in favour of the National Trust of Australia (NSW). She directed that the principal sum of the charge should be an amount equal to the unimproved capital value of the land, that interest should accrue on it and that the principal sum should be paid to the National Trust of Australia within five years of her death. The rest of her estate was given to the National Trust of Australia. In clause 6 of her will the testatrix stated:

It is my express wish that all benefits received by the National Trust of Australia (NSW) under this my will be applied by it towards the development of its property presently known as `Wirrimbirra Sanctuary', Hume Highway, Bargo.
I am informed that in 1991 the National Trust of Australia received moneys totalling $1.2 million, apparently representing the total moneys due under the charge and the residual gift. It has been suggested to me that the foundation's lack of funds and the proposals of the National Trust of Australia to terminate the plan of management, possibly accept the surrender of the lease and possibly sell the property are based on the view that the foundation has no legal entitlement to the $1.2 million received by the National Trust of Australia from Mrs Stead's estate. Whilst that view may be correct, it is far from self-evident, and it is at the very least arguable that clause 6 of the will creates a binding obligation in the nature of a trust. Alternatively, it may express a power to which fiduciary obligations attach. Because the National Trust of Australia clearly denies either of these obligations, it is appropriate, I am advised by the Solicitor General, that the Attorney General commence proceedings to have the will construed judicially. That is what I have done. Yesterday I took action in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court to have the matter clarified. I have caused, as plaintiff, the issue of a summons in that division of the court to determine these matters.

In particular, I have sought a determination as to whether, upon the true construction of the last will and testament of Mrs Stead and in the events that have happened, the gifts that are specified in various clauses of the will, first, constitute valid charitable trusts; second, confer a power on the second defendant to apply the gifts towards the development of the property known as the Wirrimbirra Sanctuary at Bargo leased to the third defendant; and, third, if the answer to the second point is in the affirmative, gives rise to a fiduciary duty in the second defendant towards the third defendant in relation to the application of the gifts towards the development of the Wirrimbirra Sanctuary and also, of course, consequential orders. Having taken the advice of the Solicitor General, I felt that to be the appropriate way to have this matter dealt with by the courts in an orderly fashion. I am happy to inform the House that that is what I have done.

DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Is the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations aware of public concern about the availability of drugs at rave parties? Why has the Government not moved to outlaw magazine advertisements for rave parties which include code words and symbols identifying drugs such as ecstasy? Does the Minister acknowledge that such advertisements encourage the use of illegal drugs by young people?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The enforcement of the drug laws is essentially a matter for the police. I note that the honourable member has not asked me the question in my capacity as the representative of the Minister for Police. I would have thought that the existing laws are, at least on the face of it, adequate to deal with these matters. But if there are other social problems that require amendment to the criminal law, the honourable member can be assured that this Government will be sensitive to those concerns, as it has been in its very short term in office. In comparison with the inertia demonstrated by its predecessors, the Government has been active in reform of the criminal laws.

Page 3835

COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I refer the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations to the Ombudsman's report and to an article contained in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald in which the New South Wales Ombudsman, Ms Irene Moss, highlighted the need to continue to investigate complaints against police as well as fight corruption. Is it a fact that the police were the subject of one in five oral complaints received by the Ombudsman last year and that they were the subject of two-thirds of all written complaints? Is the Minister aware that complaints against police have doubled over the past eight years? Is the Minister also aware that half of such complaints now result in adverse findings, as opposed to 6 per cent nine years ago? Is it a fact that the Ombudsman's funding has remained static in real terms over the past eight years? How can the Government explain the lack of funding to the Ombudsman's Office in the light of the growth in complaints? How does the Government justify not increasing funding to the Ombudsman in light of Ms Moss' assertion that the office is stretched to breaking point?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On the face of it, that sounds like an excellent question, but it should have been directed to the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On a point of order: the Minister for Industrial Relations did not answer the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Chair does not need any assistance from members. There is no point of order.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: On a point of order: the Minister has not answered my question yet.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: I have not had the opportunity!

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister does not have an obligation to answer the question.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: He did not get the call.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: May I answer the question? The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho interjected, yesterday I think it was, when I referred to a notable lack of female appointments to the bench and to other legal positions by the previous Government. The honourable member interjected, I thought quite pertinently, referring to the appointment by the previous Government of Ms Irene Moss, firstly, as a magistrate and, secondly, as the Ombudsman. These were both excellent appointments which I applaud. Irene Chee, as I knew her at university, is a fine appointment to both offices. I am happy to acknowledge the appropriateness of those appointments. However, it is a pity that the previous Government did not appoint a few more women as public defenders and judges of the court. Of course, we will do so.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho mentioned a number of aspects of the Ombudsman's report and, of course, those comments and observations in the report will be given great weight by the Government. They are obviously matters which need grave consideration. But the budgetary allocation aspect to which she referred is a matter for which her defeated Government was responsible. The previous Government boosted the Independent Commission Against Corruption funding, but ran down resources for the Ombudsman. The question, like the curate's egg, has its faults and its virtues, and it is reasonable for me to point them out.

NATIONAL STANDARD FOR ORGANIC AND BIODYNAMIC PRODUCE

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Health. When will the Department of Health adopt the existing Australian Quarantine Inspection Service national standard for organic and biodynamic produce? Is it not a fact that when the standard was adopted, it was monitored by the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia Limited; the Biological Farmers Associations; the organic herb growers of Australia; the BioDynamic Research Institutes; and organic vignerons of Australia? Will the adoption of this standard not boost the organic and biodynamic industry in this State?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has blinded me with science on this occasion! However, I will approach my colleague the Minister for Health to obtain a detailed response.

GROUP HOMES FOR THE DISABLED

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is, surprisingly, directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am here today too!

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I have a question to ask the Treasurer later. I refer to the program to build or buy new group homes as part of the Government's program for the devolution of services from institutions to group homes. Has the Treasurer given approval to the Department of Community Services to retain the proceeds obtained from the sale of assets to assist in funding that program?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The question of group homes in the community falls into two parts. A significant pre-election promise of this Government was to create approximately 60 new group homes for 300 people with disabilities to relieve the needs of ageing parents and carers of people with disabilities who had not had the benefit of care within government institutions. That promise made before the election has been delivered, or is in the process of being delivered, as a result of the allocation of
Page 3836
$50 million in the last budget. That consists of $26 million in capital funding and $24 million in recurrent funding which will cater for some 300 people with disabilities who formerly resided with their ageing parents or carers. The honourable member's question, I take it, related more to what will happen in the future regarding the proposed devolution of people from large institutions to community-based group homes, as required under the Disability Services Act. Part of the answer is that transition funding is available, largely from Commonwealth sources, to achieve that outcome. However, at this stage the funding is insufficient to complete the total devolution from large institutions to community group homes.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: It has all gone!

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. J. F. Ryan appears to be under the impression that the money has all gone. My understanding is that transition moneys remain available.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: The $50 million has been spent.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No. The Hon. J. F. Ryan is confused. The $50 million lay dormant in Treasury coffers since 1989 as State funding intended to be used to remove people from institutions and put them into a community setting. The Hon. J. F. Ryan is right in stating that that was the intended purpose of the money. However, the purpose was never achieved by the previous Government. I am also referring to other transition funds coming to the States from the Commonwealth via the Commonwealth-State disability agreement. However, I readily recognise that at this point there are insufficient funds to achieve the total devolution from the large institutions to a community setting.

Simply, the Peat Island site in question is not for the department to sell - it is owned by the Department of Health. It may well be that I will have to negotiate with the Treasurer on a future occasion when sites are sold regarding the application of proceeds. However, I make it absolutely clear that this Government is committed to the implementation of the Disability Services Act which, as I have said on previous occasions, and as recently as earlier in question time, was enacted on a bipartisan basis in April 1993. That legislation was passed by the previous Government when the Hon. Jim Longley, the then Minister for Community Services, had my support as the shadow minister.

CONVEYANCERS LICENSING LEGISLATION

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Consumer Affairs. In view of the passage of the Conveyancers Licensing Bill, is it the Government's intention that when the bill is proclaimed, and all other requirements are in place, the Government will be leading by example in ensuring that all its property transactions under $7 million in value are undertaken by licensed conveyancers?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Although the Conveyancers Licensing Bill passed all stages in this House last night, some amendments were sent with a message to another place, and we await consideration of that message. At this stage the measure to which the Hon. Virginia Chadwick refers is not the law of this State. However, when it becomes the law of this State, it clearly will be implemented by the Government. I shall refer the issue raised in the member's question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs.

SYDNEY SHOWGROUND SITE DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: 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. I refer the Minister to his answer to my question of 20 November in which he undertook to consider the BZW report. Does the Government agree with the principle of open and public accountability? If so, when will the Minister table the BZW assessment of the showground rent to allow the taxpayers of this State to be informed on whether they are receiving value for money?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I did undertake to consider the release of that document. I have considered it and I inform the House that it will not be released. On the advice I have received from the head of the Premier's Department it contains information which is commercially confidential. I assure the honourable member that the people of New South Wales, and indeed the Government, will be getting superb value for money from the showground site. There will be net economic benefits.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Are you implying: trust me, I'm from the Carr Government?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. Indeed, the report I am about to refer to was commissioned by the former Government and was available to it, that is, the Kinhill report. That report showed three film studios, not the six we are getting, would have net economic benefits for the State of over $200 million a year. The fabulous new industry will provide jobs for young Australians and jobs for all the talented people who work in the film and associated areas. Also, for the first time in history, we will have a return from the showground site. This will be the first time that the Government has received any rental income at all from the showground. The incentives which the Kinhill report recommended to the previous Government have not had to be put in place by this Government. There is no guarantee being provided for the commercial operations of the film studios, as suggested to the former Government. The arrangements entered into on behalf of the Government are sound for the State's economy. This will be an asset of economic importance for the State and also of significant social and cultural importance.

Page 3837

TOMAGO SANDMINING

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice. Will the Minister explain what action will be taken after the decision today in the Land and Environment Court to nullify the temporary section 120 licence - to take and kill endangered species - issued to Rutile and Zircon Mines (Newcastle) Limited for its sandmining operation at Tomago? Will there be an investigation into other licences? Who was responsible for issuing the licence, and what action will be taken? How does this decision affect existing rights use in relation to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have not had the opportunity to consider the judgment of the Land and Environment Court to which the honourable member refers, which apparently was delivered today. I shall take a personal interest in it and draw the honourable member's question to the attention of the Minister for the Environment. A reply will be given to the honourable member in due course.

WAGGA WAGGA SHERIFF'S OFFICE

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that the Attorney is considering the closure of the sheriff's regional office at Wagga Wagga with a view to transferring the regional manager's position to Wollongong? In view of the failure of all other departments' attempts to relocate regional manager positions from the Riverina area to Wollongong, and the inability to be able to properly manage such a region from Wollongong, will the Minister consider abandoning the proposal to transfer this regional manager's position?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: To the best of my recollection I have made no decision on the matter raised by the honourable member. Given that, I would be happy to take account of any submissions or views that the honourable member has in relation to the proposed change. If the honourable member wanted to communicate with my officers or the department and express a view about that, it would certainly be taken into consideration.

ANDREW "BOY" CHARLTON SWIMMING POOL

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. My question will not surprise the Minister, but I will vet it as much as I can. Does the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing have any funds which could be used to assist the Sydney City Council in the restoration work of the Andrew "Boy" Charlton swimming pool?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The honourable member is becoming quite tedious by raising this issue question time after question time. Surely there are many areas of State Government activity on which the Opposition could focus. It really is great praise for this Government that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti cannot think of a question to ask concerning the New South Wales Government. I do not mind if he continues for the next 3� years to ask questions about that swimming pool. He might then ask questions about another swimming pool. I am sure that the Sutherland Shire Council would like assistance from the New South Wales Government for its swimming pools, as would every municipal council in New South Wales. But I am not a member of the Sydney City Council. I am a member of this Parliament; I am a Minister of the Crown in this State and I would like some questions that concern my portfolios.

If honourable members have further questions I suggest they put them on notice.

CULTURAL BIASES IN EMPLOYMENT

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yesterday the Hon. Franca Arena asked me a very good question concerning cultural bias in the managerial work force. I have now been provided with an extensive answer from the Premier as follows:

The Commonwealth Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research (BIMPR) is currently holding a major conference in Melbourne on the topic of migrants and work.

At the conference this week a number of research reports were launched documenting the current problems and employment barriers faced by people of non-English speaking background in the Australian labour market.

Of particular interest was a BIMPR report which documents the so-called "invisible underemployment syndrome". This particularly applies to migrant Australians who are employed at levels well below their skills and qualifications.

The report findings indicated that 34.8 per cent of migrants from non-English speaking background were over-educated for their jobs, compared with only 11.6 per cent of Australians.

The NSW Government is aware of the current barriers faced by people of non-English speaking background in gaining access to employment at the appropriate level for their skills and qualifications.

To this end, the Premier has agreed to convene a high level taskforce to address these issues, with a specific focus on issues related to better recognising and utilising people with overseas skills and qualifications.

This taskforce will build on work that was undertaken during 1994 but in a more strategic direction.

The terms of reference for the new taskforce include:

* the analysis of existing employment data related to people of non-English speaking background, which would include the findings of the BIMPR reports;

* examination of selection and recruitment practices that pose both cultural and structural barriers to people with overseas skills and qualifications; and

* the development of strategies aimed at ensuring our workforce reflects our culturally diverse community at all levels, including management.
Page 3838

While stage 1 of the taskforce will address issues related to public sector employment, stage 2 will identify best practice ways of recognising and utilising overseas gained skills and qualifications relevant to other employment markets, including the private sector. The taskforce will also look at specific strategies targeted to assist those facing the greatest barriers, in particular women of non-English speaking background.

The Government regards the overseas skills and qualifications taskforce as an important initiative and one that will result in tangible outcomes to both our workplace productivity and to our migrant communities. Nonetheless there is a real need for all parties to address these issues more openly. In the fist instance this requires all levels of management to firstly be aware of the problem, and secondly for both individuals and organisations to take steps to ensure the so-called "glass door" is open and that other barriers are removed.

In addition to the establishment of the taskforce, in August 1995, the Premier announced that a register of people from non-English speaking background would be established by the Public Employment Office.

The register will be consulted by all ministers when vacancies occur on existing government boards and committees or when new bodies are being established.

A similar register was established by the Commonwealth earlier in 1995.

Advertisements were run in the mainstream press and the ethnic media, notifying the public of the establishment of the register and calling for people to request an application form. This register is now operational.

The establishment of the register of people of non-English speaking background is aimed to increase the participation of our ethnic communities in government decision making processes.

It is hoped that the register will attract many people and become a valuable resource of people interested in serving on government boards and committees.

BOGAN SHIRE RESERVOIR

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 26 October the Hon. D. F. Moppett asked me a question without notice regarding the Bogan Shire water reservoir. The Minister for Public Works and Services and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation have provided the following response:

The Bogan Shire Council wrote to the Minister for Public Works and Services in April, concerning the "Long Pond" Reservoir Project.

Bogan Shire Council is undertaking a concept and feasibility study for the widening and deepening of the Nyngan Water Supply Storage for emergency water supply to the towns, villages and property homesteads in the western region of NSW, a recreational water area for Nyngan and a potential Olympic standard rowing and canoeing course venue for regattas, training camps and overseas team training for the Olympic Games.

A meeting with the Minister for Public Works and Services was sought but the Council was advised that a meeting with the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) would be more valuable. A SOCOG representative did meet with the Bogan Shire President and the Manager Engineering Services concerning the proposals.

SOCOG has canvassed all Councils and will collate information provided on all venues and facilities. This information will be made available to all National Olympic Committees after the conclusion of the Atlanta Games.

It must be emphasised that it is up to teams to choose their training, acclimatisation locations and that neither SOCOG nor the Government have funds to upgrade Council facilities.

There has been no formal approach to the Department of Public Works and Services or to the Department of Land and Water Conservation concerning the proposal from Bogan Shire Council.

PINNY BEACH DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 18 October the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked me a question without notice about Pinny Beach development. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has provided the following response:

The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning agrees that the coastal land is a finite quantity. In regard to the zoning changes to allow an integrated resort at Pinny Beach near Swansea the making of the plan followed the normal procedures of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. On 28 March 1988 the Lake Macquarie City Council resolved to prepare a draft local environmental plan in respect of the subject land. Council then submitted the draft plan to the Department of Environment and Planning on 6 September 1988.

The report of the Department to the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Planning under section 69 of the Act considered all relevant matters and recommended that the instrument be made. The plan was approved by the Minister on 16 January, 1989. Notice of that approval appeared in the Government Gazette on 10 February, 1989.

Whilst the construction of the proposed integrated resort has not occurred, Lake Macquarie City Council has granted development consent to certain components.

The Lake Macquarie City Council is reviewing the zones relating to this matter. If the Council should decide to proceed with a new draft local environmental plan, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning will have regard to the likely impacts before deciding whether to make the plan.

ETHNIC AFFAIRS COMMISSION

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 26 October the Hon. J. M. Samios asked me a question without notice concerning the Ethnic Affairs Commission. The Premier has provided the following response:

With regards to the management review of the Ethnic Affairs Commission:

* The review was conducted by senior officers from the Premier's Department in close consultation with the Chairman and senior staff of the Ethnic Affairs Commission.

* The cost of the review was met from within the budget allocation of the Premier's Department. No additional funding was allocated for the specific purpose of the review.

* The review is expected to be finalised later this month.

With respect to the review of the Ethnic Affairs Commission Act and the preparation of a plan of action towards the year 2000:

* A Steering Committee has been established to oversee the review. Membership of the Steering Committee is as follows:

two senior officers from the Premier's Department; one officer from The Cabinet Office; representatives from the Premier's Office; the Chair of the Ethnic Affairs Commission; and a seconded Executive Officer.

Extensive community consultation is also taking place with regard to the review of the Act, including regular meetings with the Ethnic Communities' Council.

Page 3839

* The costs associated with the review will be met as part of the budget allocation for the Ethnic Affairs Commission.

* The review is in progress. Consultation and meetings with Ethnic Affairs Commissioners and staff, and the Ethnic Communities' Council of NSW have already taken place. It is anticipated that a final draft report will be provided to the Premier in March 1996.

POLICE ETHNIC LIAISON OFFICERS

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 10 October the Hon. J. M. Samios asked a question without notice about police ethnic liaison officers. I have now been supplied with the following answer:

It is important to note that the Police Service has both sworn and unsworn Ethnic Liaison Officers. Police Ethnic Liaison Officers are sworn officers nominated by Patrol Commanders. They act as a contact with the local community with respect to policing issues. These positions are allocated on a Patrol resource and needs basis. The Illawarra District has nine Police Ethnic Liaison Officers.

Ethnic Community Liaison Officers (ECLOs) are unsworn employees from multi-cultural backgrounds who have completed a five day residential course at the Police Academy. They provide support, advice and referral for local police and persons from non english speaking backgrounds.

This is a very positive move by the Police Service in addressing the communication and cultural barriers experienced when dealing with persons from non english speaking backgrounds. Three Ethnic Community Liaison Officers appropriately service the Cabramatta area.

DEFERRED FOREST ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 19 October the Hon. I. Cohen asked me a question without notice regarding public consultation. I have now been supplied with the following answer:

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation agreed to extend the public consultation period for the schedule of potential logging areas for two weeks from the original date until November 3, 1995.

The Government has been working with the Commonwealth to finalise a Deferred Forest Agreement (DFA) for NSW. The Government's forestry and conservation reforms jointly announced by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation in June 1995 have provided a sound basis for the agreement.

On 29 September both this Government and Commonwealth announced the draft DFA for NSW which was to be the subject of consultation for a number of weeks. As indicated by the Honourable member, the consultation period was extended and is now over.

I must emphasise that the draft DFA has been structured so that it meets this Government's commitments, both to the industry and to our conservation objectives.

By meeting the Commonwealth Government's conservation criteria the Government has rescheduled out of more forests than we stated we would at the March 25 election. However, in the draft DFA the Government has sought to meet our commitments to the industry through a pragmatic application of this criteria. In those areas where the application of the Commonwealth criteria would have placed in jeopardy timber supply at committed levels, we have ensured sufficient areas remain available to the industry. The Government has taken a balanced approach which achieves both conservation and industry objectives.

In order to ensure further stakeholder involvement, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation also released details of areas potentially available to the timber industry for the next 12 months.

In response to conservation, industry and community requests for more time to make submissions, the draft Deferred Forest Area and the draft schedule of potential logging areas submission date were both extended to November 3, 1995. Both Governments are now assessing submissions that have been received from various stakeholders.

WILD CATTLE CREEK STATE FOREST

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 24 October the Hon. I. Cohen asked a question about Wild Cattle Creek State Forest. I am now able to furnish the following answer received from the Minister for Land and Water Conservation:

The following reply has been received from the Minister for Land and Water Conservation.

The matter that the Honourable member has raised relates to a State Forests' operation within Dorrigo District to re-establish about 1,300 hectares of severely burnt forest which resulted from the Bobo fire in November 1994. This fire burnt 13,000 hectares of predominantly forested land under extreme bush fire danger conditions. I am advised this fire was very severe. The fire index on the Monday (7/11/94) was 70, resulting in a "crown" fire whereby the whole forest was completely defoliated and a large number of trees were killed.

Aerial photographs of the fire area were taken in mid December 1994. Of the 13000 ha area burnt, State Forests mapped 1,300 hectares as the worst affected areas and prepared harvesting plans for the salvage logging and replanting of this area. About 700 hectares of this was eucalypt plantation, most of which was too young to harvest commercially. The remaining 600 hectares was regrowth native forest with a long history of logging and was considered to be so badly affected by the fire that it would not recover. This intention was clearly conveyed to the regulatory authorities in seeking approvals for the harvesting plan and to the public by way of press releases, newspaper articles and a large signboard which was erected in the forest at the entrance to the burnt areas. Regulatory and Public Information Committee (RaPIC) and NPWS Section 120 Licence approvals for the harvesting plan were obtained.

The harvesting plan indicated two categories for logging. These were category one which contained severely burnt area of regrowth and plantations to be cleared and replanted; and category two in which selective logging was to target fire damaged trees.

I am advised that logging concentrated on category one areas in both plantation and regrowth native forest areas by salvaging saleable trees that were killed or so badly damaged by the fire that it was assessed that they would not have recovered. Subsequent clearing and preparation for replanting has been implemented to ensure rapid regeneration of the forest that was severely burnt.

I am advised that clearing and replanting has occurred within category one areas as mapped in the harvesting plan. In light of the partial recovery of some of the burnt native forest areas, State Forests have decided to cease further clearing operations in these areas. However, it is likely that many of the trees whose crowns were killed by the fire are unlikely to survive in the longer term.

The District Forester has instructed that selective salvage logging may continue in the native forest area but further clearing will be restricted to the defined plantation areas.

The Government's guarantee that plantations will not be established as a result of broadscale clearing of native forest remains in place. The case referred to here, where healthy Page 3840
regrowth forest and plantation was destroyed by fire, is a rare occurrence and is considered a special case. State Forests' officers in their professional judgement made the decision that the most expedient means of restoring the area to a forest condition was to salvage logs, clear the debris from the fire and replant the area with Blackbutt trees similar to the original forest type.

This strategy is entirely consistent with the Government forest policy to produce high quality logs from regrowth and plantation areas for a world class, value added timber industry.

State Forests are preparing written guidelines in relation to the implementation of fire salvage operations. This will ensure consistent policy implementation for fire salvage operations throughout the State.

The Government policy is also to protect high conservation value forest areas while maintaining a viable timber industry. Wild Cattle Creek State Forest has been managed and logged for high value logs over many decades. Under the Government's forest and conservation strategy, identified wilderness areas, new national parks and unlogged compartments have been protected by the Government pending the carrying out of an interim assessment that will identify areas to be available for logging and those areas to be reserved whilst Comprehensive Regional Assessments are being undertaken.

the approval for Wild Cattle Creek was given by the previous Government and therefore did not affect this operation

Questions without notice concluded.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Royal assent to the following bills reported:

ROAD TRANSPORT (HEAVY VEHICLES REGISTRATION CHARGES) BILL

ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bills introduced and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Mr PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that it is discourteous and disorderly for members to be standing or wandering about the Chamber when the occupant of the chair is on his feet.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

EMPLOYMENT AGENTS BILL

Bills introduced.

First Reading

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.21]: I move:

That these bills be now read a first time.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.22]: The Opposition opposes the reading of the bills for the first time. The bills which the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations has introduced are part of a package of bills released for public comment earlier this month. The bills were released following a statement in this House that they were available from officers within the Minister's department. That statement was made on a Tuesday, if my recollection is correct, and followed the placement of an advertisement in the media. It is now well known that although the advertisement indicated the availability of the legislation and invited interested persons to seek access to it, a number of people who approached officers of the department were not able to get the legislation.

The legislation was made available for comment for only a short period of time - a number of days. I have received numerous telephone calls complaining about the inadequacy of the legislation and asking for a copy of the bills because people could not get them from the department. I have recently had meetings with a number of organisations to discuss the legislation, only to find that they had the wrong documents. As I said, many people have complained to me about the nature of the consultation which the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations has embarked upon. In addition I received numerous letters containing similar comments. For instance, the National Association of Personnel Consultants made the following comment:

We believe that the consultation process put in place by the Government has been inadequate and has not afforded sufficient opportunity to the industry to formulate detailed views on the merits of the legislation.
The commercial vehicle industry association stated:

There is insufficient time to refer the bill to members of the Association and therefore regret that we cannot comment.
The Ricegrowers' Association of Australia stated:

The Ricegrowers' Association received a copy of the Draft Bill on 1st November . . . We note that written submissions should arrive by 6th November . . . This is a completely unacceptable timetable.
The Australian Building Services Association stated:

. . . the two week period for circulation is totally inadequate for us. It does not allow sufficient time to circulate details to members, obtain their response and meet as a group if necessary.
The Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association wrote:

. . . we believe a two week consultation period for such important legislative change is not sufficient time for a comprehensive response.
The State Chamber of Commerce stated:

The consultation period is extremely short, allowing only two weeks to confer with our own constituency before making a submission to the Government.

I intend to inform the Attorney General of the Chamber's concern about this matter and seek an extension of time to review the draft legislation.
Page 3841

The New South Wales Road Transport Association stated:

. . . the time allowed by the Government for consultation is totally inadequate particularly when you look at the length and complexity of the Bill under review.
The Meat and Allied Trades' Federation of Australia stated:

. . . two weeks is grossly inadequate.

. . . we have not yet seen the Bill and the two week consultation phase seems to have commenced, we effectively have far less than two weeks to consider the Bill which we understand will be complex and lengthy.
The New South Wales Minerals Council commented:

. . . two weeks is a very short period for distribution, consideration and comment by industry parties.
The Standards Association of Australia said:

I do not consider the proposed consultation period is adequate.
The Australian Chamber of Shipping Limited stated:

While the Chamber has heard of the impending changes, we are of the opinion that the time allocated for public consultation is far too short for a comprehensive response to be submitted.
That is a sample of the type of comments that have been made by industry about the approach the Government has taken to consultation. The Opposition has heard the Minister say in response to a number of questions raised on this issue that there was adequate consultation and that a working party was appointed. I will admit that there was a working party and that the working party included representatives of some employer organisations. That does not mean that industry generally was consulted; in fact, industry generally was not consulted.

I asked questions in this Chamber about the possible inclusion of organisations such as the Retail Traders Association on the working party, after I had received representations from that group. Although the Retail Traders Association was not included in the working party, the Minister put in place a mechanism by which it would be able to sit in on the working party, I think were the words, and be able to participate. However, the association was not formally made part of the working party. The Chamber of Manufactures, one of the largest employer organisations in the State, was allowed some participation but, again, not included formally in the consultative process. That organisation is almost totally state-based but was not included in the first instance.

Honourable members should reject the bills because there needs to be extensive consultation. The consultation pursued by the Government to date has been a total farce and is recognised as such by employer organisations in this State. It has also been recognised as a farce by those persons who have an interest in the legislation. In the limited period made available for comment extensive submissions have been made to the Minister for variations to the legislation. Even the Minister's own support base, the trade union movement, made a lengthy submission seeking changes to the legislation.

Those who work professionally in this area have indicated to me that the changes to the legislation have been so great that on each occasion when they examined the bill they identified further problems. Those who have spoken to me have indicated that, because the Minister has picked up large slabs of the legislation, it would have been preferable for him to have taken the 1991 Act and sought to amend it - which was his original intention - so that everyone would be able to understand the nature of the changes and be able to comment on them.

However, the Minister has not done that. He has introduced a comprehensive change to the Act that requires detailed analysis. He took almost six months to work up this legislative package but left only a matter of days for people to comment on it. He now expects the legislation to be pushed through the Parliament. Not one of the many industry organisations I have spoken to has said that there is urgency about the bill. They all desire changes to improve the legislation - that is recognised by the Opposition - but none support the ramming of the bill through the Parliament. It is not so urgent that it could not be put out for comment. The Minister could have held a number of forums so that there could be input, as there was with the industrial reform pursued by the coalition. I participated in such forums.

This Government will go down in history as being beaten only by the Whitlam regime for lack of consultation with constituent groups. By establishing the consultative group the Minister was thought to have set himself apart from the ragbag of other Ministers when it comes to consultation, but there has been inadequate consultation. The Minister suffers from the Carr disease - the desire to crash or crash through with his reform agenda. In following that philosophy other Ministers are killing off whatever goodwill they had in the community. These reforms will do nothing to improve the economic structure of New South Wales. They will not advance one iota the agenda of microeconomic reform that is necessary for real growth to be achieved in this State.

Every commentator has said that if there is one area in which microeconomic reform is necessary it is in industrial relations. The Minister will say that some employer groups, like the unions, support the legislative reform. There is sound reason for them to do so: it makes life easier for the unions and the large employer organisations. Making things easier for the big boys in the industrial arena does nothing for the social and economic fabric. The Minister sought to achieve some sort of reputation in industrial relations and I would have thought that he would have pursued increased productivity. The only way to do this is to ensure that small businesses which drive the economy achieve productivity reforms.

The legislative framework should enable small business people to better negotiate with their employees to achieve more economic drive. The
Page 3842
legislation puts an anchor around the ankle of all small business people so that they cannot negotiate freely with their employees. The employee unions will be able to drive a wedge into the process of consultation and negotiation between employers and employees. The bill strengthens the position of employees in the enterprise bargaining process and will influence small employers to join their industrial organisations so that there can be appropriate negotiations between employer and employee organisations. That is quite clear in the reform agenda of the Minister and the Government: do not recognise the interests of employers; do not recognise the role of employees in looking after themselves; and do not recognise the role of the small employer in driving economic reform. Employers should be able to look after their own interests and work with their employees.

The Government is putting in place a cumbersome structure that drives employers into the arms of their employer associations and drives a union wedge between the employees and their employers. It undermines the industrial relations fabric within the small industry base which should be encouraged. The legislation should be rejected at its first reading. The package the Minister has presented for comment is unacceptable. He should consult further - not just with the big employer organisations, the Metal Trades Industry Association and the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, which in the main have a Federal base, and the Employers Federation of New South Wales, which has a strong State base.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: And the New South Wales chamber, of course.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Minister did not put the New South Wales chamber on to the working -

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: We certainly did, I am sorry. You are wrong there.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am sorry, the Minister did. He brought in the retail traders to provide a consultative base but left out in the cold all the major employers. Which one of the organisations has a major concern in this area? Registered clubs. Did the Minister consult with them? They regarded the consultation with the Government as highly inadequate. The restaurant and catering industry has a very strong base which is capable of driving the economy, particularly in tourism. Were they consulted? They responded but one would have thought there would be a direct interest in ensuring that their views were taken into account, but that was not the case. The New South Wales Farmers Association almost had to go down on bended knee to get access to the Government to express its concerns. Only at the last minute did the Government bother to speak to that organisation, which has deep concerns about the direction of the legislation.

The Minister referred to the Chamber of Manufactures. Initially it said that the legislation was a great leap backwards but it has modified its comment to say that it is a step backward in industrial reform. That is a moderate industrial organisation that seeks to work with the unions to achieve industrial reform, and it is an indictment of the Government that the chamber says that the package brought forward is a step backward in industrial reform. Organisations in this State have said that in many respects the Federal legislation is a better package of legislation than the State Government's legislation. The suggestion by an organisation that Laurie Brereton's industrial relations reform legislation, which was condemned nationally, is better than the Government's legislation must ring in the ears of honourable members opposite as sound condemnation and an indictment on them.

I suggest to the House that there are two reasons that the legislation should be rejected at this stage. First, it does not progress the economic direction of this State. It does not improve the State's chances for achieving greater economic performance. As commentators have said, this is a step backwards. The Government should go back to the drawing board and do what has not been done adequately to date, that is, consult with those who really need industrial relations reform for the purpose of workplace reform. The Government should not consult only with the big end of the industrial town. The Government should deal with those who drive the economy of this State, that is, small business, small employers, and those who represent small employers. After consultation the Government would introduce a package of legislation significantly different from the package it seeks to crash through this Parliament, because if it tries to crash it through, it will in fact crash.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.41]: The opposition to the first reading of this bill is extraordinary. It is extraordinary in part because the Leader of the Opposition has not identified a single tangible argument that could be put forward respectably to oppose the first reading. In fact, his contribution was a series of rhetorical flourishes and was devoid of any substance, barren of any logic or real argument. There is one proposition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition with which I do agree. He said that everyone agrees that reform is necessary in industrial relations. Of course it is, because the Industrial Relations Act 1991 has been a conspicuous failure. No-one out there supports it; everyone is critical of it; it has not worked.

There is a vacuum in industrial relations legislation and that has made our task of reform all the easier. The Government has been able to come up with a sensible and balanced package; it has filled that void by consultation to arrive at a reasonable package, one that was quietly and well received in employer and union circles. Of course, not everyone agrees
Page 3843
with every aspect of it; that is fair enough. In the real world I understand that people identify particular aspects with which they have difficulties. But as a package, it has a certain symmetry, a certain balance. I am reminded of the quotation, "What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?"

We on the Labor side stand for moderation and balance, not for some extreme program of the deregulation of the labour market, the sort of ideological program advocated by zealots opposite, the followers of John Howard, who want to strip away the rights of workers, destroy the conciliation and arbitration system, destroy the award system and who want individual contracts. Honourable members opposite are the defenders of CRA, who want individual contracts as distinct from the more balanced and equitable system of industrial relations which preserves an egalitarian society in Australia.

I reiterate that not a single, rational argument has been advanced to oppose the first reading of this bill. Let us debate it on the second reading. Let us have it out and deal with it in detail. Oh no, the Opposition wants to try to frustrate it at the threshold. Quite frankly, this is evidence of the Opposition's extremism on the topic. It does not want to debate it in detail during the second reading debate. The Opposition wants to throw the package out on the threshold, and why? It is because the Opposition is embarrassed that the big end of town or the big interests do not support it; those businesses see the balance and moderation of this package. Honourable members opposite have not been able to persuade mainstream employers to oppose this package; they are embarrassed because of the consensus of quiet support for this package.

In so far as I can penetrate the opaque reasoning of the Leader of the Opposition and discern just what he says should deny this bill a first reading, it seems to be lack of consultation. Frankly, that is pathetic. From the time this Government took office it called for submissions on industrial relations and it received many written submissions. The Government established a working party and examined the submissions in meticulous detail. Whether the Government has got it right or wrong is a matter for subsequent debate. If a mistake has been made, the House can determine that in due course, but it is indisputable that the Government has consulted employers, unions and other interested parties meticulously and in detail. Written submissions have been called for and oral statements have been given. The Government frankly has agonised over what every legitimate interested person wanted to say about the bill and it has been painstaking.

The Government has not been driven by some academic agenda or some theoretical construct imposed upon the process. If honourable members opposite consult the leading employer advocates in this State they will see how caustic those advocates are about the process engaged upon by the former Government. They regard that green paper process as a farce. The former coalition Government started off with a set of dogmatic presumptions, theoretically called for submissions, but did not take them into account. After receiving advice from his advisers, it simply zealously pursued its agenda, and that process was a black farce.

The Government has done entirely the opposite. It has listened to the people and forged a consensus. The Government has come up with a product which is impressive, and although it is impressive, it is not immutable. It is not a product which is incapable of some revision during the parliamentary process. This may be surprising to the zealots on the Opposition benches but the Government will listen to people, members of Parliament and interest groups during the progress of this bill through the Parliament. If necessary or appropriate, the Government will make amendments to the legislation. Why deny the bill a first reading? Frankly, the extremism of this tactical or procedural position is absolutely absurd and is helping to discredit an Opposition that does not know where it is going. The Opposition is embarrassed about the 1991 Act; it knows that the Act had almost nil achievements. This demonstrates the Opposition's lack of understanding of industrial relations, and it is embarrassed. Of course, some Liberal members see themselves on the small-l liberal or wet side of the party.

Therefore, they are embarrassed about the Howard agenda and do not like full-scale regulation. They are caught in an agony of indecision and ambiguity about their position on industrial relations. It is actually a pleasure to debate these issues in the House. The Government knows where it is going, it has talked to the employers and unions of New South Wales, with whom it has a good relationship. The Opposition is simply in embarrassing disarray on this issue. The Government would like an Opposition which knows more about the issue, which has points to raise. I would like to see someone in the Opposition ranks who knows what they are talking about in this regard, but any such person is conspicuous by their absence - he or she simply does not exist. We are faced with a pathetic and extreme attempt to suggest that this House should not debate this matter during the second reading stage.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, it is the intention of the Government to take the normal course with this bill. The Government will present its second reading speech and, in the usual way, the matter will be adjourned. To suggest that the Government is ramming the bill through the House or pursuing it in an inappropriate way is rubbish. The Government is introducing a bill which, in its substance, has been available for some weeks. The Government is seeking to advance the second reading debate. In the usual way, the Government will consent to the adjournment of the bill so that honourable members can consider it in the next week or so. The second reading debate will then continue. It is blindingly obvious that these bills should be read a first time.

Page 3844

Question - That these bills be now read a first time - put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 22

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

Noes, 17

Mr Bull Mr Lynn
Mrs Chadwick Mr Mutch
Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti
Mr Gay Mr Samios
Dr Goldsmith Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jobling Tellers,
Mr Kersten Miss Gardiner
Miss Kirkby Mr Ryan

Pair

Mr O'Grady Mr Moppett

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.58]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.
The Industrial Relations Bill is a significant piece of legislation for this State. It gives effect to the Government's pre-election commitments to introduce a new industrial relations framework which promotes workplace reform while, at the same time, maintains appropriate standards of fairness and the protection of employee rights. Importantly, the bill includes a range of measures designed to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity at the workplace. The Industrial Relations Bill is the product of comprehensive consultation with interested parties. This Government has approached the issue of industrial relations reform by seeking broad consensus and by formulating legislation which attempts to incorporate a fair balance between competing views.

I would like to briefly outline the way the Government has developed its 1995 legislation. The first stage of the reform process involved a comprehensive consultative process to review the present legislation. I established, and chaired, a working party of peak industrial organisations to discuss reform proposals. The working party met on 11 occasions throughout April to November, and I am grateful for the members' contribution to the review process. The working party comprised employer nominees from the Confederation of Employer Organisations, Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia (New South Wales Branch), the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales, the Retail Traders Association of New South Wales and the Employers Federation of New South Wales. From the union side, nominees were put forward by the Labor Council of New South Wales, including representatives from the Labor Council itself and the Transport Workers Union of Australia (New South Wales Branch), the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Miscellaneous Workers Division (New South Wales Branch).

The working party's discussions have been ably augmented and assisted by the Blake Dawson Waldron Professor of Industrial Law at the University of Sydney, Professor Ron McCallum, and Conciliation Commissioner Donna McKenna of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, who was appointed a part-time law reform commissioner. In addition to the working party process, a public review, coordinated by the Department of Industrial Relations, commenced in April of this year. More than 40 written submissions were received from parties as disparate as BHP Proprietary Limited and individual taxidrivers. Discussions have also been held with organisations such as the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the Small Business Combined Association.

I wish to express the Government's appreciation for the considerable efforts made by the representatives of each of these organisations throughout the period since April of this year. The first stage of the consultative process has confirmed the need to reform, simplify and streamline the existing industrial relations system - which is widely considered to be complex and legalistic. The second stage of the consultative process adopted by this Government involved the release of an exposure draft bill for the consideration of the working party and public discussion approximately one month before the final version of the bill has been tabled in Parliament.

The release of the exposure draft bill was publicised in the print media and through other channels. I am advised that more than 800 copies of the exposure draft were provided free of charge by the department to interested organisations and individuals. More than 50 written responses were received by the department, commenting on the exposure draft and suggesting various changes. We have taken on board constructive comments and suggestions flowing from the second stage of the consultative process. The result is that the industrial relations community and other practitioners have had
Page 3845
a real impact on the fashioning of this legislation throughout the review process undertaken in the last six months.

Before I outline in some detail the proposed areas of reform which feature in the bill, I wish to advise the Chamber of the overall public response to the style, content and size of the draft legislation. A conscious effort has been made by the Government to streamline and simplify the legislation. The bill before this Chamber is approximately 50 per cent of the size of the former legislation, which will assist parties to better understand the overall legislative scheme. Further, it has been drafted in plain language, designed to assist in its accessibility. The response in many submissions has confirmed that the Government has achieved the important goal of making the principal industrial relations legislation in this State a workable and understandable document. I now wish to outline the major features contained in the bill.

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

Chapter 1 includes the objects of the bill which have the important role of setting the overall legislative framework. For instance, the commission is required to take into account the public interest and, for that purpose, must have regard to the objects of the proposed Act, the state of the economy in New South Wales and the likely effect of its decisions on the economy. The legislation broadly defines key terms, though with some alterations to the 1991 Act. For instance, the bill continues to define the term "employee". However, the Government has decided to delete the spousal and family member exclusion from this definition. It is not the position that the deletion of this exemption will automatically mean that employers will have to pay award wages to their husband, wife and children for helping out in the shop or on the farm.

At common law, for an employment relationship to exist, an employment contract must have come into existence. The High Court has made it clear that where work is performed on a voluntary basis for charitable or family purposes no employment relationship will arise. An example is provided in Dietrich v Dare (1980) 30 ALR 407. For an employment relationship to exist, both parties must have intended to enter this form of legal arrangement. This is why other Australian States and the Federal system have not relied upon this old-fashioned, outdated and inequitable exemption. While on the concept of an employee, I draw attention to the definition of public sector employee contained in this legislation.

This definition replaces the existing definition of an employee of the Crown and is intended to be an expansive definition covering all employees of the public service and public authorities, including, for example, clerical officers in the central agencies, ambulance drivers and technical and further education teachers. Chapter 1 also includes a definition of industrial matters, which, although shorter than the definition in the 1991 Act, is also intended to be expansive in its operation and not narrower than the definition in the present legislation. One of the examples of industrial matters is the reference to discrimination in employment. It is intended that the reference to discrimination in employment should be capable of comprehending not just the nominated matters and the grounds within the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, but also the grounds of discrimination referred to in the Commonwealth Industrial Relations Act 1988 and relevant International Labour Organisation conventions and recommendations that Australia has ratified.

Chapter 2 - Employment

Chapter 2 deals with general employment matters. The chapter makes provision in particular with respect to awards, enterprise agreements, parental leave, part-time work, unfair dismissals, unfair contracts and payment of remuneration. The bill proceeds, in part, on the presumption that a system of appropriate and relevant minimum award conditions is the essential underpinning for the protection of the wages and conditions of working men and women. Part 1 of chapter 2 gives the commission comprehensive powers to make and vary awards setting fair and reasonable conditions of employment for employees, having regard to the objects of the bill.

It is the specific intent of the legislation that awards may continue to have common rule effect, and also to permit awards which are, for example, specific to particular industries, occupations and enterprises. Ordinarily, an award will apply for not less than one year and not more than three years, or for a period not exceeding the anticipated life of a project. Awards will continue to contain appropriate procedures for dealing with industrial disputes. The commission will have an expanded role in ensuring that awards are kept up to date, relevant and consistent with the objects of industrial and anti-discrimination legislation.

The principal areas that I wish to highlight in relation to awards are fourfold. First, in order to facilitate the resolution of disputes at the workplace, awards generally will be required to include dispute resolution procedures. The bill does not provide a mandatory set of inclusions for such procedures, because we believe that the parties and the commission are best placed to develop procedures that are relevant to the needs of a particular workplace or industry. For example, if the commission is satisfied that there is a parent award or other relevant award applicable to the unions and employers concerned, it will not be necessary to include a dispute resolution procedure in a single issue award. Second, awards ordinarily will have a term of between one to three years.

There are two general exceptions: first, there is special provision to allow awards to have a term equating to the anticipated life of a project, such as a construction project; and, second, the commission may make an interim award for less than one year if satisfied that special circumstances exist - a matter for
Page 3846
the commission to determine based on the facts of the particular case. Third, the variation of awards has proved to be one of the more controversial aspects of the 1991 Act and was a technical issue raised in many submissions considered by the working party. The bill accommodates the competing considerations of preserving the sanctity of within-term awards against extra claims, while also allowing latitude to vary awards where, for example, the commission considers that it is not contrary to the public interest and there is a substantial reason to do so.

Finally, the commission will be required to review each award at least once every three years with the principal purpose of ensuring that awards are kept contemporary and relevant. One priority issue that the Government trusts will be addressed in the award reviews is the reconsolidation of principal awards and the multiplicity of single-issue awards, popularly known among industrial practitioners as "splinter awards". I can foreshadow that the Government will be initiating proceedings before a full bench of the commission on the commencement of the legislation so that principles for award reviews may be determined. In accordance with our commitment to award modernisation, there is specific provision in the bill for the appointment of a designated deputy president to specialise in award reviews.

The award review is a necessary and timely feature of the New South Wales industrial relations reforms. At present, the New South Wales award system is in a generally lamentable state despite the best efforts of the commission and the industrial parties. There are approximately 1,500 major awards, this number having grown rapidly as a result of the splinter award phenomenon. It has reached the stage where the people who have expertise in enforcing awards and advising the public of their entitlements are unable to perform their functions adequately due to the plethora of splinter awards. Before leaving the topic of awards, I should mention the provisions concerning particular conditions of employment that must be provided in awards on application

The use of the word "must" in relation to these matters is conscious and deliberate because the following important areas are ones which the Government sees as representing necessary minima for all employees, namely, ordinary hours of employment; equal remuneration and other conditions for men and women doing work of equal or comparable value; employment protection provisions; provisions relevant to technical change; and minimum sick leave entitlements. Concerns have been raised that the application of these provisions may produce, as an undesirable result, splinter awards. This is not the intention of the legislation, because there is power both to vary awards, or to make a new award, where, for example, there was no previous coverage in relation to these matters. In view of these matters, we do not intend that splinter awards would result.

Two points of note emerge concerning these specific award conditions: first, the draft exposure bill provided an averaging formula for standard hours of 40 hours per week averaged over a 12-week period. In response to the submissions from many parties, the averaging period has been extended to 52 weeks for seasonal workers. This will enable the commission to provide appropriate arrangements in those industries and occupations which typically have peak operational periods. Second, concerns have been raised in some quarters concerning the provision that the commission must ensure equal remuneration and other conditions of employment and the broad nature of the legislative direction concerning the matters to be considered under the clause. The Government sees this clause as an important step in the direction of achieving pay equity; we intend making submissions in the pay equity test cases and other cases relating to equality of opportunity, to assist the commission to formulate a strong charter in this area.

Part 2 - Enterprise Agreements

The system for the registration of enterprise agreements under the 1991 Act has been much criticised by unions and employers alike; and the uptake of enterprise agreements in New South Wales has been slow, particularly in comparison with the situation federally. Under this bill, enterprise agreements will be able to be made as an alternative to award coverage for workplaces. The approval process for new agreements will be changed, and agreements will be available for projects on which a number of employers are engaged. Enterprise agreements may be made between employers and industrial organisations of employees and, where there is a secret ballot in which at least 65 per cent of the employees agree, directly between employees and their employer. Peak industrial organisations will be able to negotiate agreements on behalf of their member organisations in order to facilitate agreements for major projects.

Enterprise agreements will, subject to their terms, override inconsistent award provisions. Unlike the present situation, however, all agreements must be approved by the commission. An agreement will be approved if the commission is satisfied that the agreement complies with all relevant statutory requirements and the Anti-Discrimination Act; the agreement does not, on balance, provide a net detriment to the employees who are to be covered by the agreement when compared with the aggregate package of conditions of employment under relevant awards that would otherwise apply to the employees; the parties understand the effect of the agreement; and the parties did not enter the agreement under duress.

The commission is required to establish principles against which all agreements will be tested to determine whether they meet the approval requirements, and it is intended that the commission will also establish principles to be applied where the employees in question are award-free. Relevant organisations will be notified of proposed agreements made directly with employees and be given certain
Page 3847
rights to make submissions to the commission about whether they should be approved. Enterprise agreements will be examined as a package. In deference to the concerns raised in most employers' submissions, the bill does not adopt the Federal "no disadvantage" test. Instead, the principal test is the "no net detriment" test, which meets the twin goals of protection of minimum entitlements and flexibility.

In setting the principles concerning the approval of enterprise agreements, the commission will be required to have particular regard to the following matters: the objects of the proposed Act and the public interest; the relevant criteria for approval imposed by this part; the need for an appropriate process for approving agreements to be followed by the commission; the need for an appropriate process for ensuring sufficient information about the effect of the agreement is provided to employees who are to be covered by the agreement; and the need for an appropriate negotiating process for the agreement. A test case to establish principles concerning the approval of enterprise agreements will be referred to the commission as soon as practicable after the enactment of the legislation.

I foreshadow that some of the key features to be made in the Government's submissions in the enterprise agreements principles test case will be to ensure that: agreements have been entered without duress and are otherwise bona fide; agreements conform with principles relating to pay equity; agreements relate properly and in a bona fide fashion only to the parties who were properly intended to be covered; appropriate processes are formulated to ensure that sufficient information about the effect of the agreement is provided to employees and that the negotiating process is adequate; appropriate measures are determined concerning the averaging of hours of work so as to prevent exploitation; and there are appropriate mechanisms for the protection of industrially-disadvantaged groups, such as women, young people and workers from non-English speaking backgrounds.

I also anticipate that the regulations made under this legislation will put in place appropriate measures to enable the gathering of data about the profile of employees covered by enterprise agreements, such as gender information. The provisions relating to the termination of enterprise agreements have been altered to make it clear that the notice of intention to terminate an agreement may be given during the nominal term of the agreement, although the termination will take effect only after the agreement has reached its expiry date.

There are three notable aspects of agreements negotiated directly with employees. The first is the requirement that the employer is to advise the registrar of the following information, namely, that an enterprise agreement is proposed or under negotiation; and the awards or enterprise agreements that apply to the employees at the time the negotiations commenced. The second is the provision that the registrar is to advise such persons or bodies as are prescribed by the regulations, and such additional persons or bodies as the registrar considers appropriate, of the proposed enterprise agreement. The third is the ability of an industrial organisation, a State peak council or the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board to appear or be represented in the approval proceedings.

The Government believes that all three mechanisms are necessary to establish an effective regime for the approval of enterprise agreements. It is relevant to note that the bill does not carry forward a role for the Commissioner for Enterprise Agreements, who was previously involved in pre-registration procedures. In the circumstances, we consider that it is both necessary and appropriate to put in place alternative mechanisms to complement the new approval procedures. The regulations will provide that the registrar will be required to advise relevant organisations of the commencement of negotiations. Naturally, as with awards, it is quite appropriate that such organisations should have the opportunity to be heard in relation to an application where members or potential members are involved.

The regulations may also provide that State peak councils and the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board would be notified, thereby allowing an opportunity to be heard if there is a matter of significance emerging from the application. I make it clear that no party will have a "veto power" concerning enterprise agreements: it will be the commission, not a party or intervener, which determines whether the enterprise agreement should be approved. We consider that our proposals provide a modest and sensible system of checks and balances to replace the widely criticised bureaucratic system contained within the present Act. The provisions within an enterprise agreement are not intended to have flow-on potential to other employees. I emphasise the words "other employees" because the commission would, of course, be at liberty to take into account the wages and conditions set by an enterprise agreement if the employees concerned wished to revert to award coverage.

Part 3 - National and State Decisions

Part 3 of chapter 2 carries forward the provisions of the 1991 Act that enable the commission to consider and adopt general wage decisions and other decisions made by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and to make the necessary changes to State awards as a consequence of their adoption. The outmoded adult basic wage provisions, which specified a minimum rate of $120.40 a week, have not been carried forward in the body of the legislation. The relevance, if any, of these provisions related in the past decade only to the adjustment of certain allowances and the like.

In addition to the national decision provisions, the bill enables the commission to make a general statewide decision. In effect, the insertion of these new provisions merely confirms what happens at present in cases such as redundancy pay test cases. The commission's power to make general State
Page 3848
decisions is consistent with the specific principles making powers found elsewhere in the legislation, such as those relating to part-time work agreements and enterprise agreements. There has been a proposal put to the Government that enterprise agreements, like awards, should be varied automatically consequent upon the adoption of a national decision. However, the Government considers this to be inappropriate. If parties to an enterprise agreement wish to incorporate a clause specifying that wages and other matters should move in accordance with national or State decisions, then that is a matter properly left to them as a matter of negotiation.

Part 4 - Parental Leave

Chapter 2, part 4 of the bill carries forward the provisions of the 1991 Act that confers an entitlement to a maximum of 52 weeks' unpaid parental leave, that is, maternity, paternity and adoption leave. However, a number of changes have been made to simplify and improve the provisions. In particular, in the case of male employees, the consent of the employer will no longer be required for the continuation of paternity leave for more than one week at the time of confinement, or for the continuation of adoption leave after the first three weeks, in order to be the primary care giver to the child. The removal of that requirement is an important equity measure and will bring the State provisions into line with the minimum entitlements applicable under Federal laws.

We consider that the changes introduced to paternity leave are long overdue. Some five years ago, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, MLC, of the Australian Democrats, with the full support of the then Labor Opposition, moved amendments in the Legislative Council to an industrial relations bill which were designed to do no more than bring entitlements for male employees within the New South Wales jurisdiction into line with those available federally. Those amendments were opposed by the previous Government, and defeated. But this Government is strongly committed to addressing the needs of working parents, the elimination of workplace discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity.

This bill also modifies the notice requirements required to be given by employees who propose taking parental leave. Specifically, the 1991 Act requires written notification some 10 weeks before the proposed leave. The modification is to allow notice to be given orally or in writing. Strict notification requirements do not apply to the taking of any form of leave other than parental leave, and it seems appropriate that parental leave entitlements should be put on a more equal footing. There is a new requirement that an employer must keep, for at least six years, a record of parental leave granted to employees and all notices and documents given under this part by employees to the employer. This is consistent with record-keeping requirements concerning other forms of leave, time sheets, pay sheets, and so forth.

The last relevant matter of note under this part is the revision of the provisions concerning transfers to safe jobs, where the present work of a female employee is, because of her pregnancy or breastfeeding, a risk to the health or safety of the employee or of her unborn or newborn child. The recasting of this provision is designed to protect the mother and, quite properly and importantly, the child from exposure to avoidable risks. I should note also that the parental leave provisions should not be regarded as an exclusive code concerning parental leave-related issues. In particular, it is the legislative intention that matters such as transfers to safe jobs may properly be treated as an industrial matter capable of conciliation and arbitration pursuant to the dispute resolution powers in chapter 3.

Part 5 - Part-time Work

In chapter 2 part 5, it is proposed to, broadly speaking, carry forward to the new bill the provisions which allow an employee, with the agreement of an employer, to work on a part-time basis despite any provision of an award or agreement that limits or restricts the circumstances or terms upon which the part-time work may be performed. Under the 1991 Act, the availability of part-time work agreements was expanded massively without due regard to safeguards and proper supervision of what are, in effect, private arrangements which can displace minimum entitlements in awards and agreements. I have become increasingly concerned about the operation of part-time work agreements as continuing abuses and unconscionable agreements are brought to my attention. Accordingly, I have been convinced that the current provisions are deficient and open to abuse and that proper and sensible regulatory parameters must be set in place.

The reforms I am about to detail should be considered in the context of the operation of these agreements under the 1991 Act. As part of the review process, I have been informed of instances where part-time work agreements are operating in a manner which makes eminent sense. Regrettably, however, it has also been drawn to my attention that part-time work agreements are being used by some employers to avoid what otherwise would be legitimate award entitlements. For example, I have been advised about a part-time work agreement which requires the employee to work 37� hours per week, thereby avoiding an entitlement to a rostered day off which would otherwise accrue under the award to a full-time employee employed on a 38-hour week.

In other instances, part-time work agreements impose unconscionable burdens on the employees who are forced to accept employment on virtually any terms due to their comparatively weak bargaining position. Members of the working party have been advised of such instances, for example, where a person, living approximately 90 minutes from a major regional centre in this State, was working a 60-minute shift under the part-time work agreement, that being the only employment available. In a civilised and advanced society, these arrangements should not be
Page 3849
countenanced. Given these examples and others, there are sensible policy reasons why there should be minimum standards for people employed under part-time work agreements, such as minimum hours to be worked in a shift, the length of a break between split-shifts and a minimum number of hours to be worked in any week. Accordingly, the Government intends introducing the following measures.

First, the present requirement for part-time work agreements to be in writing will be continued, but there will be a new requirement to lodge a copy of such agreements with the registrar. I appreciate that there have been concerns raised by some employer groups to this measure as being an onerous imposition on business. Realistically, I cannot accept such a response. The legislation will impose a cost on employers of not more than the price of one page photocopied, and one postage stamp. The benefits accruing indirectly to employers have obviously been ignored. The lodgment process will provide a modest check on the contents of such agreements and will be an invaluable resource for employers and unions to identify the sorts of restrictions in awards which are being overridden by part-time work agreements. Such records will be of assistance to the parties and the commission in the award review process I outlined earlier.

Second, the commission will be empowered to establish principles governing the application of awards and enterprise agreements to part-time work agreements. This will allow the commission, after hearing arguments from the Government, unions and employers in test-case proceedings, to set relevant parameters for part-time work agreements. These parameters are not intended merely to reflect the existing standards in awards, but to establish a genuine base framework for the operation of part-time work agreements. Such standards are necessary to protect against the worst abuses of harsh and unconscionable part-time work agreements. Finally, the legislation has been clarified to ensure that the commission is empowered to deal with industrial disputes concerning part-time agreements in that the definition of industrial matters makes specific reference to part-time work agreements. This change will entitle the commission to deal with these disputes, including matters such as whether a part-time work agreement was made free from duress.

Part 6 - Unfair Dismissals

Chapter 2, part 6 of the bill re-enacts the provisions of the 1991 Act relating to unfair dismissals. The view of most parties is that the New South Wales system concerning unfair dismissal works reasonably well and requires only minimal legislative change to address certain technical issues. While the provisions are largely built on those in the 1991 Act, there are three principal changes in the bill. First, although the primacy of the remedies of reinstatement and re-employment will be retained, it will not be jurisdictionally fatal to a claim that the application is brought for compensation alone or does not specify the nature of the remedy sought. I refer by way of contrast to Leeds and Northrup v Hull (1992) 46 IR 11. Second, unions will be allowed to lodge a single application where the dismissal of two or more members is involved, thereby addressing a gap in the existing legislation.

Third, the commission will be required to accept out-of-time applications that had originally been lodged federally in certain limited circumstances: this change is to address findings by the Full Bench of the Industrial Court of Australia in Liddell v Lembke (1994) 56 IR 447 concerning time limits. It is intended that casual employees should continue to be able to make applications for relief by way of reinstatement and the other available remedies, consistent with the approach adopted in a number of cases that have been decided under the 1991 Act, particularly the case of Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club Limited v Taylor (1994) 56 IR 385.

Part 7 - Protection of Injured Employees

Chapter 2 part 7 carries forward the provisions of the 1991 Act which are designed to provide certain employment-security rights for persons who have suffered a work-related injury. The existing provisions have been the subject of some judicial criticism and the bill has been redrafted to state more clearly the powers of the commission in this area and to make some appropriate changes to assist injured workers. The bill now allows the commission the discretion to order back payments. This is an appropriate discretionary measure: dismissed injured workers, no less than unfair dismissal applicants, should not be disadvantaged financially and should be encouraged to return to work. There is no ability to order compensation in lieu of reinstatement: the policy objective is the reinstatement of injured workers.

The bill adopts a more flexible approach to the kind of employment to which an employee can be reinstated. This will facilitate the laudable aim of the return to work of injured employees - but will be balanced against employer interests as it must be employment which is available and for which the employee is fit. It is not intended that orders would be made for employment that is merely of a token nature and does not involve useful work having regard to the employer's operations; or employment that is demeaning in nature, having regard to the nature of the worker's incapacity, education, skills and work experience. It is intended that the meaning of "available" reflect the approach taken by the commission in Commonwealth Steel Company Limited v Ward, Unreported - Matter No. IRC 3144 of 1993. Before leaving the topic of injured workers, I should mention that it is intended that the references to "dismissal" in this part of the bill dealing with the protection of injured workers be capable of applying to instances of "constructive dismissal".

Part 8 - Protection of Entitlements on Transfer of Business

Part 8 re-enacts provisions of the 1991 Act that protect the entitlements of employees on a transfer of the employer's business with more streamlined and
Page 3850
comprehensible drafting. Perhaps the only matter of note in relation to this part is the definition of "industrial relations legislation". The New South Wales Annual Holidays Act 1944 has been excluded from the general definition because that Act contains its own mechanism concerning payment.

Part 9 - Unfair Contracts

Chapter 2 part 9 carries forward a revised version of section 275 of the 1991 Act, a section which makes special provision for the varying or setting-aside of contractual arrangements if a contract or collateral arrangement is found to be, for example, unfair, harsh, unconscionable or against the public interest. The effect of section 275 has been the subject of differing judicial approaches. The bill introduces some changes to give legislative direction broadly consistent with the comments about the scope of the section made by the Court of Appeal in Walker v Industrial Court of New South Wales and Anor. (1993) 53 IR 121. In general, the provisions have been redrafted in an attempt to give clearer legislative direction to effect the intended broad sweep of the jurisdiction.

Part 10 - Payment of Remuneration

In part 10 of chapter 2 the bill provides for the manner in which employees are to be remunerated for their work. Remuneration is to be paid in money or, with appropriate arrangements, by cheque or deposit in a financial institution. The bill also requires that particulars of remuneration are to be supplied to employees when they are paid and enables regulations to be made requiring employers to keep relevant records. In order to minimise the administrative burden on employers, these regulations will reflect the existing Federal requirements as closely as is reasonably practicable. This part also continues various other miscellaneous provisions of the 1991 Act, such as nomination of an alternative superannuation fund. The ability of an employee to nominate the fund into which the employer should pay superannuation contributions was introduced by the 1991 Act.

The Government is aware of some disquiet about these provisions. Although we consider that award-nominated industry funds would be the preferable choice for the great majority of employees, we are reluctant to remove the provisions because of, for example, the potential costs and inconvenience which might be involved in switching funds. The liability of principal contractors for remuneration payable to employees of subcontractors has been revised in accordance with certain recommendations in a report made by a tripartite committee formed to examine this difficult area. I anticipate that the new provisions will operate to better effect than the former section.

Chapter 3 - Industrial Disputes

I turn now to chapter 3 of the bill which deals with industrial disputation and industrial action. This legislation is being introduced at a time in the State jurisdiction where the level of industrial disputation is at an historically low level. Moreover, only a small percentage of industrial disputes actually result in industrial action - and these strikes are predominantly of a minor nature and short in duration. This pattern is unsurprising, given the reputation of the great majority of New South Wales employers and unions as moderate and responsible industrial players. Nevertheless, the best legislative framework to deal with industrial disputes must be able to handle, with appropriate flexibility, industrial disputes ranging from matters of statewide importance to those affecting perhaps only very small workplaces.

The principles underpinning the provisions of this bill which deal with industrial disputation and industrial action provide a simplified dispute notification and resolution process; an emphasis on conciliation at the first instance; a single, cost-effective process to deal with all questions of conciliation and arbitration, and enforcement, reversing the current tendency towards excessive litigation; and an effective system of sanctions for breach of agreements or awards, including the imposition of penalties as a last resort, to be entertained only after the processes of conciliation and arbitration have concluded. These provisions are a cornerstone of this area of the 1995 bill, delivering a coherent, non-legalistic and workable framework for the resolution of industrial disputes and industrial action.

The process is simple: if consultation at the workplace proves futile, employers and unions will be encouraged to use the expertise of the commission in the resolution of their differences, first by conciliation, and with arbitration available as required. At all stages throughout this process the parties will be held accountable for their conduct. To detail this process further, initially the commission must deal with all industrial disputes by conciliation. When attempting conciliation, the commission is empowered to do everything it considers proper to assist the parties to resolve the dispute, including arranging for compulsory conferences. Consistent with addressing concerns raised in the review process, the paper work needed to bring a dispute before the commission will be vastly simplified.

If the commission comes to the conclusion that conciliation will not result in a settlement of the dispute, a certificate of attempted conciliation may be issued. Obviously, in considering whether to issue a certificate of attempted conciliation, the commission will take account of a wide range of factors surrounding the dispute, such as the conduct of the parties and the likelihood of reaching agreement. The legislation recognises specifically that conciliation should occur in an environment where the parties may participate free from coercion. The bill therefore provides that the commission must specifically consider the effect that any industrial action in connection with the industrial dispute is having on the parties and the public generally. In particular, the commission must give urgent consideration to the effect of any industrial action in connection with a demarcation dispute.

Page 3851

The certificate of attempted conciliation will be of significance in another respect. The bill provides that a person may not bring or continue certain common law actions in tort arising from an industrial dispute while the commission is attempting to resolve the matter by conciliation, and has not yet issued the requisite certificate. The introduction of a temporary bar on tort action is necessary to underpin the emphasis on conciliation within the industrial relations system. This temporary bar does not restrict a party's right to seek damages subsequently: it is designed to encourage parties into conciliation at the first instance. The Government is determined to emphasise the role of conciliation in the resolution of industrial disputes.

I have explained earlier how the bill places an obligation on the commission to consider whether industrial action is affecting the chances of proper conciliation. Such a measure should bring comfort to employers who have submitted to conciliation of an industrial dispute. Equally, the "loaded gun" of substantial common law damages claims should not be held at unions and workers when they are participating in bona fide conciliation. The bill equips the commission with a wide range of powers to resolve industrial disputes.

It may use any or all of the following devices: continue conciliation; make recommendations or directions; make or vary awards; make dispute orders; and make any other kind of order it is authorised to make, including orders on an interim basis. It dispenses with the artificial and academic constraints of the "interests/rights" dichotomy, and truly focuses on ensuring the resolution of disputes in a prompt and fair manner with the minimum of legal technicality. The legislation recognises that an essential part of the powers which should be available to the commission to resolve disputes is the ability to direct the actions of the parties.

Under this bill, the commission may make the following kinds of dispute orders when dealing with an industrial dispute in arbitration proceedings: it may order a person to cease or refrain from taking industrial action; it may order a person to cease a secondary boycott imposed in connection with the industrial dispute; it may order an employer not to dismiss employees in the course of the industrial dispute if the employer has threatened to do so; and it may order an employer to reinstate or re-employ any one or more employees who were dismissed in the course of an industrial dispute or whose dismissal resulted in an industrial dispute, thus re-investing the commission with its useful pre-1991 Act jurisdiction in this regard.

The legislation provides the commission in court session with a suitable range of powers to deal with contraventions of dispute orders, including powers to impose financial penalties against industrial organisations or employers. It should be noted that the legislation has been drafted to ensure that while individual officials of industrial organisations and workers may be the subject of dispute orders, they cannot be the subject of fines for breach of a dispute order. In the case of officials of industrial organisations, the commission may apply the penalty against the organisation for whom the official is acting. In the case of individual workers other penalties, such as the suspension or modification of entitlements under an award or agreement, are more appropriate and equally sufficient deterrents.

Chapter 4 - Industrial Relations Commission

Part 1 - Establishment and Functions of Commission

Chapter 4 deals with the new commission, which will replace the existing Industrial Court and commission. Part 1 provides for the establishment of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales and sets out its general functions. The commission will occupy a central role in the regulation of industrial affairs in this State exercising, either as the commission or the commission in court session, the range of functions currently divided between the Industrial Court and commission. In accordance with our pre-election commitment and the weight of submissions from interested parties, the Industrial Court will be abolished and its functions integrated into the commission and the commission in court session. The Solicitor General has advised that the relevant provisions within the bill are in conformity with constitutional constraints.

Part 2 - Membership of Commission

Part 2 provides for the membership of the commission. It will consist of a president, a vice-president, deputy presidents and commissioners. The part also provides for the appointment of judges from among the presidential members to constitute the commission in court session. Schedule 4 to the bill provides that a person holding office as a judge of the former court is, by force of the proposed legislation, appointed as a judge of the new commission. Parallel provisions apply with respect to the offices held by presidential members and commissioners. The same rank, title, status, precedence, remuneration and other rights of all judges of the existing court and members of the commission will be retained by schedule 2 to the bill. However, the commissioners will no longer have the word "conciliation" in their titles, so as to more accurately reflect the range of functions they undertake.

Part 3 - The Commission in Court Session

Part 3 of chapter 4 concerns the commission in court session. The functions presently exercised by the Industrial Court will, in the main, be assumed by the judicial members of the "commission in court session". As I mentioned earlier, the bill provides that the existing judicial members - and future judicial appointees - will continue to carry the title of judge. The part provides that the judicial members of the commission, when sitting as the commission in court session, constitute a superior court of record. The commission in court session is given exclusive jurisdiction concerning matters such as criminal proceedings - including contempt - declaratory relief, unfair contracts, contravention of dispute orders, deregistration and other proceedings relating to industrial organisations and certain appeals.

Page 3852

Part 4 - Organisation of the Commission

Part 4 deals with the constitution of the commission in exercising its functions - either by a single member or the full bench of three or more members - the allocation of matters to specially-appointed members to deal with regional matters, general award reviews and discrimination in the workplace. Consistent with our commitment to award modernisation and the elimination of workplace discrimination, the legislation includes provisions for the president to appoint "designated deputy presidents" specialising in those two areas. The existing power to appoint members to deal with matters arising in designated regions will be carried forward. In the bill the authority to designate particular members resides with the president - rather than appointment by government regulation - to allow greater flexibility as the need arises.

Part 5 - Procedures and Powers of Commission

Part 5 deals with the procedures and powers of the commission in exercising its jurisdiction. In particular, the commission - when not in court session - is not bound by legal technicalities or the rules of evidence. The right of the Minister for Industrial Relations to initiate and intervene in proceedings is retained and, in certain circumstances, is extended to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board. The provisions relating to the commission's procedures, rules of evidence and legal formality are of note. The Government is concerned to ensure that the commission's proceedings are conducted with expedition and cost-effectiveness. Accordingly, there is a particular emphasis within these clauses and, indeed, within the objects of the bill, to encourage the treatment of proceedings before the commission with those goals in mind.

By design, the bill is not as prescriptive as the legislation it will replace. Instead, the commission will be given wide-ranging discretionary powers concerning its key functions and role in the regulation of industrial affairs. We consider that this is a preferable approach to that provided in the 1991 Act, and one which should ensure that the legislative framework remains flexible and responsive to changing industrial situations and fluctuations in the economic cycle. One example of this discretionary approach is the commission's broad-ranging powers to make an award, order or other decision subject to conditions. Likewise, in recognition of the fact that the majority of matters before the commission are settled by consent, the commission is empowered to give full legal effect to all such agreements. The clause dealing with finality of decisions is a bolstered version of the privative clause presently contained within the 1991 Act. The Government is of the view that where a specialist court or tribunal is established to deal with a particular area of the law, then that is the forum where the particular body of law ordinarily should be determined.

Part 6 - Rules of Commission

Part 6 of chapter 4 specifies the mechanisms for making the rules of the commission, namely, by a rule committee chaired by the president.

Part 7 - Appeals and References to Commission

Part 7 concerns appeals and references to the commission. The system of appeals under the 1991 Act has given rise to excessive and, oftentimes, unwarranted litigation. The provisions concerning appeals have been revised in a number of key respects with particular emphasis on avoiding such problems. Under these provisions, appeals may be made against any decision of the commission whether made as a result of contested proceeding or made by consent, and - subject to discretionary extension - are to be made within 21 days. Decisions made by industrial committees and the contract of carriage tribunal are to be treated as decisions of a single member of the commission for appeal purposes.

Judgments made by either the commission in court session constituted by a single judge or the Chief Industrial Magistrate will be heard by the full bench of the commission in court session. Decisions made by the industrial registrar will be appealable as of right to a presidential member of the commission and then, by leave, to the full bench. Appeals to the full bench may be made only by leave; and the bill ensures that stand-alone "leave to appeal" hearings may be heard separately from the overall merits of any appeal. Likewise, the bill specifically permits the full bench to delegate certain functions to a single member. These provisions have the aims of reducing any backlog in the hearing of appeals, and filtering out insubstantial or unmeritorious appeals.

The nature of an appeal must ultimately depend on the statute under which the appeal is authorised. As the proper construction of the appeal provisions in the 1991 Act has been the subject of differing interpretations, it is the Government's intention to resolve the legislative ambiguity concerning appeal principles. The appeal provisions within the bill have been redrafted to provide clear legislative direction concerning the principles to be applied by full benches when considering appeals against discretionary decisions of single members. The approach adopted by the High Court of Australia in judgments such as Mace v Murray - (1958) 92 CLR 370 - and House v The King - (1936) 55 CLR 499 - commends itself as the appropriate principle to apply in appeals against decisions involving an exercise of discretion, which we would regard as including decisions concerning wages and conditions of employment, and unfair dismissals.

The approach endorsed in the bill is that an appellate bench is not justified in interfering with the decision at first instance, except in limited circumstances where the appellate bench reaches a clear conclusion that, by reason of some error, whether of fact or law, the primary tribunal not only has taken a view different from that which the members of the appeal tribunal would have taken, but has failed to exercise properly the discretion committed to it. These appeal principles are intended to apply even in the comparatively isolated circumstances where additional evidence is received by the appellate bench: there is no intention to have
Page 3853
two types of appeals and differing approaches to the nature of the appeal principles depending on whether additional matters are adduced. Last, unless such an approach was otherwise inconsistent with an express statutory provision, it is intended that the general appeal principles I have outlined should also apply to decisions made by the Chief Industrial Magistrate.

Part 8 - Industrial Committees

The 1991 Act has a repetitious framework concerning "conciliation committees" and "contract regulation committees". These provisions have been melded in part 8 of chapter 4 and the two bodies have been generically renamed as "industrial committees". The functions of such committees otherwise remain unchanged from the 1991 Act.

Part 9 - Cooperation between State and Federal Tribunals

Part 9 carries forward the provisions of the 1991 Act which facilitate cooperation between State and Federal tribunals, including joint appointments.

Part 10 - Industrial Registrar

The final part of chapter 4, namely part 10, deals with matters such as the appointment of the industrial registrar and related matters. While on the topic of the registry, I should mention that, as a corollary to the abolition of the Industrial Court, the two registries serving the existing Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Court will be integrated. It is proposed that the responsibility for the registry functions will be assumed by the Attorney General's portfolio.

Chapter 5 - Industrial Organisations

Part 1 - Principles of Association

The Government is committed to recognising the right of a person to be a union member, while enshrining the principle of freedom of association in this legislation. Equally, the Government is committed to enshrining adequate and workable protection from victimisation by an employer or industrial organisation on a range of grounds, including: that the worker is or was a member or an official of an industrial organisation of employees or otherwise an elected representative of employees; or does not belong to an industrial organisation of employees, or holds a certificate of conscientious objection to becoming a member of such an industrial organisation; or claims a benefit to which the person is entitled under the industrial relations legislation or an industrial instrument; or informs any person of an alleged breach of the industrial relations legislation or of an industrial instrument.

The criminal flavour of the victimisation provisions contained in the 1991 Act has proved to be unworkable. I am advised there has been no successful prosecution of a claim for victimisation under the present legislation, and applications for remedies have been rare. Accordingly, the new provisions are designed to provide a system of appropriate safeguards, which is intended to be read broadly to give effect to the legislative intention of protection against victimisation, rather than being narrowly construed on the basis of technicalities.

The new provisions alter the standard of proof required to establish victimisation to the civil standard and empower the commission to award a broad range of remedies designed to restore the employee to a position equivalent to that he or she would be in if the victimisation had not occurred. This bill enables preference clauses to be inserted in awards with the consent of the parties or in enterprise agreements, which, of course, can be made only with the agreement of the parties involved. Such clauses apply only at the point of recruitment and cannot apply to give a prospective employee preference over another prospective employee who has greater merit. The bill explicitly provides that, for the purposes of the preference provisions, a union member includes a person who has applied to become a member. The bill also enables the holder of a certificate of conscientious objection to be granted status equivalent to a member of a union.

This framework is a moderate outcome which should be accepted by all industrial parties. Some within the industrial relations community have either advocated or criticised legislative recognition of preference arrangements. Despite the provision in the 1991 Act voiding all preference arrangements, the industrial reality is that preference arrangements have continued to exist informally in certain industries, as they are a matter of long-standing practice and desired by the parties. The provisions contained in this legislation will formally recognise those preference arrangements, thereby giving the parties statutory options to make the operation of the arrangements transparent and legitimate.

Part 2 - State Peak Councils

Chapter 5 part 2 of the bill carries forward the provisions recognising those organisations which play a major role in New South Wales industrial relations. The Labor Council of New South Wales is identified as the State peak council for employees. The bill also empowers the commission to approve an organisation that has a significant number of member employer associations operating primarily in New South Wales as a State peak council of employers.

Parts 3 to 5 - Registration and Regulation of Industrial Organisations

I now wish to turn to the issue of registration and administration of industrial organisations. The system for registration and regulation of industrial organisations - both unions and employer organisations - has been revamped and improved under this legislation. The laws as they stand presently are considered throughout the industrial relations community in New South Wales to be one of the more unworkable aspects of the 1991 legislation. The concerns expressed about the 1991 legislation have been of a technical and administrative nature - they are raised by practitioners and not ideologues.

Page 3854

This bill addresses these problems and delivers a registration process which is far more accessible, written with greater clarity and, wherever possible, shortened in content. This bill will allow, for the first time, three types of registration of industrial organisations. Organisations of employers or employees formed for the purpose of incorporation under the bill will be called State organisations. Federally registered bodies will be entitled to seek non-corporate registration in the New South Wales industrial relations system. In the case of federally registered organisations of employees, this will be subject to the consent of all counterpart or parallel State organisations. Industrial organisations of employers which are incorporated under other legislation, such as the corporations law, will also be entitled to seek non-corporate registration, subject to meeting the requirements of the legislation.

Industrial organisations of employees or employers registered or recognised under the 1991 Act are guaranteed registration under this bill. If the rules of such an organisation do not comply with the requirements of this bill at the end of a two-year period of grace, the Industrial Registrar may alter the rules of the organisation so that they comply with the relevant requirements. These reforms are essential to ensure that all significant bodies which currently appear before the State Commission retain this access and that the New South Wales system of registration encourages compliance with a sensible and appropriate regulatory scheme.

The provisions relating to the regulation of industrial organisations have received close attention from the Government in preparing this new legislation. The legislation provides a modern and understandable series of provisions to regulate the entitlements accruing to members of industrial organisations, the duties and liabilities of officers of such organisations, the grounds for disqualification from office, the records, accounting and audit requirements and the provisions for validating actions done by industrial organisations.

The provisions also enable the regulation of elections and amalgamations in a manner which may be consistent with the provisions of the Federal legislation, thereby ensuring greater comity between the two systems. This comity will be further assisted by allowing the Industrial Registrar to allow the rules of a State organisation to provide that persons elected to offices in a State branch of a Federal organisation are taken to be validly elected to the corresponding offices in the State organisation where the membership of the two organisations is identical or substantially similar. This provision should be interpreted broadly, so as to ensure that organisations are not put to the cost of unnecessary elections just because of minor disparities in coverage.

The principal bill provides that an industrial organisation or, with the leave of the commission, an interested person may apply to the commission for the cancellation of the registration of an industrial organisation. The leave requirement is there for the specific purpose of filtering out applications by individuals which are without real substance or significance, which appear frivolous or vexatious or where there are other reasons why leave should not be granted. I also wish to draw attention to the grounds on which registration may be cancelled. The bill provides that the registration of an organisation may be cancelled if, among other grounds, the organisation contravened orders of the commission or engaged in industrial action impacting on certain services. It is the legislative intention that these provisions should be reserved for use only where serious breaches or repeated breaches are involved.

Part 7 - Entry and Inspection by Officers of Industrial Organisations

Part 7 of chapter 5 carries over the existing provisions relating to right of entry for union officers, with some changes. Authorities for union officers to enter premises will continue to be issued by the registrar. Entry for the purposes of talking with or interviewing employees will continue to be able to be made without notice in any lunch or non-working time. In addition to the existing right for union officers to enter premises where members are engaged, authorised union officers will also be able to enter premises for these purposes where persons eligible to be members are engaged. This extension will particularly assist employees to have access to information and advice in relation to enterprise bargaining and general industrial matters.

In respect of entering premises of an employer for the purposes of investigating suspected breaches of the industrial relations legislation or an industrial instrument, the present requirement to provide seven days notice to the employer will be replaced by a requirement to give 24 hours notice. This notice period is more in line with those required in other States and federally. The powers to investigate breaches of legislation have also been widened to include suspected breaches of all the industrial relations legislation, such as the Annual Holidays Act and the Long Service Leave Act 1955, New South Wales.

These new provisions grant unions a reasonable right of access to the workplace to allow them to perform the role assigned to them under the legislation. The role of unions in overseeing industrial standards and redressing exploitation is an important feature of the Australian industrial landscape. I should also indicate that throughout the review process, unions and other concerned groups advocated a role for the entry and inspection powers under this legislation to investigate occupational health and safety issues. At this stage, the Government does not intend to widen the scope for entry and inspection under this legislation to cover possible breaches of occupational health and safety legislation. Nevertheless, the Government is considering this issue as part of its ongoing reform of the laws governing workplaces in New South Wales.

Page 3855

Chapter 6 - Public Vehicles and Carriers

Part 1 - Application and Definitions

Chapter 6 of the bill carries forward, with some variations and streamlining, the provisions of the 1991 Act that apply a modified industrial relations system for drivers of public vehicles and carriers of goods by vehicle who are engaged under contracts of bailment and contracts of carriage, rather than employment contracts. Part 1 provides definitions of a "contract of bailment" in the case of public vehicles and of a "contract of carriage" in the case of carriers of goods. The equivalent provisions in the 1991 Act apply to courier work undertaken in motor vehicles. The bill extends coverage of the chapter to bicycles to address a lacuna in the existing regulatory framework concerning courier work undertaken with that mode of transport. Although a number of the provisions in the revised chapter 6 of the bill incorporate words or phrases used in other parts of the bill in relation to employees, it is, nonetheless, the legislative intention to retain the chapter as a discrete system of regulation. The nature of contractual relations governed by this chapter, although analogous in some respects, is not the same - and is not intended to be treated in the same way - as employment relationships.

Part 2 - Contract Determinations

Part 2 confers functions on the commission relating to determination of conditions of contracts to which the chapter applies. The commission's functions under the part include the holding of inquiries into various matters arising under contracts of bailment of public vehicles and of carriage of goods, and the holding of conferences prior to the making of contract determinations. The part carries forward and clarifies the existing provisions for ordering reinstatement of contracts of bailment and carriage that have terminated. The jurisdiction of the commission to make a contract determination with respect to the reinstatement of a contract of carriage that has terminated was confirmed by the Industrial Relations Commission in fairly recent cases. Similarly, the jurisdiction to make certain monetary orders in the nature of back pay, as a collateral power "with respect to" reinstatement, was confirmed by the industrial court. The legislative intention is to adopt and confirm the approach taken in these cases. Moreover, as a logical corollary to the recent developments in this area of the law, the Government considers that it is appropriate to clothe the commission with greater discretionary jurisdiction akin to that exercisable in relation to dismissed employees.

Presently, the jurisdiction of the commission concerning contracts that have terminated appears to be limited only to reinstatement and back payments. Under the bill, the commission will be given the latitude to order re-engagement as an alternative to the remedy of reinstatement. Orders under the revised provisions may be made on such terms and conditions as the commission thinks fit, including provision for any period after the termination of the engagement to be treated as a period of engagement under the relevant contract or contracts. Although persons who are engaged under contracts of bailment and carriage are customarily engaged or remunerated on a basis which is referable - for example, to discrete shifts, loads, individual payments and so forth - it is nonetheless also the case that contract determinations commonly provide certain benefits in the nature of service-related payments and other entitlements such as, in some cases, superannuation.

Accordingly, a contract determination of reinstatement may be made with a component styled on the "continuity of service" provisions available in relation to dismissed employees. If the commission considers that it would be impracticable to make a contract determination with respect to reinstatement or re-engagement, there is provision to order an amount of compensation not exceeding the amount of remuneration under the relevant contracts during the period of six months immediately before the contract terminated. As with orders for compensation to employees who have been found to have been dismissed harshly, unreasonably or unjustly, the commission is required, when assessing any compensation payable, to take into account whether the driver or carrier made a reasonable attempt to find alternative engagements and the remuneration received in alternative engagements, or that would have been payable had alternative engagements been obtained.

Part 3 - Contract Agreements

Part 3 permits associations of employing contractors, bailors of public vehicles or principal contractors to enter an agreement with associations of contract drivers or associations of contract carriers relating to contract conditions and provides for such agreements to be approved by the commission. Under section 675 of the 1991 Act, agreements may be registered to govern the pay and conditions of persons whose engagement would otherwise be governed by contract determinations. These agreements are not examined by the commission, or any other disinterested person for that matter. In a change under this bill which is significant, any future agreements of this kind - including enterprise arrangements - will be approved by the commission. This is consistent with the approach taken in relation to enterprise agreements for employees.

It is important to provide a mechanism to ensure that the agreements are non-discriminatory and do not provide a net detriment to the drivers or carriers concerned; and that the parties understand the effect of the agreement, and did not enter it under duress. Presently, some contract determinations provide internal mechanisms for making enterprise arrangements which may be ratified by the commission. Under the bill a provision of a contract determination which authorises the parties to enter enterprise arrangements or other similar agreements on any matter covered by the determination or a contract to which the determination relates has no effect. This provision has been inserted in the bill to ensure that the regulation of engagements under the chapter is either by contract determination or by
Page 3856
contract agreement: there is no good reason to retain a third avenue for making applications for enterprise arrangements before the commission which are subject to approval criteria which differ from the general statutory scheme.

Part 4 - Dispute Resolution

Part 4 carries forward, unchanged from the 1991 Act, provisions for compulsory conferences about disputes relating to contracts and related matters.

Part 5 - Associations of Employing Contractors, Drivers and Carriers

Part 5 carries forward the provisions of the 1991 Act concerning associations of contractors, drivers and carriers, and matters related to registration including objections to and cancellation of registration.

Part 6 - Applied Provisions

As part of the streamlining of the bill, part 6 uses the mechanism of "applying" certain provisions concerning employees to chapter 6, where they are of common or broadly common application. The matters include the prohibition on strike pay, the principles of association, powers of entry by officers of organisations and enforcement of penalties.

Part 7 - Compensation for Termination of Certain Contracts of Carriage

Part 7 continues the provisions enacted by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Contracts of Carriage) Amendment Act 1994 for the determination of claims by a specially constituted tribunal - namely, the Contract of Carriage Tribunal - about compensation to carriers if their contracts are terminated after they paid money as "goodwill". The only change to the part of any relevant note is the application to the tribunal of general provisions otherwise having effect with respect to the commission under the bill. These include matters such as general procedure, and appeal mechanisms and principles. A decision made by the tribunal - whether constituted by a presidential member sitting alone, or with the part-time industry representatives - is treated as a decision of a single member of the commission for all relevant purposes. As with decisions made by industrial committees, appeals from tribunal decisions will lie to the full bench of the commission. To avoid any doubt, appeals from tribunal decisions are not intended under the bill to be made to the commission in court session.

Chapter 7 - Enforcement

Chapter 7 of the bill establishes an effective system for the enforcement of entitlements and obligations under the industrial relations legislation and industrial instruments. The existing system has proven to be largely ineffectual as a result of the current legislation's structure, as well as the previous Government's concerted attempts to downgrade the essential compliance functions of the Department of Industrial Relations.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. D. J. Gay) left the chair at 7.10 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30 p.m.]

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [8.30]: I shall now continue with the second reading speech on the Industrial Relations Bill and the Employment Agents Bill.

Part 1 - Breach of Industrial Instruments

Part 1 of chapter 7 deals with the breach of awards and other industrial instruments. It provides a civil penalty carrying a maximum fine of $10,000 which may be imposed by the commission in court session or a Local Court constituted by an industrial magistrate. The breach of an award or enterprise agreement is presently a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of $5,000. The new provision will remove the criminal nature of non-compliance proceedings and the civil standard of proof will facilitate enforcement.

Part 2 - Recovery of Remuneration and Other Amounts

Part 2 continues the provisions of the 1991 Act for the recovery of remuneration by employees before the commission in court session or an industrial magistrate. The small claims procedure is retained for recovery proceedings. Moreover, provisions based on section 25AA of the 1940 Act relating to the use of the small claims procedure by the commission, whether or not in court session, have been restored, thereby reinvesting the commission with its useful pre-1991 Act jurisdiction in this regard. In the working party, some concerns were raised about the use of the former section 25AA without, for example, adequate notice. To address this concern, the bill provides specifically that the commission must not deal with the matter until the party against whom the order is sought is given adequate prior notice of the application and an opportunity to be heard. Should any further issues arise concerning the operation of the provisions, they can be dealt with in the rules or regulations.

Part 3 - Industrial Magistrates

Part 3 continues the provisions for the appointment and jurisdiction of the Chief Industrial Magistrate and other industrial magistrates.

Part 4 - Inspectors and their Powers

Part 4 provides for the appointment and powers of inspectors for the purposes of the enforcement of the industrial relations legislation and industrial instruments. The powers are extended so as to enable their use in routine investigations, thereby addressing a shortfall in the existing legislation.

Anti-discrimination Matters, et cetera

Before turning to other matters, I wish to outline an important element of the Government's industrial relations reform package which pervades this legislation. I refer to the range of measures designed to promote equality of opportunity at the workplace, namely, that the objects of the bill have been bolstered so as to address specifically anti-discrimination and pay equity; the definition of industrial matters includes an expansive reference to discrimination; the commission is empowered, on its own initiative or on
Page 3857
application, to review and rectify issues concerning pay equity and discrimination in industrial instruments; the President of the Industrial Relations Commission must appoint one or more designated deputy presidents to specialise in matters relating to anti-discrimination and pay equity; the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board is given broad-ranging rights of appearance in proceedings before the commission involving anti-discrimination matters; and the existing parental leave provisions have been revised to remove the requirement for employer consent for extended paternity leave and adoption leave for males.

More generally, the commission is required to take into account the principles contained in the Anti-Discrimination Act, which includes, when dealing with matters relating to employment in the New South Wales public sector, part 9A relating to promoting equal employment opportunity for designated groups. I wish to emphasise it is the legislative intention that the anti-discrimination principles would apply across the range of functions exercised by the commission - whether this related to a somewhat obvious area such as family leave test cases or less immediately obvious areas such as unfair contracts litigation. The bill represents a significant change from the 1991 Act - which had more narrowly cast equal employment opportunity provisions. The reforms proposed in the bill go much further than the 1991 Act: from imposing an obligation merely to take account of anti-discrimination principles to incorporating such principles into the fabric of the legislation and the functions of the commission. I now turn to outline the more significant provisions contained in the schedules to the bill.

Schedule 2 - Provisions Relating to Members of Commission

Schedule 2 contains provisions relating to members of the commission. It provides that each judicial member of the commission has the same rank, title, status, precedence and, subject to special arrangements concerning the president and vice-president, remuneration, and other rights as a judge of the Supreme Court. Such members are entitled, in particular, to be called a judge and to use the title of justice. Further, the schedule provides specifically that a member of the commission who is not a judicial member has the same protection and immunities as judicial members. This addresses an apparent oversight in the 1991 Act.

Schedule 4 - Savings, Transitional and Other Provisions

Part 4 of schedule 4 abolishes the Industrial Relations Commission and Industrial Court established by the 1991 Act. The persons who held offices under the 1991 Act are, by force of the legislation, appointed automatically to positions of equivalence under the new Act. All relevant rights and entitlements are preserved, such as titles, remuneration, service, and so forth. The Government will be recommending to the Governor that replacement commissions be issued to members. To guard against any unforeseen impediment or delay, the bill provides further that the appointment is effective whether or not such a commission is issued.

One important aspect of part 2 of schedule 4 is the treatment of proceedings which are, on the enactment of the new legislation, pending under the 1991 Act. The wording follows, as closely as is reasonably practicable, the wording of the equivalent transitional arrangement under the 1991 Act. Although the general wording of the equivalent provision under the 1991 Act was the subject of criticism for its obscurity, the words and phrases such as "instituted" and "hearing of the matter had not been commenced" and "had not determined", have now been interpreted by the commission and industrial court in a number of cases and the meaning of the provisions are settled. Another important aspect of the schedule is the treatment of appeals made under the 1991 Act. The nature of the appeal in relation to discretionary decisions made, or - in the case of decisions, for example, of industrial committees and the Contract of Carriage Tribunal - taken to be made by the commission, is outlined. It is intended that all such appeals that have not been decided should now be determined in accordance with the principles as to the nature of appeals.

Schedule 4 contains various clauses of a saving and transitional nature in relation to awards, enterprise agreements and former industrial agreements. All enterprise agreements that already have been registered under the 1991 Act will continue in force until terminated in accordance with the provisions in the bill. All enterprise agreements that have been lodged for registration under the 1991 Act and not registered immediately before the repeal of that Act will be dealt with as if lodged for approval under the new legislation. The same will apply to any future variations to existing enterprise agreements. We consider this to be an appropriate measure as a matter of policy intent. Moreover, it is the only practicable mechanism given that the administrative superstructure in the 1991 Act involving, among other things, the role of the Commissioner for Enterprise Agreements will no longer exist.

Schedule 4, part 8, deals with assorted matters such as the construction of superseded references and the preservation of orders made, or taken to be made, under the 1991 Act. There is a general "catch-all" which provides a saving concerning things done or commenced under the 1991 Act. The general saving is complemented by the general common law presumption against retrospectivity and the effect of section 30 of the New South Wales Interpretation Act 1987. One of the principal purposes of the transitional provisions in the bill is to facilitate the transfer of proceedings from jurisdiction under the repealed 1991 Act to the new legislation - and it is intended that the transitional provisions should be construed so as not to bar or fetter proceedings if another and more reasonable construction is available. Having detailed the important elements of the Government's industrial relations reform package, I wish to briefly detail the community's response. In
Page 3858
this regard, I should like to read extracts from an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 November which summarise the effect of the approach to developing industrial laws in the way adopted by this Government. The article, titled "A victory for consultation", was written by the executive director of the Motor Traders Association of New South Wales. The article states:

The proposed new State industrial laws represent the culmination of a process of consultation with stakeholder groups that illustrates how legislation should be developed.
How farcical - how absolutely ridiculous - it is for the Opposition to suggest that there has been some failure in respect of consultation. The Motor Traders Association, a responsible employer body, said that the proposed new State industrial laws represent the culmination of a process of consultation with stakeholder groups that illustrates how legislation should be developed. The Opposition should resist the desire to argue the unarguable. It should resist that absurd proposition. If the Opposition is to retain any credibility, it should try to argue only those propositions that are tenable, that have some logical force, that can be put without people laughing.

Frankly, thus far the performance of the Opposition in this industrial debate has been lamentable. Its attitude has been extremist - employers and industry would regard it as ludicrous that the Opposition would consider its opposition to the law as something to be fought out by way of guerilla warfare or trench warfare. In the real world this package is seen as balanced and reasonable. It is seen as containing appropriate compromises. It is seen very much as the product of ongoing and extensive discussion, debate and consultation. I quote further the Executive Director of the Motor Traders Association of New South Wales:

This is not to say that employer groups such as the Motor Traders' Association of New South Wales are totally in favour of the outcomes detailed in the proposed industrial relations bill.
I accept that entirely. People who look at this bill might have a different view - they might think that clause X or clause Y ought to be varied. I have never purported to suggest that employers were wedded clause by clause to this bill. I have said that it is a reasonable balance, that it strikes a reasonable compromise. Not every employer in the State would agree with that, but it is certainly not the subject of strenuous opposition. Honest members of the Opposition - people who think about it seriously - know that. They appreciate that because when they speak to their acquaintances and their supporters in the employer ranks they know that this is not the subject of any vehement, strong or principled opposition. The Executive Director of the Motor Traders Association continued:

Although we acknowledge that the majority of its contents were pronounced well before the election that brought the Carr Government to power.

Importantly, the legislation indicates a willingness on the part of Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations, Jeff Shaw QC, to give impartial consideration to the viewpoints of both employers and unions in matters of critical importance to both groups. Before and following the New South Wales election, we met with Mr Shaw to express our position as the representative of the proprietors of more than 6,500 members and affiliated businesses across the State . . . Mr Shaw listened to our representations and we believe the draft legislation reflects a number of our concerns.
That is eloquent testimony to the process - a reasonable and decent process - that has led to this package. The Opposition fails to acknowledge both the validity of the process and the legitimacy of the outcome. It ought to acknowledge that. It ought to stand back and look at this legislation. The Opposition would see that the bill has widespread support in the community and among the industrial relations players who are concerned with workplace reform and equity in New South Wales. The remarks of the Executive Director of the Motor Traders Association prompt me to point out one argument: that of mandate. Before the election the Labor Party spelt out, point by point, what it intended to do in relation to industrial relations. It did not hide the agenda, nor did it attempt to. The Labor Party set the agenda and put it out in writing.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: You have changed it since.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: We have not. The Labor Party put out its agenda, point by point. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should tell me where the Government has changed its policy. The Government has not changed its policy; it put it out, point by point, in this bill. We raised the issue during the election campaign. To the extent that the then Minister wanted to debate it, we debated it in the media and in every forum available to us. We were candid. The Labor Party was elected with this mandate to introduce industrial relations reform in the context of a vacuum - there was an industrial relations framework that lacked broad support and consensual support. The practitioners and those concerned with it in a technical sense regarded it as pretty flawed legislation. They thought it was not working, that it was pretty hopeless. That was the general view around the town and around the State. It made it hard for the coalition to hold up its head and say - as it attempted to do - that it had achieved some magnificent victory in industrial relations. If the Liberals think that the 1991 Act was a victory, I wish them many more victories of that kind because, frankly, it was a failure and a dismal failure at that. The Government's commitment to consultation has led to balanced policy outcomes. For instance, in relation to the vexed issue of preference arrangements for unionists, the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of 1 November 1995, at page 16, had this to say:

It is not surprising that employer groups have responded calmly to the New South Wales Government's decision on legislation to provide for preference to union members in employment. This is because Labor has not departed from its election promise. It has not sought to legislate for compulsory unionism. And its policy pledge to permit the Industrial Relations Commission to provide 'methods of encouraging membership of trade unions' turns out to be very qualified preference to unionists.
Page 3859

. . . This raises the question of whether the union movement will push for an absolute preference to unionists provision which would require an employer to engage a union member who holds suitable qualifications ahead of a non-union member. But the Government has apparently consulted widely with the union movement over the legislation and the Secretary of the New South Wales Labor Council, Mr Sams, has said he approves of the legislation `on balance'.
Balance is what this legislation aims to achieve. The Government considers that this bill has achieved a balance which, as a package, is broadly acceptable to all parties involved in industrial relations. I will say, however, that the introduction of the bill does not preclude further discussions or amendment, if appropriate. Accordingly, I welcome submissions from industrial organisations and employers concerning this legislation.

I now turn to the Employment Agents Bill 1995, which is cognate with the Industrial Relations Bill 1995. The object of the bill is to enact, as separate legislation, the provisions of chapter 7 of the 1991 Act relating to the regulation of private employment agents as a consequence of the repeal of that Act by the proposed Industrial Relations Bill. Throughout the review process of the 1991 Act the Government has received only a small number of submissions relating to the licensing and regulation of private employment agencies. The provisions of the Employment Agents Bill carry forward the provisions of the existing legislation without significant modification. I commend the bills to the House.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.56]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until five calendar days ahead.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.51]: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "five calendar days ahead" and inserting instead "Tuesday, 12 December 1995".
I have moved the amendment to allow further consultation on the bill now that copies are available. Some individuals and groups thought that their concerns would be reflected in the final bill, and they are not. There is nothing to stop the Government bringing the bill on for debate on 4 December if the House is happy to proceed with it at that time. It will be up to the Government to convince the House that the time is right to proceed with the bill. The adjournment until 12 December will provide an opportunity for consultation.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [8.52]: The Government cannot support the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I appreciate that the bill involves difficult and detailed matters but the issues have been out in the public domain for a long time and been subject to reasonable debate. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile says that the Government could bring the debate on earlier than the date in his amendment, and I accept that. However, I suggest that debate on the bill take the ordinary course. Then, if the majority of honourable members feel the need at some stage during the second reading debate, they can move to adjourn debate. There is nothing so exceptional in the bill as to justify the unusual course of the House fixing adjournment of the debate until a date later than the date on which it would ordinarily come back before the House.

I appeal to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to consider whether it might not be a more sensible and proper course simply to allow debate to be adjourned for five clear days as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, the Government does not oppose that; it is the usual motion. The debate can then go forward and the House can hear the Leader of the Opposition on the bill. I am sure that he will be prepared to speak on it when the House resumes. He has been provided with the bill in a timely way. He has had it for quite some time now. I am sure he would not suggest that he is incapable of assimilating the contents of the bill and dealing with them in the time involved. Then, if further time is required by the crossbenchers, let us address that when and if it arises. Let us not at this stage make a pre-emptive decision to adjourn debate until a fixed date later than the normal procedural position.

The real difficulty I have with the honourable member's amendment is that it raises the prospect of the bill not being dealt with this year. I am sure the Opposition would love that. That is what it is really seeking to achieve. I find it difficult to accept that crossbenchers would want the bill thwarted in view of the Government's mandate and the process it has gone through on the bill. It might be what the Liberals want but I do not think crossbenchers would accept that proposition. I would urge the House, with the greatest respect to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile - I do not query his bona fides in moving the amendment - to vote against the amendment and to allow the bill to be treated in the ordinary way. Debate should be adjourned for five clear days. If members need more time they can talk to us about it and request that. Obviously if a majority of members form the view during the second reading debate that more time is needed, a motion providing for this may be moved, debated and dealt with at that stage. Is that not a more sensible position? If members want more time during the second reading debate let us deal with it then, but let us keep the bill going forward in the ordinary way. There is no special or particular reason to adjourn the debate to a date later than when it would ordinarily come back before the House.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.56]: I have no difficulty in accepting the amendment. As the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations suggested, I will be in a position to debate the bill in five clear days but I have to acknowledge that I have had time to prepare in relation to the matter. I do not know whether the crossbenchers have had the same opportunities that I have had. No doubt they have been confronted with the same sorts of comments that I have received already tonight. So much for the Government's consultation! Organisations that had consulted and felt
Page 3860
that they had assurances that the bill would be amended in accordance with their views, upon reading the bill have found that not a single proposed amendment has been included. That has been expressed within hours of the bill being introduced. One wonders how many organisations believe that the amendments they proposed have been accepted when this is not the case. One wonders to what extent there has been misleading by the Minister's office or by other offices in relation to such expectations. No doubt the crossbenchers will want the opportunity to have consultations on the bill in the hope that there can be reasonable and appropriate debate on the matter.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

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

Noes, 19

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

Pair

Miss Gardiner Mr O'Grady

Resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

CHILDREN (CARE AND PROTECTION)
AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [9.07]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.
In size this is a small bill but it deals with a big issue, our children's safety. It is a highly complex and emotional issue - the deaths of children due to abuse and neglect by their carers and regrettably in some cases abuse and neglect by the systems put in place by the community for the protection and care of children. I am pleased that in the first months of this Labor Government I can bring forward this bill, a first for Australia. The Labor Government believes that this legislation, if passed by Parliament, will undoubtedly improve the wellbeing of children in New South Wales. Any thinking member of this House will agree that the needs of our children can easily be neglected. By their very nature children are amongst the most vulnerable members of society. Nothing illustrates this fact more graphically than the images of children betrayed by their carers and the systems to which they are entrusted, in some cases, battered almost beyond recognition.

The number of cases may be small in the totality of all children being cared for at any one time, but the impact of these cases far outweighs their numbers. The recently released Child Protection Council report "Preventing Child Homicide" recommended the establishment of an effective and ongoing child death review process to monitor all child deaths in New South Wales. This is seen as a vital step to improving the professional response when a child death occurs and to prevent child deaths in the future. Primarily the purpose of the bill is to establish a review mechanism to examine all deaths of children in New South Wales and identify those deaths that are due to child abuse or neglect; analyse non-accidental child deaths; and provide advice to government on policies and practices and on ways to prevent such deaths.

Child deaths cannot be understood and prevented without a thorough analyses of why and how they happened. Having an effective review process to carry out these analyses makes a strong statement about the value our society places on its children and about the depths of its commitment to preventing child abuse and neglect. An effective review process is essential for documenting how and why a child death has occurred. This information can then be used to assist in the development of prevention strategies; strategies which are based on a sound and thorough understanding of the issues and their implications for policy and practice.

Currently there are ad hoc systems within individual departments to review policies and practices related to the deaths of children. However, a new coordinated approach is required, as proposed by the formation of this team. A child deaths review team can access all available records on the death. This is a more effective and reliable basis on which to recommend changes in policy and practice. The team will be multidisciplinary. The research has shown that multidisciplinary teams are essential to complex child protection work. Further, it will be an independent team comprised of representatives of the New South Wales Child Protection Council, the Office of the New South Wales Coroner, the Department of Community Services, the New South
Page 3861
Wales Department of Health, the New South Wales Police Service, the Department of School Education and the New South Wales Attorney General's Department. In addition, the team will comprise a number of expert community practitioners, such as paediatricians, social worker-psychologists, and legal officers. This team will have the option to coopt members as certain matters require special areas of expertise. Where an Aboriginal child has died two members of the Aboriginal community will be coopted onto the team.

The team will be administratively supported by, and work in harmony with, the New South Wales Child Protection Council but report to the Government and the Parliament through the Minister for Community Services. This reporting will ensure the team's reviews and findings are open and accountable. The non-accidental death of a child is everybody's concern. The team will have powers to access documents held by government agencies relating to a child's death. This bill provides for Ministers to enter into arrangements to settle procedures for the exchange of information between departments. Where material required for effective review of a child death is not held by a prescribed government agency, powers available to those agencies will be used to obtain access to that material.

The bill provides that the team and coopted members must not comment on matters of individual responsibility or individual performance of duty. These matters will remain the responsibility of the relevant government department or regulatory body. Nor does this mechanism usurp the role of the investigative agencies such as the New South Wales Police Service and the New South Wales Coroner. The investigation agencies have statutory responsibilities, and these responsibilities remain. What this bill provides for is the opportunity for government to analyse data and identify patterns and trends relating to such deaths, including the way in which investigations are conducted.

I emphasise that the primary role of the team is to draw lessons from the work of other agencies and community systems which will inform the Government and the community on changes needed to policies and practices in the field of child protection. The experience of the New South Wales Child Protection Council's review of 24 child deaths reported to the New South Wales Coroner in 1980 to 1992 and current best practice overseas demonstrates that, to be effective, a New South Wales review system must be bedded in legislation. This will facilitate access to confidential data, prompt reviews of child deaths, an expansion of the scope of reviewable cases, formal reporting to government, and publication of an annual report on child death free of identifying information. Access to confidential data is central to an effective review mechanism. Obtaining access to confidential data is a potential problem for a child death review team and has been a problem worldwide. A review mechanism without a statutory base relies solely on the goodwill of involved parties and is legally insecure and challengeable.

This bill will ensure the review team a statutory base in order that it can achieve compliance, ready access to all relevant information, privacy and the necessary cooperation of all parties to facilitate the review process. Given the very sensitive nature of information which will be made available to the review team under this legislation and the growing concerns about privacy and data collection with respect to government agencies, I believe it is imperative that this information be handled in the strictest confidence. Therefore access to this information should not be possible under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 or any other legal process. The public will have access to this information but in a depersonalised form through the reports and publications of the team.

Reviews of child deaths should ensure that the most recent and current information is collected, analysed and the results disseminated. This is a vital step in ensuring that the information is of a consistently high quality, well grounded in research and incorporated into child protection practice. Overseas experience has found that it is likely that the review process will identify more suspicious child deaths than have been previously identified. This is because the categories of cases to be reviewed is broader than has previously been the case with the internal departmental reviews. In the short term the number of reported non-accidental child deaths may rise. However short-term solutions are not what this Government is about. The solution to preventing child deaths is in a considered, well thought out strategy that is supported by legislation, all relevant stakeholders and the community. This bill is one part of a broader strategy in the area of child protection. When we came to government I moved quickly to bring forward the review of the Children (Care and Protection) Act. Additionally we kept our promise to employ 60 child protection specialists to replace those cut by the previous Government. There can be no more important task of government than to respond to the needs of children who have been let down by those who care for them.

I want to acknowledge the fine work of the Child Protection Council's child death review committee in producing the report "Preventing Child Homicide". In particular, I would mention Dr Ferry Grunseit, who chaired the committee and who has been a tireless advocate for children throughout his long and distinguished career. Additionally, I wish to acknowledge the work of the Department of Community Services policies and procedures review committee. This committee examined cases of child deaths in which there had been previous departmental involvement. Other departments contributed to the work of that committee, as did expert practitioners from the community. I would also like to acknowledge that the previous Government endorsed the Child Protection Council's research into child deaths. I trust now in Opposition it will support the action arising from this research. It is my belief that this legislation is long overdue. I commend this bill to the House. I table the detailed explanatory note which accompanies the bill.

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

Page 3862

CONVEYANCERS LICENSING BILL

Message

The Deputy-President (The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby) reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Mr PRESIDENT -

Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992

John Murray

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (CORPORATIONS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.20]: The Opposition has great pleasure in supporting this simple but important bill. Honourable members would be aware that in 1993 the Commonwealth passed the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, which regulated the superannuation industry. Many institutions such as churches have had to reorganise their corporate bodies in order to obtain tax concessions and other benefits arising from the superannuation legislation. This bill addresses the beneficiary fund of the Presbyterian Church set up by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church to enable the clergy of the church to avail of benefits following their service to the church. The bill will allow the establishment of corporations by the assembly, first to constitute a superannuation corporation that will allow the incorporation of beneficiary fund members. Provisions will enable the superannuation corporation to manage the funds of the beneficiary fund.

The bill contains some interesting provisions. In this State the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is the supreme power for the church. The General Assembly may by resolution declare the constitution of any unincorporated body of the church as a corporation. The provision is of particular interest to me, because it will enable the incorporation of some of the schools set up under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church. If other institutions, the Scottish Hospital for instance, desire the benefits of incorporation this legislation will give them the ability to be incorporated. The bill is important. All church institutions now face serious public liability problems that were not envisaged in earlier times when organisations were set up as part of the church.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church will be able to incorporate any of the church bodies and will also have the power to dissolve those corporations by way of resolution. The Governor will, by way of proclamation, declare the dissolution of the corporation named in the resolution. The General Assembly will retain ultimate power over the responsibilities of the body. The corporations provision is important for matters of law, liability and superannuation. Some of the schools under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church are extremely large organisations that employ large numbers of staff and face many responsibilities in that regard. If the General Assembly chooses to go down the path of incorporation of those schools, that will assist in the management of the schools. Although this legislation is simple, it is very important. The Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the passage of the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.25]: It gives me great pleasure to support the Presbyterian Church (Corporations) Bill. The Presbyterian Church (New South Wales) Property Trust currently holds property in trust for the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales. Some of that property is vested in the property trust on account of the beneficiary fund which was established to provide retirement benefits to ministers of the church. The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1992 of the Commonwealth has been enacted to regulate the superannuation industry. In order for the beneficiary fund to be regulated for the purposes of the Superannuation Act, and obtain consequent tax concessions - and I suppose that the Presbyterians, being good Scots, would certainly want all the tax concessions to which they were entitled; as would we all - the trustee of the fund must be a constitutional corporation within the meaning of that Act.

As the property trust is not a constitutional corporation, new arrangements must be made to enable the church's superannuation funds to come within the Commonwealth scheme. The objects of the bill are to constitute a statutory corporation whose function is to maintain and manage a superannuation fund for ministers of the church and to provide for other unincorporated institutions and organisations of the church to be incorporated. This is an historic bill in many ways. When church union was brought into being those who promoted it strongly in 1976-77 thought that would be the end of the Presbyterian Church; there would therefore have been no need for legislation of this kind. Although 65 per cent of the membership of the Presbyterian Church moved into the Uniting Church, those who did not move stayed with what was called the Continuing Presbyterian Church. As they maintained the true Presbyterian doctrine and structure, with elders and other requirements of the church, they were in fact not simply the Continuing Presbyterian Church but the Presbyterian Church. I am pleased that the bill makes that clear as well.

As honourable members would know, I was ordained and am a minister in the Uniting Church of Australia, with whom I have many arguments on different issues because some of their leaders tend to issue statements that are contrary to the views I present to the House. Indeed, they are often contrary to the stance taken by every other denomination. On occasions the Uniting Church has been seen to be out of step with the other 16 denominations; therefore, the
Page 3863
Uniting Church has been wrong. The Presbyterians have always stood firm for good doctrine and consistent doctrine. Even though I am in the Uniting Church - in spite of the efforts of some who would like to expel me - I am appreciative that I always receive a warm welcome in the Presbyterian Church. I have had many opportunities to take part in Presbyterian Church services, perhaps more than in other denominations.

Before I came to the Chamber this evening I checked my mailbox and found that I had received a letter, dated 18 November, from St Andrew's Presbyterian Church at Albury. The letter is signed by the session clerk, Alec Phillips. The church recently conducted a celebration of marriage, at which many couples already married, some for many years and some for not so long, took part in a recommitment service. The couples went through another marriage service, in a shortened form, before all their friends and relations and, in many cases, before their children. They were not being remarried, but wanted to make a public recommitment to each other. I was invited to preach the sermon at that celebration of marriage, about which I received a lovely letter only moments ago. It reads:

Dear Sir,

The Session of St. Andrew's church, at the meeting held on Tuesday, 14 November, resolved to write to you to express their appreciation for your attendance at the recent "Celebration of Marriage", on Sunday, 10 September. I apologise for not doing this earlier but we didn't have a session meeting in October; hence the delay.

We thank you for your message about the real value of a Christian marriage and we are sure that many of our young people gained a better understanding of what is entailed; life-long commitment to their future partners.

We do thank you most sincerely for spending time with us here and we pray that you will remain in good health to continue your valuable stand for Christian principles in the Call to Australia party and its work.
The letter is signed by Alec Phillips, session clerk. It is encouraging to receive such letters in which people take time to express their views. I wish that I received similarly warmhearted letters from the hierarchy of the Uniting Church! Members may be pleased to know that I have been invited to afternoon tea with the new moderator next week. Maybe there is a rapprochement. I assume that it will be a friendly visit. I have been invited, and I have accepted. I know that many members of this House are involved with churches. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is involved with the Presbyterian Church, and other members are involved with other denominations. The percentage of people involved with the church would perhaps be higher among members of this House than among the general community. I respect members' right to choose the church to which they belong.

On Saturday night I was at the Parramatta Stadium where 12,000 young people gathered for a Christian celebration at which over 560 of those young people, instead of choosing drugs and other artificial stimulants, decided to become Christians. These were average teenagers from the western suburbs. I was encouraged by the fact that so many young people attended the meeting in the first place, and more so that over 500 of them made a public commitment to Christianity. It is a positive sign for the future as, in some ways, the youth will provide the leadership of the future - we should not despair.

That celebration was attended by people from different churches, including the Presbyterian, Catholic - represented by Parramatta's Bishop Heather - Pentecostal, Charismatic, Baptist and Uniting churches and the Church of Christ. Almost every denomination was represented. It was a very inspiring occasion. It reminded me that God is shortsighted: God does not read notice boards on churches; God is colour blind as he does not look at people's skin; he looks into people's heart. The important thing is the individual's relationship with God, and that is why we should all be careful about taking over the role of God and being a judge. When people ask me whether I think someone is a Christian, I answer that only God knows that. It is not my role to say yes or no to such a question. Sometimes it is not easy to make that judgment, and only God can make the final judgment. Perhaps we will be surprised if some people are in heaven whom we would not expect to be there, and some who we expected to be in heaven are absent. We should bear that in mind.

The Presbyterian Church is a member of the worldwide Christian family. It is not simply a Sydney or an Australian denomination. Presbyterians, who originated mainly from Scotland, can be found all over the world. As some members know, on my study tour I had the opportunity to visit Scotland, the official reason for which was to study the Scottish nationalist movement and to meet with the Scottish Democratic Party, which is similar to the Australian Democrats. All the parties in Scotland, apart from the conservatives, were agitating for an independent Scotland with a Scottish Parliament. My mother has Scottish forebears, and her great grandfather, Hugh Clark, came from Hamilton, near Glasgow. He migrated to New Zealand, but before he left Scotland he married Mary Templeton, who was from the town of Kilmarnock and the Church of Scotland. I was able to find the church where my mother's great grandparents were married, and it had the year 1604 engraved on its foundation stone.

My wife and I were very warmly welcomed by the minister and the congregation, and we inspected the historic graveyard of the church and saw the graves of many Presbyterian heroes who died for their faith. They lived in difficult days. Members may think that someone who wanted to be a sincere Christian and follow the Bible would be given some acclamation, but it was a shock to see a person's head engraved on the tombstones. One gravestone had four heads engraved upon it, which represented four Presbyterians who stood against the English - I assume it was the Church of England at the time. They were arrested, drawn and quartered and the only remains of them found by their relations were their heads. Therefore, their remains were buried in the church
Page 3864
graveyard and their heads were engraved on the tombstone with the name of each individual. It signified a fierce and cruel time. All of us would be ashamed about what was done in the name of religion.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Some terrible things are done in the name of religion.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: We would be ashamed of that, but many good things are done too. We must not hide the fact that there have been times of cruelty and suffering. The Presbyterian Church, sometimes known as the reformed church, traces its heritage within the church catholic through the sixteenth century Protestant reformers of Switzerland, the Rheinland, Scotland and The Netherlands. People like Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox are some of the church's founders. Catholics at times think that Presbyterianism is another religion, but as the document states, the Presbyterian church came from within the "church catholic". The Catholic Church often forms special orders, so it is a pity that some of these bodies were not orders of that church. The Presbyterians are as orthodox in their faith as are the catholics, and they perhaps have more in common with the Catholic Church than with the Uniting Church, which undermines some of the fundamentals of the faith. True Presbyterians uphold the fundamentals of the life of Christ, his virgin birth, his miraculous life, his performance of miracles, his death on the cross at Calvary, his atonement, his resurrection and his return.

Presbyterianism was brought to Australia by the Scots, and bears a Scottish imprint to this day. Welsh, Ulster folk and some people from England also made significant contributions to Australian Presbyterianism. In this century folk have been reformed from The Netherlands, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and China. The first Presbyterian service in Australia was conducted in 1795 by Thomas Muir, an elder from Glasgow and one of the five Scottish martyrs. A major step forward came in 1802 with the arrival in New South Wales of free Scots settlers from the border areas of the Scottish lowlands. The word "martyr" is not necessarily a reference to a person being executed, in the way that we often use the word for people who die for their faith.

In those days people from Ireland and Scotland were exiled for their faith. The exiles and the free settlers started to farm along the banks of the Hawkesbury River near Pitt Town. They were led by James Mein and they erected a stone building in Ebenezer in 1809 to serve as both church and schoolhouse. That building, which is in use today by a Uniting Church congregation, is the oldest in Australia and still used for worship. Not long after this settlement along the Hawkesbury, groups of Presbyterians were to be found in Tasmania, around Bothwell, Kirklands and Glengarry, all of which are redolent of Scotland. The conduct of worship was in the hands of elders and heads of families, with occasional help from agents of the London Missionary Society at Ebenezer until early in the 1820s.

The Greek word for elder is presbyter, and the Bible reference to presbyter usually means elder. The elders are those who have the senior leadership role in a local congregation. They endeavour to follow the biblical model. The Reverend Archibald McArthur was the first ordained Presbyterian minister to settle in Australia. He took up his post in Hobart in January 1823. Some four months later the Reverend John Dunmore Lang, 1799-1878, arrived to serve Presbyterians in New South Wales. A minister of the established Church of Scotland, Lang proved to be a man to be reckoned with in the church, in education, and in colonial parliaments.

He became involved in far-sighted vision, and in print. The three eastern mainland States all bear the marks of his vigour in the areas of immigration and political independence, while the Presbyterian Church was to look back on his life and witness with gratitude, but not, in the light of his vigorous manner and methods, without relief at the peace which came to its domestic life with his passing. With Presbyterianism founded in New South Wales and Tasmania, the other colonies were soon to follow suit. Victoria led in 1837 followed by South Australia in 1839 and Queensland in 1847. In Western Australia Presbyterianism began in 1878. In each location Scots were prominent, and this led to the reflection in Australia of divisions among Presbyterians in Scotland. As one Presbyterian historian admitted of his own folk, "the line between conscientiousness and crankiness is often very thin". However, most of the divided groups in each State came together in 1865.

A federal union of the churches from each State followed in 1886, and by July 1901 the Presbyterian Church of Australia was in existence, within a few months of the inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia. So the birth of the Presbyterian Church, as a national body, occurred at the same time as the birth of our nation. In line with the Constitution of the new nation the State assemblies ceded certain responsibilities to the national assembly of the church. The establishment of congregations in a far-flung land has always occupied much energy, but not to the exclusion of extensive involvement in education - remember the church-school house at Ebenezer - with Dr Lang being a pioneer here also. This is seen today in both secondary schools and university residential colleges and in an abiding concern for adequate university level theological education.

Missionary work amongst the Kanakas and among Australian Aboriginal people began late in the nineteenth century and was continued by the Presbyterians until 1977, this being an area ceded in the main to the Uniting Church. Presbyterians also had involvement in South India, Korea, Vanuatu, and Indonesia until 1977. Since that date this relationship has been maintained with Vanuatu, with commitments to such evangelistic work continued through the involvement of Presbyterians in interdenominational missionary societies. Such involvement is recognised in joint commissioning services. Vigorous work with the aged, the sick, the disabled and the disadvantaged has continued. The pioneering inland ministry of
Page 3865
Reverend Dr John Flynn, 1880 to 1951, with the foundation of the Australian Inland Mission in 1912, the associated pedal-wireless network and the Flying Doctor Service in 1928, were signal contributions of Presbyterians to life in the Australian outback. They have continued since 1977 in the Presbyterian Inland Mission as in the Uniting Church's Inland Mission. Presbyterians were prominent in ecumenical affairs in Australia and abroad up until the mid 1970s.

The emergence of the Uniting Church in Australia in 1977 led to most of those so involved moving into the new denomination. Around 65 per cent of the communicant members of the Presbyterian Church of Australia elected to go with those committed to such ecumenism. I was involved in some of those discussions and I know the Presbyterians, while considering the new Uniting Church, had a slogan. They said, "we are concerned because we do not agree with bishops"; they thought there were to be bishops in the Uniting Church. They deferred that decision, although it is still on the agenda. That is one of the things that affected the wholehearted cooperation by the Presbyterian Church, as many people had historically an aversion to bishops and that monarchal kind of bishop, and the authority they have.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Did you say maniacal?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Monarchal, coming from monarchy. It is a bit like what happens in the Catholic Church, with the princes of the church. Nevertheless the Presbyterian Church has continued to function along traditional lines even though its membership was reduced at that point of the union. The Presbyterian Church has had an impressive growth rate. The Presbyterians are growing and building new churches across the nation. I have visited many new churches. I know that growth has caused problems because sometimes the Presbyterians built what became an historic stone church which the Uniting Church obtained and the ongoing Presbyterians had to work hard, as farmers or whatever, to raise money to build another church, perhaps just down the road. That has been a tragedy. The Presbyterians should have been allowed to use their original church, in my opinion.

I sum up by saying that the main characteristic of the Presbyterian Church is that it is true to the reformation heritage. Presbyterians see the scriptures, the Old and the New Testaments of the Bible, as the means by which God spoke and speaks to his people. The scriptures, understood within the fellowship of the church by the guidance of God who gave them, are the supreme standard for belief and conduct. Alongside the scriptures may be placed the creeds which the early church had agreed upon as an acceptable statement of belief. So, on occasions, Presbyterians use both the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. A moment ago I said that they are not another religion but part of the Christian faith, the body of Christ; they use the same creeds as the Catholic Church, the Uniting Church, the Baptist Church, and so on. The Presbyterian Church belief is summed up in the "Westminster Confession of Faith", which dates from 1647 and is a good example of the comprehensive confessions of faith which were common in the reformation era as each emerging denomination sought to define its faith over and against other groups, both Catholic and Protestant.

For both theological and political reasons the Scots set aside their own Confession of 1560 and accepted the Westminster document which originated in a predominantly English assembly. The Confession is regarded as giving the interpretation of the scriptures held by the Presbyterians. It was modified in certain areas, and liberty of opinion in matters which are not essential to the faith is guaranteed by the "Declaratory Statement". Therefore I am pleased to support the bill and to put on the record some of the exciting, enlightening facts concerning a dynamic and growing church in our nation which has made a great contribution in the past and will do so in the future as the Presbyterian Church of Australia.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.49], in reply: I thank all members for their learned and conscientious support and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

LIQUOR FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [9.51]: On behalf of the Opposition I support the Motor Accidents Amendment Bill. I do so with an element of concern, bordering on reluctance. The Opposition is concerned that the approach taken by the Government in relation to the legislation will have a draconian impact upon injured persons. The Opposition believes the legislation should proceed at this time, but that there should be a major review of it. The legislation, in the main, had general support from those with an interest motor accidents legislation reform. Only in one area has significant concern been generated and that relates to what is called the section 79 payments for non-economic loss or for pain and suffering. It is about that aspect that I will be making some comments.

The legislation has what might be described as a buoyant history. It replaced a TransCover scheme which was introduced by the last Labor administration, and a key component of that scheme was the abolition of any right of injured persons to any financial compensation for pain and suffering. The Greiner Government, in the lead-up to the 1988
Page 3866
election, made a commitment that it would rewrite the TransCover legislation and reintroduce a modified form of access to common law damages for pain and suffering. The Motor Accidents Act was developed as a result of extensive consultation and the modified compensation for pain and suffering was introduced. It is interesting to refer to the debates in relation to the reintroduction of access to common law damages. The Hon. John Dowd, in his speech of 29 November 1988, said, when proposing a scheme of limited access to common law damages, that it would be introduced in an effort to reduce the number of small claims, and to direct available resources to seriously injured accident victims.

Provision is made for the amount of general damages to be reduced in accordance with a formula which is set out in clause 79 of the legislation. It is clear that the intention of the legislation was to make certain that the number of small claims would be eliminated and that the concentration would be on that elimination of those claims for minor injuries. The amount of deduction was set at $15,000 and was indexed so that it is now in excess of $19,000. The deduction under the proposed scheme has been significantly increased and is almost double that amount. That is a very dramatic increase. Everyone has recognised the need to deal with the motor accidents scheme and to finetune the legislation. During the last several months the cost of premiums has dramatically increased.

A number of explanations have been forward to account for this dramatic increase in premiums, the most common of which I would like to repeat. Honourable members will have heard it on many occasions. It arises from a comment made by one of the insurers but it has been reiterated by every insurer, that is, that there have been overgenerous judgments and lawyers fees have contributed substantially to the escalating costs. I thought that the House should spend some time considering that commentary. The Opposition has considerable doubt as to the validity of that being the major contributor to the escalating costs. Only one major research exercise has been undertaken into the operation of the Motor Accidents Act and the impact of awards made under that Act. That was conducted by the Civil Justice Research Centre, whose report was delivered in June 1995. It is worth taking time to repeat some extracts from the executive summary of that report. In the summary the researchers made the following comments:

. . . there was no statistically significant variation in the mean NEL% awarded for hearing or arbitration, judge/arbitrator, court location, or between the four years 1991/92 to 1994/95. The lack of any idiosyncratic variability in relation to these factors tends to indicate that the provisions of s79 are being consistently interpreted by the judges and arbitrators.
An interesting interpretation that could be applied to that is that every one of the judges has got it wrong or that every one of the judges has got it right. There does not appear to be, as the commentators say, any idiosyncratic variation in the way in which the section is being applied by the judiciary. The report goes on to make some assessments for non-economic loss, and states:

Whilst processing a motor accident claim, an insurer may make a number of assessments as to the likely award for NEL%. For the present study the final assessment prior to the procedure used to determine the claim was recorded.

The mean NEL% assessed by insurers was 19%. This was lower than the mean NEL% awarded, which was 22%. This difference may indicate that judges and arbitrators are interpreting the provisions of s79 differently from insurers. However, it may also reflect a tendency on the part of insurers to under assess NEL%, either for actuarial purposes or otherwise.
This research project has shown that insurers assessing their liability in respect of a claim significantly undervalue their liabilities. I have yet to understand what "otherwise" may be. I also wonder why insurers would make an assessment that was lower for actuarial purposes. They have to justify their position to the Motor Accidents Authority and if they underestimate their liabilities it might result in an underestimation of premiums, and lower premiums might enable them to undercut their competitors to gain market share. Considering that all 14 insurers came into the field in 1989 and were all wanting to get a market share, the Opposition might be cynical in wondering whether such exercises went on. We might learn something about that if we read on in the report from the researchers. It continues:

Like NEL% awards, variation was found to exist between the mean NEL% assessed for each injury type, jurisdiction, and whether other heads of damages formed a component of the total award. Also like NEL% awards, there was no statistically significant variation in the mean assessments for hearing or arbitration, judge/arbitrator or court location.
We have heard the comment that judges were rafting up the awards. Yet the only independent research that has been conducted - there has been no challenge to the credibility of it - shows that is not so; there has been no such rafting up. The researchers continue:

These findings tend to indicate that the provisions of the Act in relation to s79 are being consistently interpreted by insurers, as was the case with judges and arbitrators.

Unlike NEL% awards, however, which remained fairly stable over the four years from 1991/2 to 1994/95, NEL% assessed was higher in 1993/94 and 1994/95 than in the two earlier years.
That is the first indication within the research that amounts being awarded by the courts at any particular time did increase during the period. But again there was consistency across the courts. The next part of the study report is the most interesting in reflecting where we as a Parliament should go in this regard. The report states:

A Comparison of Awards and the Insurers' Assessments

To undertake a comparison of awards and assessments the difference between NEL% awarded and NEL% assessed was calculated for each case. For example, if a judge determined the claimant's injury to represent 15% of a most extreme case, and the insurer assessed the amount to be 10%, the difference would be 5%. If the award was 15% and the assessment 20% the difference would be -5%.

Overall, the mean difference between NEL% awarded and NEL% assessed was 3.5%. That is, awards were typically $7,770 higher than assessed by insurers.
Page 3867

If the insurers are going to be that much out in their assessment of their liabilities then their actuaries will also be significantly out in their assessment of the premiums. Therefore the premiums will be lower than is necessary to give the insurers sufficient income and therefore a sufficient asset to meet their liabilities. The problem pointed out in the report is that initially it is a problem of the administration of the insurers. However, the alternative view which will be advocated by the insurers is that the insurers were right and the courts were wrong because the courts were determining damage awards which were different from the amounts assessed by the insurers. Therefore the blame is not the insurers'; the blame is not within the administration of the insurance companies; it is totally with the courts. It is up to us to draw our own inferences about those two arguments. In keeping in mind who might be wrong we have to look at what the research says: that the judges were consistent during the whole of this period in the awards that they determined. As we read further through the report we find that the only variation seemed to be with the insurers. The report continues:

A number of factors were examined to see if there was any variation in the difference between NEL% awarded and NEL% assessed. The findings suggest that judges and arbitrators may be interpreting the provisions of s79 differently from insurers in relation to a number of factors. These were:

Injury Type

It was found that in claims for more severe and less frequent injury types, such as those for open wounds, fractures and multiple injuries, insurers' interpretation of s79, as evidenced by their assessments, was significantly lower than that of judges and arbitrators, as evidenced by their awards.

Other Damages Awarded

Where future economic loss was a component of the total award, insurers' interpretation of s79 was significantly lower than that of judges and arbitrators.

Year of Procedure

The difference between awards and assessments, and in the proportion of claims in which the award was made than assessed, has decreased over time. This suggests that while awards were initially more generous than anticipated by insurers, their assessments have become more reflective of awards as time has passed.
In effect, what the researchers are saying is that the insurers started to adjust to what was going on and were making more accurate assessments of the liabilities. The report continues:

Despite these differences in interpretation, there are many indications that the provisions of the Act in relation to s79 are being interpreted consistently by both judges and arbitrators, and insurers. The main difference between NEL% awarded and NEL% assessed was similar regardless of:

jurisdiction;

procedure;

judge/arbitrator;

or court location.
That is an interesting comment. What it is saying is that both the insurers and the judge were interpreting the Act in the same way but they were coming out with different results. That is how I read this report and how I understand it to be interpreted. Near the conclusion to this report the following interesting comments are made:

The findings of this study address concerns raised by insurers that judges and arbitrators are "generous" in their interpretation of the provisions of the Act in relation to the award of damages for non-economic loss.

Prior to this study, very little was known of the relationship between insurers' assessments and Court awards, other than that they should be related and that insurers' assessments would tend to be lower than awards.

Overall, the difference between awards and assessments was not great, but the study has explored this further by describing the difference in terms of a number of factors. Awards for non-economic loss were higher in earlier years, indicating that awards were more generous than anticipated by insurers, claims awarded future economic loss were also higher than anticipated, as were those for the more severe and less frequent injury types.

This study cannot determine whether the differences found are due wholly to the implementation of the Motor Accidents Act. Nor can it estimate the costs of these differences on the motor accident compensation scheme as a whole. Such an analysis would require fully comparative information to be available regarding the administration of claims prior to the implementation of the Act.
That analysis in itself is a telling commentary on attitudes towards the implementation of the Act. It is why the Opposition has serious concerns about the way the Government has sought to interpret the material presented to it. Obviously submissions have been provided from insurers to the Motor Accidents Authority and to the Government. In this regard the insurers made their submissions through the Insurance Council of Australia. That council has a clear duty to act in the interests of its members and to put a proposition which must be the best possible case for the insurers. That is their responsibility. There are 14 insurers in the marketplace so it is their obligation, acting on behalf of those insurers, to make certain that a case is put forward that will maintain the position of the insurers, and to seek to keep premium levels at what is reasonably regarded as an affordable level.

Following advice the Government has adopted $350 as an affordable level. It must accept responsibility for whatever legislation is introduced. If blame is to be attributed it does not lay with the authority, which might advise the Government, nor does it lay with insurers, who are merely putting forward a case to ensure that they can deliver an insurance service at an affordable level, but still make a profit out of the scheme. The Government has the responsibility to analyse individual cases and make a decision that ensures not only that New South Wales has an affordable system of insurance but that it also delivers a reasonable level of compensation to those who are insured.

All 3.3 million people, or thereabouts, who buy insurance in this State under a compulsory scheme buy the insurance in the expectation that they will receive a reasonable level of compensation, should they ever claim. Insurance in this regard is no different from household insurance or any other form of insurance. Consumers hope never to have to claim
Page 3868
on their insurance, but, if they do, a reasonable return should be made for their investment over a lifetime. The same applies to car insurance; it is hoped a claim will not be necessary but if the car is stolen or written off the level of compensation must be reasonable.

One must ask: is it in fact the most reasonable compensation? Honourable members have received various briefings on this proposition. The Opposition is concerned that the Government has adopted what might best be described as a big bang approach to this reform; that is, go in and cut away as much as is possible from the benefits to be paid to the injured party, who over a lifetime has been paying insurance in the expectation of receiving a benefit. The Opposition sought to refer the legislation to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice for analysis and report, but the Government was able to secure sufficient support in this House to ensure that the matter was not referred to the committee. Therefore, the Government has brought forward advice from the Motor Accidents Authority and the Opposition has no choice but to accept that advice, however, it does so with a great deal of scepticism and concern. Without the benefit of an independent analysis of what occurred with the claim, the Opposition is not in a position to support amendments to the legislation because it could not do so on the basis of independent advice to this Parliament. In such matters we should have that independent advice.

Why does the Opposition have these concerns? I will outline some of the reasons, and why the Government has gone overboard. The Opposition is concerned that there could arise out of this unacceptable levels of potential profit to the insurers. There is the potential for this scheme to be varied in order to preserve the financial position of some insurers. That is being done in order to preserve the existence of insurers in this scheme. However, there are too many insurers and the marketplace does not appropriately determine the number of such insurers. I make that comment without the benefit of having looked independently at what has occurred.

It is not the role of the Motor Accidents Authority to undertake this type of research. It is for the Parliament to put in place a mechanism to review the operation of the legislation that has been passed by the Parliament and to determine whether or not the form of the legislation and its direction is appropriate. It is not the role of the statutory authority, established by this Parliament, to oversight the scheme. I refer to the various areas of claims. Some studies reveal that after the motor accidents scheme came in the number of claims per injuries that arose out of motor vehicle accidents in 1989-91 was 0.41; in 1990-91 it was 0.43, a slight increase; in 1991-92 it was 0.47, a further increase; in 1992-93 it was 0.51, a further increase; in 1993-94 it was 0.57, a further increase; and for the first half of 1994-95 it was 0.65, a further increase.

If claims per injury increased and costs to the scheme increased each year of this period, what is the explanation for the dramatic decrease in premiums? What was going on? What was driving the insurers when the number of claims per injury was increasing? The amount of payments was increasing, but the amount of income being sought was decreasing. Were we not in a position where this scheme was moving into a potential crisis? Why was that occurring? Was it a crisis that could not have been foreseen by the Motor Accidents Authority? Was it a matter of the market forces competing so that everybody wanted a share of the market? I do not know. It is a matter of concern that is now apparent from the face of the documentation.

Having been driven into that - I will use this phrase because some of the insurers have used it with me - state of financial crisis, was the crisis foreseen and driven? The community is now expected to pay for it as premiums go up and benefits go down. One might ask: are we cutting benefits to these people in order to sustain the financial position of all the insurers? I do not know. None of us know because the Government deprived us of the opportunity to have these questions pursued and analysed. If these questions are not are pursued and analysed, this scheme will continue to face problems. It is clear that the claim numbers - particularly those in severity category No. 1, which relates to minor areas - were increasing.

The cost of those claims was increasing. While the cost was increasing, why were the premiums decreasing? Is it fair to those in struggle street? I am using somebody else's term; I do not have to say that I like using it. The person in struggle street has had to suffer as a consequence of decisions which were made at the time - about which we have no knowledge and over which we had no control. Premiums were going down; costs were going up. And now at the end of that two or three years of hectic trading, we are faced with a series of massive increases in premiums but a reduction in benefits to the people on struggle street.

As I have indicated, the Opposition has grave concerns about this legislation and about the future of the program as a result of information that is becoming available to it. The Attorney General, in his second reading speech, gave an assurance that he would pursue an inquiry in relation to these matters. He indicated that he would do so in consultation with the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The Opposition takes a much more positive view. When the Parliament resumes, after it has determined its course on the bill, I will give notice that I will move a motion to the effect that there should be a specific reference to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The Opposition will want the committee to review the operations of the Motor Accidents Act, this bill and the antecedents that led to it.

The Opposition will expect the law and justice committee to address all the issues to which I have adverted. The committee should look at the operations of this legislation and those insurers to ascertain what caused premiums to be driven down; what caused the insurers to suffer such losses; to what
Page 3869
extent did insurers bear losses because, like all other insurers at the time, they were pursuing investments that many other insurers suffered losses on. Did these insurers in this scheme suffer similar losses? I do not know. The Parliament does not know, but it should know. The Parliament must address its mind to what extent should we, in a competitive marketplace - if insurers are losing on a scheme and have lost on a scheme attributable to poor investments - cut benefits in order to keep those insurers involved in the scheme because, for that period, they sustained those losses.

Is it a matter of the insurers having to wear those risks as part their competition in the scheme? We do not know. There are deep levels of concern within the Opposition over these matters. It would not be so much of a concern if we were looking at incremental change to the level of benefits, because there may be a need for incremental change from time to time in either direction. In this case, it is not incremental, it is not large, it is massive. I could burden the House - no doubt others will - by referring to a number of examples of the level of reduction in benefits that will be potentially sustained by people under this scheme. The level of benefit reductions will be dramatic.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: How much longer are you going to speak? It's late!

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am interested in the interjections of Labor Party members in relation to this legislation. There used to be a time - in fact it was not so long ago - when one could say that members of the Labor Party, when elected to Parliament, sought to hold themselves out as representing the interests of ordinary people in the street. Those days have well and truly gone. The Labor Party has totally lost direction. Many people in Sussex Street recognise that the Labor Party has lost its way in showing a concern for the people on struggle street. In Sussex Street there is concern about this and other legislation and there is grave concern about this Government. People are concerned that the Government has lost its direction and any interest in the ordinary people in the street.

I have indicated clearly that when the House resumes in the next week or so I will ask that an inquiry be established to consider this matter. I shall advocate that the committee report to the Parliament within 12 months. The Minister indicated that he would consider legislation in about 18 months, which would be a reasonable time. The Minister gave undertakings to the Opposition on this legislation. He acknowledged clearly that the amendments contained in the bill were only a stopgap measure until a major review of the legislation has been undertaken. Opposition members were tempted to propose the provision of a sunset clause on the legislation, because they believed that was necessary to keep the Government honest on its undertaking. The Minister made that commitment in order to secure the votes of the crossbenchers. We in the Opposition, however, have learnt that unless the Government is tied down its commitments are like water - initially strong but quickly flowing away.

Opposition members were prevailed upon not to call for a sunset clause. It was pointed out that actuaries have to consider all known risks when determining premiums and that the provision of a sunset clause would have presented a known risk and as such could ensure that the reforms, even though stopgap reforms, would be ephemeral. It was said that the reductions in premiums anticipated as a consequence of the reforms would not result. Opposition members do not believe that there will be a lasting reduction in premiums; I do not think anybody does - other than Government members, who live in their own world. On advice, the Opposition will not proceed with an amendment that would provide for a sunset clause, because that would completely undermine the direction of this legislation. The aim is to achieve reductions in and some control over premiums.

Everyone wishes for a control on premiums and would be happy if premiums were to reduce. If that means that there has to be some measure of reduction in benefits, that has to be recognised. As far as the Opposition is concerned, however, any reductions should be reasonable and sustainable. Opposition members have grave concerns that all the analyses available give evidence of an overkill in order that the Government could put itself in a political position that it may not again have to deal with a reduction in benefits or issues that might result from increased premiums. The Government has taken a cynical, political approach, to the complete detriment of the innocent injured in our community. I have heard Government members say that of millions of premium holders only 20,000 to 30,000 claims are made each year. The Government is taking a cynical approach in saying that it will deprive only some 75 per cent of those people of receiving compensation for pain and suffering. I only hope that no Government member is ever put into that position.

All of us are required to buy insurance - it is compulsory. We all hope that we never have to make a claim on that insurance. This scheme, however, will provide for compensation to apply only for fairly serious injuries. Under this Government, there will be many innocent victims - and no longer will the innocent victims have access to reasonable levels of compensation. The Government says that it is only those who suffer from minor injuries who will be affected. Honourable members should bear in mind, however, that the figures made available show that the Government is considering not just the elimination of claims for minor injuries but also a review of the amount of compensation that will be received by those who suffer from a moderate level of injury. The 7,381 people who suffered minor injuries in one year will lose their entitlement to compensation, and the compensation paid to the 2,561 people who suffered minor injuries will be reduced. Those are not small numbers.

Having made clear to the House the Opposition's grave reservations on this matter and having emphasised that the Opposition believes that the Government has in no way acted in the best interests
Page 3870
of the people in not allowing an independent analysis of the scheme, so that the Parliament could independently assess what direction should be followed, Opposition members are left with no alternative but to support this legislative package. The Opposition will move to ensure, however, that there is a mechanism to examine future policy for motor accidents legislation. It is important to review where we have come from, where we are now and why we are at the present position. Out of such review will come sufficient information to educate us all so that we can make appropriate decisions on the direction of this scheme in the future.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.38]: I support the comments made by the shadow attorney general. The Opposition has great concerns about where the scheme will leave ordinary men and women who have the responsibility of providing for their families - people who have to pay the bills and then assess whether what they pay for green slips is a fair price for a fair product. The Opposition agrees with the Government that there was a need to do something about the green slips scheme. In recent years the number of claims made has been decreasing, due to a decreasing number of road accidents, yet at the same time the cost has been increasing. Commonsense dictates that the increasing price of green slips, which in less than 12 months has increased by almost $150 in some instances, is something about which we as the representatives of the people have to be concerned. The Opposition shares the Government's view that something has to be done about the scheme.

The Opposition is concerned, however, that the Government is taking a great punt on the future direction of the scheme. Like the Opposition, the Government has probably received briefings from the insurance and legal industries. Also, it has probably obtained external advice from establishments like the WorkCover Authority. However, it is unlikely that the Opposition knows all the facts. We know enough to be concerned, but not enough to make an adequate judgment on the right proposal to adopt. The Government is telling the people of New South Wales - the Opposition emphasises this point - that it knows where the scheme is going, and that it believes that by making these changes the price of green slips will reduce. It is claimed that premiums will be sustained at a level of about $350 a year. I put the Government on notice that if this reduction is not made in two years time, it will have enormous problems. It will have treated the people of this State to a con trick, even if not deliberately.

The Government had the opportunity to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice with a reporting period of two weeks. If that were done, witnesses could be called before the Parliament. Under the provisions of the Parliamentary Evidence Act they would have been sworn to tell the truth and would have given evidence. Witnesses might even have given evidence that was not given to the Government, because the Government does not have the coercive powers of the Parliament. The Parliament could have obtained information vital to making the necessary calculations to ensure that the scheme is fair. Government members have taken this responsibility on their shoulders and said, "Trust us." The Opposition has no choice but to accept the Government's word that this is the best scheme it could offer the people of New South Wales.

I have two concerns about the scheme. First, the estimated level of premium over the next two years is $350. Simple arithmetic tells me that if 3.3 million motorists in New South Wales pay $350, $1,155 million will be raised in premium. The cost of the scheme for next financial year has been estimated by Trowbridge Consulting at $550 million. We are unable to calculate how inflation might affect judgments over the next couple of years, but it is highly unlikely that it would add much more than $100 million to the costs. Also, no calculation has been made of the amount of investment income that might be earned on the premiums gathered in this scheme. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the difference between the receipts collected and the costs of the scheme would be of the order of $500 million.

As a member of this Parliament, I would like to know and be able to assure the people of New South Wales that this $500 million would not show up on the profit side of insurance company balance sheets but would be fairly expended in servicing the scheme. I cannot, as a member of the Opposition, be sure of that. I can only tell the people I represent that they must take the Government at its word. The scheme has a $500 million gap that requires explanation in the context of claimants who would receive more generous benefits under the current scheme.

Take the example of a boy aged two years, ten months who is knocked over in the street by a soft drink truck and fractures his left tibia. He will receive a reduced benefit as his age would make it difficult to determine the economic loss he would suffer. I understand that under the current scheme the loss the child sustains would be assessed at 13 per cent of the most extreme case and he would receive a benefit of the order of $11,000. Under the Government's new scheme his injury would fall under the deductible amount and he would receive nothing. The new scheme does not cater for minor injuries. People who sustain significant injuries that have a major impact on their lives will receive substantially less under the new scheme.

Consider a case that has already been decided under the current scheme - a male aged 32 years who suffered a fractured skull, fractured right leg, fractured right fibula, fractured ribs, a fracture of the left scapula, a fracture of the left clavicle, a fracture of the neck and left humerus, a punctured lung, loss of consciousness and significant ongoing disabilities that interfere with his recreational activities and earning capacity. He also has restricted movement in the left shoulder, difficulty with his right knee, which requires further surgery, difficulty in squatting, scarring and is unable to run. The injuries of that man were assessed at 25 per cent of the most extreme case. He received a modest benefit of $45,000 under the current scheme.

Page 3871

Under the Government's new scheme he would receive $14,000. That sum comes nowhere near compensating that man for the loss of quality of life he suffered from injuries sustained as a result of another's negligence. I should like to be able to assure such victims that the benefit they will receive in return for the premiums they will pay under the new scheme will be worthwhile. An honourable member asked earlier by way of interjection why the Opposition supports the bill. It has no choice. It is between the devil and the deep blue sea. If the Opposition does not support the scheme, it would be held responsible if the entire scheme blew out and became unfundable in the future. Similarly, if it attempts to amend the bill to make the premiums more expensive that could achieve the same result. If the Opposition opts for the status quo, similar disasters could occur. The Opposition does not have sufficient evidence on which to make an appropriate judgment.

Therefore, it must accept the Government's call. Honourable members will recall that the Opposition attempted to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for inquiry. The Government will be held accountable if it takes responsibility for the scheme upon its shoulders and costs increase in a couple of years time while benefits remain too low. If the Government has punted correctly, it can take credit for the scheme. It has an awful responsibility. I would not be in a hurry to take this on if I were a Minister of the Crown. It is the Government's call, and the Opposition will support its judgment. However, it does so with a great deal of caution.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.47]: I oppose the Motor Accidents Amendment Bill from an environmental point of view as well as a social justice perspective. The bill relates to the operation of a $1.4 billion a year industry, yet a number of major issues have not been clarified. I cannot support the bill in its current form. Primarily, the Greens are not convinced that cheaper third-party premiums are a necessary or desirable outcome if that means that car accident victims will not be adequately compensated for their injuries. The Greens believe that society must take responsibility for the real costs of its reliance on the motor car, and that includes the human cost caused by the suffering and pain inflicted in road accidents as well as the environmental costs caused by the car industry.

Only when the real costs are properly measured and assessed will society realise that it is more equitable, safe and environmentally sound to reduce our reliance on the car and move towards greater use of public transport and bicycles. Why not try walking? The Greens have some major concerns. The Attorney General has indicated that the Government will undertake a full review of the Motor Accidents Act. The review should investigate the conduct of outcome surveys of accident victims and their experience of the compensation and rehabilitation processes; the provision of resources to fund independent, public domain research into the effectiveness of the compulsory third-party scheme; the examination of the possible introduction of compulsory conciliation; and an alteration to economic loss compensation to cap economic loss at the level of average weekly wages.

Although the Attorney General has indicated that these issues might be considered as part of the review, the Greens will ask the Government to make a commitment to undertake in the short to medium term a separate study and review of the full cost of keeping a car registered and on the road. Apart from the green slip insurance premiums, the current costs of annually registering a car include: motor vehicle tax, domestic price $154; registration fee, domestic price $37; fund levy, domestic price $43; pink slip, domestic price $23. On top of those annual costs motorists have to pay the ongoing fuel costs. The Government needs to examine how the costs can be reorganised to achieve the most equitable and environmentally sound outcome.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And you forgot the parking levy, and fuel taxes.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is right. A range of portfolios, including those of the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Roads, the Minister for Transport, and the Attorney General, need to be involved in this study and review which would examine how best to implement polluter-pays principles of car usage, different methods of payment which may be more equitable than the current arrangements, and incentives to reduce car usage throughout the year. Examples of different methods of car registration include a Dutch system, which I know about because I have been there. Under that system a car owner can choose which days he uses his car and he pays for those days only. The method is that the owner has a card and fills in the days required. Monitors are used at traffic intersections to take photographs of the traffic to catch those illegally driving on other than their allotted days.

People pay registration for only the days that they use their cars. It is an obvious positive incentive to lower the use of motor vehicles. That has been used in Holland since the mid-1970s, when I was there. It is a simple way of dealing with the situation where people can afford to have a motor car but perhaps cannot afford to run it every day. They are then not lumbered with the same high level of registration costs. It is a method of equity, a user-pays principle and a polluter-pays principle. It is a way of dealing with a system and has been used in Europe for years. I am astounded that this type of equitable means of distributing costs is not instituted. It would encourage the greater use of public transport, where economical; it would make public transport a much more enticing proposition and save the individual. These examples have been in use in Europe for a long period of time and it is a tragedy that this Government does not consider them.

The Greens have been pushing for these reforms for a long time. The changes to the legislation regarding the reduction in compensation for pain and suffering or non-economic loss are the most
Page 3872
contentious aspects of the Government's proposed bill. The Government proposes to reduce payments for pain and suffering by a minimum of 20 per cent and will prevent 60 per cent of the 16,000 claimants from receiving compensation in this area. The Greens have received communication from the Injured Persons Association, amongst others, suggesting that these changes are unacceptable and unwarranted. If the Government's bill is passed unamended, insurers will reduce expenditure on claims by over 20 per cent. The community is rightly concerned that the current measures are a grab for increased profits from an insurance industry which has suffered a market downturn. The Attorney General has not convinced me that this is not the case.

The prospect of wealthy insurance companies holding the Government to ransom over this issue is a classic case of dollars talking. If this bill is passed the Greens will ask the Attorney General to ensure that insurers' profits will not be excessive as a result of any reductions in compensation payouts. While the Attorney General has stated that the Government wishes premium prices to stabilise at around $350 the Attorney General has not stated how he will achieve that stability. How can premium prices be stabilised at $350, given their huge variance over the past years in the life of the scheme? What measures are being considered by the Attorney General to provide stability to motorists and to the industry? What guarantees are there that premium prices will not drop below $200 and again lead to a lack of viability for insurers to cover accident compensation costs? The bill provides no answers to these questions.

The alleged crisis in premium prices which has given rise to this bill has certainly raised the need to examine mechanisms to restrict the frequency of premium changes. The motor accident insurance market needs greater regulation to encourage insurers to take a longer view of compensation costs. This is not occurring with the Government's bill as it stands. It appears that the Motor Accidents Authority needs to closely scrutinise insurers' premium calculations and the profit margins. Other possible measures to stabilise the costs of registering and insuring a car should be considered. For example, the Government could reduce the motor vehicle tax and replace it with a fuel levy to maintain the overall cost of registering a car at an equitable, fair and environmentally appropriate level. It could also alter the TransCover levy periodically in order to stabilise overall registration, insurance and ancillary costs.

While the Greens generally accept the measures in the bill designed to tighten up eligibility to claim and to provide stability in court determinations of non-economic loss, a number of options in relation to section 79 non-economic loss, including those proposed by the Law Society, are still being considered. Support for these different options will depend on whether there is more effective regulation of insurers' profit margin and whether stability in premium prices will be guaranteed. The Greens believe that a change in the threshold of significant impairment from six to 12 months, combined with other changes to give direction to the courts in their determination of compensation, will reduce compensation costs and help stabilise premium prices.

These measures alone, without changes to section 79 dealing with pain and suffering compensation, may be all that is necessary at this stage. We are yet to be convinced that adequate compensation for those injured and this component of the real cost of running a car will be maintained by the bill. In conjunction with the measures designed to tighten up eligibility to claim and to provide stability in court determinations of non-economic loss, which are generally acceptable, as well as the proposed changes to section 79, the proposed increase in the verbal threshold of six to 12 months constitutes the third element of the Government's package of measures designed to rein in compulsory third party costs.

The Government proposes to limit access to pain and suffering compensation to those whose lives are significantly impaired for a continuous period of 12 months following a motor accident. This doubles the current threshold of six months of significant impairment. However, the Government is not able to state how many injury victims are likely to be prevented from claiming for pain and suffering damages on this measure alone. Nor is it able to say what percentage of the $700 million current claim costs would be saved if an interim nine months were adopted. Concern remains that there will be a community backlash from the elimination of so many accident victims from eligibility to claim for non-economic loss.

I am also concerned at the alteration of the Motor Accidents Authority consultation and management process. The Greens believe that there needs to be an alteration to the Motor Accidents Authority's consultation and management process such that appropriate consumer and/or injured persons' organisations can be funded on an ongoing basis. The Greens also believe that the Motor Accidents Authority needs to establish a formal consultation process with accident victims and/or representatives of consumers, as this will be especially important in the review period of the scheme. In the future the Motor Accidents Authority Board should include an injured persons' representative. The bill is quite draconian in its elimination of pain and suffering compensation claims from those with injuries deemed to be minor, but which in many cases are quite severe and involve injured persons requiring multiple surgery. The bill proposes that the new primary object of the Act is to reduce the cost of premiums, and the Greens believe that this is untenable.

The object of the motor accidents compensation scheme should be adequate and equitable rehabilitation and compensation for those injured in car accidents. The limitation of compensation payout costs and thereby premiums, per se, should not be its main objective. The Greens have received an undertaking from the Attorney General that the proposed changes requiring accident reports to be in writing will not
Page 3873
adversely impact on non-English speaking and low-literacy people. In conclusion, pressure from myself and the crossbenchers has already produced the Government's commitment to a full review of the motor accidents compensation scheme. The Greens welcome this broad review, but remain concerned about the impact of the bill on those injured during the intervening period. The relationship of wealthy insurance companies holding governments to ransom is a classic case of dollars talking, and is repugnant to me. I understand that support for the bill from the coalition will be such that my role is simply a statement of protest. I am used to that. I urge honourable members to oppose the bill.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [11.00]: I will be relatively brief in my contribution. I draw the attention of the Hon. I. Cohen to the fact that the Opposition tried very hard to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice for review but the honourable member opposed it. It is hypocritical of him to ask the questions and raise the issues that he did when they could have been reviewed by the law and justice committee.

The Hon. I. Cohen: I have seen the way your committees work. They take two weeks. What a joke. Come on, get real!

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: At least there would have been an opportunity for that matter to have been investigated and an interim report provided to Parliament. The Hon. I. Cohen has been exposed here today. He has shown that he is not interested in having the matter reviewed. The honourable member wanted to make a speech and ask rhetorical questions.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Do not be nasty, be nice. Calm down.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, I am being very definite about this. The Opposition attempted to get the matter reviewed as a matter of some urgency, or to get the process started at least. What did the honourable member do when he had an opportunity to vote? He voted against it. He voted against it yet he is hypocritical enough to come in here tonight and ask a series of questions as though they were new questions; as though they were questions the Opposition was not certain of. The Opposition did not want this matter to come on. I have a number of concerns and I will tell honourable members what they are. My concerns are that over time, since the scheme was put in place, there has been enormous growth in the number of people who contribute to the compulsory third party scheme. There has been therefore, actuarially, an increase in the amount of money that each of the companies has received.

The New South Wales injury history is something that we should be very proud of because the Parliament played a major role in achieving these remarkable goals. I refer to the figures set out on page 13 of the Motor Accidents Authority's report of 18 October. The severity of injury is classified from 1-6. In the accident year 1989-90, 6,729 people were classified as severity of injury 1; in 1993-94 that figure had increased to 7,981; the figure for severity of injury 2 decreased from 3,200 to 2,400; the figure for severity of injury 3 decreased from 1,600 to 1,000; and the figure for severity of injury 4-6 was 410, half the original figure of 719. In other words, the figures indicate a huge drop in the number of seriously ill people. Even though the number of cars have increased there have been fewer accidents. The number of deaths during that period also dropped dramatically.

These are important statistics. The Motor Accidents Authority indicated that the number of people who died in car accidents or as a result of accidents on the road in 1988 fell from 1,037 to 647 this year. That is a remarkable drop in real terms, absolutely remarkable, considering the number of cars on the road, the number of people travelling and the number of kilometres travelled. It means that our roads have become safer. However, with more and more people paying into the scheme there is absolutely no indication, with all of the figures plotted out in the document - and I am sure the Hon. I. Cohen will be interested in this - that any money is referred to for the income generated from the amount of money that people pay into the compulsory third party scheme.

In other words, the income earned by these insurance companies is not listed; and the income from the motor accidents scheme is not listed. The document shows how much has been paid out but does not show how much has been paid into the scheme. Nowhere in this statement is there mention of the amount of income that has been generated. I wonder if the Minister is privy to that information that a committee of the Parliament could have obtained very quickly. I turn now to the Insurance Council of Australia Limited, which sent a rapid response today. One has to discount what that organisation says. The Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations might be interested in asking his Federal colleagues to use the Trade Practices Act to institute an investigation into the operations of the Insurance Council of Australia in respect of its dealings with the Parliament and with the Motor Accidents Authority.

As the Leader of the Opposition said today, it is clear that the Insurance Council of Australia is acting on behalf of all of its members, including its weakest member and its strongest member. It is there to ensure that each and every member survives, even those who comprise only a fraction of the business; even those who might be the most inefficient. The Insurance Council of Australia, which consists of a number of insurers, will try to maintain its membership. My file on this matter contains a letter from the National Roads and Motorists Association, a copy of which was addressed to every member of Parliament, the contents of which were misleading. In fact, the NRMA was required to publish a retraction in the newspapers. That retraction stated:

Acting chief executive Peter Corrigan said figures released by NRMA actuaries Trowbridge Consulting showed legal fees of $29 million were made last year from total minor injury payments worth $147 million - representing around 20 per cent of damages.
Page 3874

Not 40 per cent as was claimed in the NRMA brochure sent to each and every member of Parliament on 16 November. The NRMA's document of 16 November was misleading. If the NRMA's actuaries or accountants could get that big-dollar issue so wrong, how does anyone know that any of the information provided to us, or provided by the NRMA to the Motor Accidents Authority, was accurate? These are serious matters and should be taken seriously. It is my understanding that the non-economic loss payout by the courts related entirely to the nature of the injury and the level of incapacity or seriousness of the injury. That is measured on a sliding scale. The NRMA's document states, in big bold letters:

Over generous judgements and lawyers' fees have contributed substantially to the escalating costs.
Honourable members know that the NRMA did not tell the absolute truth about lawyers' fees as a percentage of these costs and was obliged to retract that statement. But, overgenerous judgments? I am surprised by that statement because I would have thought that the way in which the courts work out what the injuries are as a percentage of the worst scenario, is reasonably cut and dried. The Attorney General would probably agree with that statement.

There is not much scope for judges to give generous judgments. A person is either 20 per cent or 25 per cent of a worst case. The judges would not get it wrong by more than 25 per cent. That is a matter of argument between insurers and claimants. There is a sliding scale for non-economic loss. Perhaps the whole process of non-economic loss should be reconsidered. More people are coming forward to make claims, perhaps because lawyers advertise and people know they can make a claim. Perhaps that is what happened in 1994 with the changes to the Legal Profession Act. Honourable members thought it was a good idea. I have received most of my information from the Law Society of New South Wales, which represents the people who are duty-bound to try to gain for the injured what they can get out of the scheme. There is no indication that the lawyers have been fraudulent in their claims or that the judges' awards for pain and suffering are other than according to scale.

Perhaps the number of claimants coming forward represents a new awareness of the scheme. However, there is no indication of the income the insurance companies have received. The Leader of the Opposition questioned whether the problems the companies are now having do not partly relate to poor managerial performance in their investment policies. We have no evidence in this regard. I believe it is time that the Trade Practices Commissioner, Professor Fels, and his friends, looked into whether any collusion is occurring. The companies may have come to us not entirely telling the truth on this matter. Many members would hold the NRMA in fairly high regard but there were two serious errors in large bold type on page 3 of its submission to members of Parliament dated 16 November. The Insurance Council of Australia letter stated:

There will be an impact on the earnings of some lawyers. Lawyers' costs currently equal almost 15% of the claims paid by insurers.
That is all-up, not just for non-economic loss but for everything. The letter continued:

The motoring public pay this in their premium.
Of course they do; everybody knows that. That may well be a reasonable amount. How do I know whether that is reasonable compared to what is paid under other schemes? I simply do not know that. I challenge anybody in this Chamber to say that he has that information. I do not believe anybody does. The letter continued:

It is in the area of minor injuries that the Law Society has already acknowledged that costs are disproportionably high.
That may well be true because of the expense in opening a file. The standing costs of a legal matter then become a higher proportion of the total cost. I am not convinced by such arguments. The Government has an absolute responsibility to ensure that the compulsory scheme works in the interest of the people who take out a policy. If it was voluntary it would be a different matter; it would be a case of buyer beware. Barely two years ago compulsory third party insurance cost $179, half of what it was before the threat of an increase to $700 or $800. The Motor Accidents Authority has the gall to scaremonger by saying that independent consulting actuaries have advised that if action is not taken to reduce the amount of compensation, motor vehicle owners may be paying $750 to $900 this year. I think the actuaries must have got it right two years ago when they said that $179 was okay. Suddenly it claims that the figure of $350 is not okay and the amount should be increased by a factor of almost six. I believe that referring the legislation to the law and justice committee to get some decent answers under oath was the right way to go. Now that option has been blocked by the Government.

The Hon. I. Cohen voted against the Opposition's proposal but other good and honest crossbenchers supported it. They know that the Government cannot be trusted on issues such as this because of the huge penalty that will be paid politically if it gets it wrong. I have real concerns about the bill and a deep and abiding suspicion about these matters. The original process was meant to involve retrospectivity. I gather that with the proposed amendments that is not likely to be the case. I have a suspicion not so much about the level of pain and suffering payments but about the whole operation of the scheme and the manner in which it has been brought forward. The Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations has a responsibility not just to ensure probity; if he has the vaguest suspicion that something is a bit crook he should call in the Federal Trade Practice commissioners to investigate the matter.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.16]: The Australian Democrats acknowledge that there is a need to bring compulsory third party costs under
Page 3875
control. There is no doubt that at the moment people are hurting and the cost of registering a car is getting out of the reach of many people. People living in Sydney or a major town where there is adequate public transport may not be badly affected by the higher costs because they will move to public transport, which would be to everybody's advantage because it is more environmentally friendly. However, people living in country areas or small villages outside country towns have totally inadequate public transport and have to use cars to get to work. The high costs are particularly tough on unemployed people who need a car to look for work.

As has already been pointed out, the Motor Accidents Amendment Bill 1995 covers very complex matters and it involves actuarial data which has not proved easy to understand. I am convinced that insufficient time has been given for members to fully understand why there has been a blow-out in costs. I certainly was not assisted in my understanding when only this evening I found in my office the most recent edition of the Motor Accidents Authority report. The figures given by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti are a little out of date. I have a letter received from the deputy general manager dated 23 November 1995. The figures go up to 30 September 1995. Therefore, I would assume that they are the latest figures that the authority has. Another page of relevant statistics is dated 23 November 1995 and has a time of 10.28 a.m. on it. It is an interesting document. Some of the charts do not support the written statement below them. I find this very odd. Unfortunately, the document is not numbered so I cannot give the page number but it would appear that for 1994-95 the number of claims lodged is exactly the same as for 1989-1990.

The expected claims are in fact considerably more, but they certainly had not reached the Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales by 30 September. Therefore, it would appear that what the Motor Accidents Authority had been anticipating would happen has not happened, and that should be taken into account. I refer to another type of chart showing that between 1985 and 1994 the number of fatal or serious accidents has in fact diminished. Also, the number of what are described as "other accidents" between 1985 and 1994 has also decreased. According to the figures, in 1985 there were 40,000 other accidents and in 1994 the figure dropped to below 30,000. Even the figures from the Motor Accidents Authority demonstrate that the number of claims are dropping.

However, we have been told by the Insurance Council of Australia Limited that it will be necessary to raise premiums because the scheme has blown out of all proportion. That statement is certainly not borne out by the material supplied to me by the Motor Accidents Authority. All honourable members would have received a copy of this document today. Certainly at the moment I do not understand how anybody could state that there has been a blow-out in costs, or even that there has been a blow-out in payments for non-economic loss damages for minor injuries. There has certainly been a substantial reduction in payouts for very serious injuries. Probably this is due in part to better roads, safer cars and much more effective driver education campaigns.

I am quite convinced that a kind of pea-and-thimble trick has been perpetrated on members on the crossbenches. We have had nowhere near enough time for consultation. Very interesting figures have been drawn to our attention by organisations such as the Injured Persons Association. These figures were drawn to our attention only within the last two days. It is necessary to consider some of the statements made by the Injured Persons Association. In a document dated 21 November the association stated:

Amendments to the Motor Accidents Act were tabled in Parliament late on Thursday last week, which will effectively deprive 60 per cent of all accident victims of compensation. This was done in response to bullying by the insurance industry, who are escalating compulsory third party premiums to upset motorists and scare the public. The premium rises to almost $450 in some cases are not justifiable based on facts.
Statistics from the Motor Accidents Authority show that accident rates are static or have declined since 1989 and only half of those who are injured claim compensation. The total cost of the scheme, that is, the claims paid or due to be paid to the injured, have not exceeded $500 million since 1989-90 and the total payout is relatively constant. The number of claimants against CTP Insurance were 1,000 less in 1992-93 than in 1989-90 and they fell to a record low number of claims in 1991-92. All those injured notified the CTP insurer of the accidents. Many will drop their claims as injuries abate. Others will get minor compensation or nothing. The recent blow-out in claims cited by the insurers as a reason for the huge rise in premiums is in fact an extra 2,000 claims in 1993-94 and a similar increase in 1994-95.

Using the average claim cost of $35,000 for 1993-94, and $38,000 for 1994-95, the huge increase in claims will cost the insurers a maximum of $146 million. Most of the claims, because the insurers admit they are small claims, will obviously cost them a lot less than that. However, for the same period, 1993-94, the average premium to insurers is $280, which grossed the insurers $924 million; and in 1994-95 the average premium was $390, which grossed the insurers $1.287 million. The insurers pushed the premiums to an unrealistically low level in 1992-93 to gain market share and cash flow. In fact, premiums should be about $300 per year, which would provide proper compensation for victims and still maintain liquid reserves and adequate profits for insurers.

In spite of this and the incidence and costs of minor claims, which was prepared by the Motor Accidents Authority statistics branch, we are being asked to consider this legislation, yet there is no basis for the legislation to be introduced. I wish the Government would take that matter into account. Obviously, I was extremely cynical at the ridiculously low premiums offered by insurers to capture the market share when the scheme first began. Indeed,
Page 3876
premiums dropped as low as $190 at one stage. I met people who said that it was wonderful because it showed what competition would do. We still have the same amount of competition, a fall in the number of claims, and yet competition premiums are skyrocketing, to almost $450 in some cases.

It appears that the privatisation of this sector has not resulted in the cost savings that were heralded. Only two days ago the most important politician in the world - certainly in Great Britain - to push privatisation was present in this Chamber, and I refer to Baroness Thatcher. She certainly believed that privatisation was the answer to all the ills that were affecting the economy in Great Britain. The majority of entities in Great Britain were privatised but we still do not know whether there is any real value in that type of privatisation. My own leader, Senator the Hon. Cheryl Kernot, made a statement about privatisation, stating that the community is increasingly questioning the so-called benefits of privatisation. Indeed, she was pointing to evidence coming out of the Thatcher sell-off in Great Britain where the four key outcomes of privatisation have been mass retrenchments, big increases in management salaries, high prices, and often fewer services. She points out that Great Britain's 20 million consumers have seen $200 million worth of their money handed to the new privateers on a plate. Shareholders have done rather better out of it, and customers have done rather less well. Of course, at this time I put on the record that the Australian Democrats is the only party that has consistently called for the costs and benefits of privatisation proposals to be properly assessed.

We have an opportunity to properly assess and review the proposals contained in the bill. The review of this bill should have been undertaken before we were asked to debate it in this place. I acknowledge that the Government has undertaken to conduct a review of the Motor Accidents Act if this legislation is passed without amendment. We would welcome the review of the Act, with the assistance of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which would have the opportunity to use independent actuaries. I am afraid that I cannot agree to vote for this legislation without amendment. As I said earlier, one of my big concerns about it is the fact that it is retrospective. When we were debating this bill last week, I placed on record my deep concerns about retrospective legislation. I have, therefore, prepared a simple amendment, of which I have informed the Attorney General. I hope he will agree to it.

I do not believe that it is proper that proposed section 79 apply to motor accidents that occurred before midnight on 26 September. It is now 23 November. A whole category of people will be affected because of the limitation of damages for non-economic loss being backdated to the date on which the Government announced the proposed changes. The fact that the Government announced changes does not alter the fact that this is retrospective legislation. This is a favourite trick of the Federal Government. It makes a statement and says that it will do something by way of legislation. The Minister responsible puts out a press release and then three, six or eight months later that legislation is enacted by the Parliament. It is then backdated to the date of the Minister's press release. That is government by press release, not by legislation. I do not like retrospective legislation - no Democrat does. I believe it would be proper for the bill to be amended to state - as happens in so many other pieces of legislation - that it will come into effect on the day it is proclaimed. That is the substance of my amendment. I hope it will have the support of all honourable members.

Unfortunately this bill will not be examined by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The review that the Government has promised will not have any effect until 1997 - which is a considerable time away. If we are to base that review on some of the shonky figures that we are being given at the moment, it may not be effective. Proposed section 79 is of great concern. It was brought to my attention by the Injured Persons Association. This proposed section will increase the deductible threshold for compensation in the event of injury from 8.2 per cent to 15 per cent - it is doubled. Currently, in real terms, that means victims pay an excess of about $19,000, but it will be increased to $31,000. Most compensation payments in New South Wales fall into the $30,000 to $40,000 range. This will eliminate about 60 per cent of all claims instantly. The only beneficiary of that will be the insurance companies. They are already making handsome profits, and they have found a way to blow their profits out in a most remarkable way.

The proposed section will have the effect of depriving many seriously injured persons their right to adequate compensation for loss of health. This is something we have to take into account. I am not happy about another section of the report that I was sent by the Motor Accidents Authority. There is a page which talks about injury severity - there are six levels of severity. The first level of severity is typical of minor injuries, including superficial cuts, bruises or abrasions; lower back strain; and strains or sprains of joints. Severity category No. 1 also includes whiplash. Whiplash can be a minor injury, but it can also be a major injury. There are examples of people who have had serious whiplash which has partially incapacitated them for many years. Whiplash should not be regarded as a superficial injury at the lowest level of severity. There is something wrong with the table.

The Motor Accidents Authority also refers to strains or sprains of joints. How that might affect a person would depend totally on the person's profession. I was involved in a car accident almost two years ago and I had a severely sprained foot. That did not bother me - I was a bit like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and was able to hobble about and do my work quite happily. But what if my job had been a physical education teacher in a school? What if I had been a dancer with the Australian Ballet? I would not have been able to work. Therefore, we cannot determine the severity of an
Page 3877
injury and how people should be compensated without taking into consideration the profession or work in which they are engaged.

The figures which the Injured Persons Association provided were valuable. It was necessary to place them on the public record. It is also necessary to place the fears of that organisation on the public record. It would not have been necessary for me to do that tonight, at this very late hour, if a formal process whereby submissions could be presented had been extended to organisations affected by this legislation. I am informed that this organisation did not have the opportunity to put forward its views, in the same way that the Law Society of New South Wales and the Insurance Council of Australia Limited and insurers did. I conclude by saying that, regrettably, under the present circumstances I have no option but to say that, with a great many reservations, the Australian Democrats support the Motor Accidents Amendment Bill. We should not support proposed section 79, which provides for retrospectivity, not only because the Australian Democrats do not support that concept but because of the effect it will have on many members of the public. I trust that during the Committee stage of the bill the Government and the Opposition will see fit to support my amendment.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [11.40]: The Motor Accidents Amendment Bill is one of three bills that has caused my office to be flooded with faxes and letters, on one side from insurers, on the other from lawyers. I learnt quickly to be sceptical of both groups. It is commonsense to be sceptical of any group pushing its own barrow of self-interest. During the past couple of weeks I was often tempted to put my political adviser up one end of my room and my personal assistant up the other end, have them throw at each other letters from both the Insurance Council of Australia and lawyers, and see who came out on top. That illustrates the complexity of being a crossbench member. One side of politics tells you an issue is black, the other side says it is white. I am reminded of the comment of Barry Jones in his book, Sleepers, Wake, published in 1982, that politicians understand about 15 to 20 per cent of information passing over their desks and often their decisions are made by gut instinct.

My gut instinct about this bill is that when it comes to children's interests something is missing. Children need to be considered as people, and they need to be considered in some legislation as special cases. My concern is that if children are injured in accidents they should not be viewed as hurt adults. Children are growing human beings; their bodies are growing and changing at a rate that will never be repeated at any other stage of their lives. The full extent of a child's injuries, even relatively minor ones, may not be known for many years. Children are integrated wholes, and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti made the point that a minor accident might have severe effects on other components of a child's personality. I quote from a solicitor's letter I received which probably encapsulates my view:

The prospect of a child receiving soft tissue injuries and osteopathic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and then having to deal with the consequential disabilities at times when their intellectual, physical and emotional development is concentrated in a very short span, then not being able to obtain and apply any reasonable compensation to the problems that are consequent on their injuries seems to be an odious imprecation of the rights of children.
In his second reading speech the Minister promised a review. In a letter to me from the Minister I was promised a thorough review should this measure pass without substantial amendment, and should it not be referred to the law and justice committee. The Minister, after representations, also has given me an assurance that the needs of children will be considered in any such review. The Minister wrote to me on 21 November 1995, following a brief discussion I had with one of his policy advisers, as follows:

As requested, I confirm that I would be prepared to include the needs of injured children in those matters to be considered in the proposed review. I acknowledge that injured children may have special needs, having regard to the state of their social, physical, intellectual and psychological development, which could be addressed in the review.
I consider that response to be an indication that the Government does care about children. To that extent, while I have grave reservations about the bill, as have the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and other honourable members, I will support it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.44]: The Call to Australia group supports the Motor Accidents Amendment Bill in principle. The object of this bill is to amend the scheme under the Motor Accidents Act 1988 to improve procedures for claims management and to achieve, where possible, an early settlement of a claim without recourse to court proceedings; generally to limit increases in the costs of the scheme and, consequently, to limit the amount of premiums paid for compulsory third-party insurance policies; and to make other miscellaneous amendments. Earlier the Leader of the Opposition moved that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. Call to Australia supported that motion because of the complex nature of the bill. For the same reason I have brought many documents to this House, including briefing papers from the National Roads and Motorists Association, insurance companies, the Law Society, the Bar Association, and hundreds of letters from people who had made claims or who are worried about having their claims paid.

The arguments conflict, and one would need the wisdom of Solomon to deal with them. The bill should have been referred to the law and justice committee. Call to Australia supported the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I voted for it, as did the Hon. Elaine Nile and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. Unfortunately, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. A. G. Corbett, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. J. S. Tingle, who are now critical of the bill and wanted to oppose or stop it, all voted against the motion that would have referred the bill for a 14-day period to the committee so that it could consider the
Page 3878
bill. That period would have been reasonable for the Parliament but it would have necessitated hard work for the Committee and for its chairman the Hon. B. H. Vaughan.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Unpaid.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Unpaid, yes. He is still waiting for his chairman's salary of office. The law and justice committee could have rapidly brought together the two points of view, reconciled the lawyers on the one side and the insurance companies on the other, and simply endorsed the bill as it stands, or done some finetuning. That course would have made many members happier to deal with the bill tonight. If the bill is defeated, a disaster of confusion about green slips will erupt in this State. The insurance companies are not bluffing when they say that green slip prices will go up. A couple of days ago I paid third-party insurance of about $354 to the NRMA. Insurance companies claim that green slip premiums will increase rapidly past $400 to $500. Adding up green slip insurance, comprehensive insurance, registration costs and minor repairs, people on low wages will be paying almost the cost of a car each year.

Vehicles must be tested prior to registration. A registration permit must be obtained from a registered tester. Registration testing is more stringent than it has ever been, and its cost is higher. I am surprised that garages where I regularly buy petrol do not test cars because they do not regard it as economical. Pressure is building up and costs are increasing, including the cost of car repairs. Obviously, we want cars on the roads to be safe. These changes are putting tremendous pressure on working-class people with limited incomes, including farmers who may own large properties but have no cash. Letters I have received speak of many tragedies that have occurred on the roads. The drafting of the letters indicates that the majority of the writers have been stimulated by the respective solicitors handling their cases. The wording of the letters is similar and they are typed. Unfortunately, it would appear that lawyers have put the fear of God into many people, telling them that if the legislation is passed they will not be entitled to compensation and that they should put pressure on crossbench and coalition members in order that the Government's bill may be defeated.

I have been flooded with letters such as these, and other honourable members have said that they have also been flooded with them. Quite a few of the letters come from individual solicitors but the majority come from citizens who are involved with insurance claims. Some of the letters merely say, "I urge you to oppose the Government's Bill to amend the Motor Accidents Act." They give no argument for their plea, they simply ask that the legislation be opposed. Apparently, people were too busy to put together a worthwhile argument against the bill. I shall not mention names, having regard to privacy requirements, but one letter I received, dated 28 October 1995 and coming from someone living in Maroubra, in the Premier's electorate, stated:

Dear Honourable Member,

Re: THE CARR GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO MOTOR VEHICLE DAMAGES

I have been injured in a motor vehicle accident.

I understand that the Carr Government has presented a Bill to amend the Motor Accidents Act, 1988.

I also understand that the proposal will see changes to section 79 of the Act so that the deductible of $18,500 is increased significantly beyond its current reach.

This may have an unfair and drastic affect upon my rights.

I have paid my registration, insurance, my taxes and road tolls. It is not fair or just that the Government make changes which will so dramatically change the current operation of the motor vehicle third party insurance scheme.

I ask that you act on my behalf to assist stop the Carr Governments amendment package.

Thank you for your time.

Yours faithfully,
Call to Australia has received many such letters. I do not intend to question the sincerity of those people, but I assume that their letters have been coordinated by solicitors. The letter I have just quoted is the same as a letter of the same date that comes from Ingleburn. It appears unusual that a letter from Maroubra and one from Ingleburn, dated the same day, should in some miraculous way be identical.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: It could be a coincidence.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: A third letter I have, which is also identical and of the same date, comes from Jannali. I suppose that it is possible for one solicitor to have clients from Ingleburn, Maroubra and Jannali, but it is a little hard to imagine. I am not questioning the authenticity of all of the letters I have received, but it is certain that a large percentage of them are part of an organised letter-writing campaign to persuade crossbench members to defeat the Government's bill and maintain the status quo. Submissions have been received also. On one side of the debate are the insurance companies and on the other side is the legal profession. Both sides have spent a great deal of time and money on impressive material for lobbying crossbench members of Parliament and, I would assume, other members. I have with me a background briefing paper from the National Roads and Motorists Association, for example.

I have some sympathy for the NRMA, having been a member of that organisation virtually ever since I started driving at around the age of 16. As I am now 61, I am a gold card member and am entitled to all of the other benefits of NRMA membership. My wife is also a member of that organisation. We have always had a very good business association with the NRMA. Our insurance policies are held with that company. We receive the full 60 per cent rebate because we do not make claims. The NRMA has always been prompt and has given us first-class assistance. Servicemen have even driven vehicles into the Parliament House garage when our battery has gone flat. Quite often servicemen have not even
Page 3879
bothered to take documentation from us; they just say, "We're glad to be of service to you." We hold the NRMA in very high regard, and therefore I also hold in high regard the organisation's arguments on this issue. The NRMA is in favour of the Government's position. If this legislation is not passed the consequence will be disastrous. Senior officers of the NRMA gave me a personal briefing in my office here at Parliament House. The background briefing paper they left with me stated:

The Compulsory Third Party (CTP) scheme, known as "green slips", was introduced on 1 July 1989 to replace the State Government run system, known as TransCover. TransCover was $2 billion in debt.

The intent of the CTP scheme was to reduce costs and, at the same time, ensure that people seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents were fully compensated for economic loss such as medical costs, hospital bills and past and future wages.

The pain and suffering component of compensation was intended to be awarded only to those people who suffered severe and permanent injuries in a motor accident.
It is important to realise that once an insurance scheme has been established it cannot suddenly be changed. Once premiums have been calculated one cannot say that they are no longer accurate because the scheme is about to change. I support the NRMA proposition that the scheme was intended to benefit only those persons who suffered severe and permanent injuries in a motor accident. The briefing paper also stated:

An unintended consequence of the legislation, however, which has arisen during the past three years, has been the significant increase in both the number of successful claims for minor injuries and the amount of compensation paid for pain and suffering.

Rising legal fees and generous judgements for minor injuries have contributed to the scheme's rising costs and forced up the cost of green slips.

This has created two key issues:

(1) It has forced up the price of green slips to a level unaffordable for the average motorist. The cost of a green slip is likely to reach at least $500 within 12 months.

(2) It has placed an intolerable financial burden on the CTP scheme.

It is in the best interests of the community, consumers and insurers that the scheme remains viable and affordable and able to adequately compensate seriously injured accident victims.

Under changes to the Motor Accident Act proposed by the State Government, the threshold at which compensation for pain and suffering cuts in will be raised from the current 8.2 per cent to 15 per cent to limit both the number and the amount of payouts for very minor injury claims.

Representatives of lawyers and insurers were given the same opportunities for consultation with, and representation to, the State Government prior to the Government making a decision.

How the threshold works

Under the Motorists Accidents Act, motorists injured in road accidents receive full compensation for economic losses such as wages, future earnings, hospital costs and medical bills. In addition, compensation is paid for non-economic loss (pain and suffering).

A motorist who suffers horrendous injuries such as quadriplegia and paraplegia is deemed to have sustained the worst possible injury and is awarded the maximum pain and suffering compensation of $220,000.

Those who suffer lesser injuries receive proportionally smaller amounts from the courts, cutting out when compensation falls below a threshold of 8.2 per cent of the maximum payment.

not

Lifting the threshold from 8.2 per cent to 15 per cent will have no impact on the entitlement of all motor accident victims to receive full reimbursement of economic loss.
That is a point that all honourable members, including crossbench members, should note. The document continued:

Rather, it will ensure the original intention of the CTP scheme - to use the money to adequately compensate and rehabilitate seriously injured motor accident victims.

The need for change

Despite the intent of the Motor Accidents Act, the number of claims and the cost of claims, mostly for minor injuries has soared.

Over-generous judgement and lawyers' fees have contributed substantially to the escalating costs.

Lawyers are putting an attractive case in television advertisements. They say they will run a case and that clients will pay if they win, but if they lose there is no fee. Many people who may not otherwise have bothered to go to court are attracted by that proposition. They have nothing to lose, so they make a claim. Lawyers perhaps benefit more than the claimants. The submission continued:

These judgements are inflating the degree of injury, allowing claimants with minor injuries to receive pain and suffering compensation contrary to the intent of the legislation.

Motor Accident Authority figures show that in the 12 months to last March, a total of $147 million was paid in compensation for minor injuries. Of that, $70 million was paid in pain and suffering (NEL) with lawyers receiving $29 million of the total compensation payout.

The legal profession has a vested interest in ensuring the threshold is not lifted from 8.2 per cent to 15 per cent under the proposed legislative changes.

The higher the number of successful claims for minor injuries and the bigger the payout, the more money the lawyers are able to make.

From 1989/90 to 1994/95, legal fees have almost doubled from an estimated $88 million to an estimated $165 million, while the number of claims has risen by about 20 per cent from an estimated 14,713 to an estimated 17,784.

It has become obvious that the intent of the legislation to compensate and rehabilitate seriously injured motor accident victims has not been adhered to. The people who benefit most from the way the scheme is heading are the expensive lawyers.

Conclusion

As the State's largest Compulsory Third Party insurer which has 1.9 million NSW motorists as members, the NRMA believes the best way to rein in the rising costs of the green Page 3880
slip scheme and provide proper compensation for the seriously injured is to raise the pain and suffering cut-off to 15 per cent.

This is not a matter of NRMA making windfall profits from the scheme. The CTP scheme costs the NRMA $277 million in the past financial year ($200 million more than anticipated) and contributed to an overall loss by the insurance company. Any legislative changes will not recover these losses.

Under the law, each year's premiums must cover expected compensation payouts with insurers paying into a premium pool administered by the Motor Accidents Authority.

As more compensation is paid out by insurers, green slip costs are forced up to pay for it. This means savings will be passed onto the motorists in terms of stabilising the CTP scheme and keeping green slip costs in check, hopefully even reducing them.

It is obvious the scheme is not working and that urgent action is required to ensure green slips remain within reach of the average motorist. With green slips likely to hit a minimum $500 within 12 months, the cost of CTP is fast becoming unaffordable.

Under the proposed changes to the scheme, no injured person will be out of pocket.

The National Roads and Motorists Association submission to me was impressive. The NRMA covers the bulk of green slip insurance cases and the time could come when it or other companies could opt out of the market. Insurance companies cannot afford to lose the substantial amounts paid in insurance premiums. I will not go through other submissions in detail, because I know honourable members have studied them. Compulsory third-party green slip premiums in New South Wales are the highest in the country, ranging from $320 to $389. As I said, I recently paid $354. The rate in Victoria is $260; the Australian Capital Territory, $252; Western Australia $242; South Australia, $186; and Queensland, $169. Obviously New South Wales cannot allow premiums to skyrocket to $500. The Insurance Council of Australia made similar supporting submissions. The Law Society is unhappy with the situation and has issued strong statements. A media release from the Law Society dated 25 September 1995 headed "Government fails to come clean on motor accident benefits" stated:

The NSW Government has failed to spell out the impact on motor accident victims of the so called "Greenslip reform package" it announced today, according to the Law Society of NSW .
It then went on to attack the Government. Because of time constraints, it was not possible for the Standing Committee on Law and Justice to investigate the matter. The Government, through the Attorney General, indicated that it had to take urgent action to halt the green slip crisis. A document dated 26 September from the office of the Attorney General stated:

The Attorney General, Mr Shaw, MLC, QC, today announced the State Government's greenslips reform package.

Mr Shaw said the rapid escalation in the cost of greenslips had necessitated urgent action.
Newspaper headlines read, "Green slips costs soaring", "Damages `out of control'", and articles referred to the possibility that more unregistered vehicles could be on the road because people would stop paying for green slips and would not register their cars. That has become a problem in the United States of America. A letter from the Attorney General dated 16 November read:

Dear Rev. Nile

As you will be aware, the Hon. John Hannaford has given notice that he will seek to have referred to the Law and Justice Committee of the Legislative Council the Motor Accidents Amendment Bill 1995 which I will introduce into the Council today. As I understand Mr Hannaford's proposed motion, the bill is to be immediately referred to the committee for a period of 14 days.
The Attorney General urged us to vote against that proposal. I sought to narrow it down and make it more workable by amending the motion so that only clause 79 would have been considered by the committee. The committee would have devised a policy on how to deal with the matter urgently. The Minister said in his letter:

I am mindful nevertheless of concerns raised by cross bench Members regarding the need to review the operation of the Motor Accidents Act. Such a review, however, would be much more effective if it were to be undertaken in a less rushed and more comprehensive manner than would be required if Mr Hannaford's motion were to succeed. Accordingly, I am happy to give an undertaking in my second reading speech to conduct a thorough review of the Act if the Council is prepared not to delay consideration of the Bill and the Bill is passed without significant amendment. The review will be carried out in consultation with the Law and Justice Committee and will include an examination of the rights of injured persons; the role of common law rights; the role of the legal profession; and the role of the insurance industry in third party insurance. Independent actuaries, acceptable to the Law and Justice Committee, will be employed to assist in the review. I anticipate that the review will be completed within 12 months and any amending legislation arising from the review will be introduced into the Parliament within 18 months from the date on which Parliament approves the bill.

For those interested in a genuine review of our third party insurance scheme, such a review would, I believe, provide a more practical alternative than a hurried referral of the bill to the Law and Justice Committee.

Yours faithfully

Call to Australia accepts the Attorney General's offer in good faith that a genuine and sincere inquiry will be undertaken, and that the committee will be provided with adequate funds, staff and accommodation. I trust that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, the Hon. B. H. Vaughan, will have his every wish met promptly within the framework of the committee's inquiry. I hope that the committee's operations will not be obstructed, as was the case with the review of the mandatory sentencing legislation. The law and justice committee should be able to conduct its investigations in the usual high standard of other standing committees of this House. If standing committees lose credibility, they have little point. It
Page 3881
is important that the Hon. B. H. Vaughan and his committee - of which I am a member - receives genuine support to conduct the inquiry. Call to Australia supports the bill and will move no amendments in Committee.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [12.01 a.m.], in reply: It would be churlish not to welcome the support of the Opposition for this bill. It is obvious, however, that the Liberals have a conflict of disloyalties: they have obviously promised the Law Society that they will block the bill and promised the insurance industry that they will not block the bill; hence, their exquisite agony. In his speech supporting the reference of the bill to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a number of alternative amendments to section 79 of the Motor Accidents Act. Members will recall that section 79 limits damages payable for non-economic loss. The Leader of the Opposition provided figures on the proposal of the Government, the Law Society and the Motor Accidents Authority.

In each case he developed scenarios for 15 per cent, 20 per cent and 25 per cent of worst cases. In some cases he used amounts relevant before indexation of the maximum amount, which occurred on 1 October 1995, and in other cases he used amounts which were applicable after indexation. In the case of the Government's proposal, the Leader of the Opposition said that a 15 per cent worst case would result in non-economic loss damages of $2,000; 20 per cent would produce $7,000; and 25 per cent, $14,000. The correct current figures determined under clause 79A are $2,500, $8,000 and $15,500 respectively. The Motor Accidents Authority provided the Government with a range of options and a detailed briefing on the proposals of the Law Society and the Insurance Council of Australia. However, it is not correct to say that the MAA had recommended a proposal different from that adopted by the Government and contained in the bill before the House.

The Leader of the Opposition then sought to impose upon this House a massive oversimplification. Despite all the warnings of actuaries who have been monitoring and analysing this business since 1988, he told the House that the outlined range of damage payments in the alternative scenarios will result in increased premiums of only $15 to $30. It is simply not possible to come to such conclusions with the precision outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. The overwhelming advice to the Government is that the level of damages must be significantly reduced for non-economic loss if premiums are to be reduced to, and held at, levels applicable in July 1995. The alternatives outlined by the Leader of the Opposition simply would not achieve reductions of that nature. In the light of continuing deterioration with the number and cost of claims, the alternative proposals may not have any impact on premiums at all; if they did, they would be of short duration only. They would certainly fail to achieve an ongoing premium which is reasonable and affordable for the owners of motor vehicles in New South Wales.

Compulsory third party insurance has had a volatile experience in New South Wales over the past 20 years, and recent experience has shown that the Motor Accidents Act has not been successful in removing that volatility completely. Therefore, the Government has introduced proposals which are designed to reduce cost pressures to a level which the community can afford to fund through green slip premiums. The Government has also undertaken to arrange a thorough review of the Act. The proposals directly address the problems currently being experienced, and on the best professional advice available will achieve a fair but effective outcome.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 2

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [12.15 a.m.]: I move:

Page 2, Clause 2, lines 4-8. Omit the clause, insert instead:

2 Commencement

This Act commences on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation.

I made clear my reasons for the amendment in my contribution to the second reading debate. It is Australian Democrat policy not to support retrospective legislation. This is a very simple amendment and such provisions have been included in numerous other pieces of legislation. This bill will impact severely on many people who have paid high premiums, and no harm will be done if the legislation comes into effect on the day or days to be appointed by proclamation. I trust that the Government will support my intention.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [12.17 a.m.]: Having considered the amendment, the Opposition will not be supporting it for the reasons I outlined in my contribution to the second reading debate. I was close to being outraged - to the extent that I can be outraged - during the second reading debate when I heard the contribution of the Hon. I. Cohen and his opposition to the bill. He voted against an opportunity to fully understand the bill when he voted against its referral to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The Hon. A. G. Corbett in his contribution put to the Chamber various references about the extent to which information can be received and absorbed and legislation understood. He clearly indicated that he had difficulty understanding the full implications of the legislation. He was given an opportunity to have the legislation analysed in detail by a parliamentary committee, but he rejected that opportunity.

Upper Houses have parliamentary committees that can provide expert advice on difficult legislation. They exist to assist members in that regard, to ensure that the Chamber achieves the best possible legislation. The Hon. A. G. Corbett chose not to refer the legislation to such a committee. The Opposition can be justifiably outraged about such contributions from members of this House.

Page 3882

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [12.19 a.m.]: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I will not regurgitate the debate about whether it was appropriate to send this bill to a committee. I will not express any outrage about the position of members on the crossbench. They were perfectly entitled to take the view that they could deal with this bill in the House without having it sent to a committee - it was an entirely legitimate view to take. I appreciated the argument presented by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby - no-one would suggest it was frivolous or without some element of substance. In September the Government took the view that green slip premiums were out of control and something needed to be done urgently.

That is why I announced - and the announcement was widely promulgated - that a new legal regime would apply to compensation for injuries received in accidents on or after 26 September 1995, despite the fact that it would take some time to advance the legislative framework through the Parliament. So people were alerted to a new system that would apply to injuries sustained in accidents after a specified date. There is nothing offensive to principle in such a procedural approach. One can draw comfort from the support of the Opposition - in other words, the bipartisanship in the House - to lend weight to the argument that no issue of basic principle is involved and that the need to stop the spiral of compulsory third-party premiums is of such a pressing nature that the proposal in the bill is supportable in these circumstances.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [12.20 a.m.]: I am challenged to comment further by the views expressed by the Minister. I make it clear that the Opposition does not accept as a matter of principle that it is appropriate to impose retrospective legislation in order to give private business organisations access to a profit, or to ensure the stability of private business organisations. The principle as to the retrospectivity of legislation appropriately applies in relation to State revenue. However, as I indicated, the Opposition wanted the Standing Committee on Law and Justice to examine in detail the justification for the approach to determine the financial analyses of the Government's proposals, and to determine whether they are in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. The Government deprived the Opposition of that opportunity and, therefore, our only alternative is to support the legislation. The principle enunciated by the Attorney General is interesting: it is appropriate to impose retrospective legislation to protect the financial position of private organisations. It is not a principle that is sustained by the Opposition.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [12.22 a.m.]: Having regard to the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and as I do not have support for my simple amendment, I shall take a few more moments to point out that the Government and the Opposition have adopted an unreasonable attitude. Only insurance companies will benefit from the legislation. They have adequate money. Premiums were not increasing inordinately. Between 1989-90 and 1993-94, the compulsory third-party premium cake totalled $4.3 billion; payouts and provision for future payouts for that period totalled $2.1 billion; and the Motor Accidents Authority, rehabilitation and education cost another $60 million, leaving insurance companies with $2 billion in the kitty. If that is so, why do insurance companies need to increase? It does not make sense.

The CTP premiums for 1994-95 and 1995-96 will total a further $2.2 billion. Interest on the yearly $1 billion cashflow is icing on the cake for insurance companies. The insurance companies have overreacted to a 77 per cent decrease in profit. That information is available in the Business Review Weekly "Top 1,000" edition dated 23 October 1995. The right of citizens to adequate compensation is being removed unnecessarily. Motorists pay CTP premiums, but the entire population is affected when premiums increase. An average of 27,000 people are injured each year and almost half of them claim compensation. However, not all of them receive it.

Insurance companies suggest they face a liability of 30,000 outstanding claims, averaging $45,000, and that has sent them into a panic. If that is so, the annual average of 13,000 claims would have to treble and all the claims would have to be for amounts 35 per cent above the average. That is highly unlikely. The legislation is a sell-out to insurance companies by the Government. Those who have paid high premiums and are injured in accidents will be the only ones to suffer. The premiums are sitting in the coffers of insurance companies and those who deserve compensation are not being paid. I am disappointed that the Government and the Opposition have not seen fit to support my amendment. However, it will remain on the record.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.26 a.m.]: I have raised with various insurance representatives the point made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby about the difference between the premiums being paid in and the compensation being paid out. I have been told that is incorrect. Insurance companies charge premiums that will enable them to settle future claims. It is a fallacy to compare premium income in one year with payouts that will be made in the future. The basis of insurance is an assessment of what might happen in the future. I accept that insurance companies must increase the rate of premium based on their assessment of future needs. I accept also the Attorney General's announcement as to the time the change will take effect. However, it will take some time