Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 30 May 1996, Corrected Copy)

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

The President offered the Prayers.


Petition praying that any attempt to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide be opposed and that the right to life be supported, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [11.06]: I move:

That this House:

1. Views with concern the failure of the inquiry into outstanding grievances with the Building Services Corporation (BSC) to produce and use consistent methodology in assessing victims' claims.

2. Condemns the failure of the Honourable Faye Lo Po' to release the methodology used in the inquiry.

3. Condemns the Honourable Faye Lo Po' for failing to explain how a budget of $4 million is structured.

4. Condemns the unfair tactic adopted by the BSC and the Department of Fair Trading in insisting that victims bank any cheques offered by 31 May 1996 in full satisfaction of any claim and agree to forgo any further, or future, rights to claims of further legal action.

5. Requests the Auditor-General to immediately investigate and audit all matters and payments and methods of payment relating to the inquiry into outstanding grievances with the BSC.

6. Calls upon the Government and Minister for Fair Trading to rescind the 31 May 1996 deadline for banking cheques issued and:

(a) allow the complainants to bank such cheques received in part payment of proper compensation for damage and loss; and

(b) enable such complainants to retain their full legal rights on banking such cheques.

7. Calls upon the Government, Minister for Fair Trading and the Department to produce all such papers as may be requested by the Auditor-General to assist in this audit.

8. Requests the Auditor-General to report to the Parliament on these and any other related matters in the inquiry into outstanding grievances with the BSC relating to the claims and disallowance of claims and any other financial matters by 27 June 1996.

For an incredibly long time there have been a great number of complaints and concerns and considerable inaction in relation to the resources, research and supposed assistance of the Building Services Corporation. A number of inquiries have taken place. There was the Dodd inquiry of 28 February 1993, then the Gyles report, and now we have the latest in a long line of reports, the Crawford report - a damning and scathing report on the activities and enterprises of the BSC, especially its treatment of people who had sought protection and assistance. The BSC has correctly been labelled the watchdog that failed the public. People expected a fair go from the corporation, but the Crawford inquiry found that it trivialised home owners' claims, that the level of defects was understated, that inspectors lacked competence to establish the seriousness of defects, and that it failed to stop builders guilty of malpractice from continuing to generate complaints.

The protection of builders' livelihoods became the watchdog's main concern. The corporation treated complaining home owners with contempt, especially single females. It was worse than Caesar appealing unto Caesar. It is beyond my comprehension how a body set up to look after complainants and at the same time control the builders, and then adjudicate on insurance claims, would deal fairly with complainants. This matter is not new to me; I have raised it in this House on many occasions. I have even questioned coalition Ministers severely, without notice, about this matter. The Crawford report having been so scathing, it is even more amazing that the inquiry set up to investigate 80-odd complaints was not correctly established, was not a precise and meticulous inquiry and was not given clear rules and methodology so that people knew how inquiries should be conducted, how claims should be submitted, what was admissible and what was not. Because of these problems the inquiry failed. Given the damning findings of previous inquiries, I am amazed that these problems were not dealt with. Therefore, I have moved this motion today. A proper inquiry has not been held.

I have many files of correspondence from dissatisfied consumers who want to know how various awards of money were arrived at, and who want to know about the criteria and what they should have submitted to the inquiry. It seems that amounts were decided on a simple, by-chance arrangement. Some who submitted claims for compensation, interest, legal fees, loss of home, disability, health or other matters, had the claims met; other applications were refused. No clear indication is given of how matters were determined. I asked about the methodology and the criteria in questions on notice. I asked about the criteria on which the inquiry based its recommendation of settlement to consumers and what people were compensated for. Were they compensated for defective work, consultancy and legal fees, interest, loss of business, stress and suffering?

Page 1767

A reasonable person would expect that the Minister for Fair Trading - that is almost an oxymoron in this case - would have been more than happy to provide this information, but her answer was to the effect that she had accepted the recommendations of the inquiry so far as they related to individual compensation in toto. It is clear that the Minister does not want to provide the information. That is simply not good enough. Many people are still very unhappy and concerned. They want to know precisely how their claims were treated: whether they were able to claim for certain things, what was included and what was rejected.

A sum of $4 million was plucked mystically out of the air to deal with all the complaints. A former Minister was asked, after funds were taken out of the Building Services Corporation, whether sufficient funds were available to cover all the claims in existence and those likely to come forward. An unequivocal yes was given, with the then general manager of the corporation present. Hansard shows that sufficient money was available. Why has the sum been restricted to $4 million? I do not know, and to date no-one else has been able to establish how the figure was determined. Some claimants were paid more than they had asked for and some claims were expedited. In those cases notes on ministerial files show that the department was pushed, shall we say, into settling. Those file notes make very interesting reading. I am sure the Auditor-General will find it interesting when he asks questions about those cases.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Do you have those notes?

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I have quite a number of things.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Could we hear some of them?

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I will get to them in time. This morning in another place an attempt was made to increase the maximum amount payable under the BSC compensation scheme from $100,000 to $200,000. The Government used its numbers in that place to defeat the move, thereby showing its complete contempt for consumers.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Come off it: $100,000 is not a bad amount to receive.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I note the honourable member's interjection and simply state that she shows her abysmal and absolute ignorance of the building industry. She has no concept of the costs to build per square. All she is doing is showing that she is totally ignorant. She has no concept. She does not understand. She has not read the cases.

The Hon. Franca Arena: On a point of order. The honourable member has accused me of being ignorant. I regard that word as very offensive. My husband is an architect, and if there is one area I know it is the building industry. I find it offensive that the honourable member has accused me of being ignorant and I ask him to withdraw the remark.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: On the point of order. I contend that the word "ignorant" is commonly used in the English language. The honourable member is not an expert in the field and therefore cannot claim to have expert knowledge. I suggest that the word used was appropriate.

The Hon P. T. Primrose: On the point of order. The term "ignorant" in this case was clearly used pejoratively, to put down the Hon. Franca Arena, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: Further to the point of order. I suggest that the word used is absolutely correct. I believe it is appropriate, but I would yield to your decision, Mr Deputy-President.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. J. R. Johnson): Order! I suggest that the member might make a decision.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: Do you ask me to withdraw it, Mr Deputy-President?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Yes.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: In that case, if you direct me, I will withdraw the word "ignorant", though I happily point out that the honourable member is not an expert and, therefore, her opinions are as valued as mine. Fortunately, in this case I happen to have the floor, not the honourable member.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: She got the floor for a couple of seconds.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: Yes, and that is about what her opinion is worth. I turn to the unfair tactics adopted by the Building Services Corporation designed to cajole, bludgeon and push a number of consumers into accepting the corporation's decision - without reason or fairness. A number of matters warrant examination. Honourable members have been receiving complaints about the terms of settlements being offered to claimants by the Building Services Corporation. I will not reveal the name in this particular case, but the offer from the BSC is as follows:

I refer to the inquiry's letter to you dated . . . 1996 offering [a sum of money] and enclosing a cheque for [that amount].

The inquiry has been advised that as at 24 April 1996 the above cheque had not been presented for payment. For a combination of budgetary, financial control and audit reasons, it is necessary that the status of the above cheque, and therefore the offer in respect of which it was made, be finalised before the end of the financial year.

Accordingly, I am writing to advise that if you wish to accept the offer made in the above letter you should ensure that the cheque has been banked by 5.00 p.m. Friday, 31 May 1996. The offer made in the above letter lapses if it is not accepted by that time. Cheques not deposited by then will thereafter be cancelled.

Page 1768

If you wish to accept the offer made to you, you must do so by banking the above cheque by 5.00 p.m. Friday, 31 May 1996. If you do not do so by then, it will be too late.

That letter, signed by Terrence Lynch, could hardly be regarded as anything other than a threat. The department is attempting to suborn those who have been fighting, in some cases for many years, for compensation to resolve their claims against the Building Services Corporation. Those tactics are wrong. Consumers were told by the inquiry panel on the day of the hearing that their legal rights would not be affected, whatever the findings ultimately were. However, it is clear that the schedule attached to cheques required complainants who accepted cheques to renounce all their legal rights. That is unconscionable. The terms and conditions of acceptance were designed to suborn those to whom the cheques were sent.

I suspect that many more complainants have been badgered and suborned. I have had telephone calls from a large number of people asking what they can do. They tell me that the amount offered is not sufficient to cover all their rectification problems but if they do not bank the cheque and sign away every right that they have they will get nothing; they will have to return to litigation through the courts and take their chances. That is rough treatment. I have a copy of the schedule sent with the cheques. I think I should note what was put to these claimants. The schedule states:

The offer is made on conditions. They are:

1. Acceptance of the offer is in full and final settlement of any and all complaints, insurance claims and/or insurance entitlements you have or might have under the Building Licensing Act 1971 or the Building Services Corporation Act 1989 as at the date of your banking the attached cheque.

It gets worse:

2. By banking the cheque you release and discharge:

a) the Crown right of New South Wales;

b) the Government of New South Wales;

c) the State of New South Wales;

d) the Builders Licensing Board and/or the Building Services Corporation;

e) the officers, staff and agents of the above . . .

Bear in mind that the Crawford, Rayner and Neilley report found that some of those officers and staff were incompetent and inept, had distorted the truth, had lied, and had done everything to deceive Ministers, present and past. Yet the schedule asks claimants to give those officers total exemption. The schedule continues:

. . . from

f) all actions, suits, causes of actions, claims, proceedings and demands both at law and at equity and

g) any other liability or responsibility whatsoever,

past, present, future or contingent, for or in respect of any conduct, including any omission, to the date of acceptance of the offer, in connection with, arising out of, associated with or in consequence of:

h) any complaint made or which could have been made;

i) any insurance claim made or which could have been made;

under the Builders Licensing Act 1971 and/or the Building Services Corporation Act 1989 as at the date you accept the offer.

Then, just to make sure that the claimant cannot get out of the undertaking, this you-beaut clause is added at the end:

3. You agree to keep this settlement and the terms of it confidential and not discuss it with anyone else.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: There is nothing unusual about that clause. That is common practice.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: Such a clause is sometimes used where a settlement is reached after proper discussion and after agreement is reached. But in this case the requirement to bank the cheque by a certain date and comply with the terms and conditions of acceptance of the cheque, together with the renunciation of any claim in any field against anybody for any thing, past present or future, is a bit rich. Freehill Hollingdale and Page prepared a report in which it referred to grievances dealt with by the ministerial inquiry and a submission that that firm had put to that body. As the report was prepared for somebody else, I will not quote from it chapter and verse. However, Freehill Hollingdale and Page did not come to the view that the schedule prepared by the Building Services Corporation is fair and equitable for those concerned. In fact, that firm suggests that those dealt with by the inquiry were, to put it mildly, "getting done".

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How many were dealt with by the inquiry?

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My information is that some 700 files were reviewed generally and that ultimately 80 cases were selected to go before the inquiry. I am interested to learn how those 80 were selected. I will deal with that in the near future and place on the record some more of the detail for the benefit of the House and the honourable member. Let us look at some of the things that have been happening. I have heard a number of reports that the procedure before the inquiry was that the persons concerned - I will call them the victims - were left to their own devices to present a submission. It has been put to me, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the inquiry did not inspect the sites that were the subject of the claims.

I have been a member of a number of committees that have dealt with such matters, and from my experience I would have expected that the sites would have been inspected so that the inquiry could, before making a subjective judgment, determine whether the claim was well based and whether the costing of works was up-to-date and accurate. It appears that that was not done. It seems to me that the inquiry adopted the arbitrary
Page 1769
approach of looking at the papers before it, took into account whether they were well written or who had prepared them for the claimant-victims, and used that documentation to assist its determination of the amount of compensation to be offered. That procedure hardly observes the laws of natural justice or is a fair and equitable way of resolving many of these longstanding complaints. Some of those complaints should have been resolved a long time ago. One interesting comment came from a reporter named David Tribe, who wrote in the financial section of the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 May. He referred to comments made by the Minister for Fair Trading on the dreadful problems and the disgraceful mess, and said:

A disturbing finding was the existence of a corporate culture strong enough to transcend major `changes in legislation, procedures, ministers, senior management and organisational structures'.

That is a fairly damning indictment and points to difficulties of introducing changes in this field. The inquiry into outstanding grievances with the Building Services Corporation and its predecessor, the Builders Licensing Board, paints a picture of entrenched incompetence, prejudice, rudeness and deceit especially when dealing with consumers who happen to be either women or of non-English speaking background. I am sure those points will concern the Hon. Franca Arena greatly. The inquiry was chaired by Dr Peter Crawford, who found that many key documents were missing from files. The inquiry received no reply to its letters seeking details of the individuals employed as insurance consultants by the BSC, the guidelines and policies in place to preclude the possibility of misuse of insurance claims information, and whether any former officers of the BSC act as referees on the Building Disputes Tribunal.

This sad and sorry situation is still going on in the recent inquiry. It is imperative that the Auditor-General be asked to immediately investigate and audit all the payments that have been made, whether banked or not banked, as well as the methods of payment relating to outstanding grievances with the BSC. I was told - and I will not mention the person's name - that when this Government came to office the person approached the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann and requested that she question the Minister further. The reply from the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann is most interesting. She said that she had four million other constituents and was not prepared to follow this through. She advised the complainant to refer it to the Minister. It is further alleged that the honourable member said, "You have been paid $47,000, be satisfied with that." The honourable member said that she had no intention of questioning her Minister on anything, whether it be right or wrong, because she would be kicked out of the party.

The honourable member inquired who the complainant's local member was and, when told, said to take the complaint to her or the media. It is alleged that the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann also said that she only took this on in the first place as a favour to her Labor friend, now a member of this House, the Hon. P. T. Primrose. That is very interesting indeed. So much for concerned honourable members taking up the cases of consumers. It did not go very far, although it is proper to deal with certain cases. As an example, a reference was made to a member, whom I will not name, which stated:

I enclose for your understanding a copy of the financial statement as it was presented to the Inquiry Panel by the consumer in question and explain as follows:

Stress/humiliation and rectification paid $23,000
Forced sale of business $16,500
Loss of income and time spent in court (1 day in BDT)
$20,000
Damage by houselifter $12,700
Increase in building material $10,000
Loan repayment $7,000
Rent and travel $10,000
Damage to house $1,000
Cleaning $650
Incomplete work $10,000
Interest on loan $3,000
Total $113,850

It is interesting to note that in addition the inquiry paid this consumer $16,150 that was not asked for. How the tribunal can decide to pay out $113,000 to this consumer, with an additional sum, certainly is a matter that the Auditor-General should look at along with other matters. The Auditor-General should ask precisely how this came to be. It is public money that is being paid out and quite clearly if it is not accounted for properly I for one would be most appalled. I could document a number of other cases, which I need not place on the record now, to prove that there has been no methodology, no control, no even-handedness. It appears to be the luck of the draw by which a consumer has his case put before the inquiry. People who were concerned were advised to take up their inquiries with a Mr Terry Lynch, who was appointed as a so-called independent legal adviser.

I have asked but have been unable to find out how Mr Lynch was appointed, who appointed him, or who is paying him. I have a great suspicion that he is appointed by, and paid as, a member of the BSC which is paid for by the Minister for Fair Trading. If that is the case I cannot help but ponder how any advice given by Mr Lynch would not be coloured by the person who is paying his salary. It seems to be totally unfair; it seems that the Minister is preparing to throw it back to Mr Lynch. In many cases questions and phone calls from aggrieved consumers to Mr Lynch have not been answered. He has not been there to help them. When advice has been given I cannot determine whether it was independent advice, was fair advice, was given with the consumer's best interest in mind, or, as used to be the case with the BSC, was purely with the BSC's and the Government's best interests in mind and, in the classical vein, to hell with the consumer. Equally, that needs to be picked up and dealt with. The number of complaints that occurred when this issue was aired on radio was quite phenomenal. An
Page 1770
absolute deluge of people wished to raise matters in that regard. Some of them had every reason to, as their stories are horrific.

Why cannot the Minister extend the date from 31 May, with a deadline of 5 p.m., to allow people to bank their cheques in part settlement? Or if they are prepared to accept their cheque in full settlement, so be it. Why cannot the Minister allow them to maintain their legal rights, on banking such cheques? If the House agrees to refer this matter to the Auditor-General it seems only fair, right and proper that the Auditor-General should be given time to look at it. In this case my notice of motion asks for the referral back to this House by 27 June, so we are talking about only a month. There seems to be no reasonable reason that should not be so. The Government should give the people a reasonable chance to allow the Auditor-General to make a determination and then we will find out if I am right. People should not have to forgo their rights at 5 p.m. tomorrow. The Minister for Community Services, being a sensitive, considerate and concerned person, would probably agree with me, if he had the opportunity, that a month would not be an unreasonable time to put this deadline back.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Flattery will not get you anywhere.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I accept that the Minister has his riding instructions and has no choice in the matter, but I wanted it on the record that he did not intend to do it - which is just what the Minister has said. The consumers have been unfairly dealt with. In order for the Auditor-General to deal with this matter it is absolutely essential that he have access to all the papers, workings and dealings involved in this inquiry, including the methodology that was or was not involved, so that he can assess the situation fairly and properly. I suspect that request may come up against the standard objection that honourable members have heard before but I believe the Auditor-General will be reasonably firm about wanting to deal with this issue. I believe that one month is a reasonable period for the Auditor-General's examination.

In volume 1 of his recently released report the Auditor-General dealt with the Building Services Corporation in part and his comments are somewhat worrying. I believe it is imperative to put on the record the fact that the corporation has managed to create a deficit of $1.3 million, compared with a surplus during the previous year; and that the insurance claims totalled $14 million, up from $8.5 million or 64 per cent. Something funny is going on. The corporation increased the task force allegedly to work through the backlog of insurance claims and salaries have increased. But the corporation is not broke, despite the fact that they would have us believe - and I am quoting from the Auditor-General's Report:

At the balance date the corporation had invested solely with New South Wales Treasury Corporation in hourglass facilities. At 31 December 1995 the Building Services Corporation also held total investments of $87.5 million, up from $82.1 million in 1994.

For the record, the investments are split into current, $25 million, and non-current, $62.5 million. Honourable members should be worried about the key issues appearing at the end of the Auditor-General's Report. The report states:

Key issues. The following significant issues have implications for the Building Services Corporation.

It states, under "accounts receivable":

A review of the corporation's debtors revealed that significant numbers of debtors are not considered likely to be recovered and should be written off. A number of debtors approved for write off during the year remain unprocessed at year end.

The most terrifying thought is that any corporation could have this allegation made against them:

The corporation does not maintain an adequate age debtors listing to enable timely review and follow up of debtor's balances.

I did not bring this matter to the attention of the House with great joy. It is with sorrow that I bring this matter before the House. I am concerned about the complete and utter failure of the Building Services Corporation and the Crawford inquiry that has just been completed, to ensure a proper and full accounting for all 80 people who appeared before the inquiry. It is interesting to note that list had to be amended twice. The first list before the inquiry was on 25 August 1995. The Government Gazette No. 102, at pages 5004, 5005 and 5006 shows that 52 people were in the first list.

Following further complaints and representation, a second list was compiled on 3 November 1995 and appears at page 7641 of the Government Gazette. That list contained an additional 25 names to go before the inquiry. I do not know how many people were refused that right; I do not know how many others should be on that list, but I know that the majority of the 80 people are totally dissatisfied with the treatment they have received. They are unhappy with the way they have been treated. They are unhappy at having been kept totally in the dark, as if they were in the mushroom club, as to the methodology used and what they could and could not claim for.

Those people are unhappy at having had to seek, but not receive as I understand it, assistance from Mr Terry Lynch, the independent solicitor appointed to assist the claimants; and they are more than unhappy because if they are unable to satisfy their claims the heavy-handed bludgeon of the Building Services Corporation will demand that the cheques are banked by 31 May or they forfeit their rights. That is totally unfair and unreasonable. I commend this notice of motion to the House, in its entirety. I hope that honourable members will take the view that the Auditor-General should - indeed, must - be asked to become involved in this scandal;
Page 1771
he must get to the bottom of it and make public for all to know what it is that has gone on so that the people concerned will, at the end of the day, receive justice.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.46]: The Hon. J. H. Jobling has raised a number of issues regarding the conduct of the Minister for Fair Trading and the methodology and intent of the inquiry into consumer grievances against the Building Services Corporation. It is interesting that the Liberal party would wish to allow us to debate this matter in this House given that the problems identified by the independent Committee of Inquiry were primarily ones of their making. In May 1995 the Minister for Fair Trading established an independent panel to look at longstanding consumer grievances against the Building Services Corporation - the BSC. The inquiry, in its two phases, looked at over 100 unresolved case files from the Building Services Corporation. Of these longstanding cases, 99 were reviewed by the inquiry panel, 20 were finalised through the normal insurance processes and 61 were recommended for payment by cheque. In total these cheques amounted to $4,304,416.50. Of that amount, 54 cheques have been cashed and it is expected that the remainder will be cashed during the next few days.

The inquiry panel - consisting of Dr Peter Crawford as chairman, Ms Moira Rayner and Mr Warwick Neilley - clearly outlined the methodology of its findings in sections 1.1 to 1.25 of its report entitled "Inquiry into Outstanding Grievances with the Building Services Corporation" dated 29 December 1995, and it is not my intention to repeat all those sections. However, the fundamental approach was to identify the financial loss in each case flowing from the Building Services Corporation's conduct; therefore, of necessity, different amounts arose in each case. By leave, I table the document.

The Crawford inquiry found a litany of horrors caused by the maladministration of the BSC under a succession of coalition Ministers. It also found that previous inquiries and a royal commission had identified the same problems, but that inaction by the former Government meant nothing changed. By contrast, in just over a year in office the Government has met and corresponded with many of the people affected by the BSC's actions, convened an inquiry, received its report and implemented its recommendations for compensation to BSC victims in full in every case. I must stress that every case looked at was different. Most involved a complex amalgam of failure and fault. The inquiry found fault on the part of the BSC but also on the part of builders, with poor design and drafting, lack of contracts or badly designed contracts, flawed council inspections and actions, inappropriate and even unconscionable legal advice, inappropriate advice from consultant engineers, and cases in which people contributed to their problems by their own actions.

It was the inquiry's task to disentangle this web of woe and recommend to the Government how the victims might be compensated for damage caused by the BSC. That is all. There is no capacity for the Government to pay out taxpayers' money to rectify the faults of any other parties. This is what the inquiry did, and the Minister accepted all its recommendations for compensation and forwarded cheques to the people accordingly. The Hon. J. H. Jobling has had a long-time interest in matters affecting BSC consumers. In a letter dated 22 February 1994, which he addressed to the then Minister for Consumer Affairs, the Hon. Wendy Machin, he raised a matter concerning one of these longstanding aggrieved consumers. I wish to place the letter on the record. It stated:

Dear Minister,

The Building Services Corporation seems to be a long-term exercise with a number of people, including Irene Onorati, President of BARG, the Building Action Review Group Inc., a consumer organisation which writes to me on an extraordinarily frequent basis as you will see.

BARG have written to me again by fax dated 18 February, 1994, concerning an article which I am sure you saw in Money by David Tribe in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 February, 1994 and they raise three questions about three reports that have not been published.

Frankly, I have not seen the reports and am not terribly concerned whether I do or not, but if you could advise me as to whether they are going to be released and/or tabled in Parliament, I would appreciate it so that I can advise Mrs Onorati accordingly.

They are an extremely active group and I am quite sure you will probably have received a similar fax.

I look forward to your advice in due course.

Yours sincerely,

John Jobling MLC
Government Whip

I can certainly confirm that was and is an active group. Many years ago I was shadow minister for housing and Mrs Onorati certainly darkened my doors on a few occasions. By leave, I table the letter. The next point I wish to make is that the Building Services Corporation has been abolished. It has been replaced under this Government by the Department of Fair Trading, a consumer protection body which has no conflicts about its proper role - such as Mr Crawford found the BSC to be riddled with. The Government has set about rebuilding the former organisation from the ground up. Complaints handling is being streamlined. A new "consumer first" focus is in place. We have scrapped the former 10-day waiting period in which no action used to be taken on complaints. The Government has established a task force to review totally all procedures and file handling - singled out for scathing criticism by Crawford. The Government is trialling early intervention methods with groups indicated by Dr Crawford to have received a particularly raw deal under the coalition, such as single women and people of non-English speaking background.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: That was appalling, wasn't it?

Page 1772

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Your record was appalling; the honourable member is absolutely right. The number of insurance claims processed since the Labor Government came to office has tripled. In one year of the coalition Government - 1993 - there were 5,214 complaints out of which 836 insurance claims were accepted into the insurance system - a ratio of one claim for every six complaints. Last year, under Labor, we received 4,949 complaints and processed 2,297 claims - a ratio of almost one in two. In conclusion, I would like to address the issue of the manner of the offer to consumers.

The inquiry's letters of offer sought a release of the BSC and those responsible to it. While the basis of the release was to protect public revenue, it does not preclude any claims that individual consumers may have against any other party. Without a final resolution of each individual consumer's claim against the BSC, it is not possible for the Minister to commit public moneys. Seeking a release is standard practice in the resolution of any dispute. Furthermore, given that the various compensation offers come from taxpayers' money, the Minister as the custodian of the public purse is responsible for ensuring, where offers are accepted by consumers, that acceptance of offers results in a conclusion of disputes and in no way leaves the public purse open to further claims.

It is common practice, in the process of effecting a settlement of any dispute, for an offer to remain open for a nominated period so as to enable the recipient of the offer to consider all available options and make informed decisions. Leaving an offer open indefinitely - and without requiring acceptance of the offer to be subject to a release - promotes uncertainty and does not assist in facilitating resolution of the dispute. Accordingly, imposing time limitations on the acceptance of an offer and making acceptance of an offer of settlement conditional upon the provision of a release is common practice in the process of dispute relation, and hardly amounts to an "unfair tactic".

The offers made to the various consumers by the inquiry are just that, offers. It is then a matter for each individual consumer to determine whether to accept or reject the offer made to them. Consumers choosing to accept offers made to them do so on the bases prescribed by the inquiry. Similarly, consumers choosing to reject offers may then pursue those alternative avenues of redress they consider appropriate in their circumstances. The offers that arose from the inquiry have finally afforded those consumers something that was simply not available to them under the previous administration. Those consumers now have a real opportunity to receive adequate compensation which will enable them to get on with their lives. The Government opposes the motion.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [11.57]: I support the motion in principle for an inquiry to be conducted by the Auditor-General into outstanding grievances with the Building Services Corporation because there is enough concern in the community to warrant it. The Hon. J. H. Jobling has summarised those concerns. I am also of the view that the Government should rescind the 31 May deadline for the banking of cheques and that, if the motion is agreed to, the date should be extended until the Parliament has had an opportunity to consider the proposed Auditor-General's Report - and that is only a month away.

However, I am not comfortable with condemnation of the Minister, the Hon. Faye Lo Po', as such criticism is premature. As stated by the Hon. R. D. Dyer, the Government has at least done something to address the grievances of those concerned by setting up an inquiry in 1995, something the former Government neglected to do. Finally, it is interesting to note that, to my knowledge, following notice of this motion being given on Tuesday there has been no contact with my office or the office of any crossbencher by the Minister or his staff. I am not sure what this means, but it is unusual in a matter such as this. Perhaps the Minister's department is not greatly concerned about this matter being the subject of an inquiry by the Auditor-General.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.00]: Call to Australia supports the motion moved by the Hon. J. H. Jobling. We believe it is a comprehensive motion which will enable the Auditor-General to carry out his duties. I understand that unless we have a motion along these lines he will not have the necessary documents and detailed authority required to conduct his investigation. As an officer of the Government and of the Parliament, the Auditor-General should have access to relevant documents, in respect of which confidentiality would be maintained. The Auditor-General should be permitted to require that the necessary documents be produced. The position is different in relation to the recent debate about the powers of the House to request documents, which I support.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.



The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Why has the Government failed to enter into a contract regarding the development of the Sydney showground site as a movie theatre centre?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As far as I am aware, the industry assistance agreement has been signed - in fact, I think I signed it. I will check on that matter.

Page 1773

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What action is the Government taking to tackle the sawmilling industry's high rate of injury and high cost of workers compensation?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The incidence of injury in the sawmilling industry has long been at a high and unacceptable level. The nature of many of those injuries is serious, and it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. I inform the House that the New South Wales WorkCover Authority is working closely with industry to improve its health and safety performance. The incident rate for injuries in the log sawmilling industry for the 1994-95 financial year was 89 per 1,000 workers exposed to risk. That is three times the incident rate for all industries in New South Wales, which for the same financial year was 28.6 per 1,000 workers. These statistics highlight the dangers of working in the industry. Moreover, accidents in sawmills often result in serious injury causing pain and hardship for workers and their families.

It is no surprise that the industry has the highest cost of workers compensation insurance in New South Wales. The high cost of workers compensation premiums results from the sawmilling industry having such a disproportionate number of work-related accidents, often resulting in serious injury. The length of time taken off work by an injured sawmill worker is also disproportionately long, resulting in high rehabilitation costs. A matter of much greater concern than these costs, however, is the horrendous human suffering that many of these accidents bring to the workers concerned and their families. In order to address these problems, the Government is pursuing a multi-faceted strategy based on raising awareness of occupational health and safety issues within the industry, implementing a new minimum safety standard and providing practical assistance and advice to industry on how to make sawmills safer.

In consultation with the timber industry, including visits to 49 mills throughout New South Wales, WorkCover has produced a draft health and safety code of practice. This code will provide practical guidance to industry to help reduce the risk of accidents and to make the industry a better and safer place in which to work. As part of the extensive public consultation process underpinning the code, WorkCover officers in March this year addressed meetings of sawmill managers and workers in 13 regional centres throughout the State. WorkCover is now reviewing the public comment it has received. I expect the code to be gazetted later this year. Importantly, the code has received broad industry support and has helped to focus the industry's attention on the need to address seriously this important issue. Of particular significance, I advise the House that New South Wales is leading the nation with respect to setting new standards for sawmill safety.

Standards Australia has decided to use the draft New South Wales code of practice as the reference point for developing a new national sawmilling standard. WorkCover representatives are also visiting individual sawmills throughout the State, giving practical, specific advice on ways to improve occupational health and safety. This includes advising managers of hazardous machinery and work practices, suggesting safe alternative work processes and explaining the steps which will need to be taken by sawmills in order to conform with the code. Most important, WorkCover is seeking to help sawmills identify for themselves the occupational health and safety risks and remedies.

The draft code is designed to assist sawmill management, supervisors, safety committees and mill workers to perform risk assessment processes in all aspects of their mill. The Government believes that these initiatives will help to make a significant impact on this industry's occupational health and safety performance. Fewer accidents will mean less human misery and lower compensation costs. The work done so far is already producing results in terms of changed attitudes and a recognition within the industry of the need for change. The Government's emphasis on close cooperation with industry parties has been critical in this respect. One of the occupational health and safety problems in sawmills is noise levels. On my recent visit to a Boral mill outside Taree I was pleased to see a comprehensive process of enforcing the use of hearing blocking devices by the workers there. A problem which is often experienced within the industry is that employees are disinclined to wear hearing safety devices, and management is to be commended for rigorously enforcing the need for those protective devices.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Has he received a report on the work and activities of the Council on the Cost of Government during the previous six months?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware that I have, but I will certainly check on that.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Has the juvenile crime prevention division's pilot grants program been finalised, and if so what are the outcomes of it?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I thank the Hon. Franca Arena for her question. I think that the juvenile crime prevention division's grants program
Page 1774
has been successful and that members of the House ought to be informed about it. My department's juvenile crime prevention division administers a grants program, the aim of which is to achieve a reduction in the incidence of juvenile crime through the provision of funding to non-government agencies. Innovative projects have been developed for local community projects, seminars, conferences and training or education programs, as well as research and evaluation. The division considers funding projects which come within certain stated criteria, these being: to reduce the level of concern surrounding juvenile crime; to promote a positive image of young people; to address the causes of crime committed by young people; to reduce opportunities for the commission of crime by young people; to reduce the severity of the consequences of juvenile crime; and to promote juvenile crime prevention.

To date 10 organisations have been funded under the division's grants programs, for a range of projects targeting juvenile crime prevention. I would like to outline briefly those projects that have so far been funded. First, officers from the Department of Public Health are analysing data from a research project which documents the level of juvenile crime in the out-of-school youth population in New South Wales. The research project also looks at predictors of this behaviour, such as homelessness, school failure and a history of abuse. The Youth Action and Policy Association held a conference in 1995 which was attended by young people and at which a range of issues relating to youth were discussed, including what crime prevention means to the youth sector.

Bolloway Community Services Aboriginal Corporation gained funding to employ an Aboriginal community liaison officer to assist in the establishment of a Koori juvenile cultural revival centre at Bingi on the New South Wales south coast. Newcastle Community Arts Centre is being funded for a graffiti art development program in Newcastle for establishing legal sites and work for the development of social and arts-related skills with known graffiti offenders and their associates. The project aims at redirecting graffiti writers from illegal to legal work and developing their skills, both artistic and managerial.

The High Street youth health service for the Streetz working party is undertaking the Parramatta central business district public space research project. The project targets young people and their relationship with public space, the owners of public space, other users and the resulting crime and violence that may occur. The lesbian and gay antiviolence project is about devising a statewide campaign to reduce the level of involvement of young people in violence against lesbians and gays by targeting young people who are either already involved in antilesbian and homophobic violence or are at risk of becoming involved, or those on the periphery who have not yet developed a personal commitment to this violence.

Bay and Basin Community Resources Incorporated is constructing multipurpose hard courts. The project aims to redevelop a hazardous area of dense underbrush and bush that is a gathering place for youth who assemble to drink or use drugs. Providing an entertainment and recreational facility will have a direct effect upon the antisocial behaviour of disadvantaged youth and make available a facility that can be utilised by the entire youth population. The School of Psychology at the University of New South Wales is undertaking a qualitative study on the major influences on the development of criminal activity among young people. The research aims to specify the major influences of criminal activity among young people. Creative times, a project of a particular foundation, is undertaking a pilot project assisting juveniles who are in danger of committing violent crimes to explore alternatives to violence. The project will assist participants to develop protective behaviours that will allow them to make choices about the way in which they respond to conflict.

The Burnside-Cabramatta centre U-turn crime prevention project aims to employ a worker to undertake research into various ethnic groups to determine their particular needs and develop appropriate educational, recreational and family services that promote alternative behaviours and opportunities for at-risk young people. In summary, the juvenile crime prevention body is dealing with a variety of useful projects. In addition, it is administering a grant given by the Premier in 1995 to the enough-is-enough antiviolence movement to fund a program that includes such activities as the development and implementation of an antiviolence module for schools, the conduct of seminars and community group meetings, the development of education programs for the judiciary, and education programs for prison inmates.


The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that radio station 2WS was this morning flooded with complaints from residents of western Sydney in response to comments made by the Minister for Police in another place yesterday, when he likened the honourable member for Vaucluse to a soccer hooligan and called him a "westie"? Is the Minister prepared to place on record his disgust at the comments made by the Minister for Police?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order. This same question was asked of me of yesterday.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that I do not propose to provide a running commentary on observations said to be made by other members of the Government.

Page 1775

The Hon. Dr. MEREDITH BURGMANN: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services inform the House of recent changes he has made in relation to the official visitors program in juvenile justice centres?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann for her ongoing interest in juvenile justice. The House would know that official visitors play an invaluable role in monitoring and evaluating the provision of services by the Department of Juvenile Justice and in providing direct feedback, both to me as Minister and to the director-general, on the effectiveness of those services. Official visitors can be an important change agent, by facilitating practical improvements on an ongoing basis and by constantly monitoring the quality of service provided to clients.

I am a great believer in scrutiny by independent experts as a means of promoting improvements to the delivery of services to clients. Towards that end I recently instigated a review of client complaint handling procedures in the department. The review was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council, and I am considering the very practical recommendations made as a result. Some of the recommendations directly concern the official visitors scheme and have recently been incorporated into current practice. I note that the advisory council found official visitors to be an invaluable source of information in conducting the review. As a result of the report I have recently approved two important changes to the official visitors scheme.

Firstly, official visitors are to concentrate on issues affecting clients, and will no longer advocate on behalf of staff in employment issues. During discussions with official visitors last year I was disturbed to learn that many of them spent up to 50 per cent of their time in centres talking with staff about their concerns and advocating on their behalf. I have no desire to trivialise the concerns of staff, but I am aware that staff have other avenues open to them, such as trade unions, to address their concerns about their working environment. The official visitors scheme was clearly established to deal with clients' needs, so steps have now been taken to ensure that this is the case. This will not, of course, prevent staff from talking to official visitors about matters that have a direct impact on clients. It will ensure, however, that the valuable time of official visitors will not be taken up with staff industrial concerns.

Secondly, I have appointed a senior official visitor who will take on a consultative and advisory role, coordinate activities of visitors and enhance communication between the visitors and me and senior management in the department. I trust that this change will be of considerable practical assistance to official visitors as they undertake their duties as visitors. There is, of course, a range of avenues open to young people in detention that attempt to ensure that their individual needs are met, and it is to be hoped that in most cases it will not be necessary to enlist the support of the official visitor. The role of official visitor is a very important safeguard in the system, however, to ensure that it meets the needs of all clients, that basic human needs are observed and that both clients and their families are accorded the dignity they deserve during a period of incarceration. There are also instances in which intervention by a visitor may facilitate the speedy resolution of grievances within a centre.

I am particularly concerned to ensure that the system meets the cultural needs of clients and is sensitive to the special difficulties faced by some clients. The multiple and complex problems faced by these young people must be taken into account if departmental efforts to rehabilitate them are to be successful. I believe that official visitors are in a position to play a very special role in ensuring that the individual needs of clients are recognised and met. I view the official visitors as being the most important mechanism to provide ongoing monitoring and feedback on the way in which the system is operating daily from the clients' perspective, and I look forward to receiving updates on their most important work.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Is it a fact that the Queensland Government has announced dramatic changes to State laws concerning juvenile offenders and juvenile justice because of the great increase in juvenile crime? Is it a fact that the changes include provisions that serious juvenile offenders can be fingerprinted, that juveniles can be required to pay compensation and apologise to their victims and that the parents of juvenile offenders can be required to pay up to $5,000 in compensation to victims? Will the New South Wales Government examine the Queensland legislation and take positive steps towards the development of uniform juvenile justice legislation, similar to the approach taken with uniform gun laws, to ensure that similar procedures and effective requirements in juvenile justice apply in all States?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is the case that the Queensland Government has announced a number of changes to juvenile justice laws. The honourable member may well be correct in the detail of his recital of the question, but certainly some changes have been put up for public debate by the Queensland Government. I am happy to examine the changes, but I must say that it seems to me in principle that the case for uniform laws about juvenile justice seems less persuasive or overwhelming than was the case for uniform laws with respect to guns. Nevertheless, in that context, when a new development emanates from a State or Territory in an area as important as this, it is appropriate that we carefully examine it.

Page 1776

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Hon. Patricia Staunton as chairperson of the Standing Committee on State Development. Has the committee resolved not to call for the release of papers from the New South Wales Department of Agriculture in the standing committee's investigation of the closure of the veterinary laboratories at Wagga Wagga and Armidale and the decentralisation of the Biological and Chemical Research Institute at Rydalmere? If so, why?

The Hon. Patricia Staunton: Mr President, could you advise me whether it is appropriate that I respond to that question?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the member taking a point of order?

The Hon. Patricia Staunton: To be more precise, Mr President, it would be my view, subject to -

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the member taking a point of order?

The Hon. Patricia Staunton: I will take that point of order, that it is not appropriate for me -

The PRESIDENT: Order! What is the point of order?

The Hon. Patricia Staunton: That it is not appropriate to direct that question to me; it should be more appropriately directed to the relevant Minister in the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Richard Bull will hand up the question if he has it in written form.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On the point of order. Whilst it is in order for members to address questions to chairpersons of standing committees in relation to, one might say, the progress of matters before the standing committee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked the Hon. Patricia Staunton for an explanation of a decision, as I understand it, that he claims that the committee has made.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: No.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is not so? If the honourable member is asking, as I understood he was asking, the Hon. Patricia Staunton to explain a decision made by the committee, that surely would be a matter for the committee's report to this House. In any event, I would not have thought that the Hon. Patricia Staunton was in a position to answer for anything other than the way in which she voted on a particular matter in the committee. She is not in a position to know what was in the mind of each individual member of the committee.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: On the point of order. Standing Order 29 states:

Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and to other Members, relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such Members may be concerned . . .

I would have thought that as the honourable member is chairperson of the Standing Committee on State Development, that is business of the House. Certainly the question concerns the business of the committee. Mr President, I respectfully suggest that the question is within the ambit of Standing Order 29 and should be allowed.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. I would suggest that the first part of the question is in order but the second part "If so, why?" is -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You are not speaking to the point of order.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am saying that the second part of the question is out of order. I do not believe it is for the Hon. Patricia Staunton to explain a majority decision of the committee, other than to present the committee's report to the House.

The Hon. Dorothy Isaksen: On the point of order. I make the point that it is not the business of the House until the report is tabled.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The matter is governed by Standing Order 29, which has been interpreted by numerous rulings of my predecessors, more illustrious than I, to the effect that it is perfectly in order for a question to be directed by a member to the chairman of a committee. That having been established, the question is whether this particular question is in order to be directed. It has already been ruled - and I agree with the ruling of my distinguished deputy, the Hon. Duncan Gay - that it is not competent under this standing order for members to canvass the findings of a committee in relation to a matter upon which it has not reported. There have been no rulings that I am aware of directly on the point of order taken by the Hon. Patricia Staunton. I am of the view that it is competent for a member to ask of a committee chairman questions relating to the operations of the committee in a mechanical sense. I find therefore that there is no point of order in relation to this question. However, I would add that, just as it has been ruled on numerous occasions that a Minister is entitled to answer a question in whichever manner the Minister pleases, the same privilege would attach to a committee chairman. There is no point of order.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: I can advise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the committee, in the course of its inquiries, has written to the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture and sought very detailed information from him in relation to the terms of reference of the inquiry. The director-general is due to appear before the committee on 7 June - that is, tomorrow week. In addition, the Department of Agriculture
Page 1777
has made freely available to members of the committee a box or more of documentation in response to the committee's request, which of course the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who of course set this question up as part of his grandstanding nonsense -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On a point of order. I make it perfectly clear that I had nothing to do with the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. My point of order is that the Hon. Patricia Staunton said that I had made a certain statement. I did not see the question, or any part of it, before I came into the House. But, more importantly, I ask her to withdraw the imputation that I am grandstanding on such an important issue.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: I withdraw no such suggestion.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On the point of order. I ask the Hon. Patricia Staunton to withdraw the imputation that I am grandstanding on this important matter.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On the point of order. The honourable member should not look so hurt. Poor little cherub! There are rulings of Presidents that if a member calls for withdrawal of a remark that another member finds personally offensive, then the member making the remark is required to withdraw it. But there are also rulings of Presidents that the matter complained of has to be such that the member seeking withdrawal of the remark can reasonably claim to be offended. The test is not whether the member is offended; it is whether a member could reasonably be offended. If the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is so thin skinned, he should not be a member of this House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order because I do not regard the matter complained of by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to be of an offensive nature. The honourable member well knows that, to use the vernacular, if he has been verballed, he has the right to make a personal explanation at an appropriate stage to correct the record.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: I raise a further point of order. Standing Order 81 provides that all imputations of improper motives shall be deemed disorderly. The statement made by the member clearly asserted an improper imputation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled on the matter.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: I had almost forgotten where I was up to. Oh yes, the box of documents.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Have you called for them or not?

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: I have already dealt with that aspect. Without wishing to offend any other member of the Opposition, for they seem to be fairly sensitive on this matter, I must say that members of the Opposition on the committee have been given adequate, proper and appropriate information supplied by the Department of Agriculture under the instruction of the director-general. They will have the opportunity to question the director-general when he appears before the committee. I repeat yet again: this is a beat-up.


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I direct a question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Attorney aware that there has been no major postgraduate teaching of occupational health and safety at the University of Sydney since the cessation in 1995 of a masters program conducted for the university by WorkSafe Australia? Bearing in mind that the WorkCover Authority has been very supportive of developing a centre for occupational health and safety at the University of Sydney in the faculty of medicine, would the Attorney give consideration to having a new program and centre set up at the University of Sydney to be funded by the WorkCover Authority?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I thank the honourable member for raising an important topic of postgraduate education in the field of occupational health and safety. Personally, I think it is of great importance that our universities provide that sort of facility for medical students and others who want to engage in such postgraduate study. I cannot say, on present advice, whether the WorkCover Authority budget will enable some grant or assistance to that postgraduate program at the University of Sydney, but I certainly will raise the issue with the WorkCover Authority and ask that it be viewed in a favourable and positive light.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. I refer to my question last week to the Minister about a report on the internal review of the management of the Ethnic Affairs Commission and the Minister's answer that, as he had been informed, the report would be available on 27 May 1996. As no such report has yet been made available, would the Minister kindly inform me when the report is to be released?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will obtain an answer and convey it to the honourable member.


The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I address a question without notice to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional
Page 1778
Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that the statistics on road usage between Wilcannia and White Cliffs show that approximately 350 coaches plus 10,000 cars use that road each year, yet the road is graded on average only once per year? Will the Minister's department investigate the matter with a view to increasing funding so that the residents of White Cliffs will not be further disadvantaged?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I take it that the honourable member addressed his question to me as Minister representing the Minister for Roads rather than the Minister for Transport.

The Hon. M. R. Kersten: Yes. My apologies.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is all right. I realise you are a new boy and you do not quite understand the way things happen in this place. The fact of the matter is that the road from Wilcannia to White Cliffs has been in existence for longer than 14 months. For seven years the lot opposite were responsible for our roads. I am quite certain that the Minister for Roads will give this road much more attention than did his predecessor.


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 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware of a media release issued by the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Watch Committee dated 9 May 1996? Are claims that the arrest rate in New South Wales for Aboriginal people has doubled since 1989 accurate? Will the Minister call on the Federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to facilitate a national summit of corrective service Ministers to meet with peak Aboriginal community organisations in order to implement the recommendations of the key royal commission recommendations and thereby reduce the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in custody?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is well known that I, metaphorically wearing my hat of Minister for Juvenile Justice, am endeavouring to do a lot to reduce the overrepresentation of young Aborigines in juvenile detention centres. Approximately 25 per cent of young people in detention centres are of Aboriginal background compared with a youth population of Aboriginal background of only 2 per cent - a shocking overrepresentation. For that reason I commenced programs such as the safe house program and the Aboriginal mentor scheme, to name but two, in an endeavour to ensure that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are not placed in custody for essentially welfare reasons. Although it may sound surprising, magistrates often refuse a bail application because a young person does not have a satisfactory background into which he or she can be remanded pending hearing of a matter. So far as adult offenders are concerned I have no doubt that there is also an overrepresentation. I shall refer the member's question to my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and give the honourable member a prepared response as soon as possible.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Is it a fact that the Department of Juvenile Justice acknowledges that there are approximately 120 convicted juvenile sex offenders in New South Wales? Has the department's position of specialist clinical psychiatrist been axed? How many counsellors are there within the Department of Juvenile Justice to work with these known offenders? What specialist support is available to assist in an early intervention program?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: In response to the honourable member's question -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: He is choked up with emotion.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No. I am amazed that the honourable member has not asked a question about the demonstration that is taking place outside the Parliament. His failure to do so is evidence to me that Opposition members are so ashamed of their record when in government that they will not even attempt to ask a question.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You are doing no more than we did. You are implementing our policies.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I was not at the demonstration because I was in this House handling a matter raised by the Hon. J. H. Jobling on behalf of the Minister for Fair Trading. The Hon. J. F. Ryan seems to think that the Government is doing no more than the former Government did. In the past 12 months the Government has funded 300 supported accommodation places for people with disabilities.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: As we did.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The previous Government was always going to start something. The only problem was, it never did. It was in office from 1988 to 1995 but it never got around to doing the things members of the Opposition now talk about. They are very voluble in opposition but very inactive in government. Not only has the Government funded 300 places but it has also done a lot more in the current budget, which I cannot talk about today.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Why not?

Page 1779

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I suppose I could try the President, but I would offend against the rule of anticipation of debate, the budget debate having commenced. In addition, the Government in the last financial year increased the amount available to the post-school options program to $14.6 million.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Our government started that program.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The previous Government may have started it but this Government has doubled the funding in one year.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: On a point of order. The Minister is attempting to answer a question he thought I might have asked instead of the question I actually asked about juvenile justice. I ask that he make his answer relevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister may answer the question in whatever way he pleases.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am giving the response now in case the Hon. Patricia Forsythe does not have the courage to ask a question about the matter. I take seriously my responsibility for disability services. The Carr Government was the first government to create a portfolio of disability services. I have received a considerable number of thank-you letters from people who tell me they will be grateful forever for what I have done and what this Government has done for their child.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Jim Longley would not have received such letters; he never did anything in this regard. I am quite confident of my record on disability services. I shall be delighted, when question time concludes, to meet a delegation from those demonstrating outside, to talk to them about what the Government has done and is continuing to do for people with disabilities. So far as the question by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe is concerned, she has asked a question that is particular and detailed. I know there are initiatives within the Department of Juvenile Justice regarding the matters she raised. I will obtain the precise details and come back to her at an early date.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask a question without notice of the Minister for Community Services. Is the Senior Consultative Forum established by the Minister "in accord with the Compact between the New South Wales parliamentary Labor Party and the Labor Council of New South Wales' Public Sector Union of February 1995"? If this is so, will the Minister outline the terms of this compact?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: In response to the question asked by the Hon. Virginia Chadwick the first point I make is that my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations is primarily responsible for the compact, or agreement, to which she referred. It is well known, and I believe my colleague has given a recent response to this matter, that -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: He obfuscated.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No, the Attorney General expresses himself very clearly on all occasions. I know he said that there was an agreement or understanding between the Government and the trade union movement to promote better consultation and communication between unions and the Government. In regard to the Senior Consultative Forum, since I have been Minister I have set up a consultative mechanism bearing that name as a consequence of the compact, as I understood it.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: What is in the compact?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Virginia Chadwick is inquisitive about what is in the compact. It might surprise her to learn that I have not come into the House with details of the compact. Nor have I come into the House with a copy of the United Nations Charter. I did, however, set up the Senior Consultative Forum.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Bring it tomorrow, or next week.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am going to tell the honourable member about the Senior Consultative Forum. Since I have been Minister I have made it my policy to facilitate consultation between the unions and the departments for which I am responsible. In regard to the Department of Community Services there is a monthly meeting between senior officers of the department and trade union officials to discuss and thrash out difficult matters that arise from time to time. I have not left the matter there. Unlike my predecessor I have held a number of meetings with trade union officials so that they can raise with me directly industrial matters of concern to them. My door is open to members of trade unions and I have been endeavouring to promote a better climate by facilitating that consultation. The Senior Consultative Forum is a formal mechanism to enable that regular meeting to occur and for the Public Service Association, the Health and Research Employees Association and any other smaller unions involved in areas within my responsibility to raise their concerns directly with Mr Semple and other senior officers of the department.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Hon. Patricia Staunton, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on State Development. Is the chairperson aware that confidential documents prepared by people appearing before the inquiry are
Page 1780
being leaked to the Department of Agriculture before those people appear? Will the chairperson assure the House that this will not occur in the future? Do such leaks constitute contempt of the committee and therefore of Parliament?

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: All I can say is that I know nothing of the allegations that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised and I can take the question no further.


The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation. I refer to an article on page two of yesterday's Daily Telegraph which quoted the New South Wales Audit Office as expressing doubt about the future of the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust. Will the Minister assure this House that the future of the Sydney Cricket Ground is not under threat as the major sporting venue in Sydney? Will the Minister update this House with progress on negotiations which are currently taking place to compensate Sydney Cricket Ground members for the loss of access to sporting events in the future as a result of the Homebush Bay development?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It might interest members of the House to know that later this year I will be acting Minister for Sport and Recreation, and my colleague the Hon. Gabrielle Harrison has threatened to retaliate by making me do a parachute jump or something equally dramatic to compensate for what she had to put up with while I was absent on sick leave. Leaving that aside, I am delighted to say that I shall approach my colleague to provide a considered response to the honourable member's question.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware that on 2 November 1917 a notice of dedication and rededication stated that Government House land was to be used for a vice regal residence? Is he aware that an article in the Daily Telegraph on 29 May reported that Mr Carr had said that the Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales had developed a marketing plan to stage indoor and outdoor concerts, performances, special events, debates, lectures and displays at the historic building? Is it the Government's intention that Government House be used primarily for public purposes and not for a vice regal residence?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It always amazes me that the Opposition seems to believe that His Excellency the Governor should be made a prisoner in a house that he does not want to live in. It is as simple as that. His Excellency the Governor has a perfectly nice house in Bronte, in the electorate of Coogee. He does not want to live in the draughty big castle that honourable members of the Opposition want to force him to live in. His Excellency has not been convicted of any crime and should not be imprisoned in a house in which he does not want to live.

Mr President, because of an official commitment I will have to leave the Chamber almost immediately. However, my colleagues will be hear until 1.00 o'clock to receive questions. I have some deferred answers to questions, and they will be presented on my behalf by the Minister for Community Services.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. At a public meeting at Botany Town Hall in 1994 called by families of disabled people, the Premier announced that new money would be provided for supported accommodation for people with disabilities. Why has the Minister failed to gain the desperately needed new money for supported accommodation for families? Further, at the same meeting the Minister stated that he was committed to improving the lives of those parents who are caring for a son or daughter at home, many for 30, 40 or 50 years, by providing adequate respite care? What answer can the Minister give to those families, who are falling apart under the strain?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I well recall the meeting referred to by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. I attended and addressed the meeting and, if my recollection serves me correctly, the Premier did also. It amazes me that the Opposition has the effrontery to ask such a question, given its record when in office of failing to give enhancements to disability services. I referred earlier - because I thought I was going to lose the opportunity to refer to the matter at all - to the 300 supported accommodation places created by the Government during the current financial year. A sum of $50 million was devoted to that purpose as a result of the very first policy decision taken by the new Government at its first cabinet meeting, which was held in Newcastle last year.

The Government not only used that sum of $50 million - which, as long ago as 1989, was intended for use by the previous Government for another capital purpose - but also it converted approximately one half of that amount to recurrent funding which will be spent in this current financial year and in financial years to come. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti ought to know, if he has studied the budget, that there is provision in the current budget for enhancements for respite care, for children in the main. I am not going to traduce the
Page 1781
standing orders by referring in detail to what is contained in the budget, because the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti should know what it contains. I can assure him that there is new money for people with disabilities in this budget.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the Chairman of the Regulation Review Committee has written to the Minister for Police for the second time questioning the validity of the Government's recent regulation to control the sale of certain types of semiautomatic and automatic weapons? The questions relate to whether or not the regulation is ultra vires the Firearms Act. Is the Minister prepared to obtain urgent advice from the Crown Solicitor to ensure that the regulation is legitimate? If it proves not to be, will the Minister bring urgent legislation before the House in order to achieve that objective through legislation?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I was not personally aware that the Chairman of the Regulation Review Committee had raised any question as to the alleged ultra vires nature of the regulation, but I will certainly raise that matter with the Minister for Police and return with an answer for the honourable member.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. This is the question he was waiting for. Has the Ageing and Disability Department assessed the level of unmet need in New South Wales in terms of permanent supported accommodation? If so, what is the number of people waiting for access to supported accommodation? Does the Government have a timetable as to when it will be able to meet that need?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The honourable member, had she researched my disability policy - which was issued before the last State election and is quite a thorough document - would realise that it refers to the appointment of an accommodation task force. I referred to the $50 million commitment which has been delivered in the current financial year. That is only the start of what the Government intends to do so far as disability services are concerned. As the honourable member suggested in her question, we do have to identify the outstanding need. Some people tend to think there may be a bottomless pit. I do not think the pit is without a bottom. However, it is true to say that the need was certainly not quantified in the past under the previous Government. Therefore, together with my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing I have appointed an accommodation task force to research the accommodation needs of people with a disability and people who are ageing. I regard this as an important exercise. I gave a commitment before the election that I would appoint such a task force, and though I cannot give a precise time, I hope that within six months or so we shall receive an excellent report identifying the need for accommodation for people with disabilities and those who are ageing.

As it is quite apparent that the Opposition has run out of intelligent questions, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 1 May the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked the Treasurer a question without notice about the Government's regional development policy. The Treasurer has supplied the following response:

Since the time of the Premier's commitment, action on this issue has been taken on a number of fronts:

The Chief Executives Committee has considered and endorsed a series of proposals to maintain and enhance service delivery in rural and remote areas. These include technologically based solutions to service access.

Further, the Chief Executives Committee has established a Working Group on Rural Services to monitor developments in using a new technology to develop employment opportunities in regional and rural New South Wales with a view to recommending any additional action which might be required.

The Public Employment Office has initiated an investigation into the feasibility of relocating agencies or parts of agencies to rural and non-CBD sites.

The Premier's commitment was made at a time when no specific arrangements had been put in place to address this issue. However, mechanisms are now in place and the focus of this issue has been considerably broadened. The intention is to ensure that the full range of options for developing employment opportunities in regional and rural areas is explored.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 15 May the Hon. J. H. Jobling asked the Treasurer a question without notice about irrigation electricity tariff control load options. The Treasurer has supplied the following answer:

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal made a determination on electricity prices in February for implementation after 31 March 1996. For non-residential customers the determination stated "no commercial or industrial customer's bill is to increase by more than the greater of 5% in real terms or $50 per annum (for the same pattern and level of consumption)". This constraint would apply to customers on the controlled load (irrigation) tariff classification.

Prior to the recent amalgamation of NSW electricity distributors, the former distributors billed customers on the basis of many tariffs. Following the amalgamation, the process of simplifying and reducing the range of tariffs

Page 1782
has been constrained by the Tribunal's determination. A number of the controlled load irrigation tariffs have been declared obsolete (no new customers will be put on these tariffs) and will be gradually phased out.

The Department of Energy has been advised that since the determination by the Tribunal only Integral Energy has deleted the controlled load option for irrigation tariffs. Integral Energy advised that all the affected irrigation farmers (estimated by Integral to be about 500 customers) are better off by a small amount under the new arrangement (the general supply tariff). Accordingly the question of prior notification of "the increase" was not an issue.

The Department has also been advised of an isolated case in 1995 where one Advance Energy customer was being incorrectly billed (in customer's favour) on the controlled load irrigation tariff. In this case the customer moved onto the correct (higher priced) tariff. However no retrospective claim was made by the distributor to recover the difference in rates for earlier bills.

Responsibility for electricity pricing rests with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The distributors, when rationalising electricity prices, are required to abide by the constraints set by the Tribunal in its pricing determinations.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On Tuesday 21 May the Hon. I. Cohen asked me a question without notice about Wingecarribee swamp peat mining. I supply the following answer:

(1) I am aware that peat mining is continuing in Wingecarribee Swamp but under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mineral Resources the operation continues to be licensed.

(2) The mining leases which authorise the mining of peat in Wingecarribee Swamp are currently awaiting renewal. Mining is continuing by virtue of Section 72(1) of the Mining Act, 1973 which provides, that a mining lease continues in force until the application for renewal is finally disposed of.

(3) Discussions concerning the future of peat mining in Wingecarribee Swamp have been held with other Government agencies and Ministers which have displayed an interest in the issue. These intensive discussions are continuing.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Yesterday the Hon. J. F. Ryan asked me a question about the Wirrimbirra Sanctuary and the Stead Foundation. May I give an additional response to that question. I inform the House that I was asked two questions in relation to the foundation in the Parliament last year. The first was asked by the Hon. I. Cohen on 14 November and related to an alleged large body of documentary evidence to support the contention that the National Trust had dealt improperly with the Stead Foundation bequest. My answer to that question clearly indicates that I would expedite my department's review of the material provided to it to support the allegations being made. At that point I had received no advice that indicated court action was appropriate in this matter.

The second question was asked on 23 November 1995 by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen, who sought information on further steps being taken in relation to the alleged breach of trust. On that occasion I informed the House that I had commenced legal action in the Supreme Court to have these matters determined. In that answer I advised the House that having taken the advice of the Solicitor General I felt that commencing the legal action was the appropriate way to have the matter dealt with by the courts in an orderly fashion. Again, at no stage did I undertake to have the hearing of the matter expedited, nor have I instructed the Crown Solicitor to seek the expedition of the hearing of this matter. Indeed, advice provided to the Crown Solicitor by counsel who drafted the summons was that he could see no justification for bringing the matter on more urgently by a summons with a return date.

I inform honourable members that I have been advised by the Crown Solicitor's Office that there has been a change in the composition of the board of the foundation and that the new board and the National Trust have opened up discussions about the future development of Wirrimbirra, with a view to settlement of the outstanding matters that are essentially the subject of these proceedings. The Crown Solicitor's Office advises me that it is awaiting the outcome of those discussions before taking further steps in these proceedings.

Questions without notice concluded.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation about statements made by the Hon. Patricia Staunton which go to three issues. The first is that I wrote a question for the Hon. R. M. B. Bull; the second, that I was grandstanding on the serious matter of the discovery of papers before the Standing Committee on State Development; and, third, that I had been given adequate papers. On the first issue, I did not write the question or have any idea that the question was being asked of the Hon. Patricia Staunton this morning until the Hon. R. M. B. Bull showed it to me just before he stood.

Second, on the issue of grandstanding, I put out a press release yesterday, and the Greens, the Liberal and National Party members on that committee strongly disagreed with the way in which the ALP had used their numbers to deny the committee adequate access to the information. On the third issue, the claim by the Hon. Patricia Staunton that I had been given adequate papers, I assure the House that we have yet to see a formal submission from the Department of Agriculture, although I have personally waded through two boxes of reasonably irrelevant material, which has been given to the committee as a blind. I reject all three assertions of the Hon. Patricia Staunton. If this is the level of her contribution to debate in the House, she should think again.

[The President left the chair at 1.06 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Page 1783

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, as Chairman, tabled report No. 2 of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics entitled "Inquiry into the Attendance of Witnesses before Parliamentary Committees", dated May 1996.

Ordered to be printed.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.31]: Before the adjournment I was speaking in support of the motion moved by the Hon. J. H. Jobling. As I indicated, the motion contains a number of important aspects. The motion is comprehensive and should not be watered down in any way. I have received a number of letters from people who have been affected by the inefficiency and mismanagement of the Building Services Corporation. The Auditor-General, who investigates this matter, will perhaps find something improper about its operations. I have no evidence of that. The evidence I have from people who have suffered is overwhelming. I did intend reading to the House a number of letters that I have received from such individuals, but the Hon. J. H. Jobling has covered the material comprehensively and I do not wish to delay voting on this motion as it is important that it be passed.

The main purpose of the motion is to give the Auditor-General the authority to immediately investigate and audit all payments relating to the inquiry into outstanding grievances. The Auditor-General would conduct an efficient and prompt investigation; he has great skills and ability in this area. A parliamentary committee or some other body would perhaps take months to conduct an investigation. I am sure that the date stated in the motion, that is, 27 June 1996, would not present a problem to the Auditor-General. Because that date is still within the present financial year, there would be nothing out of order in the Government directing the Minister for Fair Trading to extend the date from 31 May to 27 June, or even to the last day of June in order to allow a day or so for any final adjustments.

It appears to me that we are dealing with a heavy-handed situation; it is blackmail. I have talked to people who have received these cheques. They are distraught; they are under tremendous stress; their marriages and their families have been affected. Basically, they have received a directive, which is very serious. I do not know of many other such heavy-handed situations, in which people are told, "Bank this cheque by this date or you'll have to return the cheque; the cheque will be cancelled." That is the kind of advice that these people are receiving. The letter I received from Mr A. R. and Mrs S. C. Allen dated 29 April simply states:

I refer to the Inquiry's letter to you offering $100,000.00 and enclosing a cheque for that amount.

The Inquiry has been advised that as at 24 April 1996 the above cheque had not been presented for payment.

Those people do not want to bank the cheques because they have been told that if they do so that will indicate acceptance of the offer, and that would be the end of the matter. These people know that there are still other matters to be finalised and that the $100,000, even though it sounds a large amount, is not enough. Expenses on the properties and the buildings have been incurred and are still being incurred. Many of the buildings are virtually write-offs; they cannot be sold. The buildings were so poorly built and so badly constructed by irresponsible builders that the owners have been left with a white elephant. This is a terrible situation for them to be in. The Allen's letter continued:

For a combination of budgetary, financial control and audit reasons, it is necessary that the status of the above cheque, and therefore the offer in respect of which it was made, be finalised before the end of the financial year.

Accordingly, I am writing to advise that if you wish to accept the offer made in the above letter, you should ensure that the above cheque has been banked by 5.00pm Friday 31st May 1996. The offer made in the above letter lapses if not accepted by that time.

Cheques not deposited by then will thereafter be cancelled.

One would think that if one got a cheque from a government department it would at least be valid. Even if the person hesitated banking it, the money would be transferable to that person's account. That person would understand that a government cheque could not be cancelled. The wording in the letter indicates that the cheque will be cancelled. The letter concluded:

If you wish to accept the offer made you must do so, by banking the above cheque, by 5.00pm Friday 31st May 1996. If you do not do so by then, it will be too late.

Yours faithfully,

Terrence Lynch

I speak on behalf of the consumers who have approached me - the Allen family, the Russon family of Hurstville, the Austin family of Narellan and Shirley Foster of St Ives - and many others who are grieving over this matter and suffering a great deal of stress and anguish. I am not suggesting that I have any evidence that a person would take his own life; no-one has said that to me. But in my contact with those people, in counselling them, I believe that some of them are on the edge of at least a nervous breakdown. If the Government has any compassion or concern, it must support this motion; it must allow the Auditor-General to conduct an inquiry. If the Auditor-General supports the Minister's actions and nothing more can be done, that would be the umpire's ruling. I would accept that, and at that point consumers would have to accept it as well. I strongly support the motion before the House. There is light at the end of the tunnel; we can refer the matter to the Auditor-General.

Page 1784

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [2.39], in reply: I thank the Hon. A. G. Corbett and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for their contributions and for their support for the motion. In response to some of the comments made by the Minister, I remind him that a number of the claims go back to the middle of the 1970s and up to 1988. Some of the claims are very old but are still in the unresolved bin. I point out that most of the improvements and changes made to the Building Services Corporation, as it became, were introduced by Liberal-National Party governments. Coalition governments increased the maximum for compensation payments from $20,000 to $50,000 and then to $100,000, tidied up contracts and redrafted them in plain English, and attempted to instruct and ensure that the BSC became consumer orientated. We perhaps did not succeed on the latter point as much as we would have hoped to. I remind the Minister for Community Services that in another place this morning the Opposition again attempted to increase the maximum payment for compensation, to $200,000, but that attempt was effectively blocked and denied by the Government. To me that move showed the contempt in which the Government holds consumers and those who need protection.

It is clear, as set out in the motion, that there is a need for a consistent methodology. The methodology needs to be exposed so that people can study it and understand it. That is the methodology that should have been used in the inquiry. There has been no real assistance given to the claimants, or, as they are sometimes called, the victims. The heavy-handed threat of the Department of Fair Trading in relation to its cheques can be described only as harsh and unconscionable. There is no reason that the Government could not and should not grant the additional month proposed to allow the Auditor-General to carry out his investigation and report to the Parliament. The report will make known and publicly available the issues of legal rights, methodology and whether consumers were treated fairly. It is my hope that the Auditor-General will be given the opportunity to carry out the investigation and report back to Parliament, as suggested, by 27 June. I commend the motion to the House.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Rowland Smith Mr Johnson

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [2.50]: I move:

That this House:

(a) views with concern the increased votes at the last Federal election of candidates who made racist comments;

(b) deplores such racist comments and urges all members of the Australian community to unite to fight all types of racism wherever and whenever they find it; and

(c) believes that the very fabric of a multicultural society is a fragile one which needs to be supported and nurtured and that it is the duty not only of governments but of all individual citizens to ensure harmonious relationships amongst all people.

I shall start my speech by giving figures regarding the Australian population to put into perspective the composition of our multicultural society. The figures come from the latest publication by the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research, Australian National Trends and Prospects 1995. It states that the Australian population passed 18 million people in March 1995. I commend the publication to honourable members. In 1994 the estimated number of people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin was 303,300, which represents 1.7 per cent of the total Australian population. In 1993 and 1994 there was little change in the proportion of the population born overseas - 23 per cent. The largest birthplace group in 1994 was people born in the United Kingdom, who make up about 7 per cent of the total population, or 30 per cent of the overseas-born population. In 1991 six birthplace groups had more than 100,000 people each. Two groups were from English speaking countries, the United Kingdom and New Zealand; three were from European countries, Italy, Greece and Germany; and one was from Asia, Vietnam.

Immigrants from these countries, with the exception of Vietnam, have been settling in Australia in considerable numbers from the nineteenth century. With the exception of Canada
Page 1785
and Israel, Australia has the most multicultural and diverse population in the world. Over four million people have come to Australia since World War II, representing between 120 and 140 different ethnic groups, depending on how they are classified. I was amazed when I received information from the Parliamentary Library showing that people of 107 different religions live in Australia. There are Christians from denominations such as Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, and others; Muslims - the Shiites, Sunni, and Druse; Jews; Farsi; and Buddhists, just to name a few. They speak 90 different languages, 68 of which are broadcast every week on Special Broadcasting Service radio.

This wonderful diversity could also be a recipe for disaster if we do not nurture, cherish and respect each other's diversity. Australian society has been diverse since time immemorial as the Aboriginal people were divided in different tribes, spoke different languages, and had different customs and cultures. So we can honestly say that Australia was multicultural since its very beginning. Together with multiculturalism, there has been racism from the very beginning. I believe that even amongst Aboriginal tribes there were divisions and fighting, especially over women. The history of Australia has always been strongly connected with racism. One group of people often feels superior to others. It is not only the history of Australia; it is the history of the world. But we are Australians and we are concerned about our own country and the development of our society. Therefore we must be absolutely vigilant about what happens here.

As I said, racism is part of our history: consider the prejudices of the dominant English class against the Irish and other minority groups. Italians, Greeks and Lebanese did not arrive in Australia in great numbers until after the Second World War; they arrived in small numbers from the beginning. In most small country towns, not just the cities, there was an Italian fruit shop, a Greek cafe and a Lebanese men's store. But it was the arrival of the Kanakas and the Chinese in the last century which brought to the forefront of Australian society the strong racist attitude which has been bubbling under the surface for so many years. The discovery of gold in Victoria and New South Wales resulted in a large number of Chinese coming to Australia to prospect. At one stage they outnumbered white people by a ratio of 6:1 on the goldfields. This caused a terrible backlash against them.

It was our fathers - I say fathers because there were no mothers involved - who drafted the Constitution and who reached agreement on the formation of the Federation. Many issues divided them but most of them were united on one issue, and that was keeping Australia for the white man and woman. It is interesting that the very first Act of the Australian Parliament in 1901 was the Australian Immigration Restriction Act, which set the white Australia policy and initiated the dictation test. That Act was followed by the Repatriation Act, in 1901 and 1902, which sent home the overwhelming majority of Chinese and Kanakas. The racism was not directed only at Chinese and Kanakas; it extended to Aborigines, who at the time were not even considered Australian citizens. They had to wait until the referendum of 1967 for that. The Bulletin magazine had this quote in its edition of 2 July 1887:

No nigger, no Chinaman, no Lascar, no Kanaka, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour, is an Australian.

Another example of sordid racism is the following quote which I hope members will listen to intently:

The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and Chinaman. There is a deep-set difference, and we see no prospect and no promise of its ever being effaced. Nothing in this world can put these two races upon an equality. Nothing we can do by cultivation, by refinement, or by anything else will make some races equal to others.

Those incredible words, the epitome of racism, I would say, were delivered by none other than Edmund Barton, the Australian Prime Minister in Parliament in 1901 speaking in defence of the immigration restriction legislation. I am grateful to Professor Mary Kalantzis, who brought this to my attention and allowed me to quote it from one of her speeches. If that is what the Prime Minister was saying, we can imagine what the ordinary citizen of this country was saying at the time. It is interesting to reflect on the speech because in this Parliament members sometimes put on record statements of which they are later ashamed. For instance, I will never forget the opposition of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick to the Aboriginal land rights legislation in this Chamber. I had been a member for only a short time. The Leader of this House at the time was the Hon. Paul Landa. As a member of the Jewish community and therefore a member of a minority group, he was defending in a very moving way the legislation for land rights for Aboriginal people. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick opposed the legislation in no uncertain terms. I am sure that if she looks at her speech back in those days she must feel deeply ashamed, just as Mr Howard must be ashamed of what he said about "a day of shame", referring to the day when the Mabo legislation went through the Federal Parliament. I do not know who should feel the shame.

Racism is as old as humanity and we in Australia have displayed it in many ways throughout our history. But let us look at the racism which is of great concern to us in modern times. During the last Federal election campaign some members of Parliament and candidates accused ethnic groups and Aboriginal communities of not being true Australians but being groups who were only bludging on the Australian community. They used these words hoping to gain votes and public support.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. Here are some of the gems of statements made during the last Federal campaign. First of all, let
Page 1786
us look at those of Bob Katter, who won the North Queensland seat of Kennedy for the National Party in 1993. In the 1980s this person was a member of the Queensland Bjelke-Petersen Government. Mr Katter was trying to defend a colleague of his, another leading member of the National Party, a Mr Burgess, of whom nobody had ever heard before. Mr Katter spoke about the critics of his colleague the candidate for Leichhardt, Bob Burgess, as "little, slanty-eyed ideologues who persecute ordinary, average Australians".

Mr Katter was hit with a feather duster by Mr Howard and Mr Fischer about such comments despite the fact that the chairperson of the Ethnic Communities Council, Angela Chan, said that Mr Katter's comments were offensive and hurtful and could harm the chances of the Opposition leader Mr Howard to become Prime Minister at the next election. This was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 February 1996. Ms Chan continued by saying that Mr Howard had just taken five steps forward and 10 steps back with the ethnic groups and called on Mr Howard to take immediate action to disendorse Mr Katter, following the example set