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 by the Federal Government in disendorsing the Federal member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Graeme Campbell.

Ms Chan is further quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 February 1996 as saying that those outbursts had caused widespread dismay and offence in the community at all levels and that political parties need to take strong and effective action to remove any stain of racism which would poison not only the parties themselves but also the community. The same article quotes various people, including the president of the Chinese-Australian Forum, Dr Thiam Ang, who said that Mr Katter's comments should be treated with the utmost contempt and could do great harm to the coalition image. Mr Stepan Kerkyasharian, chairperson of the Ethnic Affairs Commission, said that politicians such as Mr Katter were not acceptable in the Australian Parliament if he continued to express such racist views, and that very decisive action by the National and Liberal parties was needed immediately.

Those were some of the gems from Mr Katter. The saddest part of it all is that Mr Katter is of ethnic background. I believe he has a Lebanese father. Other gems came from Mr Bob Burgess, who was talking about naturalisation ceremonies on Australia Day in 1996. He said that naturalisation ceremonies were dewogging ceremonies. I must remind the House that Mr Burgess himself, a councillor of the Cairns City Council, migrated from England and attacked the previous Labor Government, saying that too many immigrants were arriving in Australia. I wonder whether he meant too many immigrants from other parts of the world or too many immigrants from England. It would be interesting to know what he meant. He is quoted also as saying that the ethnic lobby had too great an influence in Australia and that such ethnic lobbies would not receive favourable treatment under a coalition Government. It will be interesting to see what happens under a new coalition Government.

This obsession that people have with the ethnic lobby is interesting. After all, it is legitimate to have lobbies in our community. We have the gun lobby; the doctors have the Australian Medical Association; and the lawyers have the Law Society. There are all sorts of other lobby groups in our community. I do not know why people are so resentful and upset about the lobbies of ethnic groups. They are a part of our society. They organise themselves and have their voices heard. I cannot understand why there is such strong antagonism towards them.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Are you talking about the coalition Government that got rid of the white Australia policy?

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: The white Australia policy dictation test was abolished in 1958. Under the Holt Government there was a relaxation of the restrictions on Asian immigrants, but only for students.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: What about Arthur Calwell's policy?

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Arthur Calwell's policy was just as racist. He is on record as saying that two wongs don't make a white. It was a policy at the time, and maybe that is how we can look at it. But I am not here to defend his policy. The Labor Party only changed its policy to put it on a completely non-discriminatory basis in 1972. That was done by the Whitlam Government. To his credit, Fraser continued and improved on that policy. History speaks for itself.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: And Howard will continue to improve it.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I am sure he will. I hope so. Of course, the real heroine of the Liberal Party, the candidate for the seat of Oxley, who fortunately was disendorsed by her party, was Pauline Hanson. She made some very offensive remarks. This one was recorded in the Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday, 30 March:

Black deaths in custody seem to be Robert Tickner's latest outcry. Pity that as much media coverage of political grandstanding is not shown for white deaths in custody. How can we expect this race to help themselves when governments shower them with money, facilities and opportunities that only these people can obtain, no matter how minute the indigenous blood is that flows through their veins, and this is causing racism.

There was another gem on 3 March, when Pauline Hanson said:

Why can some people get something because of the colour of their skin and other people can't?

On 4 March, following the election, Mrs Hanson said she would be fighting for "the white community, the immigrants, Italians, Greeks,
Page 1787
whoever, it really doesn't matter - anyone, apart from the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders". Pauline Hanson should be ashamed of herself. She should be ashamed of making such statements. I will speak later about her lies on what the Aborigines are getting. She suggests that other people cannot get what the Aborigines are getting. As if the Aborigines are so well off! I have not seen many Aborigines driving Mercedes. In my area there are Greeks, Italians, Chinese and people from other ethnic backgrounds, but not an Aborigine. I live in a rather wealthy area and I have never seen an Aborigine from there driving a Mercedes, or heard about them sunning themselves in the expensive resorts of Queensland, or taking overseas trips and flying first class with Qantas. I must be living in another world.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: She should be judged on what she said.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Exactly. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is an honest man.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: The Federal election was about Keating, not about what Mrs Hanson said. There was no endorsement of what she said.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: No. I bring this motion because there is a danger that she brings to the surface a lot of these racist attitudes and tries to legitimise them.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: She probably will not be there after the next elections.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I hope you are right. On 8 March Mrs Hanson said:

Why do they think they should be entitled to cheaper housing loans at such a cheaper interest rate? You know, why should they be entitled to get a hepatitis B shot because of the colour of their skin and other people out in the community can't get it? And why should there be a difference between Abstudy and Austudy? You know different benefits are there. And I don't think that all Aboriginals appreciate what is being done for them.

I feel ashamed that I share my nationality with someone like Pauline Hanson, and I want to congratulate the Liberal Party for having sacked her as their candidate. However, she got a 23 per cent swing in Oxley. That should have all thinking Australians worrying. I bring to the attention of honourable members a very good article written by Adele Horin and published in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 March 1996 on why Pauline Hanson is wrong:

Let's look at this claim about special benefits for Aborigines. Take education. What do Aborigines get that non-Aborigines don't get? Non-Aboriginal students get Austudy once they turn 16 if their family has a very low income. Aboriginal students get Abstudy once they turn 16 if their family has a very low income. There are minor differences to do with cut-offs and tapers but essentially they are similar programs. So the vast majority of Aboriginal students from poor families are no better off than the vast majority of whites from poor families.

Adele Horin makes the following very good point:

Indeed, many white kids have been able to get Austudy who shouldn't. Their families run small businesses and farms - still rare pursuits among Aborigines - and have been able to minimise their taxable income below the $21,600 threshold, which makes their child eligible for Austudy. In January the Department of Employment, Education and Training carried out a crackdown on Austudy rorts which hardly endeared it to some country folk who were asked a lot of tricky questions about their assets and investments. Many lost Austudy as a result.

I am not surprised. I remember when my own sons were at university a lot of students from wealthy middle-class families living in Mosman or other good suburbs gave false addresses and practised every kind of rort in order to receive Austudy, even though they were not entitled to it. One never hears about them but always hears about Aborigines rorting the system and so on. Pauline Hanson's comments reflect an attempt to make people believe that Aboriginal privilege is rife and that mainstream Australians have lost out, while people in the margins have prospered, thanks to special benefits and affirmative action. In effect, this is not true. Education is a good example. Aborigines do not receive anything that non-Aboriginals receive. Non-Aboriginal students get Austudy, Aboriginal students get Abstudy. It was brought to my attention that in the Daily Telegraph of Wednesday, 29 May, Pauline Hanson made another "intelligent" remark: that Aborigines must feel guilty about cannibalism. It pains me to give publicity to these kinds of people but unfortunately it must be done in order to put on the record what honourable members think of statements like these. I repudiate and abhor them. The Daily Telegraph article stated:

Independent MP Pauline Hanson, whose stark racial views helped her to a shock victory in the federal election, said yesterday Aborigines should feel guilty over cannibalism by their ancestors.

Ms Hanson, a former Liberal Party candidate for the election, was immediately condemned by the Government.

Thank God for that! The article continued:

She said Aborigines should feel the same guilt white Australians were made to cope with for atrocities over the past 200 years.

She said reconciliation was a failed concept and should be abandoned.

She said reconciliation was designed to make white Australians feel guilty for things that happened generations ago. I know that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is a member of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and I hope she will have something to say about wasting time preparing another report on Aboriginal reconciliation. These types of racist comments are absolutely appalling. Mr Burgess, Mr Katter, Ms Hanson and, of course, I cannot forget the person I mentioned before, Graeme Campbell - the person with whom I have had a private quarrel for the past 10 years. I have opposed Mr Campbell in the public forum for many years now. I find his racist comments about Aborigines and ethnic groups truly offensive. On
Page 1788
several occasions I have written to the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Barry Jones, to the secretary of the party and also to the former Prime Minister asking them to take action against Mr Campbell. I was happy that finally they did so. I was happy to read the following comments by Mr Keating reported in the Australian on 8 February:

We won't abide people in our party running around . . . putting racist slurs, trafficking in racism.

In our party, racism doesn't travel, and we weren't going to cop it.

I am glad that finally some action was taken prior to the last election against Mr Campbell. I very much regret that he was re-elected. Even the mention of Mr Campbell's name sets off an allergic reaction in me. But, with regret, I must admit he was not only able to retain his Western Australian seat of Kalgoorlie, but was able to capture more than 35 per cent of the first preferences, despite running as an Independent. Sometimes one is disillusioned and disappointed in life. It is a warning sign that the candidates who gave voice to racist attitudes won such strong support at the last Federal election. While it certainly does not mean that Australia's drive to build a tolerant, multicultural society has failed, it stands as a warning that an even bigger effort has to be made to overcome deep-seated racial prejudice, which obviously exists in many parts of Australia.

Honourable members must remember that the victories of people I have mentioned, Hanson, Burgess, Katter and Campbell, are victories which are confined to rural and semi-rural Queensland and Western Australia. Unfortunately, some of these areas are well known for their conservative and racist attitudes. I point that out so that the Howard Government and its immigration Minister, Mr Philip Ruddock - a man I have always admired and respected - will look at this area to see what kind of program can be put in place in dealing with the multicultural challenge they represent. It is important that they take steps to set in place programs which address the misinformation that is put around to incite hatred against Aboriginal people and ethnic groups. It is a major responsibility of the Howard Government to build social cohesion in our multicultural society. That duty applies not only to the Howard Government but also to the State and Territory governments, and other people. I turn now to comments made by Mr Neville Bonner in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 March.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: A great Liberal Aboriginal senator; the only one ever!

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Indeed, to the credit of the Liberal Party he was a senator. I hope that the Australian Labor Party, which has a very good record as far as ethnic groups are concerned, will take the further step of ensuring that Aboriginal representation happens in this House. I would like to see Aboriginal representation in the ALP. I know that the Hon. Ann Symonds is leading an inquiry into the feasibility of reserving seats for Aborigines in this Parliament and I look forward to the deliberation of her committee. Mr Neville Bonner, a former Liberal senator and an Aboriginal elder, lives in the Oxley electorate. He said that indigenous Australians were greatly disappointed but not surprised by the results. He believed they reflected deep ingrained and widespread racist sentiments in the general community. Mr Bonner said:

We know there is a great deal of racism out there because we come up against it every day of our lives. There are a lot of people who quietly applaud racist attitudes without having to declare themselves. What else can we do but grin and bear it?

I give him my deepest solidarity and sympathy. The comments to which I have referred were made during the last election by candidates and former candidates of the Labor, Liberal, and National parties. Let us not forget that the leader of the National Party in this Parliament, Mr Ian Armstrong, during the same period made a racist joke regarding Aborigines. Mr Armstrong was condemned for cracking a joke to a key Olympic investment conference in London about a Korean dressing up as an Aborigine, as reported in the Daily Telegraph of 17 February. Mr Armstrong made the joke at a conference of 150 leading British business figures. He broke from his prepared speech about Olympic opportunities to cite the example of a cruise operator whose business attracted some 100,000 Korean tourists each year. He said that the man had originally hired an Aboriginal didgeridoo player.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On a point of order. The standing orders of this House state that members should not attack other members except by a substantive motion. The Hon. Franca Arena should be aware of that and should not participate in such an attack.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: On the point of order. I was reporting what was published in a newspaper. I was not myself attacking Mr Armstrong. I was reporting what Mr Armstrong said at a very public conference which was widely reported in the Australian newspapers.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: On the point of order. The member was clearly attacking the integrity of a member in another place, whether she was quoting from a newspaper or whether she was making up these words herself. The standing orders of the House are quite clear on this.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: On the point of order. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti did not take a point of order this morning when the Hon. J. H. Jobling made a very fearsome attack on my integrity. For the sake of consistency he should remain silent.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: On the point of order. I heard what the honourable member said. She was not launching an attack on the integrity of any member in the other place; she was referring to what had apparently been said and commenting as to the appropriateness or otherwise of that. That is not an attack on integrity or character and it is perfectly
Page 1789
allowable in debate. It happens all the time.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: On the point of order. Standing Order 80 states:

No member shall use offensive words -

and I submit the honourable member used offensive words -

against either House of the Legislature, or any Member thereof; nor against any Statute, unless when moving for its repeal.

I put that the honourable member was using offensive words in respect of a member in another place.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Ann Symonds): Order! No point of order is involved. From time to time members make ill-considered responses in this House. On this occasion the honourable member was quoting from a newspaper article. Argument in this House would be barren indeed if a strict interpretation of the standing orders allowed debate to be stifled.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: The article stated that the "tour operator then chose a Korean, who dressed up as an Aboriginal didgeridoo player, because he was more reliable". It was reported that many in the audience looked surprised and uncomfortable and that an Aboriginal footballer, Ricky Walford, who was present, said that he was disgusted by the remarks, and there was some suggestion that he would discourage Aboriginal sportspeople from taking part in the 2000 Olympic Games. I am very upset about the joke Mr Armstrong made and I want to put it on record that I have not forgotten it. Honourable members are wrong if they think it was a one-off remark. I believe that Mr Armstrong was asked at the time to apologise but chose not to, and that he actually thought the joke was funny. I leave it for people to make up their own minds about this matter.

After I finished writing this speech I had brought to my attention an item in the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 28 May, about the National Party and those waiting in the wings to assume the leadership of the party. The article appeared under the headline "National Party star defects to Liberals". The Hon. Richard Bull, Peter Cochran, Wendy Machin, George Souris and John Turner were referred to in the article. Their good points and bad points were detailed. With regard to Mr George Souris, alongside the word "pro" were the words, "Seniority, articulate, energetic, likeable". However, among the words alongside the word "con" was the word "Greek". The Hon. J. Kaldis very kindly brought this article to my attention.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: I should have thought that would be an asset.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, it should have been an asset. The article was under the by-line "Bernard Lagan". Even the Sydney Morning Herald thinks that people of Greek origin are a joke. The Hon. George Souris, whom I know and respect, is an Australian of Greek origin.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Are you calling Bernard Lagan a racist?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will refrain from interjecting.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: One of the things that counted against George Souris was his Greek origin. That is an indication of the racism that still exists in our society, at all levels. Whether it be on the staff of the Sydney Morning Herald, in the Labor Party or in the Liberal Party, racism is evident and it will not go away. I would have written a letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald about the article, but I know that letters to the editor are handled by a strange woman who, for some reason, does not publish letters from parliamentarians - except those she is on good terms with. I have written many letters to the editor of that publication but I know that until Geraldine Walsh no longer has that responsibility I am wasting my time. I thought it would be better to refer to the matter in the House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Is Bernard Lagan a racist?

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti keeps asking if Bernard Lagan is a racist. I will leave it to the honourable member to decide. The article suggests that one of Mr Souris's bad points is his Greek origin. As to whether Bernard Lagan is a racist or not, I suggest the Hon. B. P. V. Pezzutti discuss the matter with him. Jewish people in our community also feel the brunt of racism. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which keeps a database on anti-Semitic incidents in Australia, received a record number of reports of anti-Jewish threats, harassment and vandalism in 1995, according to the president of that council, Diane Shteinman. The council apparently received a report of 239 individual incidents, an increase of 5 per cent on the previous year. Among the incidents were vandalism of cemeteries and synagogues, graffiti on Jewish shops and homes, and harassment of Jewish Australians walking to and from synagogues.

Of course, other victims of racism are often Australians who are visibly different, especially women who wear Muslim attire. While I condemn such attacks, I also condemn attacks against Christians by Muslims who come to Australia to sow the seed of religious hatred. In this regard I refer to Islamic evangelist Sheik Ahmed Deedat, a South African who, on Good Friday, spoke about Easter, indulged in bible-bashing and incited racial hatred. I am all for freedom of speech, but our leaders should show some understanding and, above all, respect for the views and beliefs of others. Australia can do without people like Sheik Deedat. I do not know why he came to Australia or why he adopted such a confrontationist approach on Good
Page 1790
Friday at a big public meeting at Sydney Town Hall when he disparaged the Christian faith. I certainly do not support such an approach.

Recently there has been considerable discussion about funding to Aborigines and alleged misappropriations by some members of that community, especially members of the Aboriginal Legal Service. It is alleged that Mr Paul Coe received payments well beyond his entitlement. I hope this matter will be thoroughly investigated and, if the allegation is proved, that Mr Coe is penalised. Community leaders must understand that their behaviour is extremely important, whether they be Aboriginal, Anglo-Celtic or of ethnic origin. At this stage of our history, such misdemeanour by our leaders reflects on the whole community. It is unfortunate but that is the way it is. I was saddened to read in the Australian on 18 April that the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Mr Chris Puplick, said that complaints to the board had increased from several a month to several a day, and he blamed the current debate about funding of Aboriginal organisations and comments by candidates during the recent Federal election campaign.

I moved this motion because of my great concern for the social fabric of Australian society. I could speak for hours about racism in Australia and throughout the world. And it is not only directed by one particular section of the community at another group. I was informed by a colleague, Paul Zammit, who stood for and indeed won the Federal seat of Lowe, of an incident in which he was involved during his campaign. He told that while door-knocking he knocked on the door of a house occupied by a man of Italian origin. The door was opened by the occupier, who asked Mr Zammit who he was. Mr Zammit said, "My name is Zammit and I am the Liberal Party candidate. I wonder if you will vote for me?" The occupier said, "Yes, I will vote for you. Are you Mr Howard's party?" Mr Zammit said, "Yes." He said, "I always vote for Labor but this time I will vote for you." Mr Zammit said, "Can I ask you why?" The man replied, "I hate Chinese and so does Mr Howard." That is absolutely dreadful. However, I relate it to illustrate the point that racism exists not only between Anglo-Saxons and Aborigines; it exists across all sections of society. It is an illness that affects all groups. Unfortunately it is everywhere. I witnessed racism recently when I last travelled to France. Le Pen wrote and article on an "Anti-migrant wave." There are many articles published about the persecution of generations of French citizens with Algerian backgrounds.

Even in my country of birth, Italy, racist sentiments are expressed about immigrants from North Africa. It is absolutely disgraceful. They have been pilloried, killed and stoned. They are disliked because the colour of their skin is different from that of the locals. Racism is so strong is some regions that the northern part of Italy has expressed the desire to dissociate itself from the southern part of Italy. Racism is everywhere and we cannot ignore it. I will never forget what a member of this very Chamber once said to me. He said, "You come from a lawless land." That member is not present at the moment, but when he is he occupies the chair now occupied by Deputy-President the Hon. Ann Symonds. Even though he did apologise, I will never forget what he said. I had better not say any more because I am afraid that anything further I do say will be unparliamentary.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Name him!

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I have named him, in effect. I said he generally sits in the President's chair. What more do you want me to say? I cannot be more subtle.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On a point of order. The Hon. Franca Arena has just named the person who usually sits in the President's chair seeking to impute something which is not proper. I ask her to withdraw the comment because it is an offence to the House.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: On the point of order. Hansard will show that the Hon. Max Willis, before he was elected as President of this Chamber, said to me in debate, "You come from a lawless land", and I asked him to apologise. It is on the parliamentary record.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Ann Symonds): Order! There is no point of order. I would suggest that the member who raised the point of order is being rather too sensitive seeking to defend a member who, although is not in the Chamber to speak for himself, was well satisfied with the outcome of the matter referred to by the Hon. Franca Arena.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Prejudice and racism exist in all communities, whether Asian, European or Aboriginal. However, as leaders of our communities, as parliamentarians and legislators, we have an enormous duty to our constituents to ensure social cohesion for the future. I shall conclude my remarks to allow other honourable members to speak to this important motion. I look forward to their contributions. I have not endeavoured to politicise this debate; I have not made my speech party political. My purpose is to show that unless we, as members of this community, work together to eradicate racism, many problems will arise in the future.

I heard the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho snigger when I said that I had not endeavoured to politicise this debate. Has the stage been reached in this Chamber that members cannot even relate the facts? I have not accused anyone of stealing, of committing murder or of improper acts. I have only related the facts. We should not hide the fact that racist attitudes exist in our own parties, if that
Page 1791
be the fact. Why do honourable members think I am still a backbench member of my party? And why is the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho also a backbench member of her party? Does she think that her colleagues really like her? She has told me that she has been told by other members to speak English - and I have been told that many times as well. Racism does exist in our parties, but I am not going to ignore it to please the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho or anyone else. There is racism in the Liberal Party, and I can assure honourable members there is racism in the Labor Party.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: On a point of order. I have already submitted that Standing Order 80 states that one must not use offensive words against another member of the House. I would like the honourable member to withdraw her remarks against me.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! To what remark is the honourable member referring?

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: That I cannot speak English. I feel that remark is offensive.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member was reporting on past events and not asserting anything about the nature or contribution of the member in the House. There is no point of order.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Racism is validated and legitimised when it is expressed by our community leaders. It is a matter of great concern when such leaders make racist statements. We must remember that education is a strong enemy of racism and prejudice. We must continue to invest in education programs and support multicultural and Aboriginal education, about which I have grave fears because of the cuts proposed by the Federal Government. I conclude by reminding honourable members that if racism does not affect them now, it might well affect them in the future. I wish to quote Martin Niemöller, who was born in 1892 and died in 1984. He is reported in the records of the United States Congress of 14 October 1968 in the following terms:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church - and there was nobody left to be concerned.

I rest my case.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.37]: I support this motion. It is a wonderful motion and I commend the Hon. Franca Arena for moving it. It states:

That this House:

(a) views with great 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 commend the Hon. Franca Arena for her research. However, she said at the end of her contribution that her speech was not party political. If her speech was not party political, then I do not know what could be. I support her motion, but I distance myself from her speech because many of her comments were partisan. I feel a sense of disgust that in relation to issues such as racism and intolerance members on both sides of politics cannot put aside political differences and come together with a united voice to speak against such attitudes. We should not set out to attack the party because of these comments. They are made by individuals who are in the minority. I was disappointed that the Hon. Franca Arena sought to attack my colleague the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, whom I respect greatly for her work in ethnic affairs. As was the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick was among those who gave recognition to the concept of cultural diversity in the late 1970s. At a time when there was no multiculturalism policy the Hon. Virginia Chadwick was already involved in ethnic affairs - and I believe she worked in cooperation with the Hon. Franca Arena in that regard. I am disappointed that the Hon. Franca Arena has not acknowledged the contribution of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick in those early days.

I remind honourable members that the very first land rights legislation was implemented by a Liberal government under the leadership of Malcolm Fraser. The first Aboriginal affairs Minister was Ian Viner, who is now the Vice-Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. He was a great Minister, a great representative of the Liberal Party and a champion activist for anti-racism. Both men were leaders and worked tirelessly for the cause of uniting the community. Many of the remarks of the Hon. Franca Arena were unnecessarily provocative. I concede that there are many racists in politics - and not just in the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Party. Minor parties have their racists. I draw attention to the extremist political party Australians Against Further Immigration. During the recent Federal election campaign a representative of Australians Against Further Immigration was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 February as having said:

Migrants are causing racial, ethnic and cultural swamping.

That was indeed a racist comment, which was endorsed by Graeme Campbell, a former Labor Party member. The leader of Australians Against Further Immigration, Mr McCormack, was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as having said:

Multiculturalism and the Asianalisation of Australia

Page 1792
That too is a deplorable statement. Although I do not recall saying the words that were attributed to me in that same article, I do not mind claiming ownership of them. The article stated further:

The party [Australians Against Further Immigration] has hit back at NSW Liberal MLC Ms Helen Sham-Ho, who described it as racist. "Australians Against Further Immigration is not racist . . . apparently Helen Sham-Ho believes Australia could well do with a few million more of her Asian confreres. We do not", the party said.

Any statements by the Australians Against Further Immigration Party certainly are in racial tones. I reiterate, I am extremely disappointed at the lack of bipartisanship to keeping racial issues off the mainstream political agenda during the recent Federal elections. At that time the Australian Labor Party was so committed to keeping the Liberal Party out of power that it was prepared to give its preferences to a right-wing fundamentalist fringe party - the AAFI. The Labor Party lacks principles. In the 19 Federal seats across New South Wales, the AAFI challenged both Liberal and Labor candidates, and in 13 of those seats Labor allocated preferences to the AAFI over and above preferences to Liberal candidates. That I do not understand. The Labor Party was content to an extremist, almost racist, party above the Liberal Party. Even in former Prime Minister Keating's seat of Blaxland, the AAFI candidate received Labor preferences before the Liberal Party. In the seat of Bennelong the ALP actually give its first preferences to the AAFI candidate, Mr P. Kemp. That is a disgusting state of affairs. The honourable member's motion refers to racist comments and the need to fight all types of racism, yet the Australian Labor Party will not put aside political differences on this ugly topic - racism.

We should all be united against racist groups like AAFI, which is opposed to migrants and multiculturalism. Such groups are an insult to migrants and to Australians who pride themselves on Australia's achievement of an ethnically diverse and harmonious society. Policy that seeks the cessation of further immigration denies and ignores the contribution of our early immigrants. The very name of the party Australians Against Further Immigration is an affront to the migrant community. The Hon. J. Kaldis is nodding his head in agreement. The Hon. Franca Arena did not nod her head but I am sure that her heart agrees with me. A frightening feature to come out of that election is the fact that AAFI received more primary votes for seats in both Federal houses than it did at the previous election. In fact, in the Senate, Australians Against Further Immigration actually polled higher in New South Wales than the Greens did. If the trend continues, it will not be long before that party wins a seat in the Federal Parliament, and to me that will be disastrous.

I feel a little better now that I have defended my colleagues and have put on the record some of the differences between political parties. I hope that honourable members take a bipartisan approach on the motion, because this issue is too important for us to be divided amongst ourselves. The House may be interested to hear that an Australian Labor Party Senator and friend of mine, Senator Margaret Reynolds, on 9 May gave notice of a similar motion in the Federal Parliament: that the Senate condemn the use of any racial material to manipulate public opinion during election campaigns, remind parliamentarians that they are elected to represent all of their constituents and that it is totally reprehensible for any parliamentarians to announce that they will refuse to represent a particular group, and consider developing a code of race ethics to be observed by all members of the National Parliament in the interests of community harmony.

The Hon. Franca Arena: I gave notice of my motion on 16 April.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: That is right. The two motions are similar. The increased number of racist comments made by candidates and those candidates' subsequent success in the recent Federal election struck a sore point in the community. Many people were offended by the low levels to which debate stooped during the election campaign. The fact that such attitudes prevail in itself disgusted me, but knowing there are people who built an election campaign on those attitudes, giving them legitimacy, frightens me. As was alluded to by the Hon. Franca Arena, I have suffered from discrimination and racism. I have no qualm in putting that on the record. Thank goodness, such discrimination has not been frequent.

Although I am a strong supporter of democracy and free speech, I am deeply disturbed by the prevalence of racist attitudes and the resounding success of two particular candidates who ran their Federal election campaigns primarily based on those attitudes. While a certain section of the community may hold such views, it is very much in the minority - I hope so, anyway. Because of the severity of the views of that minority, it unfortunately received a disproportionate amount of media attention. That is the problem. In that way the views of a small minority were brought to the attention of the mainstream community. I am sure that honourable members know of whom I am speaking when I refer to two particular Federal members of Parliament. First, I speak of the former Liberal Party candidate, Pauline Hanson, who is now the Federal member for Oxley. I am so pleased that the Liberal Party chucked her out.

The frightening thing is that Pauline Hanson, in gaining 48.61 per cent of the vote, achieved a swing of 22.86 per cent against the ALP- - a large swing in any election. The former ALP member for Oxley, James Scott, was swept out. Pauline Hanson is a prime example of a person who centred her campaign on discriminatory and divisive comments. As I have said, I am glad that the Liberal Party did the right thing and disendorsed her candidacy immediately her views became apparent. Pauline Hanson's outspoken racist views against
Page 1793
Aborigines helped her to achieve a shock victory in the Federal election as an Independent member. Her refusal to represent Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders was not only offensive but, in my view, was also unconstitutional. As representatives of the people we must represent all of our constituents, not just a select few. Once members of Parliament are elected it is not our right to pick and choose whom we represent. Moreover, if any one of our constituents has a grievance it is our duty to represent him or her, regardless of their race, religion or country of birth.

The views held by the likes of Pauline Hanson are divisive and reactionary and contribute nothing to our efforts to create a harmonious, understanding and tolerant society. Unfortunately, Pauline Hanson is not alone in her views. The House will know of the other Federal member of Parliament to whom I refer. The views of Pauline Hanson are shared by Graeme Campbell, the Federal member for Kalgoorlie. Mr Campbell is well known for his outright racism. I have met Mr Campbell on one occasion in New South Wales. On that occasion we agreed to disagree, because I see no point in arguing with him that I support multiculturalism when he says that multiculturalism is divisive and should not be supported. Graeme Campbell is, I think, a member of the right-wing fundamentalist fringe group the League of Rights. Certainly he regularly addresses meetings of the league, expressing his xenophobic fears for Australia. I am glad that the Labor Party finally disendorsed him, after being aware of his views for several years. That did not prevent his electoral success, however, and that is what is so frightening.

Graeme Campbell's campaign was run on racist overtones and he is expressly aligned with Australians Against Further Immigration, a party the policies of which are an overt attack on migrants, first-generation Australians and our indigenous people, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. I take this opportunity to say that I am very proud of the coalition parties in seeing fit to endorse me as the first Asian member of this Parliament. There are another two coalition Asian members of Parliament. The Hon. Dr Bernice Pfitzner, also of the Liberal Party, is a member of the South Australian upper House. Dr Richard Lim is a Liberal-Country Party member in the Northern Territory.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: What about Bill O'Chee?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I am coming to him. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is correct: Senator Bill O'Chee from Queensland, is a member of the National Party.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: What about the Labor Party?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: There is no Asian Labor Party member of Parliament. I would defend the Labor Party on one point, though, that the Hon. Franca Arena was the first member of Parliament of non-English speaking background. I hope that one of these days the Labor Party sees fit to endorse an Asian-born person as a State or Federal member. From a democratic view alone, that is important. The 1991 census, to which the Hon. Franca Arena has referred, shows that there are many Asians in Australia. As the Hon. Franca Arena said in her contribution to the debate, racist legislation, the Immigration Restriction Act of the turn of the century, was especially designed to restrict Chinese immigration. The Chinese have been here for a long time and have suffered from racism for a long time.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Worse than anybody else except the Aborigines.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes, Aboriginal people suffered even worse racism than the Chinese. I am proud to be a member of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. I have a motion before the Chamber for discussion regarding the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation but I shall not say much about the council because my remarks would overlap in the two debates. I empathise, sympathise and identify with the suffering of Aboriginal people. Justice has not been done. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about Aborigines in this, the first National Reconciliation Week in Australia. Last week and last night I told the House of the success of this week. The dates 27 May and 3 June are significant. Until the referendum on 27 May 1967 Aboriginal people were so discriminated against that they were not treated even as human beings and citizens of Australia. It was passed with a vote of 92 per cent, allowing them to vote and to be citizens of Australia.

But I do not believe they have equal rights yet. The Attorney General is sitting at the table. The high level of Aboriginal deaths in custody and convictions recorded against members of the Aboriginal community are injustices we have to look at. On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia delivered the Mabo decision rejecting the concept of terra nullius and accepting that Aborigines were the original owners of this land. All of us are migrants. The ancestors of people who were born here were migrants. The right of Aborigines to the land should be recognised. As I said, I am pleased that it was a Liberal Government that passed the first land rights legislation. I acknowledge that the Labor Government two years ago responded to the Mabo decision by passing legislation. I believe the Federal Government is again looking at native title, because the current legislation is not very workable.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: It was the High Court that gave the lead on this issue.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Absolutely. The judiciary took the lead. Maybe the community should have. Now that the decision has been made, the community should support it. Racism against
Page 1794
Aborigines is enormous. Members take for granted things such as houses, running water and toilets but Aborigines do not have those things. They are living in Third World conditions, an appalling situation. We have a lot of reparation to make. During National Reconciliation Week I have been calling on the community to participate, to make some kind of restitution or reparation. On Monday the week was launched in Canberra by the Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Patrick Dodson, the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader Kim Beasley, and Democrats leader Cheryl Kernot. I also attended. The function was very successful, as the Attorney General agrees. As I told the House last night, the function at the Power House Museum on Tuesday was addressed by a very inspiring speaker, Professor Colin Tatz. The Australian yesterday reported his views on our attitudes towards Aborigines. On Tuesday I went to a women's reconciliation celebration at the State Library. It was powerful, stimulating and exciting. It was held in a small room full of people - over 200 - and emotions were very high. I had not seen so many women in tears. They were so moved by everything that was happening.

A press conference was held today by the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Senator John Herron, Dr Andrew Refshauge, Patrick Dodson and Professor John Young in relation to provision of a small grant to assist medical students in learning to be more culturally sensitive about Aboriginal people. At 5.30 this afternoon I will have the honour of hosting a reception for the ethnic and migrant communities, which the Hon. Franca Arena will also attend. It will be attended by all ethnic community leaders, who will be coming here to support Aboriginal reconciliation. By promoting understanding we will eliminate discrimination, prejudice and racism.

I am happy to support the motion. I agree also with many of the statements and points made by the Hon. Franca Arena. I hope that the ugly head of racism will not rise again, as it did in the Federal election campaign. If there is one thing we learn from the success of candidates who premised their campaign on racism it is that we cannot afford to take multiculturalism for granted; we cannot take for granted that our society is secure, harmonious and tolerant. Multiculturalism is based on the dual responsibilities of preserving ethnic diversity and appreciating one another's cultures. It is not an easy task and requires much effort from governments and individuals.

I conclude by saying that I am pleased that today honourable members have had an opportunity to debate this very important issue. Perhaps people will say that I have vested interests because I am Asian and I must encounter a lot of racism. I would say that honourable members of this House are on the whole fair minded, humane and tolerant. I have not experienced overt racism in my ranks, which is a comfort to me. We in this Chamber do have differences of opinion on party political issues, but I hope that on issues like racism and tolerance we can be bipartisan.

The Hon. J. KALDIS [4.12]: I had not intended to speak in this debate because the Hon. Franca Arena is quite capable of moving a motion of such importance and speaking to it, particularly at this time. However, I decided to say a few words in support of her remarks and to put my position on record. I view with concern the increased votes won in the Federal election by candidates who made racist comments. I too deplore their racist remarks. All thinking members of the Australian community must unite to fight racism whenever and wherever it occurs.

I also congratulate the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho on the contribution that she made to this debate. Two matters result from the Federal election of 2 March: a change of government, and a revision of the attitude of a small but vital section of our community. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, said that only pockets of the community hold some racist views and that we should not be worried. Mr Howard did the right thing in expelling Pauline Hanson from the Liberal Party, I believe for about 10 years, and the Labor Party did the right thing in disendorsing Graeme Campbell as the candidate for Kalgoorlie. Both candidates had been elected with increased majorities. That should be a worry to all of us, notwithstanding to which party we belong. We must adopt a bipartisan attitude on this matter. It is interesting that Queensland is leading the revival of racism. Recently I was approached by leading scientists, professors of universities and professionals who were born in Queensland. They told me that they had experienced racism when they were going to school and that their experiences had left them traumatised.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.15]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

The main purpose of the bill before the House is to amend the Anti-discrimination Act 1977 to include discrimination on transgender grounds as a separate ground of discrimination and to amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1995 to provide for the legal recognition of post-operative transgender persons.

I will begin with an explanation of the proposed amendments to the Anti-discrimination Act. The Government believes it is appropriate to introduce this proposal for two main reasons.

Page 1795

First, transgender status is a question of gender identity, and not sexual preference. Because of the way the Anti-discrimination Act is currently written, there is no express prohibition against discrimination against people on the basis of their identity as transgender persons.

Secondly, there is strong evidence to show that transgender persons are subject to high levels of discrimination in their daily lives, including discrimination in employment, and in their access to services.

Transgender persons also experience exceptional levels of verbal and physical abuse and violence. In response to their victimisation and social ostracism, transgender persons report a range of isolating and self-destructive behaviours to escape the discrimination.

The Government believes that anti-discrimination legislation would go a long way to help end the discrimination against this section of the community.

As far back as 1989, the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales recommended that discrimination against transgender persons in areas of public life be made unlawful.

The board noted that the existing grounds of sex or homosexuality were not adequate grounds upon which transgender persons can seek redress against discriminatory conduct based on the fact that the gender with which that person identifies differs from that person's gender at birth.

The issue was also considered by the Anti-Discrimination Board in its report on the inquiry into HIV and AIDS related discrimination released in April 1992. In that report, the board recommended that transsexuality be included as a ground of complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act.

The term "transsexuality" is the term most commonly used by the general community to describe people who are born as a member of one sex, but assume the characteristics of the other sex. However, the term has attracted criticism, especially from the transgender community, for being too narrow in scope.

There is concern that the term "transsexual" is inevitably linked with "sex-change" surgery, with the implication that the proposed discrimination amendments would only apply to post-operative transsexuals.

As estimates indicate that only about 20 per cent of persons who have assumed a different gender have undergone surgical intervention, there is an argument for employing more broadly-based terminology.

It is therefore proposed that "transgender" be the term used to identify the basis of a complaint under the Act. This includes a person who is born as a member of one sex but who has lived, or lives, or seeks to live as a member of the other sex. A reference to a transgender person would also include a person being thought to be a transgender person, whether he or she is in fact a transgender person or not. This is consistent with the definition of what constitutes discrimination on the grounds of age and homosexuality.

The term transgender in the legislation has therefore been used to refer to all transgender persons, regardless of whether they have undergone surgical intervention. This is considered necessary because the discriminatory conduct usually occurs as a reaction to a person's dress, behaviour and other characteristics being at variance with that person's original gender. Such conduct should be unlawful whether or not there has been surgical intervention.

This definition is not intended to cover persons who cross dress or who have adopted the characteristics of the other sex, say for example, a male person who from time to time wears makeup, or high heels, who has not chosen to live as a member of the other sex.

The bill will also provide for the creation of an offence of transgender vilification. This is consistent with existing provisions which make it unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person, or group of persons, on the ground of race, homosexuality, or HIV/AIDS.

The bill will also provide for an offence of serious transgender vilification, that is, threatening physical harm towards the person, group of persons or their property. The penalty for such an offence will be a fine of up to $1,000 or six months gaol for an individual or $10,000 in the case of a corporation. Given the vulnerability of transgender persons within our community to this kind of behaviour the Government believes the creation of these offences is both necessary, and appropriate.

Before detailing the provisions of the bill dealing with the legal recognition I would like to repeat a quote contained in a judgment by Her Honour Justice Matthews in Harris v McGuiness, a 1988 judgment by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal:

Refusal to reclassify the sex of a post-operative transsexual seems inconsistent with the principles of a society which expresses concern for the privacy and dignity of its citizens. Failure to redefine sex in the case of the transsexual will create undue hardship for an otherwise troubled person. Society will lose nothing and transsexuals will gain the opportunity to lead normal lives if legal sex is determined not by chromosomes or anatomy of birth alone, but by present psychology and anatomy.

Today the transsexual is faced with the choice between equally undesirable alternatives. If he (or she) chooses to live within the sex to which he/she was born, he/she has in effect condemned himself/herself to a perpetual masquerade. If he/she decides to seek medical reassignment, he/she subjects himself/herself to the scorn and curiosity of society and the limbo of no legal sex identity. Both situations are appalling and are inconsistent with the professed enlightenment of our times".

I believe that legislation to address the schizophrenic legal position faced by post-operative transgender persons in this State is long overdue.

Legislation enabling post-operative transgender persons to obtain a new birth certificate showing their reassigned sex has been in place in South Australia since 1988.

Similar legislation already exists in other countries including Germany, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Italy and Holland. At least 25 jurisdictions in the United States allow for the issue of new birth certificates, as do a number of Canadian provinces.

The proposed New South Wales legislation amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1995 to enable a person who was born in this State and has undergone sexual reassignment surgery to apply for a new birth certificate showing their new sex.

For the purposes of New South Wales law, the new birth certificate will be conclusive evidence that the person to whom the certificate refers has undergone a reassignment procedure and is of the sex stated in the certificate.

In addition to providing legal recognition for transgender persons born in New South Wales, the legislation also recognises equivalent certificates issued under a corresponding law in another jurisdiction. In other words, where another jurisdiction legally recognises post-operative transgender persons born in that jurisdiction, New South Wales will also recognise that person's new legal status.

The legislation is not intended to overturn the provisions of the Commonwealth Marriage Act. Thus, a new certificate will not be issued where the applicant is married. The bill also provides that it is an offence for a

Page 1796
person, who has been issued with a new birth certificate, or for another person, who knows of a person's changed legal status to produce the birth certificate for the purposes of a law of another place. There will be exceptions to this where:

-the laws of the other place expressly allow such a certificate (or a copy or extract from such a certificate) to be so produced; or

-the person to whom the certificate is produced is advised of the alteration of the record of sex.

The "laws of another place" includes the laws of the Commonwealth and other States and Territories. Breach of this provision may attract a penalty of up to $1,000 or two years imprisonment.

The proposed legislation also provides that it is an offence for a person whose record of sex has been altered to produce their previous birth certificate, without lawful excuse. Other provisions relating to fraud and the registration process are already contained in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1995.

Sporting bodies will be exempt from compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions. In effect this means transgender persons will not be recognised for the purposes of participation in sport. This exemption will not apply to transgender persons involved in coaching, administration or other prescribed activities relating to sport.

This approach clarifies the law for State sporting organisations and ensures that they are not placed in conflict with national/international affiliate organisations.

Granting legal recognition also has implications for the superannuation sector in terms of differential contributions and benefits. These implications have not yet been fully determined. The legislation therefore provides for an exemption to legal recognition in this area. Nevertheless, I wish to advise the House that the Government is currently examining this matter with a view to possible further amendments at a later date. It is my intention to consult with relevant groups regarding any future changes to the legislation and the regulations.

The proposed legislation also provides for cognate amendments to the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900. The amendments add to certain definitions relating to sexual assault offences to make it clear that such offences may also be committed upon transgender persons.

In addition, the bill provides for amendments to the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898 to provide that a beneficiary will not be disinherited merely because they identify as a person of the opposite sex, unless the will expressly provides otherwise.

During the drafting of the bill all relevant interest groups were consulted and indicated their general support for the bill.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. D. F. Moppett.


Debate resumed from 29 May.

Hon. J. S. TINGLE [4.18]: This is probably a good budget. We are in the black, the Government says. The Opposition says this is a bit of a fiddle; and I, being hopeless with figures, would not venture an individual opinion. But for the sake of this speech, let us say the Government has got it right. However, the present Government cannot claim full credit for this, because it is the culmination of an ongoing process. The Treasurer has every right to feel good about the budget he has brought in, and to assert it shows the good financial position of this State. Without wishing in any way to appear to be nitpicking, I have noticed in consecutive budgets of both State and Federal governments the tendency for spending on social welfare and community services to continue to creep upwards.

I would wish to make only the passing observation that it seems to me we must be coming to a point where we shall have to ask ourselves whether spending on social welfare and community service programs can continue to grow year by year. That observation is prompted, in an indirect way, by what went wrong with green slips, and the remedial measures the Government had to take. Even now, those measures might not be enough. I know they are not social welfare or community services, but they are an example of how a well-intentioned effort to regulate and facilitate an important service can blow out and have an unexpected consequence.

I note that in its upcoming Victims Compensation Bill the Government will address the problem of funding increasing individual payouts under the victims compensation scheme. There are other areas where, if the spiral continues, the time must come when the money simply will not be there to fund these important programs in the way that was intended when they were introduced, and we will be forced to modify them - to spread the jam much thinner on the toast, as it were. Not for a moment would I suggest that we should abandon these programs, or give up on the very proper function of the community taking the responsibility of supporting the less advantaged of its members or those who temporarily need help.

I am merely pointing out that we have had several indicators already that costs are ballooning, and it might be wise to look ahead - even beyond the next election - to try to find ways of adapting these schemes before they, and we, run into a brick wall. But I also want to ask today whether, while we are putting money into these quite worthwhile and commendable schemes, we might be constantly overlooking an area of community health, social wellbeing, and safety which has serious economic ramifications for all of us, and needs some attention. So, let me concentrate on the matters of crime, violence, crime prevention and community safety.

The budget spends 3.9 percent more on the police, to a figure of $989.5 million. At least part of that increase of 3.9 percent will certainly be swallowed up in rising costs of maintaining the existing effort. However, this will, we are told - and we will have to wait to see whether it actually happens - put another 100 police on the job, and 650 more on the streets. These extra police are
Page 1797
always promised, but, of course, have a curious habit of never actually appearing. But, even if they did, would that be enough? The present police strength of 13,000 or so might seem adequate - until you realise that on any given day up to half the apparent police strength might not actually be available for duty, for various reasons. And is the service big enough for the State? The Government will spend $11.2 million to buy new self-loading pistols for the police. Given the minuscule levels of training of police officers in pistol shooting, this could turn out to be a double-edged sword. Even though police are, undoubtedly, consistently undergunned against criminals, merely giving them a gun with more bullets in it is not really helping them unless they become expert in its use.

Police are required to undergo pistol practice only once a year and to dry fire their service pistols every six months. It is a fact that a great many officers do not have the time, the inclination or the facilities for even this limited practice. I believe that unless the Government and the Police Service do some serious thinking about the adequacy of police pistol training they will still leave our officers seriously undergunned, even with their brand-new self-loaders. A self-loading pistol can be a difficult and frisky thing to tame, and it takes a lot of getting used to. If, as popularly supposed, the Government also makes the serious blue of issuing police with a much talked about particular make of pistol, the Glock, which comes without a safety catch, it might even be a backward step for the men and women in the police force. In the Northern Territory there have already been seven reported accidental discharges of the Glock, sometimes when it is simply being replaced in the holster.

I hardly need to point out that when anyone, police officer or criminal, fires a gun in a public place there is always the risk that some innocent bystander will be hurt. Police equipped with high capacity self-loading pistols, which they are not properly trained to use, are not what we need. But most of all, what I want to ask about is the missing bit of the budget. In amongst the increased allocations for this and that, and the money being spent to make our community work more effectively and safely, where is the money to go deep into the causes of the things that do not work properly in our community? Where is the money for a real, bone-shaking study into violence? Where is the funding - or even the motivation or suggestion - for an anti-violence commission? Where is the money to do the things that might make it less necessary to re-arm the police, to find out why some people in our society seem so ready to resort to instant, mindless, pointless, random violence against people with whom they have no personal quarrel? When are we going to start the job of finding out where and how our society is unravelling, and start to stitch it back together again?

Speaking after the Port Arthur massacre, the eminent Queensland criminologist and psychologist, Professor Paul Wilson, pointed out that we seem to be building up in society a number of what he called sick, lonely, psychotic people, who were bottling up an anger at society; an anger that might, one day, explode. Why is society developing people like that, with those inbuilt rages? Is it not time we asked that question? Or do we not want to have to face the answer? There is an ongoing debate about whether our society is becoming more violent, and nobody seems to have the perfect answer. Statistically, we hear, society is not becoming more violent. Indeed, some statistics suggest it is less violent now than in the days of The Rocks pushes with their cutthroat razors. But even if the overall level of violence - per annum, shall we say, in the language of the statisticians - is not increasing, one thing is certain: the community is now subjected to outbursts of violence more horrific, and on a much more spectacular scale, than were experienced even 10 years ago.

The Hilton bombing was an outrageous, isolated incident, impossible to contemplate in the peaceful Australian community. People told themselves that "it was the work of some fanatical outside group, nothing to do with us". Then there was Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Strathfield, Terrigal, Redfern, Crescent Head and Dunblane. And finally - at least for now - there was Port Arthur. But beyond the shock of hearing about the Port Arthur massacre, did people experience the same feelings of disbelief? Did they still say to themselves that this could not be happening in Australia? Or was there, underlying our horror, the grim feeling that it was not really so unexpected? Have Australians come to accept that this sort of thing could and might happen here? Have repeated episodes taught us almost to expect it? What a short step it is from expecting this sort of spectacular, headline-filling violence to accepting it.

My great fear is that Australians, as a people not given to violence, have slowly but surely been conditioned to believe that violence of some sort is inevitable. The hard question we have to address is: why? And if and when we have answered that question, we have to ask: how do we stop it? I believe the answer as to why is easy to find, and is made up of two main components. The people Professor Paul Wilson spoke of have probably always been amongst us to some extent: the disturbed, the antisocial, the grudge-bearers, the overlooked, the unimportant people who bitterly resent their isolated and lonely role in society. They, if you like, are the fuel for the fire. But in my firm opinion, the spark - the thing that causes the ignition of that fuel - is the exploitation of violence in almost every corner of the media.

There is violence in much modern music, even if it is subliminal. There is violence in the print media, in the lurid and competitive reporting of events such as Port Arthur. Certainly there is overwhelming violence in the visual media of films, television and videotapes. I know it is a cliche to say that, but one must resist the temptation to dismiss it as a cliche, and instead should re-examine
Page 1798
it. There has been a pattern in violent films of making a hero of the solitary, grim, unforgiving dispenser of justice. It began with the so-called spaghetti westerns, and expanded through the development of characters like Dirty Harry and Rambo and the vengeful characters played by Charles Bronson in many of his films. Honourable members should contemplate the characteristics of these figureheads for a moment: solitary, grim, unhappy, despised or rejected by their peers and left to strike back on their own. They stride through society being judge, jury and executioner all in one, and dispense justice with a gun.

Lonely, solitary figures become the perfect role models for the lonely, rejected, asocial people Paul Wilson was talking about. Bear in mind that these fictional characters are virtually bullet-proof, seldom if ever called to account for their killings. They are quite falsely given a God-like power to do what they please to people whom they see as not fit to live. And that power, I believe, is at the basis of the problem I am grappling with now. Honourable members might be familiar with the powerful argument by the author John Grisham about the connection between movie violence and real life - the copycat frenzy that can be set off in unstable and impressionable minds by fantasy violence.

Grisham's long-time friend, Bill Savage, a quiet, respected man, was one of the two victims of Sarah Edmondson and Benjamin Darras, two American teenagers who went on a spree of cold-blooded killings. Grisham makes the point that both had seen the Oliver Stone movie Natural Born Killers and that it had made a deep impression on them. Ben, he says, loved the film, and saw Sarah and himself as identifying with the two mindless killers in the film, Mickey and Mallory. Grisham also made the point that in the film, after a spree that takes more than 100 lives, Mickey and Mallory escape from gaol, settle down and have children, and live happily ever after with no retribution. Instead, the film excuses them saying they could not help what they did. They were, the film suggests, driven by demons.

In Grisham's view, the film Natural Born Killers planted a demon in the minds of Sarah Edmondson and Ben Darras that led them to become killers. In his j'accuse type writing on Sarah and Ben, Grisham makes the telling point that after Ben had shot Bill Savage, he allegedly said to Sarah that the killing had made him feel powerful, and he urged her to kill someone too, to feel the same power. Psychologists I have talked to tend to agree that mass killings have been about power - not about killing. They say that lonely, angry, psychopathic or sociopathic people, harbouring deep bitterness for the society they believe despises them, see in the role model of films like this a way of getting back at society. After Strathfield, it was suggested to me that Wade Frankum's reason for killing so many people was that, for the brief minutes when he had them under his gun, he knew a feeling of supreme power. Those people were helpless and his to dispose of as he wished. That most mass killers kill themselves, I am told, is a verification of that momentary crazy lust for power. They have been in command for a moment, and could not face the ignominy of going back to their former status. They kill themselves, satisfied that they have got their own back on society.

Not everyone will agree with this or understand it, but I believe it is a powerful argument that could point us in the direction we need to go, if we are to find a way to stop or at least reduce this type of awfulness. If we accept that casual, ersatz violence in the powerful visual medium can be the spark that ignites the fuel of deep-seated individual hatred, then surely we should look at that. Grisham makes the interesting point that if it were possible to declare films to be products - like cars, white goods, food, clothing, and the many other products that are warranted and for which the manufacturer has to take responsibility - it might also be possible to force filmmakers to accept some responsibility for the effect their films have on society. Is that impossible? Is that unrealistic? Or should we think about it? Moviemakers make violent films because they are convinced audiences like them. No doubt there is a curious and morbid streak in many of us which likes to be shocked, which likes to wallow in the gory details and the lurid visions. That is the bit we have to excise, that is the base part of us we should stop pandering to. If people did not go to see films like Natural Born Killers, they would not be made, and we would be spared little gems like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Exterminator, Eliminator, Blood Debt and all the rest of them.

The special-effects people have conditioned us to believe that pain is painless; that death is something that happens only to other people. Perhaps we could bring some reality back into this endless, mindless fantasy if filmmakers were held at least to some degree responsible for the way their movies affect people, especially when, as in the case of the movie Natural Born Killers, there seems to be pretty clear evidence of a copycat effect. After all, if one puts a powerful idea into an impressionable mind, and that impressionable mind accepts and believes it and then goes out and acts upon it, is one not at least partly responsible for the effects of that action? The trouble with violent film, in particular, is that it tends to isolate the act from the consequences; it tends to suggest to the feeble-minded, the unstable, the angry and the antisocial that it is not wrong for them to act in the way that the film might suggest.

I am reminded of the experience of an American doctor working in a hospital in Washington. A young boy - a gang member - was brought in, suffering serious stab wounds. While he was being treated, the boy told the doctor he had often bashed and stabbed members of other gangs in fights. "But", he told the doctor, "I never knew before that it hurt to be stabbed." Reality
Page 1799
overtaking fantasy? By accepting the sorts of calculated, manipulative representations of violence in films, we are pandering to the violence in us instead of rejecting it. Maybe Grisham's idea is censorship, maybe it is totalitarian; but is the defence of freedom of speech and freedom of expression valid against a community that has to have bars on its windows, locks on its cars, and is afraid to go out at night?

I suggest to the Government that violence is a presence in our community that has to be dampened down. Even though it might cost money, the money ought to be provided in next year's budget for a powerful commission to examine each major act of violence, root out its causes and find ways to block it next time; and for a reshaping of public attitudes until we understand that violence is not entertaining, but painful and shattering. Whatever the cost of doing that, it is nothing compared to the very real cost of violence, in personal terms and in real money terms, to every one of us. Let us make it a budget item next year. That is, of course, if we are really interested in asking the important questions and if we really want to know the answers - answers that may not be entirely comfortable, answers that could well be about ourselves.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [4.31]: In speaking in support of the 1996-97 State budget I intend to concentrate upon the impact of both the New South Wales budget and Costello's proposed budget cuts upon employment in New South Wales. In the period since the election of the Carr Government there has been an impressive rate of growth in employment and that is a plus for New South Wales. Jobs created in New South Wales totalled more than 83,000, which represented, in effect, 60 per cent of job increases throughout Australia. During the past year New South Wales has had the lowest level of unemployment in Australia. Even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have to agree with that. The honourable member would also agree that there has been a significant rise in the number of people participating in the job market, compared to conservative States such as Queensland and Western Australia - which the Hon. D. F. Moppett would probably drool about - where the participation rate fell.

Because of business and private investor confidence, investment in New South Wales increased in the six months to September 1995. Business investment in the six months to September 1995 was up 11.9 per cent on the same period in 1994; and private investment in the six months to September 1995 was up 5.1 per cent on the same period in 1994. This clearly shows that Labor has created jobs in New South Wales and has not sacked public sector employees, as the Opposition did during its seven years in office. Investment in New South Wales was 12 times the national average during the past year. The Labor Government has secured an incredible $9.5 billion worth of new investment which could lead to 35,000 new jobs in the next few years. However, this buoyant situation is threatened by the Howard policies which will increase unemployment, not only in New South Wales but also throughout Australia. Honourable members need only look at the employment that has been generated by various investments in regional New South Wales to gain an idea of what this Government has done.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Ask the people in regional New South Wales.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Hon. D. F. Moppett is whingeing and carrying on as he always does. He will never let a fact get in the way of his ramblings. In the past year a number of major projects have been assisted to fruition in regional New South Wales by the regional business development scheme. By leave, I incorporate in Hansard a list of examples of recent major projects secured or retained for country New South Wales that will involve the creation of a number of jobs.

______

Proposed expansion of Overall Forge Pty Limited, Albury ($2.6m investment - 65 jobs).

Proposed expansion of Air Affairs Pty Limited, Nowra ($8.350m investment - 25 jobs).

Expansion of Big River Timbers Pty Limited, Grafton ($3.1m investment - 58 new jobs).

Proposed establishment of a cheese and ice-cream manufacturing plant by Southlands Limited, Sutton Forest ($4.7m investment - 40 new jobs).

Expansion of Bayview Seafoods Pty Limited, Taree (Investment $2m - 20 new jobs).

Relocation of Nufarm Limited from Sydney to Dubbo (Investment $1.8m - 15 new jobs).

Expansion of Beers Abattoirs, Culcairn (Investment $950,000 - 40 new jobs).

Relocation of Thermit Australia Pty Limited from Sydney to Somersby (Investment $2.4m - 30 jobs).

Expansion of Stonetile Australia Pty Limited, Orange (Investment $2.5m - 16 new jobs).

Expansion of Byrne Trailers Australia Pty Limited, Wagga Wagga (Investment $1.4m - 20 new jobs).

Relocation of Sydney Yachting Centre Pty Limited to Berkeley Vale - 24 new jobs.

Expansion of Bashford Boatbuilders Pty Limited, Nowra - 50 new jobs.

Establishment of Southern Stone Processing Pty Limited, Harden - 12 new jobs.

Expansion of Barraba Manufacturing Pty Limited, Barraba - 12 new jobs.

Relocation of Mushroom Compositors Pty Limited from Sydney to Singleton - 10 new jobs.

Establishment of P/ACE shoe manufacturer, Junee - 16 new jobs.

Expansion of Dubbo Macquarie Print - 20 new jobs.

Expansion of Singleton engineers to create 10 new jobs.

Relocation of heavy steel fabricator to Moss Vale creating 20 new jobs.

Page 1800

Establishment of emu processing plant at Grong Grong - 20 new jobs.

Establishment of paper processing plant at Albury creating 20 new jobs.

Establishment of oilseed processing plant at Newcastle creating 30 new jobs.

Relocation of aluminium finishing and distribution operations to the Central Coast - 23 jobs initially rising to 48.

______


The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I have incorporated that list for the benefit of the Hon. D. F. Moppett. This strong growth position in New South Wales is threatened by Costello's con. Without doubt it is threatened. In the past couple of months there has been talk of an $8 billion hole in the budget. I recall the same talk when Greiner was elected in 1988. He established the very biased Curran committee which had the job of cutting public sector employment. The public servant responsible for that job went to Victoria and used the same methodology to cut 40,000 jobs in that State. Unemployment rose dramatically because of his efforts.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about the broken promises?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I will come to broken promises in a moment. The Federal razor gang proposes to knock off $19 billion. It is like a scatter gun. The Hon. J. S. Tingle referred to the dangers of a scatter-gun approach with regard to new police pistols. The economic scatter-gun approach by the Howard Government will create real hardship and undermine the job growth rate in New South Wales and nationally. It will lead to the loss of 15,000 or 20,000 public service positions. The Howard Government has proposed savings of between $7.4 billion and $9.5 billion in health, mainly by increasing the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent. I have had something to do with health issues in recent times and I can see a situation developing wherein already financially squeezed hospitals will face even greater problems if cuts are made to the health care system.

The Howard Government has proposed major cuts to university study grants - for example, a $364 million cut to the higher education contribution scheme and a $584 million cut to Austudy and Abstudy. It has also proposed: a squeeze on nursing homes and other community welfare areas; savings of $1.5 billion in social security, with pensioners targeted for a $690 million saving; and a $4.5 billion saving in the industry portfolios from the scrapping of subsidies under the diesel fuel rebate scheme and the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. The Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are silent about those two issues. The farming sector will be hit with a cut to the diesel fuel rebate. Fortunately, New South Wales Farmers - one of my associations - and Senator Collins, who has done a great job in this area, are fighting to prevent the implementation of those cuts.

What really stuck in my craw was hearing that the mining industry - cap in hand and screaming all sorts of abuse at the Howard Government - had gone to Canberra to save its $700 million diesel fuel subsidy. Mind you, this is the same mob that leads the charge from the big end of town; that cuts welfare, health and community services whenever it can; that talks about not having any government intervention in the affairs of this State and of this country; that pursues the most economically rationalist, dry policies ever known. As soon as the Government's big foot goes on the tail of the mining industry, it goes running and screaming that it cannot lose its $700 million.

Over the past few days the mining industry has given one of its most hypocritical performances over its little loss of subsidy. For the past 20 years it has actively promoted cuts to expenditure across-the-board to everyone else in the community that did not affect it. I am fully in support of farmers retaining the diesel levy; they have been under pressure because of the drought. Last year was a good season with some record crops, but beef prices are down and wool prices are not the best at the moment. Farmers are still suffering, despite some recovery, and that may be temporary as it is possible that we are heading into another rainfall deficient year. As a consequence, the levy should remain and the Federal Government should not continue with its mania about the rebate on diesel fuel.

I refer now to the proposed cuts to education. Recently Senator Vanstone said at a meeting that cuts to university budgets could be between 5 per cent and 12 per cent, and that could be in the order of $600 million. That is a detrimental action because Australia needs to be the smart country. Technological change and development are being spoken about on the one hand, but on the other hand it is proposed to cut the budgets of universities that provide the means for improving technology. I am on the Board of Governors of the Charles Sturt University. The university runs many courses that are important to the development of the New South Wales economy and, in particular, the economies of regional areas. The Charles Sturt University faces substantial funding cuts which could mean the abolition of various courses. I support the thousands of students and academics who demonstrated outside Parliament House today protesting to the Howard Government that university scholars and academics will not tolerate these cuts. Professor Hilmer has been a strong supporter of reform in various areas -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: And you are his apostle.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I am certainly not his apostle. Even Professor Hilmer is of the view that it is wrong to adopt a scatter-gun approach by making cuts to tertiary education.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Why don't we wait until they actually bring down the budget?

Page 1801

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Hon. D. F. Moppett asks why not wait until the budget is brought down. He should tell the New South Wales farmers to stop jumping up and down about abolishing rebates on diesel fuel. They are anticipating a problem; they have virtually been told that there is a problem and therefore are being pro-active. The attitude of the Hon. D. F. Moppett is in conflict with New South Wales Farmers. If it is good enough for New South Wales Farmers to oppose the Federal Government's proposed tax, it is good enough for universities to do the same. The cuts will hit universities unevenly but will be most felt in regional universities. Inevitably the cuts will be imposed where it will be easier administratively to do so, rather than generally, and areas of less need will be targeted.

This may have unfortunate consequences for faculties that do not have powerful allies in professional associations. Old and well-established universities have access to private funding which has been slowly built up over generations. However, newer universities, such as the Charles Sturt University and the University of Western Sydney, have had insufficient time to establish private funding and are more reliant on government funding. The real impact of the cuts will be most savagely felt by them. Invariably those universities are located where the population base can support them, that which requires tertiary education, especially in specialist fields, and for monetary reasons or because of distance, cannot access the older and well-established universities.

Higher education is an expensive option for rural families who must meet transport and accommodation costs. In addition, it would appear they need a fair amount through higher education contribution scheme - HECS - charges. In other words, the cuts will hit hardest the new universities that have been established to service a public which, in the past, has been too isolated or too poor to avail itself of tertiary education. The cuts will not affect everyone in the same way, but at the end of the day large sections of the poorer and more isolated communities will be effectively denied tertiary education for the foreseeable future.

The Howard Government should look carefully at the way it imposes any cuts to tertiary education funding, as the cuts it imposes today may not be felt throughout Australia for the next five or even 10 years, but they will be felt because Australia will begin to lose what was an expanding pool of well-trained men and women from all walks of life. Regional universities such as the Charles Sturt University - based primarily at Albury, Wagga Wagga and Bathurst - will lose far more than will Sydney University and Melbourne University. Regional universities will be hit dramatically by these cuts. I call upon all honourable members to urge the Federal Government to take great care about imposing cuts in funding for universities because to do so is to undermine the very basis of our future.

The Costello argument is based upon an $8 billion black hole in the Federal budget. For a start, the figure is not really $8 billion. The usual figure used in budget announcements is the $4.5 billion starting deficit for 1996-97, a significant proportion of which is attributable to the coalition's own actions last year in blocking $2.5 billion worth of budget measures. The underlying deficit, taking out asset sales, State debt repayments, and so on, focuses on the figure used by professional economists, that is, $7.6 billion reducing to $3.3 billion in 1998-99. There is significant evidence that the $8 billion is not a real figure at all. If the figure was $4.9 billion, that would represent a gross domestic product of $500 billion, approximately 1 per cent.

Even if almost $8 billion were allowed in terms of the $7.6 billion projection, it is around 1.5 per cent of GDP. In other words, it is a comparatively low figure, and particularly low when compared to many overseas countries. The $8 billion figure used frequently by Costello has been severely criticised by many in the economic community. For instance, Professor Gruen, Professor Neville and Mr Argy in the Australian Financial Review of 20 May said:

The figure of $8 billion is itself not a firm figure. It is a Treasury forecast assuming no policy changes and a rate of growth of the economy of 3.25 per cent . . . [A] small difference in the assumed rate of economic growth can make a large difference in the size of the projected deficit.

Subsequent to that, the Australian growth figure is in excess of 4 per cent, which would have a dramatic impact on the $8 billion figure. This scare campaign by Costello mirrors the campaign put forward by Greiner and supported by Curran in 1988. The same scenario is being built up in relation to the 1996-97 budget. According to Treasury figures, the coalition in the last election produced $6.8 billion -

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: You should run in Hume.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: After the results on the weekend that is becoming a rather attractive proposition.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: I second that.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I have Johnno's support for that. The coalition promises will cost $6.8 billion, and this should be added into the factor. Part of the reason for this proposal is to give the coalition an opportunity to walk away from its commitments. There is no economic crisis facing this country. The national deficit of $4.9 billion represents no more than 1 per cent of national income, GDP. Even a deficit of $7.6 billion represents only 1.5 per cent of national income. Neither figure is large by international standards. A deficit of 1.5 per cent of national income, taking the larger figure, would put Australia equal third among the major OECD countries with regard to economic outlook. Furthermore, in 1982-83 Australia's deficit was 4.9 per cent of national income, which represented a
Page 1802
$24.5 billion deficit in 1996 dollar terms. In 1982-83 there was a real economic crisis. There is not now.

Australia's structural deficit, as has been pointed out in many journals, is estimated to be the second lowest of the OECD countries. Only Finland has a better looking balance of expenditure and income. Ours is around one-quarter of the average. If Australia had a deficit which was the average of OECD countries, it would be of the order of $15 billion, not $4.9 billion. Overall, the figures that I have been relating to the House clearly demonstrate that Australia's economic position is very healthy and is not in the parlous state that Mr Costello has suggested.

The Federal Government cuts will result in only 0.5 per cent of growth for the next year. Growth is strong, although one bank - I think it was the National Australia Bank - has said "We are having a good time here, we had better cut things back quickly." If there were a cut of 0.5 per cent in national growth, 40,000 jobs could not be created next year. Therefore, over two years the Government would throw away 80,000 jobs on top of the Government's proposed cuts of 15,000 to 20,000 positions in the public sector. In that regard the Community and Public Sector Union has not been able get a firm undertaking from the Government.

On Mr Costello's scenario, the great endeavours of the New South Wales Government to create jobs and to get employment going - last year it created 83,000 jobs - will be undermined by the proposed Federal cuts. The cuts will have a dramatic effect on the State's growth and prosperity. Linked with this is a non-budget issue that will also cause job losses. The Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Anderson, proposes that Australia import chicken products. A similar proposal was tried in the fish industry, but it did not meet the guidelines laid down by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service for the importation of fresh food products.

J. T. Larkin, the Director of Economics and Agribusiness Research with Instate Pty Limited, in an excellent analysis on economic impacts came to the conclusion that the costs associated with allowing the importation of such products far outweighed the benefits. Other countries have little difficulty with subsidisation. For example, in 1996 the United States provided subsidisation to the tune of over $US20 million in relation to 32,955 tonnes of poultry exports. The United States proposes, under current projections, to continue such subsidisation to the year 2000, and that will relate to $US100 million worth of subsidised chicken product. It is proposed by AQIS that these subsidised products be allowed into Australia as they are allowed into such countries as Thailand, where wage rates are very low and there are concerns about health issues.

The effect of this importation will be the loss of 13,300 jobs in the industry across Australia, 5,200 in New South Wales alone. Nothing will be gained from this proposal. We certainly will not get a better chicken product - we have the best chicken product in the world already. Prices may be lower as a result but the threat to employment will far outweigh any benefit in that regard. Recently the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics - ABARE - conducted a study into the outbreak and impact of Newcastle disease, which is probably one of the great threats from imported chicken product, especially product from Thailand which is not subject to the usual stringent protocols.

The survey concluded that if an outbreak of Newcastle disease occurred following the importation of 5,000 tonnes of poultry meat, the estimated net gain to our society in terms of price would be $130,000. However, the resultant loss to egg and poultry producers would be $152 million. For many reasons the Federal Government must overturn this policy. The subsidising of a product, the quality of which cannot be fully guaranteed, will undermine a thriving, important industry in this country. In another paper Dr Jeff Fairbrother, the Executive Director of the Australian Chicken Meat Federation, enumerated the range of dangers associated with the importation of chicken meat. Evidence shows that the same argument can apply to a number of products, including the proposed salmon imports from Canada. Dr Fairbrother stated:

Not only is Australia free of virulent Newcastle disease but it is also one of the few countries in the world that does not allow vaccination of any poultry against Newcastle disease.

Exotic Newcastle disease is widely recognised as the major disease threat to the viability of the Australian commercial poultry industry. It is also regarded as a major potential threat to the pet and native bird populations. The significance of the disease has been acknowledged in numerous government publications. Quarantine pamphlets issued by the NSW Department of Agriculture in 1974 and the Commonwealth Department of Health, Quarantine Division in 1984, describe Newcastle Disease as "the most feared avian disease in the world."

There is no doubt that if the disease enters Australia it will have dramatic consequences. Dr Fairbrother stated further:

However, based roughly on the cost of eradication of three outbreaks of avian influenza in recent years, it is suggested that a widespread ND outbreak could cost $30-40 million to eradicate.

Even under the strictest of guidelines Newcastle disease escaped from the Geelong facility - it escaped in the eye of a research worker at that facility. It is suggested that a widespread outbreak of Newcastle disease could cost $30 million to $40 million to eradicate. One of the better known outbreaks of Newcastle disease occurred in California in the early 1970s. That outbreak took two years to eradicate, 11 million birds were destroyed and the total cost was $US56 million.
Page 1803
The Australian estimate of $30 million to $40 million to eradicate just one outbreak of Newcastle disease would therefore not be an overestimation. There is some argument that with proper protocols chicken meat could be imported. I do not believe it is possible to devise protocols of sufficient stringency to ensure that there is never an outbreak of Newcastle disease in Australia.

Cooking, for instance, eliminates a great deal of the risk of the outbreak of disease, including salmonella, but I do not believe that every measure of risk can be eliminated. It has been clearly demonstrated that the spread of diseases such as the morbilli virus can be dramatic. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, which has recommended that the guidelines be dropped - and Mr Anderson has indicated that he is considering doing so - states in its pamphlet entitled "Newcastle Disease a Threat to all Australian Bird Life":

Newcastle Disease, the most feared avian disease in the world, has penetrated into most countries. Australia so far is free from the pathogenic forms of this disease.

When the disease first enters a country it can cause havoc in the bird industry - commercial flocks, fancy birds, pet birds and native wild birds are all susceptible.

Thousands of birds may die. Those that appear to recover can pass the disease on to healthy birds and may themselves remain chronically ill for the rest of their lives.

There is no known cure for Newcastle Disease. The disease is caused by a virus so drugs do not help. Birds continue dying even if heavily medicated.

I believe that there is no acceptable risk, so there should not be guidelines for the importation of cooked chicken meat. All honourable members have a grave duty on strong environmental grounds to pressure the Federal Government not to proceed with the importation of cooked chicken meat. I have canvassed a number of matters and shall conclude with an issue that is of concern to me. In a way, it is another employment issue and it relates to the departure of Bob Miller from the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. The Sydney Morning Herald of 6 May contained an article under the headline, "Who'll work the miracles? Now that Bob Miller's gone" - which is a very good summation of the work that Bob has done to bring together parents and children who had spent many years apart. Words fail me - I cannot fully describe the great work that Bob has done. The Sydney Morning Herald article stated in part:

In adoption circles, Bob Miller is regarded as a very special person. While he was, by all accounts, a public servant of the old school who really did dedicate himself to serving the public, he was always willing to go that one step further, to work that extra bit harder, to crack a really difficult case.

His work has been profoundly commented upon also by other commentators, including Alan Jones. It is my hope that the Government can find a means whereby Bob Miller, the former Deputy Principal of the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages, can continue this sort of work. Unfortunately, recently he was forced into redundancy. I hope the Government can continue his magnificent work. Honourable members have probably read the newspaper article to which I have referred; it is a fantastic story. People denigrate public servants in many ways. There is the old thinking that public servants do not do the right thing and do not work hard enough. That culture is very far from the work of Bob Miller, whom I have known for the past 15 years. He has done fantastic work in every task in which he has been involved. I was shocked to read in the newspaper that he had been forced into redundancy and away from an area that he obviously loved and in which he helped people significantly. It is a disgrace that this should happen. I certainly hope that the Government can find a way to continue Bob's work.

The Government's employment measures in the budget are a step in the right direction. I am sure many more jobs could be created, but the black clouds of the Howard Government hang heavily over this State and this country. I hope that the Federal Government pays heed to the great demonstration that passed by Parliament House today and to the statements made by vice-chancellors and many leading academics across Australia who oppose the proposed significant cuts in university funding. We need to build up education and business activity in this country, neither of which is achieved through across-the-board government cuts and slashes.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.07]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill has far-reaching significance for building societies and credit unions. The industries play an important part in the provision of financial services to thousands of New South Wales families. The measures contained in the bill have been keenly sought by industry peak bodies such as the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, Credit Union Services Corporation (Australia) Limited and the National Credit Union Association. I acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by those organisations to the Financial Institutions Commission, FINCOM, in identifying discriminatory provisions in State legislation. The measures also have had the unqualified support of my ministerial colleagues and their departments and agencies, in undertaking the review of legislation.

Building societies and credit unions are an important part of the financial system. The assets
Page 1804
of New South Wales building societies exceed $4 billion, or one-third of total assets of all Australian building societies. The assets of New South Wales credit unions are now more than $6.6 billion, or 45 per cent of the national total. Both industries continue to grow at a healthy rate of more than 10 per cent per annum. The main purpose of the bill is to remove the distinctions that exist in many State Acts and regulations between banks on the one hand and building societies and credit unions on the other. These unnecessary distinctions, in many cases, have the effect of closing off from those financial institutions business opportunities to provide financial services to departments, authorities, organisations, corporations and persons regulated by State legislation. The Government has taken this step in recognition of the maturity of the financial institutions scheme, which commenced on 1 July 1992.

The financial institutions scheme has put into place, on a uniform national basis, a rigorous system of supervision of State-based financial institutions. That supervision is based on high prudential standards determined by the Australian Financial Institutions Commission. Supervision of those financial institutions and enforcement of those standards in New South Wales are undertaken by the New South Wales Financial Institutions Commission, or FINCOM as it is more widely known. A similar State supervisory authority is established in each jurisdiction to perform a similar role enforcing the same standards.

These proposals given recognition to the high level of compliance by building societies and credit unions with those rigorous standards. The two industries have also achieved a high level of public confidence and recognition from Commonwealth and State authorities. This recognition has gained them direct access to the settlement system through their peak bodies and authority to issue cheques in their own right. They have previously had to do these things through an arrangement with a bank. New South Wales and some other States have already extended authorised trustee investment status to building societies and credit unions.

Many building societies and credit unions have retained a regional or community focus and they have achieved widespread public recognition because of the personal service they offer. There is also the knowledge that, irrespective of the State in which they are incorporated, building societies and credit unions are subject to the same high prudential standards in conducting their business and public reporting. There is also a uniform approach to supervision by the State supervisory authorities. As some interstate societies and credit unions operate also in New South Wales, the reforms proposed in this bill will give the same recognition to societies and credit unions registered under the financial institutions codes of all States and Territories as is given to those which are registered in New South Wales.

The most significant amendments are made to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, which regulates the investment of public moneys, the Public Authorities (Financial Arrangements) Act 1987 in relation to the investment powers of corporations constituted by State Acts, and the Trustee Act 1925, which specifies the way in which a trustee may invest funds. Some 100 other Acts and regulations are also to be amended by the bill. In some cases the amendments will remove barriers and open up business opportunities which have been the exclusive province of the banks. In other cases, the amendments are relatively minor. They will merely remove an implication that the building societies and credit unions are "second-class" financial institutions. Such perceptions are, of course, important in a competitive environment.

The bill also reflects the Government's commitment to competition reform and competitive neutrality. New definitions of "bank", "building society" and "credit union" are to be included in the Interpretation Act 1987 to ensure that a consistent approach is taken to interpreting all State legislation. That will also facilitate the continuation of the policy of competitive neutrality in any future legislation. Most of the amendments to the Acts and regulations covered by the bill follow a similar form: definitions of "bank" which are now redundant are removed from those Acts and regulations in favour of the new definition included in the Interpretation Act; and references to "banks" will now be followed by the words "building society or credit union" so that the relevant provision will in future apply equally to all three sorts of financial institutions.

I commend the bill to all honourable members in the belief that these initiatives will do much to establish competitive neutrality in the provision of financial services, enabling building societies and credit unions to offer their services to organisations which have hitherto been the exclusive province of banks. Perhaps, more importantly, these changes will enable building societies and credit unions to deliver those services to country areas from which the banks are withdrawing their branches. I really believe that this is very important legislation that is long overdue. I know that the credit union movement in particular has widespread and bipartisan support in this Parliament. Last year I had the privilege of speaking at the annual credit union luncheon held at this Parliament. I was very impressed by the large numbers of members from both Houses and from all sides of politics who attended to indicate their support for the objectives of the credit union movement.

I am sure that the legislation will have a tremendous impact in country areas where, as I mentioned a moment ago, recently many banks have withdrawn services that they previously provided. I am also pleased to know that many local government bodies are keen to see the legislation enacted. Indeed, it will open the way for many local councils throughout the State to make premises available to credit unions in council chambers or on other council-owned property. That will be a great boost for country towns and a great benefit to the
Page 1805
people and businesses of those towns. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. D. F. Moppett.

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

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday, 4 June 1996, at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.15]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [5.15]: On 26 April last a very special event took place here at Parliament House. The date was significant: it was the tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. I am sure I do not need to remind honourable members of this horrific event which contaminated large areas of the Ukraine and neighbouring countries, resulted in hundreds of thousands of people having to be resettled, and exposed many more hundreds of thousands to lethal radiation. The saddest victims of all have been the children, who have been particularly vulnerable to thyroid damage, damage to their reproductive organs, and various forms of cancer.

The tenth anniversary of this event deserved a special and solemn commemoration, and it was my privilege to be the parliamentary host for a candlelight vigil here at Parliament House. The idea was presented to me by my friend Dr Crystina Bilinsky, a woman who has an extraordinary record of community service in arranging medical assistance for the Ukraine in the wake of the disaster. I was delighted when the Australian Ukrainian community took up the cause. I was pleased to work with the Ukrainian Council of New South Wales, especially its President, Mr Jaroslav Duma, its committee chairperson, Mr George Mencinsky, and its liaison officer, Helen Danko, to make the commemoration a reality.

I am particularly grateful to the President of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Max Willis, and the Speaker of the other place, the Hon. John Murray, for allowing the vigil to take place at Parliament House and for permitting the holding of a photographic exhibition in the fountain court of the Parliament. My particular thanks go to our President, who hosted a cocktail party for distinguished guests before the vigil. An unusual precedent was created. Usually when large groups of people assemble outside Parliament House the front gates are closed for security reasons. On this occasion, however, as the vigil was held in the evening at a time when the gates would usually be closed, the President generously allowed the gates to remain open so that those who attended the vigil could stand in the courtyard to listen to the various speakers on the verandah.

Special thanks also go to the Usher of the Black Rod at that time, Warren Cahill, who gave up his Friday evening to assist with the running of the event. I thank also the staff of the Parliament who helped with equipment and other matters. The result of all the hard work was something very special: hundreds of people gathered quietly and solemnly in the courtyard, each one holding a candle to commemorate a tragedy that was appalling not just for the Ukraine but for us all, especially for the children of the Ukraine and regions surrounding the site. Such a disaster must never happen again. I am very pleased that the Ukrainian community played such a prominent role in ensuring that we as a community remembered the tragedy. I believe very strongly in the following words of the philosopher George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.20]: Today, by way of press conference and a motion in the other House, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing made a number of allegations about the future of the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. I place on record the response from Senator Jocelyn Newman, Federal Minister for Social Security:

New South Wales Housing Minister Craig Knowles has got it wrong! His claims that Sydney will face a housing crisis under new Federal government housing proposals is unsubstantiated scaremongering.

On funding at the recent state housing ministers' conference NO dollar figure was put to the states. Only broad principles of housing reform were discussed and they were well received.

Some of the broad objectives include:

The creation of a competitive and fair market for people on low incomes.

The provision of greater equity between private and public low income renters.

Opening up private sector housing options for people currently drawn into public housing.

Increase labour market mobility.

Directly benefit up to half a million Social Security recipients by increasing rent assistance.

Clarification of Commonwealth and State housing responsibilities - all states are vigorously pursuing the Commonwealth to give them greater responsibility for public housing.

Craig Knowles is on the record as supporting just such proposals . . . and today was doing no more than political grandstanding at the expense of those who depend on public housing.

Housing options will be fairer under this government.

Page 1806
More people will have access to cheaper housing under the Coalition. No decisions on the details of the arrangements, let alone the funding have been made . . . and won't be, until the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting between the Prime Minister, Premiers and Territory Chief Ministers later this year.

Last night I said in my budget speech that we expect at the end of the year the Government will attempt to justify, with all the reasons in the world, why it will not fulfil all of its budget obligations, and will blame the Federal Government. I was surprised therefore that today, only hours after I had given my speech, the Minister for Housing was out in the public arena whipping up a frenzy of concern among people in public housing. Already I have had calls from public housing tenants expressing

concern about what the Minister has said. The Minister has acted unfairly in raising those concerns. They will not be justified. I look forward to the Federal Minister expanding on her proposals in the near future.

Motion agreed to.


Page 1807

The following question upon notice and answer was circulated in Questions and Answers:

Mr Jones asked the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs -

(1) Which of the following Aboriginal languages are taught in New South Wales schools:
(a) Bundjalung?
(b) Dhungutti?
(c) Gamilaroi?
(d) Worimi?
(e) Birpai?
(f) Bagandji?
(g) Gumbaynggiri?
(h) Wiradjuri?
(2) What progress is being made in developing a framework for the teaching of these and other indigenous languages in New South Wales schools?
(3) Precisely when will these languages and other languages be taught in the appropriate regions in New South Wales?

Answer -

(1) Bundjalung, Dhungutti, Gamilaroi, Birpai, Bagandji, Gumbaynggiri and Wiradjuri are all taught in New South Wales Schools. Some schools have chosen to teach an Aboriginal language which is not from New South Wales.
(2) The Board of Studies is currently finalising an Indigenous Languages Framework for Years 7-10 which will facilitate the teaching of any New South Wales indigenous language.
(3) The framework will be available to schools for implementation in Years 7-10 from 1997. The decision to teach an Aboriginal language in a school is an issue for each community and school. Which language(s) is taught is also a community decision.