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

The President offered the Prayers.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.


The following bills were returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence Orders) Bill
Legal Aid Commission Amendment Bill

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.


The Hon. Patricia Staunton, as Chairman, tabled report No. 13 entitled "Report on Factors Influencing the Relocation of Regional Headquarters of Australian and Overseas Corporations to New South Wales", dated October 1996.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: [11.05]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Patricia Staunton.


Petition praying that the office of Governor of New South Wales not be downgraded, and that the role, duties and future of the office be determined by a referendum, received from the Hon. J. M. Samios.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name by omitting all words after "particular:" and inserting instead:

(a) the extent to which the dignity, privacy, confidentiality and other rights of residents are protected;

(b) the effect of transferring the responsibility and management of nursing homes from the Commonwealth to the State Government;

(c) the likely impact of the introduction of entry fees and the increase in user-fees for nursing home residents;

(d) the adequacy of supported hostel-type accommodation to meet the needs of independent ageing persons;

(e) the use of existing capital infrastructure to expand services for the aged; and

(f) the impact on the aged community of the decision of the NSW Government to close the Office on Ageing and create the new Ageing and Disability Department.

2. That the Committee report by Monday, 30 June 1997.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: I object.

Leave not granted.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: [11.12]: I move:

1. That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on the state of nursing homes in New South Wales, and in particular:

(a) the effect of transferring the responsibility and management of nursing homes from the Commonwealth to the State Government;

(b) the use of existing capital infrastructure to expand services for the aged; and

(c) the impact on the aged community of the decision of the Carr Government to close the Office on Ageing and create the new Department of Aged and Disability Services.

2. That the Committee report by Wednesday, 4 December 1996.

It was with regret that I heard the single voice of objection against my proposed amendment.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Very mean spirited.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: You should not do things at the last moment.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: In reply to that exchange, I suggest to the Minister that the procedures of this House have served us very well. One of the procedures is that business proceeds by way of notice, which notice I gave some weeks ago. For the Minister to say that this is a last minute
Page 5604
change is to ignore the serious and sincere negotiations that have taken place to arrive at acceptable terms of reference for the social issues committee. Those negotiations were conducted in the spirit that the social issues committee could have assumed the terms of reference as printed and then sought to vary the terms after consideration. I wanted to shortcut that and facilitate the business of the House today so we could get on with other business, but objection was taken. So the amended motion which I sought to introduce by leave - and which is well within the provisions of standing orders except when objection is taken - will be moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby as a formal amendment to my motion, which I hope will achieve my purpose.

My remarks will be brief because I understand the motion will receive majority support in the House if the debate is concluded today, and I hope it will be. Many factors have prompted me to take this initiative. They are not ones of my own volition but are in response to widespread anxiety and disturbance in the public arena about firstly the state of nursing homes in New South Wales. I think most members would realise that a period of rapid expansion took place in the provision of nursing home facilities some two or three decades ago, then stopped. From that plateau point, after reviewing the situation one can say without fear of contradiction that the quality of services offered in New South Wales nursing homes is of a varied nature - some are very good and some are not so good. Apart from the variation in quality of services, it is incontrovertible that the distribution of nursing homes throughout New South Wales is inadequate.

Because of the strictures that have been imposed since the plateauing period in the provision of nursing home facilities, there are people in country towns who, after having progressed through the stages of being independent and living in supported hostel type accommodation, reach the point of needing nursing home accommodation and are peremptorily shifted from their local communities to some place where a vacancy exists. The social issues committee charter was to look into factors affecting the welfare of the citizens of New South Wales. I have not been a member of the committee throughout its whole period. Mr President, you were of course its first chairman and undertook a very weighty investigation into adopted children. The committee has investigated violence, the welfare of children generally and children of imprisoned parents, and has reported on infancy. But the committee has never looked at the needs and welfare of the aged community, although there is no more appropriate group of people that the social issues committee should be examining.

It is a disgrace that the Government has tried to obfuscate and delay this reference going to the committee. To be nitpicking about the nature of the reference shows either the ignorance of the Minister of the nature of the social issues committee or an obdurate desire by the Government to sequester this initiative unto itself. It is unworthy of the Government. The social issues committee is the proper vehicle within this House, and indeed Parliament, to investigate such a sensitive issue. Widespread concerns exist about the state of nursing homes and about the foreshadowed change in the administration and control of nursing homes. I have heard it said in argument, and it will probably be led by the Minister, that it is hypothetical at this stage. But let me point out to him - and it came up by way of a question yesterday - that a number of the multipurpose systems schemes, which are part of the old relationship between the Federal and State Governments, now have been put on hold. The Wilcannia multipurpose systems scheme is referred to by another name. I challenge any member who knows of an initiative which has been agreed to in principle at the Council of Australian Governments meetings and announced by communiqué that has not ultimately come to pass.

Notwithstanding a tremendous persuasive force, agreement in principle has been reached. Before long - certainly in the term of this inquiry - we will see the transfer of administrative responsibility and financial responsibility to the States. So it is most appropriate that we listen to the concerns of those who will be affected. There is also widespread concern over the merging into one department of ageing and disability services. Those concerns are characterised by many people who are active in the various lobby groups which represent our aged communities saying that the Government's interest is restricted to providing aged people with a wheelchair, a nursing home bed or a box. A role of the department of ageing was to provide initiatives so that people who had reached the stage of their lives where they wished to retire from perhaps the active life they had enjoyed to a new lifestyle could continue to lead fulfilling lives. It is terribly important to regather that focus and ensure that people in the aged community are treated with dignity and respect and not stereotyped as disabled simply because they have reached the mature years of their lives.

A further issue I want to deal with is that I believe the Government is feeling rather precious about this initiative because it had appointed our colleague the Hon. Patricia Staunton to undertake a roving commission to meet with a number of the consumer and lobby groups I have spoken to. The initiatives in my motion do not in any way run contrary to the Government's aims or the role of the Hon. Patricia Staunton. In fact, they run parallel and should complement each other. The Hon. Patricia Staunton ought to be the first member to stand up in this debate and support the motion I introduced. I want to reach a conclusion to this debate before question time if possible, so I will not say anything further in my introductory remarks. As leave has not been granted, I look forward to the introduction of the amendment by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, which will incorporate all the reservations and qualifications that have been expressed to me
Page 5605
formally by crossbench members and informally by Government members. I have done my level best to accommodate the reservations which have been conveyed to me, being the substance of the Government's objection to it. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.18]: The Government opposes the motion of the Hon. D. F. Moppett because, simply stated, the motion is at best premature and at worst an inappropriate duplication of a process already set up by the Government. As the House would be aware, the proposed transfer of residential aged care has come entirely uninvited from the Federal Government. New South Wales has taken a cautious approach to this proposal. The Government is happy to encourage any discussions about important matters with its Federal counterparts. But let no-one in the House be under any illusion that it was prompted by any demand from this or, for that matter, any other State or Territory in the Commonwealth. We are a long way from any formal offer by the Commonwealth Government. Very little detail about this proposal has emerged from the Federal Government. The House needs to consider exactly what the committee will discuss.

I had hoped that some increased detail on the proposal would have been forthcoming at the council of health and community services Ministers, which met on 4 October last. However, confidence in the Commonwealth's commitment to adequate funding for health and community services was shattered by Federal budget cuts. New South Wales led the dissent against releasing the Commonwealth discussion paper, which sought to lock the States into implementing harsh budget measures, including user-pay charges for the frail aged. The New South Wales Government is committed to equity and social justice for older Australians. It will not consent to this process if it will undermine quality care for the increasing aged population of New South Wales.

The New South Wales Government and the aged care sector will not be tied to the process until they know the financial and social impact of the changes. Older people contribute a great deal to our community; they are entitled to be assured of their security and care. New South Wales is determined to consult on this matter as widely as possible. However, even the Government's aged care consultation strategy group, chaired by the Hon. Patricia Staunton, is currently marking time pending some detail associated with the Commonwealth's proposal. The process being chaired by the Hon. Patricia Staunton, which was announced by the Premier on 9 August this year, seeks to consult widely with consumer groups, unions, employer groups and relevant community organisations.

The Government is consulting with representatives of more than 20 organisations, including the Council on the Ageing, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales Incorporated, the Older Women's Network, the Association of Independent Retirees, the New South Wales Carers Association Incorporated, the Aged Services Association, the Australian Nursing Homes and Extended Care Association Limited, the National Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association, the New South Wales Consultative Committee on Ageing, the Ethnic Communities Council, the Council of Retired Union Members Association, the Accommodation Rights Service, the National Council of Social Service, the St Vincent De Paul Society, the Australian Society of Geriatric Medicine, the Geriaction Corporation, the Nurses Association, the Health and Research Employees Association, the Miscellaneous Workers Union, the Australian Association of Gerontology, Home and Community Care across the State, the Community Health association and the Alzheimer's Association.

These are exactly the same representatives and organisations that the committee would talk to if this reference is made. Already the Government has requested initial submissions from these organisations to be collated and distributed as an aid to any additional discussion paper created by the Council of Australian Governments. The House may wish to consider also the detail and appropriateness of the motion of Hon. D. F. Moppett. The social issues committee can traipse around visiting any nursing home it likes, but it will, of course, be obliged to convey its comments to the Federal Government.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What do you mean when you say "traipse around"?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The committee can traipse around wherever it likes, but it will have to report its concerns to the Federal Government because that Government funds and controls nursing homes. A State parliamentary committee has no power to compel Federal public servants to attend to give evidence before it. Opposition members should speak to their mates in Canberra about establishing a Senate committee to investigate this matter because it would have power to compel the attendance of Federal public servants. Federal public servants have access to the detailed financial information and infrastructure of the nursing homes and hospital system. A Senate Committee would have power to ascertain the reason behind this motion. A State committee does not have such power. Essentially this motion is a fruitless exercise.

Paragraph (b) of the motion asks the House to examine the use of existing capital infrastructure to expand services for the aged. As I have just outlined, at present this Government does not contribute to the capital infrastructure of nursing homes. I have serious doubts whether this complicated funding procedure - thrown entirely into chaos by the inadequately detailed plan to rip $26,000 from older people, as announced by Mr Costello in the Federal budget this year - will be
Page 5606
available to a State parliamentary committee. Paragraph (c) of the motion is a little rich. The Carr Government has fulfilled an election promise to combine the Office on Disability and the Office on Ageing into the new Ageing and Disability Department.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett referred to concerns about the abolition of a department on ageing and department on disability. No such departments existed. There was an Office on Ageing and an Office on Disability. In essence they were at the fringes of the bureaucracy. This Government has more appropriately reflected the importance of those two growing community sectors by elevating them to department status. The motions seeks to direct the social issues committee to investigate this administrative arrangement. Any government - Labor, non-Labor or anything else - has the right to establish its own administrative arrangements, which is precisely what this Government has done. There is no controversy regarding this matter at this point.

Not one person from the Office on Ageing lost their job in the administrative reorganisation. The Government disbanded an ineffective policy unit located, as I said, on the fringes of government administration, raised the status of these offices to department level, and the social issues committee is asked to review this 18-month-old arrangement. Given the broad-ranging brief of the social issues committee - its recently released report on children's advocacy, its future serious review of the important issues of children of prisoners and Aboriginal representation in Parliament and the range of possibilities in the spectrum of issues across the State - the only matter that the Hon. D. F. Moppett can think of to refer to this undoubtedly important committee is an inadequately detailed subject that duplicates an effective mechanism already created by the Government.

If the Hon. D. F. Moppett feels so strongly about the issue, why does he not contribute a detailed submission to the aged care reference group chaired by the Hon. Patricia Staunton? I ask the House, is this motion an appropriate use of the resources of the social issues committee? For the benefit of members opposite and also those on the crossbenches I reiterate the essential Government objections to the motion. First, the motion is unnecessary; it is absolutely superfluous. Having regard to the excellent work my colleague the Hon. Patricia Staunton has undertaken -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You just said that she did not need to do that because it is a Federal area.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: But the parameters of the Federal proposal are not known. That is a truthful statement. This Government does not know, nor does the Hon. Patricia Staunton. She cannot commence the exercise until the detail of the proposal is understood. Second, the motion duplicates a process already created by this Government, namely the reference and consultation process chaired by the Hon. Patricia Staunton. The Government's third objection is that the motion is inappropriate and, at the very best, premature. It requests the committee to look at issues currently beyond the scope of the State Government. For those reasons the Government will oppose the motion, and it urges the House also to oppose it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.29]: I shall preface my remarks by moving an amendment to the motion before the House. I move:

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

(a) the extent to which the dignity, privacy, confidentiality and other rights of residents are protected;

(b) the effect of transferring the responsibility and management of nursing homes from the Commonwealth
to the State Government;

(c) the likely impact of the introduction of entry fees and the increase in user-fees for nursing home residents;

(d) the adequacy of supported hostel-type accommodation to meet the needs of independent ageing persons;

(e) the use of existing capital infrastructure to expand services for the aged; and

(f) the impact on the aged community of the decision of the NSW Government to close the Office on Ageing
and create the new Ageing and Disability Department.

2. That the Committee report by Monday, 30 June 1997.

I, of all members of this House and perhaps of this Parliament, have the greatest right to speak about the needs of older people and particularly the way they are treated not only by this Government but by any government, because I am the oldest serving parliamentarian in Australia. I am very proud of that fact; I am certainly not ashamed of it. The reasons that the Minister gave a few moments ago - and he gave the same reasons to a meeting of crossbenchers - are not valid. The Government clearly opposes the transfer of aged care to the State. The Government is of the view that a clear case has not been made for such a transfer.

A few moments ago the Minister said that the transfer of aged care to the State may not happen. The Government is not keen to tie up the workings of the Standing Committee on Social Issues with something that has yet to materialise. The Minister explained that the Commonwealth has not provided a discussion paper or a proposed budget, and the State - the Minister's department in particular - does not wish to act until it has seen the colour of the Commonwealth's money. The Government is of the view that the committee could begin to investigate something that will never happen. I believe that it may well happen. The Federal Government is being dilatory in its handling of this matter, but I do not doubt that it intends to hand these powers back to
Page 5607
the State. If the Federal Government hands back these powers, I am sure that it will not provide sufficient funding to assist the State.

If the committee investigated my proposed reference, I believe that it would help the State Government in the long term and help the Hon. Patricia Staunton with the work that she is doing. The committee, of which I am a member, will be able to find out whether there is any truth in the appalling newspaper headlines about nursing homes. Those headlines, written not by journalists renowned for sensationalism but by responsible journalists such as Adele Horin and Debra Jopson, include "Homes abuse revealed", "New call for public hearings", "40 residents in nursing home died in one year" - that was in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 April 1996 - "Nursing home `horror stories' uncovered", "15 abuse claims under scrutiny", and "Neglect, abuse and suffering for elderly in care". The Federal Government issues licences to nursing home owners. A private hospital authority cannot open a nursing home unless the Federal Government has issued it with a licence. In theory the Federal Government should be inspecting nursing homes and monitoring the treatment of those who reside in them - people who have paid to reside in them. Residents must pay for nursing home services.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Not in theory. The Federal Government has a legal obligation to inspect nursing homes.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: It probably should happen but obviously it is not happening. The Minister has rightly pointed out that the Federal Government has a legal obligation to inspect nursing homes. Perhaps the findings of the social issues committee will force the Federal Government to fulfil its legal obligations, because I do not believe that the stories in the media are wildly exaggerated. During election campaigns - and I have fought many election campaigns - I have visited nursing homes and spoken to the matrons of them, and I have left how-to-vote cards and material from the Australian Democrats for the benefit of those living in nursing homes. Some nursing homes in New South Wales are excellent. However, if some of the nursing homes that I have visited had been housing animals they would have been prosecuted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals! On behalf of every person of my generation who does not enjoy the good health that I enjoy, I urge the Government to address this matter, which I believe it is duty bound to do.

The Minister pointed out - and it had been pointed out during a meeting with the crossbenchers - that the social issues committee has no power to require Commonwealth public servants or Treasury officials to appear before it to give evidence. The Minister is of the view that it would be extremely difficult to determine how advanced any costing proposals for the transfer might be. Although the committee has no power to require Commonwealth public servants or officials to appear before it, in the past it has worked in close cooperation with and received assistance from Commonwealth public servants, who have willingly appeared, although legally they could not be subpoenaed. I cannot believe that that will not continue to be the case if this reference is made to the committee.

The Government claims that it has reformed the Ageing and Disability Department. The Minister made it clear that he had previously said that the Government should be entitled to make its own arrangements. It is an insult to people of my generation to link disability and ageing - I am an example of that. A person who is aged is not necessarily disabled. To put the aged and the disabled in the same basket is not in the best interests of older people, particularly at the same time as the Government is promoting a "healthy ageing" program. The Government is holding seminars and publicising its campaign to promote healthy ageing. It has been pointed out that the social issues committee already has too many references. The Minister - unintentionally, I am sure - is not aware that the committee has already started work on its reference relating to children of prisoners; in fact that work is well advanced. The committee will continue to take evidence on that reference. The only way that the committee will be prevented from completing that work quickly and from moving on to its next reference, which relates to the ability of Aboriginal citizens of New South Wales to become members of Parliament, will be if the Premier advises the Governor to prorogue the Parliament, as happened earlier this year.

It is well known that prior to the Federal election this Parliament was prorogued and committee work stopped. I do not know whether that will happen again when this House rises. I was informed yesterday that this Parliament will rise on 29 November and that it will not return until the first week of April, which is an extremely long break. When the Parliament does not sit, all committees, not just the Standing Committee on Social Issues, do a great deal of work. I am currently a member of three committees and I know perfectly well how difficult it is to schedule committee meetings to suit all members when the Parliament is sitting. It is becoming impossible. For a variety of reasons, which I will not go into at the moment, there is a danger that this Parliament will be prorogued once again. If that happens it would be an abuse of the power of the Executive Government. Other issues pertaining to nursing homes should be pursued by a Senate committee or a Senate estimates committee. I have already been in touch with Senator Meg Lees from South Australia, our representative in the Senate, who is shadow minister for health and community services. I asked her whether she and the three other Democrat senators would insist upon the establishment of a Senate committee. However, a Senate committee, an Australiawide committee, would visit all Australian
Page 5608
States, not just New South Wales. Any work that has been done in New South Wales would be of assistance to that committee.

The Standing Committee on Social Issues would work with the task force headed by the Hon. Patricia Staunton. As the Minister said earlier, that task force will be meeting with all peak organisations. The work of that task force will be assisted and complimented by the work of the Standing Committee on Social Issues with regard to nursing homes. That would not conflict with the work of the task force. In the long run, the work of the Standing Committee on Social Issues will assist the task force of the Hon. Patricia Staunton - a matter referred to earlier by the Minister. That task force has met on only one occasion for reasons given only a few minutes ago by the Minister. I ask honourable members to support my amendment to the motion of the Hon. D. F. Moppett to enable the Standing Committee on Social Issues to commence its reference into nursing homes once it has finished its references into the children of prisoners - a very confined and important group - and Aboriginal representation.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: We will not get it done by June, I can tell you that.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: The Hon. Ann Symonds, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, said that we will not get it done by June. It is possible to extend the reporting time of a committee - all honourable members would be aware that is done frequently. But at least the matter would be on the agenda. It is important for us to get this matter on the agenda of the social issues committee. However, it should not take precedence over the children of prisoners or Aboriginal representation references. We must make it clear to the Government that it is the will of this House that a committee established by this House be given nursing homes as a future reference. For that reason I hope that other members on the crossbenches will support my amendment.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON [11.45]: I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the amendment moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby not because of any disinterest in an issue which is important to the whole community but because I believe that the motion and, consequentially, the amendment are fundamentally flawed, both in construction and intent. I hasten to add that I do not believe for one moment that the motion moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the amendment moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby are not well-intentioned. We can all point to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, a representative of the ageing community in New South Wales, as a wonderful role model. Our ageing community can play an active role in the community. If we had more people like the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, we would not need nursing homes in this country. Aged people would be independent, living in the community in good health and able to contribute constructively to society.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby made reference to the fact that she has considerable experience on ageing issues. I have considerable experience in providing for the aged, in particular aged people in nursing homes. That was part of my responsibilities in the Australian Nursing Federation and the New South Wales Nurses Association. Both organisations have been actively involved in those areas for many years, both at Federal and State level. I am familiar with all policy matters relating to nursing homes. From 1983 until 1995 the Federal Labor Government did a great deal of work in the aged care sector and the nursing home industry. We do not want to return to the days - a period which is still alluded to - when we had shocking standards of care. People used to say that they could smell a nursing home before they got to it - an experience with which many people would be familiar.

By and large, those days have gone because of the magnificent work done at Federal level and because of the policies adopted by the previous Federal Labor Government. It introduced funding arrangements that linked for the first time standards of care to the provision of funding. The Federal Labor Government split the dollar subsidy for nursing homes into what was known as care and support services, otherwise known as care accredited modules and standard accredited modules, known as CAM and SAM to those familiar with them. The Federal Government linked the provision of money for the delivery of direct personal care to outcome standards and the classification of residents in a crude casemix residential care index. The Federal Government made it perfectly clear -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You are filibustering.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: I am not filibustering; I am making it clear that an enormous amount of good work has been done at the Federal level. If the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti ceases interjecting we might be able to complete debate on this matter. The previous Federal Government also made sure that if funds were not spent on care they were returned. That is one of the best initiatives put in place by any government: deliver care in accordance with standards and outcomes, or the funds will be taken back. In its last budget the Federal coalition Government announced it intended to get rid of that initiative. I suggest that with regard to that policy members of a proposed committee would lack jurisdiction. It seems that members of the Opposition are not aware that there already exists appropriate mechanisms covering the dignity, privacy, confidentiality and rights of residents of nursing homes.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: The charter of rights.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: Indeed. However, not only is there under the Federal Government's policies and the rules under which nursing homes operate a charter of residents' rights, but also assessment teams routinely inspect nursing
Page 5609
homes. The teams are obliged to write reports on their inspections. Indeed nursing homes must meet 32 outcome standards in order to retain an operating licence. The results of those inspections and whether or not nursing homes meet the required standards are incorporated in a public document, copies of which are lodged not only with the nursing home and representatives of residents of the nursing homes, but also in public libraries, thus making them readily available to anyone in the this State and other States of Australia.

There is also a complaints mechanism both at the Federal and State level to deal with these issues. There is absolutely nothing that this proposed committee can deal with that has not already been contemplated and implemented. The Minister has already spelt out why the effect of transferring the responsibility and management of nursing homes from the Commonwealth to the State is a flawed proposition. The Hon. D. F. Moppett said, "There has been nothing discussed at COAG that has not occurred." I am afraid there has been an enormous amount of discussion at that level, but little has filtered through in terms of policy determination.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Agreement in principle.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: The only agreement that has been made is the agreement to talk - and that is the critical difference. It is important for members to understood the rather strong policy view at the Federal level that such a transfer should never occur. To do so would be to dismantle a program that, by all accounts, works remarkably well to ensure the maintenance of access and equity in the nursing home industry throughout Australia. The issue is not simple and no-one has agreed to anything. The only agreement is that if one wants to talk about it, one can. The Hon. Judith Moylan was reported in an interview as saying that if only one State indicates that it does not want this transfer then it will not go ahead. There are strong reasons to suggest that it should not go ahead because it will undermine access and equity in nursing homes across Australia. If one thing is certain it is that there is no certainty. My view is, however, that it is more likely that it will not occur, but if it does occur I suggest it will not be in the lifetime of this Parliament. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said also that in the past Federal public servants appear have been happy to appear before the social issues committee. I do not doubt that for one moment. But this is a contentious and politically vexing policy matter for the Federal coalition, the Federal Labor Opposition and other groups that have a vested interests in this area.

Recently, the Standing Committee on State Development attempted to get Federal Treasury officials to appear before it to discuss an inquiry into tax and other incentives associated with the relocation of regional headquarters. The Treasury officials were told they could not appear because tax, like this issue, is also a politically vexed issue. There is considerable opposition to this move. The coalition is well aware of the political sensitivities attached to this issue, particularly at the Federal level. I have no doubt that when push comes to shove and a request is made of Federal public servants to appear before a Labor-dominated State committee under a Labor Government in New South Wales, that they will not attend, because on a matter of policy as sensitive as this they would be told not to attend. The committee would then be completely hamstrung. One cannot talk about the likely impact of the introduction of entry and user fees if one does not know the extent to which they may or may not be affected by the budget debate that will take place in the Senate.

One cannot seek to determine a matter in a term of reference that has not yet been finalised. It seems to me that the approach is flawed, albeit well meaning. The other term of reference suggested by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby relates to the adequacy of supported hostel-type accommodation for independent ageing persons. Such persons do not need supported hostel-type accommodation. The honourable member is contradicted by her own suggestion. The Opposition also has a problem with capital infrastructure which has absolutely nothing to do with State governments. One of the more vexed questions about the transfer relates to the outcomes of the Gregory report and the funds yet to be spent and/or made available for capital refurbishment in this area. Accordingly, the motion and the amendment are flawed in their approach and construction. Acceptance of either will not address this issue one iota.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [11.57]: As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues I wish to state my concerns with regard to this matter. I will not canvass the substantial issues; they have been covered by other members in their contributions. I do not support the motion. The suggestion that the Standing Committee on Social Issues has the staff and time to inquire into another reference is not valid. There was an occasion when the committee in fact tried to deal simultaneously with three references - suicide, sexual violence and youth violence. Although the committee had 10 members and three research officers it was not possible to conduct three inquiries at the one time.

Consequently, the committee staff having been reduced by one and its membership being reduced to seven, proceeding with three motions simultaneously would be out of the question. I am very happy to support the aged and to inquire into their needs but I will not put any other reference before those currently before the committee. Those references are of extraordinary importance and relate to the most-neglected groups in society: children of imprisoned parents and Aborigines. I hope that honourable members will understand that I do not oppose the general intention, but for the reasons I have stated I must oppose the motion.

Page 5610

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.59], in reply: I thank all members who contributed to the debate and commend my motion to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the motion as amended be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Dr Goldsmith Mr Macdonald
Mr Ryan Ms Saffin

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.



The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Community Services. Is it a fact that State wards have been placed in the care of services such as Better Homes Farm, run by Father Chris Riley? Is it a fact that in some cases the Department of Community Services has gone to court to have wardship withdrawn so that the department does not have to pay pocket money or provide funds to Father Riley? Is the department placing young people aged between 14 and 16 with agencies such as Better Homes Farm without making them wards of the State, thus avoiding having to fund the service? Will the Minister ensure that funding is provided to such services that take over wards from the State?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The welfare of street kids and State wards is quite rightly an issue that concerns a large part of the community. The way in which we help and protect these young people has been the subject of much public debate, due to the work of the Wood royal commission. Government departments, welfare organisations and community groups all run programs to help homeless youth, and many of the groups receive funding from the State and Commonwealth governments. An example of this kind of program is the Come In Youth Resource Centre at Paddington, which is a non-government organisation providing counselling, information and referrals to homeless young people. Many other groups work with street kids in the inner-Sydney area.

The Government provides accommodation for homeless young people under two programs: the supported assistance accommodation program, commonly known as SAAP, and the substitute care program. SAAP has 942 beds for young people, made up of 416 crisis beds and 526 medium-term beds provided by 184 services at an annual cost of $23.5 million. A total of 1,010 young people aged between 12 and 17 years are cared for within substitute care, with 231 cared for within residential services and the other 879 cared for within foster care. Father Riley's farm at Canyonleigh is licensed to provide six of the 2,000 beds within New South Wales for young people. It is unfortunate that Father Chris Riley has put himself forward as the only person who is doing anything to help State wards, because that detracts from the valuable work done by the other 200 non-government organisations providing beds for young people.

I am sure the Treasurer will be interested to hear that Father Riley's program, St Vinnies for Youth at Marrickville, receives $428,220 in annual SAAP funding for 20 beds. That is not the only funding the Government provides to the Catholic Church for the work it does with young people. Father Riley works outside the well-respected Catholic welfare services headed by Father John Usher. The matters raised yesterday by Father Riley at the Wood royal commission are disturbing. However, regrettably, to this point Father Riley has refused to pass on to either me or the department any of this information. To properly follow up allegations of departmental neglect or mismanagement, the Department of Community Services needs to have facts. It needs names and places, otherwise it cannot investigate. Father Riley speaks of wanting to protect district officers who are afraid to speak out. That concern is unwarranted. Any worker in the department is free to approach my office without fear of persecution or repercussion, as officers have done since I became Minister.

Page 5611

Even if a so-called powerless district officer is afraid to speak out, what is Father Riley afraid of? Several attempts by senior managers of the Department of Community Services have failed to elicit any details that would enable them to investigate his allegations. As a result of yesterday's appearance at the royal commission by Father Riley, the Acting Director-General of Community Services, Mr David Sherlock, has again written to Father Riley, again requesting details of cases he has raised. Mr Sherlock gave his commitment that no DOCS staff will be made a scapegoat in any ensuing investigation. This year I have had two meetings with Father Riley and at neither of them has he felt it necessary to raise directly with me any of his alleged concerns in terms of providing facts or details of individual cases. The Government has a solid commitment to street kids and State wards. It has backed up that commitment with significant funding increases.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. In view of the bucketing he just gave Father Riley, is that the reason his department has refused to make available funding to services such as Better Homes Farm, when wards are put into the custody of Better Homes Farm in circumstances in which the wardship is transferred so as to remove responsibility for funding from the Minister's department to such services?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Government and the Department of Community Services must always ensure that a service is appropriate before it is funded. I have already said in the answer I have given that the Government provides a very large sum of money for the running of St Vinnies for Youth at Marrickville. Father Riley has an unfortunate track record of setting up a service and then seeking the funding, unlike organisations such as Centacare, for example, which is another agency of the Catholic Church. The Government must be satisfied, for example, as to the location of a service. Some of Father Riley's services are remote and are not considered to be appropriate. He sets up a service and then seeks funding. Father Riley has to learn to play the game, to consult the department before a service is established.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware of claims by the Opposition spokesman on agriculture that an abattoir has been forced to increase its WorkCover premium for an office worker from $742.20 to $21,813? Is there any truth in such claims?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answers are: yes, the allegations were made; and no, there was no truth in the bald and unsupported assertion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is true that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition issued a media release claiming staggering increases to WorkCover premiums to a country abattoir. Whilst the release failed to name the company, it appears the reference was to the Deniliquin firm Famicorp, which gained media coverage several months ago through publicly sacking an administrative employee and claiming a hefty rise in WorkCover premiums was to blame. The sacking made a good media story, but an investigation by my office found that the facts behind it were dubious at best. Now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has resurrected the story, seemingly by sifting through old newspaper clippings. However, he has the story quite wrong. The figure of $21,813 referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition represents the entire WorkCover premium for administration workers employed at Famicorp. The true position is that the premium bill for a single administrative employee increased from $742 to $2,900 dollars.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: This is good news from the Government, is it?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is not so much good news as correcting a gross inaccuracy in the media release issued by the shadow minister. If members of the Opposition do not want to hear this correction I can understand that, but I am trying to set the record straight and indicate the true position as distinct from what was a gross distortion of the true position. The press release said that the woman's workers compensation insurance premiums had jumped from one figure to another figure, which is simply not correct.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What are the real numbers?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have given the real numbers. The honourable member should have been listening. The press release said that the workers compensation premium was roughly the woman's salary. I would have thought that such a statement would cause a sensible person to query how the workers compensation premium could equal her salary. It is ridiculous. The figure refers to a group of administrative employees, not the woman's compensation premium.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It is only up 400 per cent. That is the Carr Government helping business with a 400 per cent increase!

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: When shadow ministers make allegations they should get them correct.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But you won't give us the information.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have just given honourable members the information. The allegation of the shadow minister was out by an enormous
Page 5612
amount. He is talking about a worker's compensation premium of $21,813 whereas the real premium is $2,900. I am prepared to debate any proposition if the facts are correct but the facts in this case are a gross distortion. Let us get the facts right; that is just a distraction. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has issued a press release which is grotesquely incorrect. Some companies have been dividing up their labour force between administrative workers and operative workers because the whole philosophy of the workers compensation legislation and the WorkCover scheme is to deal with premiums on an industry basis.

For example, an abattoir has slaughterpersons, process workers, clerical workers and other people such as cleaners and the like. An average figure is struck for that industry which takes account of the multiplicity of classifications at an abattoir. To then hive off, say, clerical workers by way of separate corporate employment is to double count the discount already allowed in the average premium for the industry. WorkCover has corrected that and avoided double counting. I conclude by urging shadow ministers to try to get their facts right and not to distort the position. A reasonable point of criticism can be made but do not get it so grotesquely wrong as to unduly and unfairly alarm people. It is in the interests of an Opposition to do that, but honest political discourse suggests that shadow ministers should get the facts right before making any point.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: 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.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: The acting Premier-designate.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Is that right? Acting Premier for the big announcement tomorrow. He will be carrying the can. Treasurer, are you aware of the excellent work undertaken by the previous board of the Hunter Economic Development Corporation? Is it a fact that the newly announced board of the corporation is not representative of the region's business interests? Is it a fact that the appointment of this new board is one of the most politically-based exercises in nepotism ever undertaken by the Australian Labor Party in the Hunter Region? How will the make-up of this board benefit the people of the Hunter Region when there is no continuity or stability? Why are business and industry groups within the various parts of the Hunter not significantly represented on this economic - I stress economic - development board?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. D. J. Gay for giving me the opportunity to inform the House that yesterday I announced the new membership of the Hunter Economic Development Corporation, which is now to be chaired by Dr Allan Pattison, a former senior Hunter education administrator. The new board takes over at a critical time in the development of the Hunter economy and will play a vital part in creating new jobs in the Hunter for the next three years. Dr Pattison has an excellent understanding of economic issues in the Hunter that has been developed in the course of a long and distinguished career in research and education in the region.

The other board members are Ms Leagh Armstrong, management director of Yarnteen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation; Dr Roy Green, a well-known labour market expert; Mr Peter Barrack, Secretary-Treasurer of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council; Mr Robert Kirkby, senior BHP Steel executive; Mr Ross Knights, Deputy Managing Director of Peabody Resources Limited; Mr Ian McAndrew, Director of The Anchorage, Port Stephens; Mr Peter O'Malley from the Special Projects Industry Development Centre; Mr Bob Horne, the former Federal member for Paterson; Ms Nicole O'Neill, a senior transport bureaucrat; Mr John Stanton of the Metal Trades Industry Association; and Ms Judith White, a publisher. Looking at the background and occupations of those people, I assume that Mr Horne and Mr Barrack are both Labor Party supporters or voters, but I would not have a clue how the others vote.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: On a point of order. The Minister should address the Chair. He is being disrespectful to you, Mr President, and Opposition members cannot hear what he is saying to his colleagues.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On the point of order. I am sure the Hon. Virginia Chadwick can hear me. I was simply seeking some advice from my colleagues which I could then convey to the House. As you are aware, Mr President, I always address my remarks through the Chair.

The PRESIDENT: Order! All honourable members should address their remarks through the Chair. Perhaps the Hon. Virginia Chadwick would have less difficulty hearing if some of her colleagues were to interject less.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Just looking at the backgrounds, interests and occupations of the members of the Hunter Economic Development Corporation board, if the Government gets a majority of votes out of that lot, it would get about 90 per cent of the votes throughout New South Wales. I do not select the board on the basis of a person's beliefs or affiliations. I look for people who have the appropriate skills to do a fine job on behalf of the people of New South Wales, and in this case on behalf of the people of the Hunter. To say there is no continuity of membership is just nonsense. For example, Mr Ross Knights from Peabody Resources, Mr Bob Kirkby from the Newcastle Steelworks, Mr
Page 5613
Peter Barrack, Mr John Stanton from the Metal Trades Industry Association, and Mr Ian McAndrew from The Anchorage resort were members of the old board. So there is plenty of continuity.

The new board represents a good mix of skills and a sensible balance of new blood and experience. More applicants were received for the Hunter Economic Development Corporation than for any other regional development board. When it comes to people qualified to serve in economic development, the Hunter enjoys an embarrassment of riches. The Government had the near impossible task of choosing a board from 68 top quality applicants. With only 12 places available, obviously some good people missed out. In making my announcement yesterday I thanked the outgoing board and in particular I paid tribute to the outgoing chairman, Mr Barry Goldstiver.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: He should still be there.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: He did an excellent job.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Why did you get rid of him?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Because there has to be a turnover. If members opposite think that when it is time to reappoint economic development boards I will simply reappoint all the present members, they have got another think coming. This is a new Government and even if it were not, in the course of things there would be a membership turnover.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: A former failed Labor member as well.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Opposition members criticise me for appointing Mr Horne, former Federal member for Paterson. Mr Horne took the place of Mr George Keegan, former member of this Parliament and one of the mob opposite and appointed by them.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: An Independent.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: An Independent? Come off it! I will not mention Mr Goldstiver's political affiliations because that is quite irrelevant, but he was a first-class chairman - I would not have given a twopenny bit for George Keegan. Certainly the Hunter Economic Development Corporation under Mr Goldstiver's chairmanship had an excellent track record. It laid a solid foundation on which the new board could build. It bore the responsibility for economic leadership in the Hunter during an exciting period of growth from the 1990-91 recession. In selecting the new board I was mindful of the need for membership turnover to give other people from the Hunter a chance to contribute. In the near future I shall announce new boards throughout New South Wales and I assure the House that they will be top quality boards.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Who represents the interests of the horse and wine industries in the Hunter region on this new board?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: All 12 members of the board.


The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development. Is the Minister aware of a report from the tourism task force that suggests many regional airlines have had their access to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport severely restricted? Does the Minister agree that given the decline of the railway system, regional airlines are the only viable link with Sydney for people living in country areas? Does the Minister agree that requiring regional airlines to dump their passengers at places like Canberra, Orange and Newcastle would deal a death blow to the New South Wales tourism industry? Can the Minister assure the House that the State Government will ensure that the proposed restriction does not take place?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In the first instance I point out to the Hon. J. S. Tingle that the tourism task force is not a government body; it is a private sector organisation headed by Mr Christopher Brown, who is an expert in tourism. The task force is fortunate to have the services of someone like Mr Christopher Brown. I am not aware of the report to which the honourable member refers. Obviously, it would be ludicrous for regional airlines transporting passengers to Sydney to dump those passengers at remote regional locations, but honourable members would be aware that airports are essentially a Federal Government responsibility. Sydney will have problems in the future if its airport capacity is not augmented. That is why the previous Federal Government earmarked Badgerys Creek as the site of Sydney's second major international airport, which the Federal colleagues of those opposite seem to have jettisoned.

My guess is that the nomination of Holsworthy as a possible site for a new international airport is simply an attempt by the Federal Government not to build one at all; in other words, to jettison the construction at Badgerys Creek and put all pressure onto Kingsford-Smith airport with horrific consequences not only for nearby residents but for Sydney's capacity as an international city to cater for the many people that want to come to this city. Of course, Melbourne does not have this problem. Nobody wants to go to Melbourne. Everyone wants to come to Sydney.

Page 5614

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: On a point of order. The Treasurer continues to fail to address his remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am merely turning towards my colleague who asked the question out of courtesy to him.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Government will address his remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Clearly, Sydney has this problem because it is a successful city. It ranks if not as the greatest city in the world, certainly within the top three or four cities of the world - a problem that Melbourne will never experience. However, I concede that Sydney will have increased airport capacity problems unless the Federal Government -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about taxis?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will tell you about taxis. Members opposite, who are always bagging Sydney, whinge about Sydney's taxis. Even the mouth from the south, the big lair, the big bodgie, Jeff Kennett, complained about Sydney's taxis. My experience with Sydney taxis has always been good; my experience with Melbourne taxis was absolutely abysmal. I was in Melbourne on Thursday and Friday two weeks ago. Of course, Melbourne has only four attractions for anyone from Sydney. One is Georges department store, another is Mietta's Restaurant, both of which have closed in the last 12 months. The remaining two, Caffe e Cucina at South Yarra and the Tilba Hotel, are the only attractions Melbourne has going for it.

Melbourne's taxi service leaves a lot to be desired. I caught a taxi from the Tilba Hotel to go to a restaurant in Chinatown. I told the taxidriver the address, but about half an hour later, on a 10-minute trip - I seemed to be passing the same streets three or four times - I said to the taxidriver, "This is the address. This is where I want to go." Finally he pulled up in a street, which was nowhere near where I wanted to go, and said, "That's it" and pointed to the street sign. I said, "That's not it. This is the address I want to go to." He said, "That's it." Finally, in exasperation, I said, "Let me out here. How much is the fare?" He said, "It's $10.80." I gave him $20. He looked at the $20 note and said, "You don't expect me to be able to change that, do you?"

So, I gave him the $20 and I got about $4 change. I then had to set out on foot to find my destination. What a hopeless taxi service for a city that pretends to be one of Australia's major cities! When it comes to taxi services, Melbourne is a real dump. Members opposite should not criticise Sydney's taxi services as they are certainly the best in Australia. And Sydney is the best city in Australia. The Opposition's Federal colleagues are trying to make sure that people cannot get to Sydney by not proceeding with Badgerys Creek airport. It is an absolute disgrace. I shall refer the honourable member's intelligent question to my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism.


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Did the Minister receive certain advices in the last couple of days from the mayor of Gunnedah? If so, what were those advices?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am delighted to inform the House that on 24 September this year the mayor of Gunnedah, Councillor Noel O'Brien, wrote to the Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr, in the following terms:

Dear Mr. Premier,

I must take this opportunity on behalf of the Gunnedah community to personally thank your Government and in particular the Treasurer, Hon. Michael Egan, MP, and his staff for the contribution they have made in working jointly with us to save a rural community.

In September, 1995 in assuming the position of mayor of Gunnedah Shire I had no illusions that the task that confronted us was enormous, there was a town and district's economy that was spiralling downwards and that is no exaggeration, with Council's Abattoir being our target to bring back its viability.

We were aware of the steps required to turn this scenario around, and we knew we needed expert assistance and a total commitment from our community and workforce to stem the flow. The expert assistance was granted on request and over the past twelve months we have worked with your Government to ensure not only our economy was saved but also positioned ourselves to take advantage of future opportunities.

We still have a challenge ahead of us but I can assure you that twelve months ago the community looked like losing 250 jobs and a further 100 jobs that service our Abattoirs. Today we have secured the 250 jobs and added a further 52 full time jobs at the Abattoir.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: How many?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Another 52 jobs, so they are much better off than before the Government helped them. The letter further stated:

We have since listed a further 20 companies that have set up operations or are in the process of setting up in Gunnedah. Approximately 75% of these companies are being established as a direct result of the confidence in the local economy due to the district's major business being revived. With this renewed confidence comes a further 150 jobs in the private sector -

honourable members should listen to this -

Our community is indebted to your Government and at no time did we request or receive any direct monetary assistance.

We have now successfully corporatised the Gunnedah Abattoir which is now operating in a truly commercial environment.

Page 5615

This is an excellent example of State and Local Government and the community working in partnership to achieve positive outcomes.

Yours faithfully,
Councillor Noel O'Brien, JP
MAYOR

This is high praise indeed which recognises the efforts of my colleague the Treasurer in working with rural communities to create jobs -

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Minister's answer.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As the Chair could not hear I will start again. This is high praise indeed which recognises the efforts of my colleague the Treasurer in working -

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! During question time honourable members should be courteous to the Chair and to Hansard by desisting from chattering.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: For the third time I shall endeavour to conclude my response. This is high praise indeed which recognises the efforts of my colleague the Treasurer in working with rural communities to create jobs, improve industry and generally turn things around for country people. This is in stark contrast to the performance of the Federal Government.


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services a supplementary question. Did the letter have a postscript?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am happy to advise the House that I have given a full, unvarnished, truthful account. There are no qualifications. The mayor is entirely happy with the performance of my colleague the Treasurer. It is no wonder that my colleague will be acting Premier tomorrow.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations whether there has been an increase in the surplus of funds held in the WorkCover fund. What is the level of the fund at present? Will the Government guarantee that there will be no more rises in workers compensation insurance premiums in the next two years, and that insurance premiums in New South Wales will fall in line with those in other States?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the first question is that I do not believe that the fund is in surplus at present; rather, there is an actuarial deficit. I inform the House that the precise figures will be announced when the Auditor-General has looked at the scheme and audited it in accordance with ordinary processes.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Attorney General a question without notice. Is it a fact that a number of retail tobacco outlets have sought to avoid the provisions of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992, which I introduced and which passed into law? Is it a fact that these tobacco retailers are using stacked cigarette packets as a form of a tobacco advertising poster as posters are prohibited under the Act? What is the current situation concerning the prosecutions launched against these retailers? Is it necessary to amend the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act and/or its regulations to stop this abuse of the intention and provisions of the Act?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not have any information about the efficacy or otherwise of the prohibitions on tobacco advertising. I understand that that broadly comes within the health portfolio. However, if the prohibitions have not been as effective as they should have been, as the honourable member suggests, or they have not been pursued as vigorously as they should have been, I shall take some advice about. I am sure that the Government will consider the position and take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the prohibitions, with which I am sure all honourable members would agree, are in fact effective.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Did the Minister's former chief of staff, Greg Smith, make use of a pool car funded by the Department of Community Services? Did he also, as part of his senior executive service package, have a personal motor car provided? Does the provision of two cars to Mr Smith contravene the remuneration guidelines established by the Premier? Why did the Minister not take action in this matter?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The setting of remuneration and salary packages is entirely a matter within the administration of the Public Employment Office, which is responsible to my colleague the Premier, rather than to me.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. In view of the fact that tomorrow, 1 November 1996, the Premier and the Deputy Premier will be out of the country - I congratulate the Treasurer on becoming Acting Premier; it is the first time in more than a hundred years that a member of this House has been Acting
Page 5616
Premier. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will be in Sydney when the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption on the Semple affair is handed down?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My ministerial arrangements and obligations are such that I will be in Sydney tomorrow.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Is it a fact that New South Wales Agriculture no longer has the facility for inorganic analysis that was accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities Australia? Does the loss of accreditation mean that the Biological and Chemical Research Institute at Rydalmere cannot earn income from testing soils, plant material, water or sewage sludge? Is it a fact that NATA accreditation has been lost because the BCRI can no longer guarantee that testing will be carried out by properly trained staff using properly calibrated instruments and equipment? How much revenue generating potential will be lost to the State as a result of the loss of NATA accreditation, and how long will it be before New South Wales Agriculture has an accredited inorganic analysis facility.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall seek from my colleague the Minister for Agriculture an answer to that detailed series of questions.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: Is the Treasurer, representing the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, aware that the eastern distributor task force has found that the current proposal for the eastern distributor airport motorway will, first, destroy Woolloomooloo with ugly, Chicago-style road bridges barrelling through to the Art Gallery and give Sydney another Cahill Expressway; second, take huge chunks of priceless parkland from Moore Park; third, run an eight-lane motorway with flyovers three metres from one of Sydney's most treasured conservation and heritage areas; and, fourth, create Sydney's worst traffic chaos by shifting the gridlock from Taylor Square to the areas of Moore Park and Surry Hills? Does this fit the Premier's and the Government's vision for Sydney 2000?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the eastern distributor task force, but I gather from the honourable member's question that that organisation has been formed to oppose the construction of the eastern distributor. I note the apparent opposition of the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, the Liberal Party and the Opposition to the building of the eastern distributor. I will do all that I can to inform the people who will benefit from the eastern distributor of the Opposition's opposition to it.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Is the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs, aware that, according to the charter of principles for a culturally diverse society adopted by the Fahey Government in 1993 and supported by the present Government, the staff composition in the public sector and government authorities in New South Wales should reflect the cultural diversity of our State? Will the Minister inform the House how many employees in the senior executive service are of non-English speaking background and how many are heads of departments or authorities?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the matter raised by the Hon. J. M. Samios, but I am quite happy to take the honourable member's word for it. Obviously, I do not know how many heads of agencies are of non-English speaking background. However, I am pleased to say that I recently appointed Ms Thuy Mellor, a capable and highly qualified person of Vietnamese birth, as head of the Superannuation Administration Authority. I think she will do a fabulous job in that position. I will find out from my other colleagues just how many other people of non-English speaking background have been appointed to senior executive service positions.


The Hon. I. COHEN: Is the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing, aware of the decision of Campbelltown City Council to rezone land at Wedderburn which would permit rural-residential developments in areas containing endangered fauna, including koalas? Is the Minister aware that the council rejected the advice of its own staff and professional recommendations by consultants to the project? Is the Minister aware that the communities in Wedderburn and Campbelltown oppose this rezoning? Will the Minister call for a public inquiry into the rezoning under section 119 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in light of council's inconsistencies and its rejection of such an inquiry?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not conversant with the matter raised by the Hon. I. Cohen, but I will refer it to my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing for a considered and detailed response.

Page 5617

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: 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 the Minister's department calculated the effect that the loss of the V8 race from the Bathurst 1000 will have on the region? What efforts did the Minister's department or any other government agency take to keep this important event in Bathurst?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As usual, the Hon. D. F. Moppett asked a good question. Only two people in the Opposition ask decent questions; the first is the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the second is his colleague the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: What about the crossbenchers?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am talking about the Opposition. Members on the crossbenches always ask intelligent questions. The dumb questions come from members of the Opposition. However, we can always be sure that the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner will ask good questions.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On a point of order. Standing Order 31 states:

In answering any such Question, a Member shall not debate the matter to which the same refers.

The Minister cannot debate the nature of the question.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not debating the nature of the question; I am complimenting the Hon. D. F. Moppett on asking an intelligent question.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You are debating the nature of the question.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! No point of order is involved.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The inane contribution of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has just proved my point. The Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner would not take such a ludicrous point of order. All other Opposition members would, but those two honourable members would not. The Hon. D. F. Moppett has asked such a good question that I have to admit I do not know the answer. I will take his question on notice and obtain an answer for him.


The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: 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. With coal exploration currently under way beneath Wyong and the Tuggerah Lakes system, what assurance will the Minister give that owners of both waterfront properties and other nearby properties will not be affected by subsidence if coal extraction takes place?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Mineral Resources and obtain a reply for the honourable member.


The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. Given the comments attributed to the Director-General of the Department of School Education, Dr Ken Boston, in today's Sydney Morning Herald that children were coming to school cold, tired and hungry and were not being provided with the care and security that they needed at home and that teachers were called upon too often to resolve problems which many parents could not fix, will the Minister give a commitment to increase government resources to parent education, in particular, education directed at prospective parents and the parents of young children?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Underlying the honourable member's question are some quite serious social and economic problems in Australian society. The honourable member referred to children coming to school cold, tired and hungry, a phenomenon I would have hoped would have concerned all honourable members. I will certainly refer the matter raised by the honourable member to my colleague the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. I will obtain some information as to what strategies the Department of School Education has or proposes to introduce to deal with that problem. However, I am sure that the honourable member appreciates that it is not a problem which has any single or simple solution.


The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the acting Minister for Health. Is Campbelltown Hospital over $400,000 behind budget as a result of its efforts to meet the Government's waiting list program? Does it now face a reduced budget for surgery over the next year? Have 22 beds in the antenatal maternity ward and 10 surgical beds closed at the hospital? Will the Government's recent announcement of additional resources for the hospital not even bring the hospital up to the standard achieved by the former Government let alone enable it to cater for the increasing population in the Macarthur area? What action will the Government take to meet these needs and other needs at Campbelltown Hospital?

Page 5618

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am informed that this year the Campbelltown health service has a budget of almost $50 million - $10 million more than in the last year of the former Government. That additional money is to be spent on more services for more patients. That means that more people from the Campbelltown area will be treated in their own community and they will not have to travel vast distances for care. Traditionally, the Campbelltown area has been underfunded. I am informed that the Minister for Health is committed to ending that inequity and that is why the South Western Sydney Area Health Service has received an additional $20 million in real terms for each year of the Labor Government.

The extra funding will also go to the development of new services. A discharge room has been built to improve discharge planning and to provide a more comfortable and caring environment for patients awaiting discharge. The hospital is also developing a hospital-in-the-home service so that patients can receive the treatment they need in the home environment and not be forced into hospital. All these initiatives have reduced demand for in-hospital care and, therefore, 10 acute beds have been closed. I am aware that some of these changes and service enhancements have caused concern amongst staff, and the Minister for Health has advised the area chief executive officer to discuss the concerns with the employees and their union representatives.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the acting Minister for Health. Does the Greater Murray Health Service propose to introduce a small charge for meals on wheels which will add at least $200,000 to the cost of meals which are needed in the area? How does the Minister justify the exploitation of people in need in that region?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not have any information to hand about the arrangements of the Greater Murray Health Service in relation to meals on wheels. I shall certainly find out and provide appropriate information to the honourable member in due course.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, they might like to place them on notice.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 17 October the Hon. I. Cohen asked me, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question concerning Stockton Bight National Park. I have been supplied with the following answer:

1. Stockton Bight is one of the 24 new parks identified in the Government's nature conservation strategy. The Government remains committed to the establishment of a park at Stockton Bight. The park declaration is contingent on resolution of a number of matters, including Aboriginal land claims.

2. As part of Aboriginal land claim procedures the NPWS will submit evidence on the conservation values of the lands which are the subject of the claim. Determination of the claim is the responsibility of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation.

3. On expiry of the operation, the NPWS will reassess the area's suitability for reservation.

4. A standard condition of approval for a mining lease issued by the Department of Mineral Resources is the development and implementation of a mining, rehabilitation and environmental management plan. The NPWS considers that its most important contribution to post-mining rehabilitation will occur through representation on the mining, rehabilitation and environmental management plan review committee. This is particularly critical if the land is to be considered for addition to the conservation reserve system.

5. A preliminary investigation of the suitability for reservation of the vegetated land on the former Crown land has recently been undertaken by NPWS. The vegetated land has values which would contribute to the conservation significance of the larger reserve proposal. Options for transfer to the NPWS are under consideration.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 16 October the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked me, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question concerning the Waverley-Woollahra process plant. I have been supplied with the following answer:

1. The EPA's preliminary decision is that the incinerator must close as soon as possible, but no later than the 1 August 1997, unless it can by that time upgrade to meet the German standards for stack emissions. The Government shares the honourable member's preference that the incinerator be closed as soon as possible but understands that the EPA allowed some flexibility around timing to allow orderly arrangements to manage and dispose of the waste currently handled by the incinerator.

In any event the owner councils have announced that they intend to close the plant from 23 November for maintenance.

2. The eastern suburbs waste management inquiry developed a number of proposals for alternative disposal of waste from the area.

The newly established Southern Sydney Regional Waste Board will have the responsibility for deciding which of these to proceed with. The Government is providing an additional $650,000 to assist in the development of alternatives. Waste minimisation, reuse and recycling will be major priorities in these strategies. I remind the honourable member that one of the reasons the Government is opposed to incineration as an urban waste disposal method is that it militates against our overall goals for waste minimisation.

For the immediate future, the waste service has developed contingency plans for the closure of the incinerator and is well placed to put those in place.

3. Alternative strategies for managing the waste are to be developed by the waste board as a matter of priority.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 19 September the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked me a question concerning gender imbalance in the New South Wales Police Service. I have been supplied with the following answer:

Page 5619

Since coming to Government, I have been extremely concerned about the lack of female representation in the NSW Police Service. As at 30 September 1996, there were still only 1886 women within the ranks. Of these, only nine are commissioned officers.

I have already taken a number of steps to increase female representation. These include the introduction of permanent part-time policing and the current examination of casual work for Police. A Working Party has also been established to formulate plans to increase the number of women. The Working Party includes the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment, and the Director General of the Department for Women, as well as senior members of the Police Service. Employer sponsored child care has also been introduced.

The number of female recruits is increasing. In 1993/94 women were 25% of total recruits. This figure improved to 32% in 1995/96. However, the problem of encouraging women to stay within the service is the real challenge. The initiatives mentioned above will have an impact on this.

The glass ceiling is also a problem for female officers, as evidenced by the small number of women in senior command positions. Last year I asked the Police Service to more actively encourage women into the Command Development Program - a precursor to promotion within the ranks. Accordingly, each eligible female officer received a personal letter encouraging them to apply for selection.

Finally, we must all recognise that the under representation of women is a problem across the whole public and private sectors. I also learnt on my overseas visit that, in relation to policing, it is an international problem. The Police Services I visited in North America and the United Kingdom all had female representation rates of around 12-15%. One can only agree that there is still a great deal to be done. I will, on an ongoing basis, be seeking Commissioner Ryan's advice on progress in this matter.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The Deputy-President (the Hon. D. J. Gay) left the Chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m]


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.30]: I move:

That this House calls on the Government to add the following paragraphs to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service:

1. That the royal commission be tasked with conducting criminal investigations, at large, into allegations of paedophilia or pederasty, that are unconnected with protection issues, arising either as a result of corruption, or as a result of system failure, or abuse of office by a public official.

2. That the royal commission fully investigate and report on paedophilia in New South Wales with particular reference to:

(a) any relationship between individual paedophiles and/or paedophile networks; and

(b) the relationship between paedophile networks in New South Wales with other individuals and organisations in Australia and overseas.

It is important that members of this House should express their opinions about the matter referred to in this motion. I urge all members to support it. Acceptance of it will assist the Government to carry out its responsibility on behalf of the people of New South Wales. As honourable members know, according to media reports this motion, in its basic terminology, was passed by the majority of Australian Labor Party members at its caucus meeting. I understand that the wording of the motion is that same as that moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, the Hon. Peter Collins. Accordingly, my motion should receive bipartisan support in this House. Should this House pass the motion, the matter will then be forwarded to the Government, the Executive of which will give consideration to its terms.

The Premier and the Cabinet, in their wisdom, may take the motion on face value and decide that the royal commission can handle the terms of reference detailed in the motion; they may decide that the royal commission needs more time or more staff. The Government will have to make those decisions. Royal Commissioner Justice Wood has a very heavy load and is currently conducting a very important investigation into police corruption, which is his primary task. Call to Australia does not wish in any way to distract him from that primary task. The Government, in its wisdom, may consider it necessary to appoint an assistant royal commissioner or an associate royal commissioner to specifically investigate the terms of the motion. In correspondence to the Premier dated 28 October, which has been available to members, Justice Wood pointed out that the investigations of the commission and the completion of its report make for a very heavy load. He raised, without necessarily endorsing, the appropriateness of establishing a commission of inquiry. In his letter Justice Wood stated:

. . . be established with the charter of identifying, investigating and placing before the Courts, all paedophile offenders in the State, and of pursuing their interstate or international links - a charter that is a pure policing charter - then an inquiry lasting for some years would be needed, and staff provided who are specially trained in this area of policing, in numbers well in excess of those presently available to me. In fact, it would be necessary for such a Commission to recruit, if that were possible, a new investigative team, as investigators on secondment to the Royal Commission from Services external to New South Wales need to return to their own Services by early 1997.

I do not suggest that Justice Wood has recommended a commission of inquiry; he was simply canvassing a matter for the Government's consideration. He was right to do so. He has shown a way ahead. The Government can consider the practical matters he raised. It is not the role of members of this House to get down to the nuts and bolts of who should do what, how many staff should be employed, et cetera. They are matters to be decided by the Premier, the Attorney General, the Minister for Police, their advisers, the Commissioner of Police and other experts in order that the matters stated in the motion are achieved. I note that the
Page 5620
royal commissioner said that such an inquiry could continue for many years. Our concern is focus be given the central issue of paedophilia networks.

Honourable members are no doubt aware of the many allegations made recently by people 50 years and older that they were sexually abused when they were children. I do not suggest such cases of repressed memory should not have been investigated. But this motion deals with a very serious matter, not a peripheral matter, not cases that will continue to come to light. It is difficult to word a motion such as this - to be restrictive and limit the investigation to people in senior prominent positions. The Executive Government could devise a set of instructions to ensure that the central issue, paedophilia networks, is investigated, especially if prominent people are involved as aiders and abetters or are concealing information about who may be involved. Many of us were more than shocked when the media reported that at least one of the witnesses at the royal commission, when speaking about Costello's - premises otherwise known as a boy brothel - was stopped by the royal commissioner from giving evidence to the effect that a judge or judges, lawyers and prominent people were involved because such evidence was beyond the terms of reference of the royal commission.

[Debate interrupted.]


The PRESIDENT: I draw the attention of members to the distinguished presence in the gallery of Wang Guofa, Vice Governor of the Jilin Province, People's Republic of China, who is in Australia leading a most important delegation to this country.


[Debate resumed.]

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I add my welcome to the delegation. As honourable members would know, the People's Republic of China is at present undertaking a campaign to promote stronger moral values and standards and we are dealing with a similar concern in this debate today. I have not been present at the royal commission hearings as I am busy with parliamentary duties. Members of Parliament should allow the royal commissioner to do his job without feeling that we are crowding in on him. To the extent that honourable members cannot attend the hearings, we have to rely on media reports. Media reports can be distorted, even untrue, but from what I have gathered, the media report that the royal commissioner could not go down that path was correct.

I have raised the following question in this House with the Attorney General: what is more important - to uncover a police constable who perhaps may not have pursued an investigation into a person involved in paedophilia activity or to uncover a judge or lawyer or a person involved with law enforcement at a higher level? Surely that is as important as the investigation of police corruption - which no honourable member would devalue - if not more important. The inquiry into police corruption is important and of high priority but needs to be put side by side with the issue of whether other persons involved in law enforcement may have some association with this activity, either personally or by way of protecting others. I noted that the media often get stories wrong. When I read an article on page 4 of the Daily Telegraph yesterday I thought that this motion might not be necessary today. It stated:

The Government last week widened the royal commission's terms of reference to enable it to investigate paedophilia not linked to police corruption after an unprecedented outburst by members of the Labor Caucus.

Call to Australia supports the extension of the terms of reference announced by the Premier on 22 October and has no argument with them. But it appears that the new terms of reference, which have been added to the existing terms as an extension, do not include the investigation of paedophilia that is not linked to police corruption. The four additional terms of reference are very specific and seem to relate to the adequacy of our laws and procedures to deal with the issue. For example, the first new term of reference is whether the existing laws prohibiting paedophilia are appropriate and sufficient. Obviously all honourable members would agree that should be investigated, but the investigation will be only into the existing laws, not into the actual paedophilia networks.

The second new term of reference is whether the penalties currently prescribed are appropriate. That again is looking at the law, not investigating paedophilia networks. The third new term of reference is whether government departments and agencies have sufficiently effective monitoring and screening processes to protect children, et cetera. Again that is looking at the operations of the Department of Community Services and the whole range of institutions that care for children. Sadly, there have been recent reports of people involved in paedophilia being able to penetrate the sensitive area of child care, and even reports of these people being involved in a ministerial office, teachers in schools, and so on.

There is nothing wrong with the third term of reference but it relates only to procedures, screening applicants for positions and so on. The fourth new term of reference is whether the Police Service investigatory processes and procedures and the criminal trial process are sufficient to deal effectively with allegations of paedophilia, which again is looking at how the Police Service conducts investigations, the paperwork and procedures. I do not know whether I am missing something but I do not see in those four new terms of reference any aspect of what we are debating in this motion today,
Page 5621
which is to give to the royal commissioner, as the Government sees fit, the authority to conduct an investigation into those matters included in the motion, that is "(a) any relationship between individual paedophiles and/or paedophile networks" and "(b) the relationship between paedophile networks in New South Wales with other individuals and organisations in Australia and overseas." Those matters are not covered at all in the new terms of reference.

I am not attacking the Daily Telegraph but it seems that the newspaper has jumped to a conclusion without perhaps studying more carefully the actual extended terms of reference from the Premier. Honourable members may have read that article in the Daily Telegraph and thought that this motion was unnecessary. I make the point that the motion is absolutely necessary. It is vitally important that it be considered and passed by this House. There is no doubt that many honourable members are concerned not only with what has been happening in our State in this area but that people who have been identified as being involved in paedophile activity are operating in Indonesia and other places surrounded by small boys.

Why is no inquiry to be made into prosecutions, as well as into investigations? We have all been supportive of the new laws to combat so-called sex tourism, so that an Australian who has sex with a child in Thailand can now be brought to justice by the Australian legal system. Yet there are some people who involve themselves in this activity in Australia and nothing happens to them; and they move overseas and still actively conduct this type of abuse of children, and again nothing happens - no extradition to Australia for justice. I accept that there is an important issue in the whole question of State and Federal cooperation, but there seems to be a large gap in any action that is being taken. If this motion is not passed or even if the Government is reluctant to act on the heart of this motion - and that appears to be the case - serious unrest and suspicion will grow in our State; suspicion that people suspected of involvement in this activity are so important that the Government is reluctant to investigate them.

I warn Government members who, because of a policy decision of the Premier, think they must oppose this motion that it will not go away. There is widespread deep concern in this State. It is in the interests of both the Labor Government and the coalition to take a bipartisan approach on this issue and get to the truth, not to attempt to score political points, Labor versus Liberal. The only purpose of this whole debate is to protect this generation and future generations of children in our State. If this moral cancer is not cleaned up it will continue to grow and fester. For that reason, the House must support this motion. I could speak for a great length of time but I wish to give other honourable members the opportunity to speak. I have raised this issue in Parliament regularly over the years using information I have received. I have all the relevant Hansard records from 1983 and I am happy to supply honourable members with a copy of them. I urge all members on both sides of the House to support the motion on behalf of the children of this State.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [2.50]: I thank Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for moving this important motion, which, with the addition of the word "substantial", I moved at the Labor caucus meeting. This motion refers to one of the most horrible crimes: paedophilia - the abuse of children, who are our most precious national asset. The community and we as members of Parliament demand that paedophiles be exposed, charged and brought to justice. The Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service started its limited inquiry into paedophilia on 18 March 1996. It was to run continually until the end of October and publish its report by the end of March. On that memorable first day Justice Wood promised as follows:

We cannot shrink from calling evidence, which, at times, will be shocking, distressing and offensive.

. . . the evidence is as it is, and save from certain extreme situations, it will not be sanitised or censored. The public are paying for this Royal Commission. It is their Royal Commission and they are entitled to know what is involved.

. . . I do not intend to make suppression orders, save where that is necessary . . . The special justification and objectives of the Royal Commission is to inform the community on matters of concern.

These brave words gave us hope that finally the veil would be lifted from these horrible crimes and that at least some perpetrators would be found and prosecuted. Instead, with due respect to the commissioner, the community's perception was that the commission found the task too difficult and concentrated its effort on overseas or dead paedophiles while those loose in the community continued to get away with it. I repeat that the community viewed the royal commission as a unique opportunity to deal with paedophilia, which, for far too long, had been swept under the carpet. Commissioner Wood said that his previous terms of reference were too restrictive and that we must campaign to extend them.

With other members of the Labor caucus I put pressure on the Government to do just that. I was prepared to put my party membership on the line in order to see that the royal commission's timetable was extended and additional staff and financial resources made available. I have decided now not to exercise a conscience vote, not because I have backed down, as implied by some media - I would never back down when the future of our children is at stake - but because a letter the Premier showed me on Tuesday last at our meeting indicated a commitment from Justice Wood to extend the commission's timetable by three months if he was allocated additional resources and staff. The Premier agreed to this request.

Page 5622

Considering that the commission was going to close its doors on this important issue in few weeks time, a three-month extension and extra resources is a victory. Limited though it may be, as I would have preferred a six- or 12-month extension, nonetheless it is a victory. I have been a member of Parliament too long not to have learned the importance of accepting limited victories. I assure the House that I shall not sit on my hands and await the final report of the commission. I intend to continue to monitor the commission's work on behalf of the many people who have contacted me and who want to see the paedophilia issue vigorously pursued.

Everyone knows that from time to time the royal commissioner has engaged in public comment from the bench at former hearing sessions and on other occasions. The commission has entered the public arena. What the commission does and how it performs is of critical concern to the community. It is also a creature of this Parliament, and as a member of Parliament I will continue to voice the concern of my constituents in the interests of children who have been molested or who are at risk from the depravity of clandestine paedophilic activity. By leave, the letter from the commission of 28 October will be incorporated in Hansard.

______

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE NSW POLICE SERVICE

28 October 1996

The Hon R J Carr, MP
Premier of New South Wales
State Office Block
Macquarie Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

FAX 232 2291

My dear Premier,

Further to our discussions last week, I confirm that I have now given careful consideration to the ramifications of the enlarged terms of reference.

1. Extension of Reporting date

It is my assessment that I will require a twelve week extension of the reporting date, and approval for funding the additional salaries and running expenses that will be incurred over that period. The reasons for the extension relate to the following:

•the new terms of reference will permit me to relook at some past investigations by police, where our preliminary inquiries were stopped because of the absence of any apparent link with corruption or official protection. We will now need to review those cases to determine whether the police investigations were terminated or failed because of deficiencies in the existing laws, or because of the absence of effective policing powers;

•the new terms will also permit me to look, in a little more depth than was originally planned, at child pornography, and in particular the problems of the Internet, so far as paedophile activity is concerned.

•further comparative work needs to be done on legislation and penalties, and on matters involving the co-ordination of the activities of the various Government agencies caught up within the new terms, arising, in particular, from some of the innovations that came to my notice during my recent trip to the United States;

•the additional pressures on my staff arising from the need to undertake further inquiries, at such a late date, is such that they will need a little breathing space to maintain morale and momentum, particularly as the events of the last two weeks have diverted us from the critical work needed to complete our inquiries;

•Some new staff will need to be recruited to replace those members of the team who are committed to returning to their original employment.

It is my assessment that with this extension, and with the enlarged terms, I will be able to complete the review needed to:

•understand the nature and impact of paedophilia within our society;

•expose problems with its policing and prosecution; and

•identify the areas where government agencies and other bodies have in the past failed in their responsibilities to children.

The Commission will be in a position, after completing some additional inquiries, and calling some further evidence, to bring in a report with comprehensive recommendations for systemic reform, that will, inter alia:

•address the means by which this form of misconduct might be attacked;

•inform the public of the contribution it can make for the protection of its children;

•assist the discovery, investigation and prosecution of paedophilia where it occurs, and also

•establish appropriate watchdog agencies or procedures to monitor the performance of the Service, and others, who have a role in the enforcement of the relevant laws.

What I now need is the opportunity to finalise the task and deliver the Report, without further diversion. Although I consider it preferable for the extension of the reporting date to be a general extension, rather than one linked to the paedophile term, it would be my intention that the Final Report would be delivered in instalments, commencing with the volumes dealing with all terms other than the paedophile term of reference. My purpose in that regard is to clear the way, as quickly as possible, for commencement of the Service Reform. Consistently with this approach I have already foreshadowed the delivery within the next week, of a separate but brief Interim Report, recommending some preliminary legislative changes, with the aim of empowering Commissioner Ryan to fill some key positions and to assume greater managerial responsibility for the Service.

I would appreciate your favourable consideration of this request for an enlargement of the reporting date, and of the provision of the additional resources required.

Yours sincerely,

THE HON JUSTICE JRT WOOD
Royal Commissioner

______

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Now the people of New South Wales will anxiously await the report of the royal commission at the end of June. Many rumours have emerged from the commission regarding prominent and ordinary people giving evidence. I and others have been asked to ascertain whether the commission has used two standards when hearing evidence by judges about judges and
Page 5623
lawyers, and evidence from ordinary people. I congratulate John Slee on his editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 October. He said:

Justice Wood said yesterday that he would not allow his inquiry to become a vehicle for "gossip, innuendo and malice" and was "acutely aware of the professional, physical and emotional harm which can be attracted for those who are wrongly dragged into an area as sensitive and emotive as paedophilia". But this hardly meets the MPs' concerns. Those concerns are not based on "gossip, innuendo and malice" but on what they have been told by constituents, people who are unhappy that they, or those close to them, have given the royal commission evidence of paedophile activities by prominent people only to be told that it will be passed on to the police. Justice Wood correctly says the royal commission's role is limited by its terms of reference. But that is no comfort to those people who, at considerable emotional cost to themselves, have supplied information to this inquiry only to find they will have to agree to have it passed on to the police, whom often they do not trust, if anything is to be done at all.

Justice Wood said the royal commission "has not taken evidence in camera from any judge, solicitor or prominent person in the paedophile segment". But he also says it does conduct "preliminary inquiries into allegations which come to notice to determine whether they fall within the terms [of reference]". This possibly explains why some people are worried about the inquiry. Certainly, there is a perception of double standards. Police misconduct has been exposed by the commission with dramatic effect and others, such as Church representatives, have been publicly examined. People who say they know of paedophile activity by prominent people cannot understand why the cases they have reported to the commission have not been pursued in the same public way by the commission.

These concerns are reasonable. They are not met by saying, as Justice Wood has done, that his terms of reference prevent him from doing more. If that is the case, the terms should be changed -

indeed, the terms of reference have been changed -

not to cause the investigation of every last case of alleged paedophile offences, but to ensure that there can be no doubt that everyone, no matter how prominent or powerful, has been treated equally. The public wants the full truth. Without that the good work of the royal commission will be wasted and public faith in fundamental institutions - including the judiciary - instead of being restored, will be damaged.

Have informal discussions or preliminary investigative sessions been held with prominent people outside the commission's formal hearing sessions? If so, who are these prominent people? What about former Supreme Court Judge David Albert Yeldham? Was he or was he not interviewed? I am not insinuating anything about the character of the former judge by naming him; I am saying only that this is but one example of a person who appears to have received preferential treatment when, for instance, Anglican and Catholic bishops were not. Was this because former Judge Yeldham used to be the Director of the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect - NAPCAN - as stated in Who's Who in Australia 1995 and had valuable information? What was this information? The community wants to know.

What about former member of Parliament Frank Arkell, known to the commission as W1, who was summoned and did not attend as his lawyers said he was too ill? Justice Wood accepted the medical evidence but said, "This matter will not go away." Later in the same week, on Friday, 17 May 1996, Mr Arkell was interviewed by the Illawarra Mercury, and is reported as saying that he had the flu but was in excellent health. Was that not in contempt of the commission? Why has nothing been done? Why in the last week of the commission hearings on this reference did Justice Wood announce that he was still discussing the summons and would continue the suppression of Mr Arkell's name? Justice Wood said that because the police had now admitted that allegations regarding Mr Arkell had not been investigated, and there was apparently no evidence of police protection and corruption, he was turning these matters over to the New South Wales Police Service. Why then was Mr Arkell called in the first place?

Justice Wood has stated that we should wait for the commission's final report before making any judgment. The community and interested parties like me will do that; but in the meantime we will continue to agitate so that the issue does not go away. There is too much at stake. The community, the media and members of Parliament will closely monitor the work of the commission. Too many children have suffered. The Mr Bubbles case in 1989 and the Wahroonga preschool case in 1988 are examples of that. We all know that some people were never charged because the children were too young to testify and/or the police botched the entire investigation, or worse. The reality is that the whole system let our children down. In many cases the evidence was too difficult to obtain, but there may be other ways of ensuring conviction. I remind honourable members that everyone knew that the mafia boss Al Capone was a murderer, a thief and an extortionist, but it seemed impossible to get the evidence to convict him of his crimes. In the end the only way to put him behind bars for many years was to convict him of tax evasion. Perhaps we could do some lateral thinking on how to prosecute paedophiles.

Only yesterday the New South Wales Attorney General and the Minister for Women issued a report entitled "Heroines of Fortitude" on the experience in court of women victims of sexual assault. The report tells of the harrowing experience, and the harassment and intimidation that women must face when they go to court, and how they are often discredited and attacked during cross-examination. What about children and young people? How does the system deal with them? Much worse than it deals with women, I assure you. That is why the paedophiles are getting away with it. The children are not believed or are made to feel that they are unreliable witnesses. The report states that in 57 per cent of trials the complainant was questioned about behaving in a sexually provocative way. That reminds me of a phone call I received recently from a man who said to me, "I am surprised that a person who is known for her support for civil liberties should go on this witch-hunt." I replied that if he
Page 5624
had been a victim of sexual abuse perhaps he would understand why. He replied, "I have been abused myself." I said to him, "Then you should understand." He replied, "Well it is a very complex issue and it would be important to understand what role I played." When I terminated the conversation I was nauseated, as it was more likely that he was an abuser than an abused.

I have heard that argument before: predators actually putting forward the view that it is the children who seduce the paedophiles. It really makes one sick. I turn now to another issue. Do honourable members think that networks of paedophilia and organised abuse exist only in people's imagination? Why then should our Government, through the Department of Women and the Department of Health, produce information booklet No.1 entitled "Ritual Abuse: Information for Health and Welfare Professionals", reprinted in 1994, and information booklet No.2 entitled "Organised Sadistic Abuse: Current knowledge, controversies and treatment issues"? I ask honourable members to get a copy of them from the office of the Hon. Faye Lo Po' and read them. I have received many letters from individuals and organisations, some of which I shall mention. In a letter dated 23 October Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse - ASCA - stated:

As survivors, in the past we have felt powerless and isolated. Now, with growing public awareness, we feel a hope that it may give more of us the courage to heal. We cannot prosecute, and most of us - because of our abuse - feel unable to accuse. We need support and love from people like you to help us.

We all have the same aim to lessen abuse for the next generation so that they can grow up undamaged. You cannot know how much your support means to us . . .

We have 500 active members and over 3,000 survivors registered. The membership is growing as people are prepared to admit that they were abused, need help and intend to heal.

I received a lengthy submission from the Spokespeople of Survivors and Fatalities of the Rape of Children and Sexual Exploitation - SOS Forcse. A fax from the New South Wales Council of Churches stated emphatically that child abuse must be addressed. The letter I received from Merging All Parts Incorporated (MAP), Dissociative Identity Support Groups, expressed the same sentiments as other groups. The New Children's Hospital at Westmead sent me material on ritualism and sexual abuse. The Macquarie Health Service sent me a paper entitled "Can Sex Offenders Be Cured". I will not continue to list the organisations but I assure honourable members that the list is long and representative, as are the many letters I have received from individuals. I have with me the folder of correspondence, which shows honourable members the amount of correspondence I have received. All the letters demand that the paedophiles be exposed. People allege that the police are doing very little about paedophilia. Mr Gary Crooke, QC, Senior Counsel Assisting the Commission, has written to me. Attached to the letter was an excerpt from the commission transcript, which stated.

One of the views that was aired at that time, which your Honour will hear . . . came from the Dean of Studies at the New South Wales Police Academy at the time, Mr David Bradley.

He raised a number of questions which are questions that need to be, with respect, addressed. He said how truly serious are we if we believe that a specialist course in criminal investigation of child abuse warrants one's week residential training? We are still locked into the mentality and status of the nappy squad. We still have detectives and managers who, by and large, believe that this is not serious police work and therefore best left largely to women.

He posed the following questions: Isn't it about time that we recognised that every professional police officer should be capable of handling most child abuse cases . . .

The Government has established the Child Protection Enforcement Agency. I saw Inspector John Heslop being interviewed on ABC television about the good work that the agency is doing; but I emphasise that no agency has the power of a royal commission. That is why so much attention is focused on the commission. We should consider the establishment of a permanent independent body with the powers of a royal commission, particularly in this clandestine paedophilic area. And what about child pornography and paedophilia on the Internet, which is becoming a terrible problem? I was pleased to read in the letter from Justice Wood that the commission will address that problem. Mr Brian Broadhead, a spokesperson for Australia First, an organisation with which I have little in common, sent me a letter expressing his outrage at a message he received. I place on the record my disgust at that message, which states:

Hi! I sent you this letter because your email address was on the list that fit this category. I am a fan of child pornography and for the past 4 years, I have been able to gather quite a collection of it. I have pictures, VHS tapes, posters, audio recordings, and games based on child pornography. I am now selling my products (or trading for other child pornography). I have a complete colour catalogue of all my products now available. You can purchase pictures, both normal kodak, and computer GIF or JPG's. You can purchase posters, the VHS tapes, and Audio recordings. If you send your picture, I can morph your face into one of the action shots to make it appear that you are the one having anal sex with a little boy. There are many preferences you can choose from. Hair colour, weight, age, height. Age of the little boys range from 7 yrs to 17. Little girls, age 4 to 19. For $2.99 we can send you a personalized audio cassette of a little boy moaning and groaning your name. There are many other products and services.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It is sick, isn't it?

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: It is very sick. The e-mail message contains a complete list of material that can be supplied. The message continues:

If you have any child pornography yourself, preferably little boys ages 7-9, I will trade or buy them from you. If they are action shots, of an adult with the little boy having sex, I am willing to trade big, or pay a lot. Please write to me for more details.

I am glad that honourable members interjected and said that this is disgusting. I have heard only two criticisms about a full inquiry on paedophilia. The first is that the royal commission would become a
Page 5625
Star Chamber where people's reputations would be ruined. To that argument I say that the commission has had enough experience to ensure that that does not happen. The second criticism is that it will become a witch-hunt for homosexuals. I believe that to be wrong. I believe that the homosexual community should support us in the pursuit of the abusers of our children. The homosexual community should speak out against abusers. What happened in Belgium was not the work of homosexuals but heterosexuals. If homosexuals are involved, so be it. Let the axe fall on the guilty ones, whatever their sexual preference. But I state clearly that I would not support a witch-hunt for homosexuals.

The voice of a small but powerful homosexual clique, which would like to see this issue swept under the carpet so that homophobia does not increase in our community, should be silenced by the majority of decent homosexuals who are as horrified as heterosexuals at child abuse. I appeal to the majority of gay people in Australia who would be as disgusted as we all are by the activities of paedophiles. I know that they support justice for children and that they abhor these crimes. This morning I received important material from the Parliamentary Library which states that Prime Minister John Major has given notice that the United Kingdom will set up a register of paedophiles and that police stations will be notified when they move to a new area. This measure might be anathema to civil libertarians, but it shows that we sometimes have to adopt extreme measures to alleviate extreme problems. The document I received from the Parliamentary Library, which is dated 24 October, states:

Commons stunned as Prime Minister accepts Labour challenge over stalkers and child-sex offenders.

Prime Minister John Major stunned the Commons last night with a dramatic U-turn over measures to crack down on paedophiles and stalkers.

He met a challenge from Labour leader Tony Blair by pledging that a register of child-sex offenders and steps to make stalking a criminal offence would, after all, be introduced as Government Bills.

It means such measures are almost certain to become law.

I do not often quote what the Tories have to say but, as this issue is too important to play politics, I will quote part of the speech made by Michael Howard, QC, member of Parliament. Mr Howard said:

But we need to do more. People who abuse children need to be watched closely. That's why I believe a register of paedophiles is needed. It's the best way to keep track of them. The police have asked for it. Our children need it. And I intend to bring it in. Protecting children in this country is vital.

This is a sacred mission. We have to protect the most vulnerable members of our society and our most precious asset - our children. During the last few weeks I have received much material which has given me strength. One facsimile which I received states, "May the spirit of the children who cannot speak for themselves be with you today." I believe that the silent cries of all the victims of child abuse are with us today to give us strength whilst debating this issue. Children represent our future. They deserve a happy childhood. We must protect and guarantee their rights. Every child is entitled to full protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This is reaffirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, an international legal instrument of universal significance. Today this is our responsibility. We will not shrink from it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.16]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I speak against the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I do so not without a full realisation of the gravity of the situation that confronts us as elected representatives in this Parliament. In March this year it could be said that New South Wales lost its innocence. We, as a State, were shocked to hear of a series of allegations that had come before the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service about child sexual abuse and paedophilia. For two weeks the royal commission took us into a world about which some of us had heard dark whispers, but which all of us, I am sure, prayed did not exist. An article by Kate McClymont in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 March seemed to exemplify the unspeakable nature of the evidence that had come before the royal commission. Ms McClymont had been invited by the royal commissioner to view a series of still photographs from pornographic videos made by Robert Joseph Dunn. She wrote:

A little boy, who could not be more than five or six, is sitting on the edge of a double bed. His eyes are looking blankly at the camera which has captured a middle-aged man undoing his tiny blue cotton pyjama top. In the next series of photographs, this poor little boy and several others are having to endure [oral sex].

I use the words "oral sex" advisedly because they were not the words used by Ms McClymont in the article that she wrote. The words she used were considerably more explicit, but I do not think I have to explain to honourable members what I mean. What was detailed in that article would have distressed any reader. However, I have repeated it in this House not to cause further outrage but to indicate the seriousness and the importance of what we are dealing with today. We have all been shocked by the revelations of the police royal commission. I believe that many honourable members could say that they understand how the people of Belgium feel in the face of their own sordid and vile experience with paedophilia. The demonstration that was held in Belgium only two weeks ago was an amazing expression of public outrage. It is not easy in a small country like Belgium to get 350,000 people marching in the street. It is clear that something must be done to further investigate the allegations that have surfaced in New South Wales to determine the extent of crime in our State, to achieve justice for the victims and to seek redress for their broken lives.

Page 5626

However, what is not clear is that such an extension of the powers of the police royal commission contained in the motion of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will be the most effective way to do this. The Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service was established to inquire into and report on allegations of corruption in the New South Wales Police Service. Until now investigations into paedophilia have been conducted in relation to suspected police protection of paedophiles. The terms of reference originally given to the commission did not include individual acts of paedophilia but rather the protection of paedophiles by police and public officials or through the relationship between the police force and public authorities such as the Department of Community Services.

The original premise for the commission should not be forgotten. Indeed, when John Hatton was the member for South Coast in this Parliament both he and I were on the joint select parliamentary committee looking into the problems that were surfacing about the Police Service in New South Wales and we fought together for the establishment of a royal commission. I am certain that if the detailed work done by John Hatton had not been done, no royal commission would ever have been established. I accept that an investigation into the extent of paedophilia in New South Wales must commence, but we must not ignore the original reason that the commission was established and the severe ramifications such an investigation will have on our State.

Honourable members also have to consider that the royal commission may not be the most appropriate body to be investigating such matters. The royal commission is not a police service. A police service has the task of finding and prosecuting offenders. In the words of the commissioner, "It is not a particularly suitable vehicle for investigating individual criminal conduct." The new terms of reference proposed by the Premier last week are appropriate in that they seek to extend the investigative powers of the commission but they still remain within the original focus of investigating police corruption.

A few moments ago the Hon. Franca Arena said that she had constituents and concerned people coming to her who said that they went to the royal commission and gave evidence of acts of paedophilia and were told that they had to go to the police. Apparently their concern is that these matters are not being investigated. I have no means of knowing whether or not they are being investigated. It is quite possible that they are being investigated but that cannot be made known to the complainants because otherwise the investigation might very well fail. If those people, properly and rightly concerned - and I am sure very sincere - had gone to the police and given the police what they believe is evidence, that evidence might not have been strong enough for the police to act upon. That is the terrible tragedy of the situation.

Public bodies, including police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, cannot mount a case against individuals without evidence that is corroborated. One cannot prosecute on the basis of rumour or sincere concern without that being backed up by at least some corroboration. This is why this problem is so difficult. There has been a great deal of criticism in recent weeks over the actions of the royal commission in the conduct of its paedophile investigations. Much of the criticism has centred on whether the commission has suppressed the names of high-profile members of society and those in positions of power while exposing openly the activities of the Police Service. Justice Wood himself has denied such allegations and has indicated that there is no proper cause for concern over the commission's inquiry. Indeed, he was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying:

. . . it would be totally unacceptable and unfortunate in the extreme (for the overall work of the commission to be damaged by) continued uninformed, mistaken or unfair criticism that it had gone soft or was in some way covering up for certain groups of persons who are rumoured to have been involved in paedophile activities.

Before debate on the motion began today I was given by the Hon. Franca Arena a statement issued by her in the form of a press release on 29 October. In that statement she said that she had had a meeting with the Premier to discuss the motion and she had been shown correspondence by the Premier from the royal commission indicating a commitment to extend the timetable by three months, and a request for additional resources, both financial and staff. The press release stated:

The Commissioner in his letters to the Premier also indicated:

"The new terms of reference will permit him to relook at some past investigations by police, where their preliminary enquiries were stopped because of the absence of any apparent link with corruption or official protection . . ."

"The new terms will also permit the Commission to look in a little more depth than was originally planned, at child pornography, and in particular the problems of the Internet, so far as paedophile activity is concerned . . ."

The Hon. Franca Arena also stated:

I am aware that the Premier will release the letters of the Commissioner to the media and the letters will give full details of the extra duties to be undertaken by the Commission.

The Hon. Franca Arena concluded:

. . . I am now willing to wait and see how the Royal Commission proceeds on this important issue. However, I intend to speak on the motion before the Upper House which will be debated this week and list all of the concerns that community groups and individuals have regarding the Royal Commission's current enquiry on paedophilia.

However, the Hon. Franca Arena also stated to me this morning that she did not intend to name any names in this House. Yet when I was sitting in my office waiting to come down to the Chamber I had no doubt that she mentioned names. She has
Page 5627
mentioned names about which I had heard rumours. Maybe it is true that other honourable members had heard rumours also, but they were rumours.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Now they are names.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: But their names are now in the public arena, revealed under the privilege of this House. I am very disturbed by that fact. I was very happy to support this motion when it was brought to my attention by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I was very happy to debate it but honourable members already know of one person in the Illawarra area who was named and because that so destroyed his life he committed suicide. As a member of the Council for Civil Liberties I know the effect on John Marsden of his being investigated by the royal commission and then being cleared. The investigation has destroyed his life. It has destroyed his legal practice and it has meant that many people whom he previously regarded as friends now ignore him. People forget that he has been cleared.

It is easy to smear people without knowing that we are destroying their lives. Unless we have concrete evidence against them, we can destroy their lives. Whatever their lifestyle may be - even if it is a lifestyle that we have a strong moral objection to - they, too, have families. They have siblings, parents, nieces and nephews, all part of a traditional family. I am amazed that the Hon. Franca Arena named today a member of another place, or an erstwhile member of another place. If evidence exists, it must be given to police, and the police must be left to act on it.

It is possible that many hundreds of people in this State will go to police with rumours, and police will have to spend a great deal of time investigating them. I have no objection to that. An investigation may be carried out on the belief that sufficient evidence exists for such an investigation, but it will not be carried out on rumour alone. As Mr Justice Wood has said, a true police investigation cannot be carried out by the royal commission because that is not the role of the royal commission, and it would result in the royal commission being extended, probably not for three months but perhaps for even three years.

The allegations in the media that the commission is suppressing the names of high-profile members of society have been denied by Mr Justice Wood. He has indicated that there is no proper cause for concern and he wants the commission to run its course, with the inclusion of the Premier's recent extension of the terms of reference, and he wants to complete the inquiry into corruption in the New South Wales Police Service. I totally agree with the request of the royal commissioner that judgment in this royal commission be suspended until the inquiries are completed and the final report is delivered. I anxiously await the final report. I hope it will contain strong recommendations that police take action if it is necessary, because Mr Justice Wood, as a lawyer, and his commission, as an investigating body, have evidence.

I agree with the intention of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and I am concerned about the extent of paedophilia as revealed in the media and in the sittings of the royal commission. The royal commissioner has said that there is a danger that if the royal commission is asked to inquire into paedophile allegations that are separate from allegations of police corruption, it may turn into a vehicle for gossip, innuendo and malice, with a possibility of professional, physical and emotional harm for those who are wrongly dragged into such a sensitive and emotive issue.

When I discussed this issue with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile this morning, I was in two minds about whether I would support his motion, and I have thought about it very carefully. I cannot in all conscience allow more people to be named in the way they were in this House this afternoon, because people's lives will be destroyed. I would like all honourable members to be fully aware that I totally believe in the protection of children. Paedophilia is an abominable crime, but it will never be stopped simply by destroying people who may or may not have indulged in that practice. In the minds of the public there is still little understanding of an adult or teenage sexual relationship of a homosexual nature and true paedophilia. There is a difference, and that difference has to be taken into account.

As the law stands, it is possible for a man to have a sexual relationship with a girl aged 16 or 17 and escape unscathed, except perhaps for moral indignation; it is certainly not a criminal offence. If a man has a sexual relationship with a male aged 16 or 17 he is committing a criminal act. He is not committing paedophilia; he is committing a criminal act, but he is not and should not be branded a paedophile. That has to be clearly understood. I am sorry if Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is disappointed in my decision, but under the circumstances what has happened this afternoon - and I really worked hard to allow this debate to happen - has turned into a most tragic event. The ripples and the harm that the naming of people in this House will cause will carry on for many months, if not years.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.37]: The debate on this motion has now taken a dramatic and very serious turn. The Hon. Franca Arena has, during the course of her contribution to the debate, named two persons in quite dramatic circumstances. She has, by way of inference, sought to suggest that those persons are involved in the royal commission and has questioned whether or not their names are suppressed by the royal commission. Notwithstanding that possible suppression, she has named those persons in a way that was deliberately aimed at identifying them in connection with a paedophile inquiry. This presents for the Government, and I have to say for the
Page 5628
Attorney General, an issue which now requires immediate action by the Government, by the Premier and by the Attorney General.

I understand that the identity of a witness codenamed W1, who has appeared before the royal commission, has been suppressed. I do not know who W1 is, but if a statement was made outside this House in a way which would identify W1 and a suppression order was in force, clearly that would be in breach of the Royal Commission (Police Service) Act. That serious criminal offence would attract a penalty of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for 12 months. If a suppression order exists against the identification of a witness, notwithstanding the identification by letters and numbers, and the Hon. Franca Arena had, outside this House, identified that witness, she would potentially be liable to a criminal penalty under the Royal Commission (Police Service) Act. If the actions of the honourable member were taken by any other member of the community, who would therefore attract a criminal penalty, then one interpretation that is open is that the privileges of this Parliament have been abused.

If a potential breach of the orders of the royal commission has occurred, a mechanism is available to the Government to move a motion in this House to suppress names, for Hansard to be amended and for an order to be sought that the information provided to this House be suppressed. If a breach of the orders of the royal commission has occurred - and, therefore, an undermining of the royal commission - it is incumbent upon the Government and the Attorney General to ensure that the integrity of the royal commission is preserved. If the integrity of the royal commission is not preserved by the Premier and the Attorney General, then the Government will be brought into disrepute for failing to do so. Under no circumstances could this House tolerate the use of parliamentary privilege by a member to undermine the orders of a court or royal commission. Today a member of this House has sought to use the Parliament directly to undermine the activities of the royal commission. It is now incumbent upon the Premier and the Attorney General to come before this Parliament to protect the royal commission.

I do not know what goes on in the royal commission, but there is no doubt that a member of this House has, by naming people in the way she has, sought to circumvent the royal commission. I ask the Premier and the Attorney General in this House to now take the necessary steps to protect the integrity of the royal commission. I have been advised that a number of people have provided information to the commission to assist it in its ongoing inquiries. I understand that that information is then transmitted to the Child Protection Enforcement Agency for investigation. The royal commission offers immunities to people for information that can be used in ongoing criminal investigations. It offers immunities to entice people to give information before the royal commission. People who come forward to assist the royal commission do so in the belief that they will be protected. They appear before the royal commission, and seek suppression orders for doing so, to ensure that the law is upheld and protected in this State.

As a former Attorney General I have given immunities. As a former Attorney General I have assisted in providing protection for people who have come forward to cooperate in criminal investigations. People in this State would never come forward to give assistance to a royal commission or any other inquiry if they thought that they would be identified by a member of Parliament in debate on a motion in this House. Such behaviour completely undermines our system of justice and the investigations of such bodies as royal commissions. They bring into question the privileges of the Parliament and the role and privileges of members of this Parliament. It is about time the Government understood the nature of the privileges and obligations governments and members of Parliament have. The Opposition expects that the Government would ensure that the integrity of the Parliament, its role and privileges are not abused. That is why I say that the whole direction of this debate has changed dramatically.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: We will have no privileges, because we won't deserve them.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That is a most telling interjection, which is why I believe the Attorney General, whose role it is to uphold the law of this State, must take action. I can understand why the Government is in a quandary about the way one of its members has sought to misuse the Parliament. I can recall on another occasion in another place that a member was expelled when the privileges of that House had been abused by that member. Members of Parliament may not use the forums of the House of which they are members to wrongfully identify persons in such a way as to suggest that they have been associated with activity that would potentially breach the law. No member of the Opposition, at any time, would sanction any abuse of children in our community. Paedophile activity is intolerable, abhorrent and cannot be condoned.

Any measure that can be adopted to identify perpetrators of such activity should receive the full support of the law. The royal commission was established to investigate the alleged protection of paedophile activity by the Police Service. The royal commission has received a large amount of information relating to a variety of offences and activities. The Government has now sought to expand the terms of reference of the royal commission to ensure that the inquiry not only investigates paedophile activity as it may be related to police activity, but also broadly investigates the laws and the actions of government departments as they impact on paedophilia. People have made representations to members of both sides of the House seeking to broaden the terms of the royal commission. The Opposition believes that the royal commission should have the ability to investigate all
Page 5629
issues that pertain to paedophile activity, but members must bear in mind what a royal commission is. It is not an alternative for the Police Service. The role of police is to undertake criminal investigation, to lay charges and to have those charges brought before the court.

The purpose of royal commissions is to look at the systems of government and their interrelation with the community with a view to reforming systems to minimise criminal activity within our community and maximise the way in which our community protects our children. Royal commissions should not be regarded as an alternative to criminal investigations. The Opposition does not want the royal commission to undertake police investigatory activities. That would unreasonably extend the operations of the commission. People have advocated to me that the activities of the royal commission should be unfettered. One person in particular said to me that 10 to a dozen prominent people should be brought before the royal commission to prove that they are not paedophiles.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: That is reversing the onus.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Absolutely. That person, who had provided much information concerning alleged paedophile activity, has recently been discredited. When the issue was challenged the person said that I had to understand that "these people are known paedophiles and the royal commission must put them in the witness box to try to disprove that". Today this House heard words to that effect from the Hon. Franca Arena. That is not the role of a royal commission. If the community wants a royal commission to function in that way, we will return to the McCarthyist pogroms of the 1950s and 1960s. A royal commission should look at the systems and try to improve them but it has to work within its terms of reference. Those terms should be as broad as possible so that if a royal commission wishes to broaden its investigations it should be able to do so. If the royal commission receives evidence of criminal activity which requires traditional police investigative measures, then under section 12 of the Royal Commissions Act that evidence will be sent to the police. If the royal commission finds evidence which is suggestive of organised criminal activity and requires police investigation with the powers of a royal commission, then that evidence can be forwarded to the New South Wales Crime Commission on a reference from the relevant Minister.

The Opposition supports this motion because it believes that the royal commission should be given the broadest possible powers to investigate all matters relating to paedophile activity within the community. But the role of the royal commission is not to be regarded as an alternative to that of police; its purpose is to report to improve systems. That is what the Opposition believes should happen. By the same token we should ensure that community perception is not that the royal commission is not as aggressive as it wishes to be to eradicate such behaviour in society. To a large extent it is an issue of perceptions rather than realities. There is concern about the royal commission being encouraged to become a police investigatory body. I emphasise that it should not be. But we should make certain that in its efforts to uncover what is occurring in this State the royal commission should have powers that will ensure that no stone is left unturned.

The Opposition has absolute confidence in Commissioner Wood and rejects any suggestion that he has sought inappropriately to suppress evidence. We also reject any suggestion that the royal commission and its officers are not pursuing with all the diligence they can muster the best possible result - which was clearly what the Hon. Franca Arena was suggesting in her contribution today. Whilst the Opposition supports the motion of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, because we believe that the royal commission should be given the broadest possible powers to avert a perception that it is not pursuing all matters to the best of its ability, we warn that if the royal commission adopts a McCarthyist attitude the concept of royal commissions will be destroyed. I reiterate the comments I made at the outset of my address: the Government is now presented with a dilemma which it must address because the integrity of this royal commission and the confidence of witnesses appearing before it are being jeopardised, and the privileges of this Parliament are brought into question.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.57]: I commend Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for moving this motion. Clearly this is a matter of concern to most people in the community. It is imperative that members of Parliament inform the community of our intentions with regard to this extremely grave matter. With the royal commission we have a unique opportunity, with a very powerful instrument, to investigate serious problems in our society. I understand that the terms of the commission have been extended by some three months. As a Green member of this Parliament I welcome that extension, which will allow a detailed investigation into this most vexed issue.

The issue of paedophilia must be vigorously pursued. However, I am most concerned about rumours about the commission and the fragility of statements that have been made about prominent people giving evidence. I am also concerned that there should be no cover-up in the process that is being undertaken and that everyone, no matter how public and powerful, will be treated equally. There have been grave reactions to statements made about particular individuals in the community. However, at the same time, I am concerned, for example in the case of Philip Bell, that children have committed suicide because they have become so confused and distressed by the perverse and low behaviour of such people.

Page 5630

It is important to consider what the commission can do and how it will seek to expose certain paedophile networks. It is important also to consider the cross-generational aspects. In pursuing our aims to expose paedophilia when investigating such matters as the Mr Bubbles case and associated police corruption, the terrible stories about Philip Bell and Robert "Dolly" Dunn and the horrors that shocked Belgium recently - which was the work of a heterosexual - I hope that we do not embark on a witch-hunt for homosexuals. Many homosexuals and heterosexuals support this motion. Of paramount importance is that exposing paedophilia is not about making judgments about one's sexual preferences or morals, it is about protecting children. Those responsible for protecting paedophiles must be rooted out. Certainly the royal commission is an effective means of achieving that.

I am concerned that the original focus of the royal commission may become diluted so that the commission has no further impact. It is important that there be no confusion in that regard in any investigation involving paedophilia or pederasty. It is extremely important that only crimes against very young people are considered in the context of this issue. Any responsible person in the community would agree that those very young people must be protected, that the process must be accountable and that those children need a voice of support. Approximately 80 per cent of all child molestation offences are committed by heterosexuals, and 75 per cent of those cases involve the molestation of girls by people they know, including family members. These crimes are occurring in suburbia. The commission must have appropriate resources to deal with real issues. These crimes, which have gone undetected for so long against children in our community, will not be tolerated any longer.

The royal commission is the appropriate forum through which effective action in the community can be taken to remove this terrible cancer that occurs all too frequently in our society. If the royal commission continues its investigations in conjunction with bureaucracies that are charged with the protection of children in our community, with the support of police who now appreciate the full consequences of failing to take sufficient notice of the plight of young people in society, monumental change will be achieved. However, a superficial witch-hunt will not get to the root of the problem, which is so pervasive in our society. Unless cross-generational mechanisms are provided to allow children to grow up without feelings of guilt and fear, which often scar them for life, we will have failed these young people dismally despite the efforts of the royal commission. I congratulate those members who have spoken in this debate. This important matter must be continually debated and aired in the community in order to protect those who are the most vulnerable in society.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [4.04]: I am not convinced that the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service should pick up these new terms of reference. It is a temporary inquiry given specific tasks and it cannot continually be extended to conduct investigations, especially those that are distinctly different in character from the investigations originally entrusted to it. The paedophile reference to the royal commission was appropriate so long as there was a connection between that conduct and police corruption. By extending the terms of reference and not requiring a nexus between paedophile and police corruption the risk is that the original reference becomes swamped by an equally important but very different issue. This presents the risk of losing the opportunity of determining what needs to be challenged and changed in the Police Service organisation and culture, which, after all, was the main focus of the task entrusted to the royal commission.

In the end, the commission must provide a blueprint to ensure that the abuses of power and dereliction of duty in the Police Service and in other affected government departments can be avoided and prevented. With reference to these matters, I particularly await the findings of the royal commission on the institutional and cultural failings that allowed and enabled paedophiles to avoid investigation and prosecution. I find it disturbing and frightening that police officers were actively protecting paedophiles. It would be equally disturbing to find passive protection of paedophiles; that the Police Service either by omission or neglect of duty allowed paedophiles to go undetected and undisturbed. Without wanting to pre-empt any findings or recommendations of the commission, I imagine that in the past police have generally been reluctant or uneasy about dealing with allegations of child sexual assault. In my contribution to debate on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill last year I said:

Child sexual assault . . . is not a pleasant topic. It is only since the 1980s that the general public has started to become conscious of its existence, yet, sadly, some still deny its existence or at least deny that it happens in their neighbourhood. Many still minimise its significance and the impact on the child, and others invent and subscribe to myths that children lie or fantasise about being sexually abused. Still others shrug their shoulders and say that it is part of life and there is nothing that can be done.

I am certain that the Police Service at that time and until recently shared many of these prejudices, and certainly was not challenged to change its attitudes. The royal commission has provided the challenge to this culture of silence. Never again can pleas for help and understanding from children who have been the subject of these most despicable of crimes be ignored. Never again should these crimes be called unspeakable, because when they are detected the community must be informed. All child victims of sexual assault must receive support and assistance, and perpetrators must be dealt with appropriately and effectively.

An unfortunate consequence of the high profile given to the royal commission investigation is that the community might think that these cases are the norm for paedophilia and child assault when in fact,
Page 5631
as distressing as they are, they are probably atypical. By concentrating attention on high profile cases that have been the subject of the commission's hearings, untold stories of abuse and assault that take place away from the scrutiny of the commission and the glare of the media are neglected. The royal commission, perhaps unfairly, raised expectations in certain quarters that it would deal conclusively with particular allegations of paedophilia, such as the investigation of the public official codenamed W1. If there is no suggestion or evidence of the abuse of power or neglect of duty by the Police Service, it is appropriate for the Child Protection Enforcement Agency to take up and investigate these allegations.

Yesterday in question time in the other place the Minister for Police gave an assurance that the agency will pick up those outstanding matters at the completion of the royal commission inquiry. The media must take some responsibility for the dissatisfaction in the community about the referral of various matters to the Child Protection Enforcement Agency. The royal commission is an obvious and ready source of news and has received considerable coverage and comment during its proceedings. I would hope that the achievements and progress of the CPEA would receive similar coverage and attention. For example, as at 26 August a task force within the CPEA identified 36 paedophiles and at least 60 victims. The CPEA should not be seen as some second-best option.

The Child Protection Enforcement Agency has been given the functions, resources and powers to more than adequately take up the baton from the royal commission. The Government has committed considerable resources and powers to the Child Protection Enforcement Agency, which has 45 police officers and eight administrative and intelligence support staff, and a budget of $3.5 million. What must those staff be thinking as we debate whether to extend the life of a temporary inquiry, when a permanent body stands ready and waiting in the wings to take on the same tasks? We must have confidence in the Child Protection Enforcement Agency. To that end I will take particular interest in the budget resourcing, operation and success of the agency - and I am sure that I will not be alone in that.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: I will join you.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: Thank you. The commission had already been extended for six months when it agreed to the additional terms of reference last week, which have necessitated an additional three-month extension. There must be a question as to whether the commissioner and the current commission staff will be able to carry on much further beyond that date. There must be a point at which we can turn to permanent agencies to continue the work commenced by the royal commission; otherwise the royal commission will have failed. It will have failed if we cannot confidently expect the Police Service to honestly and diligently take up the challenges of crime prevention and law enforcement when it has a new commissioner, and new agencies and oversight structures. In particular, the Child Protection Enforcement Agency must be given the opportunity to show what it can do on this very important issue. That is why I do not believe that it is necessary to extend the terms of reference of the royal commission as requested in this motion. Finally, I too am disturbed by the naming of a person, especially in the context of this debate and given the media interest and expectation that something like this would occur. But in all fairness I will not comment further until I have read Hansard.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.11]: It is an absolute tragedy that honourable members must debate this motion. Members of Parliament should not be debating the matter at all; the Police Service should have done its work. It is a tragedy that this motion is the result of the failure of the New South Wales Police Service. This is not the only area in which the Police Service has failed; it has failed in areas across the board. The Police Service has failed the people of New South Wales. Another inquiry should not be necessary. The Child Protection Enforcement Agency should not be have to be asked to investigate these matters. Everyone should have confidence in the Police Service to investigate these matters. This matter should not be hived off to another agency. The Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service should not have been necessary in the first place, and its terms of reference certainly should not be extended time and time again.

The royal commission should not have been necessary, and it would not have been necessary if the police force had been incorrupt. Everyone should be able to have confidence in the Police Service, but clearly that is not so. The new Commissioner of Police should be told to deal with these matters within the Police Service. However, he cannot be told that because he does not yet have confidence in the Police Service. The Police Service should be disbanded and the service should start again from scratch, because far too many corrupt police officers are still serving. All police officers should be given a lie detector test; those who fail should be dismissed, and those who pass should stay. About three-quarters of the Police Service would probably be removed as a result. In today's newspaper yet another case was raised about a series of police officers -

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.


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

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday, 12 November, 1996 at 2.30 p.m.

Page 5632

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) [4.15]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

This Bill proposes reforms to the New South Wales Heritage Council, the first in a series of fundamental reforms to the New South Wales heritage system foreshadowed in the Government's major heritage initiative - the New South Wales heritage policy released in May this year.

In particular this amendment changes the composition of the New South Wales Heritage Council to reflect long standing community and industry concerns that greater emphasis should be placed on skills-based representation on the Heritage Council and that a more diverse skills base should be available to allow the Heritage Council to broaden its focus to include Aboriginal heritage, moveable heritage and natural heritage.

It is the Government's desire that the Heritage Council becomes a more pro-active body, better able to respond to the community's varied demands.

For the record I would like to quote the Executive Director of the New South Wales National Trust, Ms Elsa Atkin, who has recorded her support of these changes to the Minister. Ms Atkin says:

I fully support your view that members of the Heritage Council should be selected primarily for their relevant knowledge and skills rather than as representatives of organisations and interest groups . . . I enthusiastically support your emphasis on the educational role of the Heritage Council.

Mr President, in addition, an organisation that might historically be regarded as being at the other end of the philosophical spectrum on matters relating to conservation is the Property Council of Australia. The New South Wales Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, Mr Mark Quinlan, has advised:

The Property Council welcomes the Government's intention to increase the skills base of the Heritage Council and ensure its continuity of membership. I am sure that these amendments will allow the Heritage Council to be even more effective in preserving the State's heritage for the benefit of all the community.

Mr President, no longer is it appropriate for all heritage decisions to be made from an antagonistic perspective. This Government is working to ensure a proper and worthy dialogue between the competing interests in the heritage debate - a dialogue based upon working together, not fighting against each other from behind closed doors.

I would like now to briefly outline and explain the amendments.

The Heritage Council currently has 12 members including the chair. It is proposed to retain the position of chair and four members being representatives of the National Trust of Australia, the Royal Australian Historical Society, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the Royal Australian Planning Institute jointly, and the Labor Council of New South Wales.

The Government considers it important to seek specific representations from these organisations as it believes that they have particular expertise and are regarded throughout the community as "lead agencies" for heritage.

These members have previously been selected by the Minister from a panel of five names submitted by each organisation. The Government and the Coalition have agreed to amend the size of the panel of names to be submitted to three and the Bill now reflects this.

Mr President, there has been debate as to whether the History Council of NSW should be identified as a "lead agency" for heritage and have "as of right" representation on the NSW Heritage Council.

The History Council was established late last year and is aiming to be the peak body or "umbrella group" for organisations representing history in this State.

While it may be a bit premature to appoint a representative of the History Council to the Heritage Council right now, I would like to state in this House that if the History Council continues to grow and is recognised as the peak agency by major history groups in NSW the Government should recognise its lead role and accordingly accept a representative of the History Council as an "as of right" member of the NSW Heritage Council.

Mr President, the skills-based component of the Heritage Council will comprise six new members who in the opinion of the Minister possess knowledge and skills in the following areas: Aboriginal heritage, the building development and property industry, corporate promotion, environmental heritage, local government, moveable heritage, natural heritage, property rights of citizens, and rural interests.

Mr President, it is not intended that each of these areas necessarily be represented but that these be the range of areas of expertise that the Minister can draw on when making appointments to the council. These changes will allow the Minister greater flexibility in considering the areas of expertise which are appropriate to be represented on the Council.

Three members from key government Departments will also be retained: the Government Architect, the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and a person nominated by the Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

I mentioned earlier the need to broaden the focus of the Heritage Council. To date, the Council has largely concentrated on the built heritage of the State and not on the areas of Aboriginal or natural heritage. Moveable heritage is another area which has received relatively little attention. The appointment of people with skills in these areas to the Heritage Council would be of great benefit in taking forward the management, conservation and promotion of the heritage of the State.

Much of our heritage, of course, lies outside the urban areas of the State, and it is important that the Government is able to appoint a member with background and experience in rural issues and problems. Such representation has long been requested and the Minister considers it appropriate that the Government be able to appoint such a representative who can represent statewide rural interests.

The Government's heritage policy also identified heritage promotion and education as a critical element in the ongoing protection of the State's heritage and proposes that the private sector play an increased role in this area. To achieve this the Government has proposed that a person skilled in corporate promotion be appointed to the Council and be responsible for promoting corporate sponsorship of our heritage.

A final planned appointment to the Heritage Council is, of course, the Director of the Heritage Office.

In terms of tenure, the Minister proposes to amend the Act to enable the appointment of members for up to three years with a maximum of two terms. This change will

Page 5633

enable greater continuity for the ongoing work of the council and an ability to respond to major heritage issues as they emerge.

It is proposed to include provision for the appointment of a deputy chair in the Act. Currently, while the chair is absent there is no provision for a deputy to exercise the statutory authority of the chair, such as the execution of an immediate stop-work order. This will allow the appointed deputy to exercise this responsibility. Another amendment is that the quorum, which is currently seven, will need to be changed to eight to reflect the increased membership of the council from 12 to 15.

Mr President, these changes reflect current community and industry views and will enable the more effective and efficient operation of the Heritage Council in the implementation of the Government's new heritage policy. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.16]: The Opposition supports the Heritage Amendment Bill. The Heritage Council is a major agency in the protection of the State's heritage, and the direction suggested in the bill - a shift towards a skills base - is appropriate. The Heritage Council was established under the Heritage Act 1977 to advise the Minister on heritage matters. Heritage in New South Wales is largely tackled on two separate fronts: through either ministerial and Heritage Council action or local planning instruments. The history of the council shows that it has largely operated free of controversy. However, I am sure honourable members can recall times when for a variety of reasons the attitude of the council and the Government differed from that of people in the community. The Heritage Council has been a valuable part of the process of protecting and preserving the heritage of New South Wales. I can recall only one severe criticism of the council, which was contained in a half-baked report of the Public Accounts Committee in 1988. Excerpts of reports of the Heritage Council give a reasonable overview of what it has achieved over the years, and in the 1995 annual report the chairman of the Heritage Council, Howard Tanner, said of the role of the council:

. . . heritage remains as a priority for the council, which has continued to promote the identification, protection and management of environmental heritage as widely as possible.

The Minister referred in his second reading speech to a shift in the work of the Heritage Council towards moveable heritage and so on. I shall jog the Minister's memory. The move towards moveable heritage did not take place only in the past year or so, and the Minister is not the first person to claim a commitment to that. I recall that at the end of the 1980s a permanent conservation order was placed on the Zig Zag railway, and I am aware that in the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a move towards protecting a number of the State's pipe organs. That shows that the focus of the Heritage Council has been shifting since its establishment in 1977.

In the beginning the heritage conservation fund primarily funded the council's programs and projects. Between 1978 and 1989 the heritage conservation fund allocated about $8.6 million to more than 460 projects. In 1989 the heritage conservation fund and the national estates grant program were amalgamated into one program, which led to the broadening of the range of projects in which the Heritage Council took an interest to include Aboriginal and natural environmental projects, as well as historic projects. Between 1989 and 1994, when the coalition was in government, about $18.9 million was allocated to more than 1,235 projects. Of course, some of that funding came from the Commonwealth, as it still does.

We have seen a broad commitment by all governments to heritage projects over a long period, which is as it should be. In 1993, the last year in which the former Government was in office, money was allocated for several heritage projects which included locomotives, the Kanangra Ferry restoration, cemeteries, and Aboriginal sites in Wellington, Bermagui, the Wallaga Lakes area and the Illawarra region. One project which I thought was of interest was the restoration of the 1899 Stephenson locomotive, the property of Portland Cement Company. Last year's annual report of the Heritage Council of New South Wales lists some of the projects that have been completed under the auspices of that council, and it is worth putting some of them on the record.

The list includes three heritage thematic studies which involved a survey by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects of art deco buildings, historic homesteads and Sydney's twentieth century buildings; three local government heritage studies; eight main street heritage study projects; Aboriginal heritage projects, including one involving an Aboriginal sites register for Gosford city; nine history and archive projects; 11 educational and promotional projects; restoration work on 20 community buildings; restoration work on 11 privately-owned heritage buildings; restoration work on 15 church-owned buildings; restoration work on two local government-owned heritage buildings; and the provision of major support to the National Trust.

The list also includes five heritage landscape projects; 11 natural environment projects; three archaeological projects; four stained-glass projects; 13 industrial heritage projects; and four pipe organ projects. The list details a number of other projects. That significant range of projects demonstrates the broad expertise needed by members of the Heritage Council. That is why the Minister sought in this bill to change the focus of the Heritage Council. People appointed from a number of organisations will have a skills base in a range of areas such as Aboriginal heritage, the building, development and property industries, corporation promotion, the conservation of the environmental heritage, the property rights of citizens and rural interests - a range of heritage issues across New South Wales.

That is an appropriate shift in the way in which appointments are to be made to the Heritage Council. For that reason the Opposition has chosen not to oppose this bill. Clearly, that is a move
Page 5634
forward. I am aware that the Greens propose to move some amendments to this bill. The Opposition gave serious consideration to those amendments, which will provide for an increase in the membership of the Heritage Council. To some extent that defeats the intention of this legislation, which has received bipartisan support. This bill is a move forward. I think it is the way to go. On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate our support for it.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.24]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the Heritage Amendment Bill. As a professional historian, heritage is one area in which I have been interested and to which I have a personal commitment. When I was in Orange on Saturday opening the local history conference of the Royal Australian Historical Society on behalf of the Premier I thought about some of the issues that this bill raises. For many years I have known volunteer workers - members of local history societies and various other groups scattered throughout our community - who carry out important work. Some of them have been involved in educational research celebrating school centenaries, but often that work has led to the conservation and preservation of many buildings and remnants of our history.

Those groups have played an important role in preserving our Aboriginal and natural heritage. We are dealing with an area which the community takes seriously. However, over the last few years the Heritage Council has not been as active and as interventionist as we would have liked it to be. The amendments in this bill, which are overdue, will help to refocus the Heritage Council and make it more inclined to intervene. I will now refer to a number of specific aspects in the bill. I welcome the Opposition's support for the bill - support which was expressed earlier by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I am aware that the Hon. I. Cohen and others want some variations to the legislation and that in Committee we will be dealing with amendments to the legislation. It is important to place on record that there is no doubt that there is broad and unanimous support for the principles of the bill, the increase in the size of the Heritage Council and the emphasis that has been placed on the skills base.

I will not speak to the amendments in Committee, but I will make a few points now about some of those areas where there has been disagreement or suggestions that other bodies should be involved. The first point concerns the representation of the History Council versus the Royal Australian Historical Society. I find myself torn on that question. I welcome the establishment of the History Council, a new body which has the support of the Premier. We are fortunate to have a Premier with a real interest in history. When I was in Orange last Saturday I spoke to members of the Royal Australian Historical Society. I have been aware of their work over many years and I am conscious of the way in which they have combined the efforts of volunteer workers to achieve the protection of much of our heritage that we would otherwise have lost.

It is a pity that this bill has been introduced when the History Council is so new. However, I am confident that the Government, which acknowledges the role played by both groups, will ensure that professional historians and people active in the Royal Australian Historical Society receive the recognition that they deserve. I know that there has been some criticism of Labor Council representation on this council. I place on the record that, given the important role played by unions in preserving our heritage, particularly in the inner parts of Sydney, it is churlish in the extreme to be critical of union representation. If it was not for two building unions in particular, the Building Workers Industrial Union as it was and the Builders Labourers Federation, much of the structures that we are now involved in preserving would not be available to preserve.

We must protect the interests of property owners. Finding oneself the owner of a heritage building can be expensive and difficult. If we are to save buildings, we must be conscious of the fact that in the past too many accidental fires and other destruction by neglect have occurred. We must ensure those who own buildings that need to be preserved are able to preserve them. Similarly, we recognise the role that was played by the building unions in protecting our heritage to date. I look forward to the legislation with which we will be dealing later to strengthen the wilful neglect provisions of the Heritage Act. Anyone who has had an interest in this area over the past few years would know that we have lost things that should never have been lost. One has only to look at the old wool stores in the Pyrmont and Ultimo area, the flour mill at Canterbury and other structures that have been lost, not because of something done overnight like arson or sending in bulldozers, but because people have quite consciously allowed buildings to run down until they are no longer salvageable. I have great pleasure in supporting this legislation and I welcome the support of the Opposition and the crossbenchers as well.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.30]: While I support the Heritage Amendment Bill in principle, I believe that if the skills base of the Heritage Council is to be increased, its membership should also be broadened and strengthened. At present the Heritage Council consists of 12 members of whom 10 are appointed by the Minister, the other two members being the Government Architect and the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife who are ex officio members. The bill will increase the number of members of the Heritage Council from 12 to 15, introduce a new method of appointing six of the members and give the Minister discretion to appoint members with additional areas of expertise. That is, the Minister can use his or her discretion to appoint experts who have demonstrated skills in six out of nine specified areas listed under proposed section
Page 5635
8(2)(b). Specified areas include: Aboriginal heritage; natural and moveable heritage; corporate promotion; rural interests; local government; property rights of citizens; environmental heritage; and building, development and property industries.

I have made representations to this Minister and to the previous Minister to make sure there is Aboriginal representation. I feel, as other members feel, that Aboriginal heritage was being pushed aside and sometimes bulldozed aside, as occurred recently at Evans Head at the Iron Gates development site. The method of appointment of members of the Heritage Council will, however, remain the same. The Minister will still appoint the chairperson and members from specified organisations such as the National Trust, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Labor Council of New South Wales, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Royal Planning Institute and National Parks and Wildlife Service. I support the provision in the bill for specified non-government organisations to put forward a panel of nominations for appointment by the Minister. This is an important reform that should enhance the independence of the Heritage Council.

I also support nomination of representatives of the National Trust, the Royal Institute of Architects and the Labor Council. However, I do not believe that there is adequate representation for natural and environmental Aboriginal heritage and I believe that these should automatically be members of the council. In fact, the current bill needs to be addressed because it seems to have a strong imbalance against heritage conservation. For instance, as the Office of Heritage is part of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the department will effectively gain two positions on the council.

The bill also provides that one member of the council must be a corporate promotion person. I fail to see how these representatives can expand heritage appreciation and protection while interested groups with the necessary expertise are not allowed to put forward nominees. The Nature Conservation Council should be specified as an organisation with the right to nominate, as it represents the interests of natural heritage. The Heritage Act will encompass environmental heritage as well of course, and a member of the Nature Conservation Council should be on the Heritage Council.

The Nature Conservation Council is an umbrella group for a multitude of environmental and wildlife organisations with more than 100 member societies, so it is clearly appropriate to represent those interests. The National Parks Association should also be represented because it is best equipped to provide a natural heritage skills base. That association is the largest grass roots organisation representing the State's national heritage. It plays a significant role in nature conservation and has campaigned heavily for the State's natural heritage.

I also believe that to truly represent the interests of Aboriginal heritage there must be a representative from the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. Since the establishment of that council it has represented all aspects of Aboriginal culture and heritage and, accordingly, it is the most appropriate organisation to provide the necessary expertise, knowledge and understanding. The History Council of New South Wales should also be represented on the Heritage Council. The History Council has been constituted as the peak body representing all sections of the history industry, including professional historians, academic historians and amateur bodies and includes the Royal Australian Historical Society. As the Royal Australian Historical Society is but one member of the History Council, I believe that a more comprehensive representation would occur if the History Council is represented in consultation with the Royal Australian Historical Society. The Government is now aware of that anomaly in the bill when it was drafted. The Premier would be surprised at this anomaly. He may even have been rolled or he may not know what is going on in this legislation. I made representations to the Minister but he failed to act and now the shadow minister has to be convinced to accept an amendment to rectify this anomaly.

As only six groups out of the nine listed for the Minister to choose from will be represented on the council, some groups will be excluded. Consequently, there is no guarantee that these interests will be represented, even if in the Minister's opinion they possess suitable qualifications, skills and knowledge relating to the six of the nine areas outlined in proposed section 8(2)(b). To ensure that these respective areas of heritage are represented these groups should be included in section 8(2)(a) as mandatory representatives. If the Government is aiming to broaden the skills base of the Heritage Council by appointing people with particular heritage expertise, these organisations should be represented.

This would ensure that the best quality people in these areas that would like to be on the council may join the council. In that way the State's environmental, natural and Aboriginal heritage would be conserved and preserved in a much better state than it is now. I hope that the council will look at other areas rather than just Victorian buildings in the city of Sydney. There are very large areas of natural heritage and many significant Aboriginal heritage sites which have been damaged and are still being damaged and which have received no protection from the Heritage Council. I know people have made representations to the council to protect some areas on the north coast. One example is the Iron Gates area, which has been destroyed despite a pre-election promise by the Government to stop that project proceeding. Aboriginal heritage sites have also been damaged at North Ocean Shores. There were many requests from local citizens and groups of the Heritage Council to list that area which was
Page 5636
being damaged, but the council took no action. I hope that natural areas as well as our highly valued Victorian and later era urban heritage buildings, including natural heritage and Aboriginal heritage, will be given the same consideration as they have deserved all these years. With those suggestions, I support the legislation.

The Hon. I. COHEN [4.37]: I will speak briefly and with great concern on the Heritage Amendment Bill. My concern does not arise from the Government's intention to review the composition of the Heritage Council, but from the perspective of the exclusionary, rather than the open-mannered, decision about the composition of the council. The purpose of the Heritage Amendment Bill is to increase the range of skills of the membership of the Heritage Council and, as a consequence, increase the numbers on the Heritage Council. Under this bill the Heritage Council will increase from 12 members to 15 to reflect changes in the administration of the Heritage Act and the Minister's desire to establish an Office of Heritage.

I support the separation of the Office of Heritage from the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, although I would feel more comfortable with the office being within the portfolio of the Minister for the Environment. All members of the Heritage Council should have experience in one or more of European cultural, Aboriginal cultural or natural or moveable cultural heritage. In approaching this issue though, the Minister has played an inappropriate hand by deciding to appoint certain members to represent their respective organisations, while on the other hand preventing key organisations from representation and relying on ministerial discretion to determine the remaining members.

The bill allows for nominations by the National Trust of Australia, the Royal Australian Historical Society, the Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, joint nominations by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the Royal Australian Planning Institute and the Labor Council of New South Wales. There is a heavy bias towards appointing to the Heritage Council people from community-based European heritage organisations. In addition, the bill retains the role of the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and the Government Architect. The third mandatory position, representing the Director of the Office of Heritage, is also now established. I support these three positions on the Heritage Council but repeat that the identification of bureaucrats over community organisations is not accepted.

The Heritage Act defines environmental heritage as meaning buildings, works, relics or places of historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural, or aesthetic significance for the State. Aboriginal heritage and culture, and nature conservation are clearly part of our heritage as well, yet in those areas the bill is most deficient. The bill permits the Minister to appoint six skilled persons to fill nine areas: Aboriginal heritage; the building, development and property industries; corporate promotion; the conservation of the environmental heritage; local government; moveable heritage; natural heritage; the property rights of citizens; and rural interests.

I am appalled that the bill does not spell Aboriginal with a capital "A". This is offensive to Aboriginals and is inappropriate. The Government would not spell Australians with a lower case "a". If this is simply a typographical error, it is insensitive. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones referred to various developments that have not received appropriate attention by the Government and on which the Heritage Council should focus. For example, the Iron Gates development in the north of New South Wales is very important to Aboriginal cultural heritage. The much-ignored Aboriginal site, the Mandolin Theatre, also has historical significance. It is totally inappropriate that Aboriginal people do not have a say on the Heritage Council. On a more substantive level, I am concerned that the appointment of a person with Aboriginal heritage skills should be left to the Minister and not Aboriginal people through their representative organisation, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Paternalism!

The Hon. I. COHEN: Absolutely. Under the current arrangement the Minister should not simply appoint a white Aboriginal archaeologist, but an Aboriginal to reflect Aboriginal cultural and heritage values. Such a person should come from the Aboriginal Land Council. As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said, it is paternalism. One would have thought this Government would be beyond that 1950s-style paternalism, yet it still persists, particularly when there is a dispute with those who are out to make a quick buck out of the destruction of this State's natural and cultural heritage.

Appropriate organisations exist in the area of natural heritage and the conservation of environmental heritage. The Nature Conservation Council is the peak organisation for the State's smaller local conservation groups concerned with issues such as urban bushland protection, environmental planning, and landscape protection. The Nature Conservation Council represents more than 100 member societies and is clearly in a strong position to represent those interests. The Nature Conservation Council is represented on many such bodies, including the board of the Environment Protection Authority, the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council, the New South Wales Biological Diversity Advisory Council, the New South Wales Water Advisory Council, and the State Catchment Management Coordinating Committee. It should be remembered that decisions of courts have established that natural areas may be considered for protection under the Heritage Act and that the National Parks and Wildlife Act is grossly inadequate in protecting all aspects of our natural
Page 5637
heritage. Mr Peter Prineas, Chairman of the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, in a letter dated 31 October 1996, wrote:

The present Act gives no right to a non-government organisation principally concerned with the natural heritage to nominate a member of the Heritage Council. The present Bill would continue this unsatisfactory situation. The National Trust of Australia (NSW) does have a right to nominate, however the Trust's interest in natural heritage is limited and it would have difficulty representing the environment movement due to its primary concern with built heritage.

Providing a discretion to the Minister to appoint a person skilled in the natural heritage field is not adequate as a decision could be taken not to appoint, or to make an appointment which the environmental movement might find unsatisfactory.

The present Bill is understood to be a response, in part, to concerns that the Heritage Council has not operated effectively because the Council membership has been too much under the influence of government. Denying the environmental movement an independent right to nominate a member to the Council will perpetuate this problem.

The Nature Conservation Council is one of the biggest environment groups in the State. These issues are all related to heritage protection, and the Nature Conservation Council should be represented on the Heritage Council. Likewise, the National Parks Association of New South Wales, which is the State's largest grass-roots nature conservation organisation, with 19 branches, has been instrumental in campaigning for much of the State's natural heritage. Like the Nature Conservation Council, the National Parks Association is represented on the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council and most National Parks and Wildlife advisory committees, and is a member of such bodies as the Australian National Parks Council and the Australian Committee for IUCN, the world conservation union.

The Nature Conservation Council, the National Parks Association and the Aboriginal Land Council bring important skills and perspectives to the Heritage Council. A further issue which has been brought to my attention is the fact that the History Council of New South Wales Incorporated has not been included on the Heritage Council. That is the peak body for historical societies in this State. I have already received representations from the History Council, although I note and accept that the Royal Historical Society of Australia was previously the nominating body under the current arrangements. While I am not persuaded to simply drop the Royal Historical Society, I accept that the peak body should be able to put its position, in consultation with the Royal Historical Society. My office has discussed this matter with the History Council and indicated that I would support changes in this regard.

The balance of schedule 1 to the bill relates to the mechanics of the operation of the Heritage Council. I note the intention to limit the period of time on the council to an initial term of three years, with a maximum of six years. While I support the view that members need to rotate on such bodies, I believe that a term of three years is too short and that four or five years would be more appropriate, as is the case with the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council. The continuation in the bill of the provision of alternate members is reasonable, and I am advised that the Minister would be obliged to fill such positions. The bill does not contain a requirement that if the Minister does not appoint the preferred nominee, he should give reasons for not doing so.

The outcomes of the bill are varied. Given the opportunity, I would be prepared to oppose the bill. However, it does provide some areas of improvement. I am advised by those involved with the Heritage Council that the Minister has not taken on board the concerns and suggestions raised by the Heritage Council in its response to suggested changes by the Government. Other than changes to a couple of seats, the new Heritage Council will still be limited and will not deliver in the way the community expects. I am outraged that the interests of Aboriginals and nature conservation are inadequately dealt with and that direct representation of appropriate organisations has been rejected by the Minister and the Government. I will move amendments in Committee in this regard.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.48]: This bill will amend the Heritage Act 1977 to change the constitution of the Heritage Council. The main changes are spelled out in schedule 1 to the bill. The Heritage Council will consist of 15 members, 12 of whom will be appointed by the Minister. The schedule refers to members appointed by the Minister, their backgrounds and qualifications. Call to Australia has no problems with the proposed legislation. We believe it provides adequate representation. The Hon. Elaine Nile and I have been involved in some controversy in relation to heritage cemeteries in the State. A number of small cemeteries, which contain the remains and tombstones of pioneer families in this State, are really heritage cemeteries. In the southern part of New South Wales one such cemetery was sold by the Anglican Church to a developer, who bulldozed it. I understand that people who had a direct interest in the cemetery complained to the Heritage Council, but nothing happened. Perhaps the Heritage Council does not have powers to prevent such actions. If that is so I would urge the Government to examine the powers of the Heritage Council to determine whether it has adequate powers or whether amendments should be made to the legislation to tighten up the powers of the Heritage Council so that it can extend adequate protection.

A Heritage Council with a board of fine people is useless if it is unable to prevent something from being destroyed right before its eyes. Does the Heritage Council have legal powers? Does it call on the Attorney General to act? Does it call on the police to act? Obviously the Heritage Council does not have a police force, so how does it act implicitly to protect heritage sites? In some people's eyes the bulldozing of such a cemetery might be a minor
Page 5638
matter, but it is an outrage to those whose relatives were members of pioneering families to find on visiting the cemetery that it no longer exists. The legislation provides for a strong Heritage Council, but I urge the Government to clearly spell out the council's powers of enforcement so that a protection order can be enforced rapidly. It is no good if enforcement powers take six months to be implemented. Within that period of time a powerful developer could beat a Heritage Council order by simply bulldozing the site. That would be a foregone conclusion.

Even if the developer is found, the fine imposed might not be regarded as a heavy one given the money to be made from the development, particularly if the developer has been able to subdivide a heritage property and sell it. If the development project is in an expensive harbour-side area, a fine would be rendered insignificant compared to the profit to be made. Developers would be prepared to take the risk. One such person operated in the Leichhardt area. I used to drive past a group of old buildings that were subject to a heritage order. One day the buildings were bulldozed. Apparently the developer was prepared to pay the penalty because the profit was larger than the fine. Exploitation by such people should be controlled by the Heritage Council. Call to Australia supports the bill.

[Debate interrupted.]


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) [4.54]: I wish to dissociate the Government and myself from, and to deplore, references made by the Hon. Franca Arena to two persons in this House today during the debate on a reference to the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. Whilst I have no doubt about the integrity of the motives of the Hon. Franca Arena, I believe she has committed a serious error. As members will be aware, a royal commission is in existence and it is very dangerous for individual members of this Parliament to usurp its functions. Members of Parliament do not possess the evidence or the information which the royal commission has acquired. The risk is high that unjustified damage may be done to the reputation of possibly completely innocent people by members of Parliament following the course of action taken today by the Hon. Franca Arena.

It is known around the House that today some consideration was given by various members of this House to the possibility of moving a motion to expunge from Hansard a reference to the two individuals named by the Hon. Franca Arena. However, better judgment has prevailed and I understand that no attempt will be made to move such a motion. Advice has been received from the Solicitor General that any move to expunge the references in Hansard to the two individuals named would have had little practical effect. I am advised that excising names from the Hansard would not preclude their publication, as the media are entitled to report what is said in Parliament, rather than what is published in Hansard. However, I am advised, and I say this for the benefit of the media, that the suppression order issued by the Wood royal commission in relation to one of the persons named would be likely to continue to have effect, despite the comments of the Hon. Franca Arena to the House this afternoon.

It is wise not to proceed with a motion to expunge references from Hansard because it would be a very dangerous precedent to suppress the reporting of proceedings in Parliament. It is necessary to maintain the confidence of the public. The suppression of the statements of the Hon. Franca Arena to the House today would create an entirely wrong perception that other members of the Parliament were protecting people who occupied powerful or privileged positions in our community. All honourable members would agree, even those who were considering a motion to expunge the reference from Hansard, that that was certainly not the motive behind the consideration they were giving to this matter.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.57]: Not only is it important to maintain public confidence in the Parliament, but it is important to maintain public confidence in the royal commission. People must be able, with confidence, to come to the royal commission knowing that they can give evidence before the royal commission, and that the information will be protected by the orders of the royal commission. If the public believes that members of Parliament can avoid that protection by the privilege of the House, that public confidence is not being sustained. It is therefore now incumbent upon the Government to indicate what action will be taken by the Government to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the orders made by the royal commission.

It is not sufficient for the Leader of the Government, who is now the Acting Premier designate, to dissociate the Government from the reference to these two names. It is incumbent upon the Government to dissociate itself also from the person who named the names. It is incumbent upon the Government to take action to dissociate itself from that person, if the Government wishes to protect its integrity at all. The Government must also indicate clearly to this House and to the royal commission, and state unequivocally to the community, that the community can, with confidence, act and rely upon the orders and the directions of the royal commission, and that on no
Page 5639
account will the Government tolerate in any way, shape or form any undermining of the authority of the royal commission.

The person who made the statements in this House is a member of the Government. The Government has an obligation to protect the integrity of the royal commission. It is also incumbent upon the Government to protect the role, authority and integrity of the Parliament. It is not sufficient for the Acting Premier designate to stand in this House and in a manner reminiscent of Pontius Pilate say, "I regret, the Government regrets, and I and the Government disassociate ourselves from these statements." It is incumbent upon the Government and upon the Acting Premier designate to act positively in regard to what has happened in this House. It is incumbent upon the Acting Premier designate to indicate both the leadership he intends to show to the people of New South Wales and the Government's intentions about this member, who has clearly undermined the authority of the royal commission and has brought into grave doubt the integrity of the royal commission and the Parliament.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.00]: Call to Australia's response to the ministerial statement is that any suppression order issued by a royal commissioner, in this case Justice Wood of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, must be observed by the community, by the media and particularly by members of Parliament. I live in the Illawarra, where rumours have abounded about W1 for some time. Any honourable member of this House could have thrown that name up in debate, but suppression order, which should be observed by members of Parliament, has been respected. However, what has happened highlights the need for my motion to be passed so that the royal commission has the powers to investigate paedophilia networks and so that there is no temptation or pressure placed on members who feel they have no option but to raise names in this House.

I believe that the Hon. Franca Arena has been experiencing great frustrations which have built up to her contribution today during the debate. She felt she had no option but to take that action. It highlights the need for Parliament to ensure correct procedures are in place to conduct the investigations so that members do not feel under any obligation to act on their own behalf. Call to Australia acknowledges what the Minister has said and appreciates the position of the Governor.


[Debate resumed.]

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) [5.02]: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate and commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.05]: By leave, I move Greens amendments 1 and 3 as circulated in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1, line 19, proposed section 8(2)(a).

Omit "six". Insert instead "eight".

No. 3 Page 4, Schedule 1, lines 15-29, proposed section 8(2)(a) and (b).

Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(vii) a person appointed from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, and

(viii) a person appointed from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales in consultation with the National Parks Association of N.S.W. Incorporated, and

(b) four are to be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, possess suitable qualifications, knowledge and skills relating to any of the following areas:

(i) the building, development and property industries,

(ii) the conservation of the environmental heritage,

(iii) local government,

(iv) moveable heritage,

(v) the property rights of citizens,

(vi) rural interests.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.06]: The Opposition does not support the amendments moved by the Green party. I have listened carefully to the arguments about whether there will be sufficient skills to create a focus for Aboriginal heritage and conservation, and also for natural heritage, about which the Hon. R. S. L. Jones expressed concerned. The inclusion of the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service as one of three Government members highlights the fact that much natural heritage is included in our national parks. It is obvious from the mission statement of the National Parks and Wildlife Service that the Director-General has a strong intention to seek the preservation of natural heritage. I have also listened to the arguments about Aboriginal heritage and I have looked back through the work of the Heritage Council over the last few years. Many projects have dealt with Aboriginal heritage. I offer the following suggestion to overcome the impasse that might be created if the Government is not prepared to accept the proposed amendment at this time.

Page 5640

For many years the Heritage Council has had subcommittees called panels composed of council members and other experts. Those panels have included, for example, a church property advisory panel, an archaeological advisory panel and a fire advisory panel. It might be appropriate for the Heritage Council to broaden the range of panels to include one with a focus on Aboriginal heritage. I offer that suggestion to the Government as a possible step forward, given particularly that it is seeking those who can offer a skill, particularly in Aboriginal heritage. There is a case for such inclusion. As an initial step, perhaps an advisory panel could be established to take up some of the concerns expressed by honourable members. However, the work of the Heritage Council per se should be examined. Much of its work is reactive, in commenting on buildings to be demolished or on restoration work, and its pro-active work is in providing for and funding projects. As the first step forward the Government might be interested in expanding its advisory panels to address some of the concerns of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. I. Cohen.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.09]: It is demeaning and degrading to give Aboriginal heritage an also-ran ranking, equating it with corporate promotion and movable heritage. The Minister and his advisers are more concerned with European heritage than they are with Aboriginal heritage. After 208 years of colonisation it is time that Australia acknowledged Aboriginal heritage. Surely a heritage of 50,000 and possibly 100,000 years has some value and should be regarded at least the equal of European heritage. It is paternalistic of the Minister to refer to Aboriginal heritage with a small "a" and not a capital "A". The Aboriginal community will be offended by that gesture.

Most of the six people who will be appointed to the Heritage Council have an interest in European architecture - for example, representatives of the Heritage Council, the National Trust of Australia and the Royal Historical Society of Australia. I do not demean European heritage; it is important to Australia. Archeological digs are undertaken on 140-year-old sites, for heavens sake! However, it is demeaning for Aboriginal people of this State and their many tribes - or nations, as they prefer to be called - to be listed only among those who will be ministerial appointees to the council. Aborigines should have a place on the Heritage Council and should be elevated to a status equal to that enjoyed by those espousing knowledge of European heritage. The Minister and his advisers have seriously erred by demeaning Aboriginal people in this manner by listing them among such references as corporate promotions, property rights of citizens, movable heritage and local government. It is offensive that the Government will not include Aboriginal heritage representatives amongst European heritage representatives.

Clearly the Minister also has no interest in natural heritage. On many occasions proponents of natural heritage have asked the Heritage Council to act in problem areas, but it has done nothing. The purpose of these amendments is to try to get the council to do something with Aboriginal and natural heritage. The council is concerned only with city-based European buildings, thus ignoring 90 per cent of the State. It is concerned only with 10 per cent of the State: the city of Sydney, and maybe Wollongong and Newcastle if those places are lucky. It ignores Aboriginal and natural heritage throughout the State. I condemn the Minister for not listening to the Greens, to me and to others who have made representations in this regard. It is absolutely outrageous that he has demeaned the Aboriginal community by putting it amongst the also-rans.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [5.13]: Parliamentary Counsel used the small "a" because the original 1977 Act refers to Aboriginal heritage and used the word "Aboriginal" in a number of places with a small letter, which was common practice many years ago. The Government is happy to consider this and indeed a number of other pieces of legislation. Certainly it is far from the truth to suggest there was an intention to offend Aboriginal people by using the small letter. It occurs in two places in the bill precisely because it is a bill that amends only portions of the Act. While it would be attractive to include every group with a serious interest in heritage in this process, there must be a limit. It must be remembered that over the last few years approximately 500 nominations were received under the heritage process, the majority coming from the built environment. From memory, only one nomination concerned Aboriginal heritage and a small number concerned natural heritage. The National Parks and Wildlife Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Service conveniently deal with those areas. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, there is no intention not to care for natural and Aboriginal heritage. This issue deals with the Heritage Act and the Government is trying to represent on the Heritage Council those bodies that will have an involvement daily. For those reasons, the Government does not support the Green amendment.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.15]: I am concerned that the Government is content to live in the past. I remind the Government that we are in the mid-1990s. One would have thought that approaching the Olympics and the new millennium Aboriginal people would be given the sort of respect -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Mid-1990s going on mid-1950s.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Something like that. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe said that we are ably served by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Many times that body has been hamstrung by the government of the day of either persuasion. It is extremely important that community groups have adequate representation on such bodies. It is not merely a matter of one of many hundreds; the Nature Conservation Council and the National Parks Association are bodies that for many years have carried the flag of conservation issues in a responsible manner. Those bodies have wisdom in
Page 5641
such issues and should be listened to. It is reprehensible to think that all responsibility is abrogated to the government of the day. With regard to Aboriginal representation on representative bodies, I was disgusted to learn that there have not been many issues that involved Aboriginal people.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They put them on subcommittees.

The Hon. I. COHEN: No, they have been bulldozed. We do not hear about it. I have personally been present when Aboriginal heritage has been bulldozed. The Iron Gates development is a recent example, as well as many other State forest areas. Some years ago a significant area of south Pigeon House Mountain underwent massive clearing. This is the type of heritage for which Australia will become known in the next century. Australia does not have the buildings, the age or the antiquity of many other areas of the world, such as Asia or Europe. Australia has significant natural and indigenous cultural heritage on a world scale. The failure to include these representatives on the Heritage Council is reprehensible and a backward step by the Government, which claims to be a green government.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.18]: To those in the community who believe in reconciliation with indigenous people of Australia, those who do not believe in paternalism and those who do not believe in Pauline Hanson, as I am sure some honourable members in this Chamber do, I apologise that tonight it was not possible to have them accredited with importance the equal of others on the Heritage Council; that they were left at level three. Maybe at some future point an enlightened government and Minister will accept that Aboriginal heritage is equally as important as European heritage.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Tellers,
Mr Jones Mr Cohen
Ms Kirkby Mr Corbett

Mr Bull Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Moppett
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Mrs Chadwick Mr Obeid
Mr Dyer Mr Primrose
Mr Egan Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mr Shaw
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Mrs Isaksen Ms Staunton
Mr Jobling Mr Vaughan
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mr Gallacher
Mr Lynn Mrs Symonds

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.27]: I move Green amendment 2 as circulated:

No. 2 Page 4, Schedule 1, lines 1-3, proposed section 8(2)(a)(iii).

Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(iii) a person appointed from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the History Council of New South Wales in consultation with the Royal Australian Historical Society, and

The History Council of New South Wales is relevant to heritage groups in New South Wales. The peak historical group is an umbrella for many organisations and, therefore, it is appropriate that it be represented on the Heritage Council.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.28]: The Opposition does not support the amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. In this day and age it seems that everyone is in favour of declaring his or her interests. I am a member of the History Council of New South Wales, which was established only last year. The History Council may be referred to as a peak group. Because the word "peak" suggests that an organisation is broadly representative, people automatically think that such organisations have stature. The History Council is a fledgling group. Although it has been suggested that the council is a peak group for a number of organisations, I am unaware of the extent of its membership. As a member of the History Council I am entitled to receive notices of meetings and so on.

Recently I received a notice for the annual meeting; I recall receiving also a notice for the annual meeting last year. The council is in a state of flux in terms of its considerable ongoing work. Its original president died recently, and a new president has just been appointed. I am sure that at some stage in the near future the History Council will play an important role. It is only a question of time. The History Council needs time within which to establish its credentials. In the interim the Royal Australian Historical Society will remain the peak body. That society is well established. The Opposition does not support the amendment.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [5.30]: The Government does not support the amendment for the reasons advanced by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. As I said in debate on the second reading of the bill, the History Council is a little less than 12 months old. If it had been older and were the peak body, it might well have been the most suitable choice to have representation. Given the well-established nature of the Royal Australian Historical Society, the importance of its non-metropolitan network, the fact that it is doing something about conservation in country areas and the fact that the History Council is so new, the Government remains convinced that the Royal Australian Historical Society should remain the peak body.

Page 5642

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.31]: I support the amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. There are valid reasons for so doing.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.32]: In view of the reaction of both major parties to other amendments that I have moved I do not propose to move the remainder of my amendments as circulated.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.


Bill received and read a first time.


The Hon. Patricia Staunton, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Review of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994", dated September 1996.

Ordered to be printed.


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) [5.35]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.35]: I bring to the attention of the House serious problems with licences issued by the Environment Protection Authority for logging on steep slopes in New South Wales. State Forests of New South Wales, in conducting logging operations, must apply to be licensed by the Environment Protection Authority under section 17D of the Pollution Control Act 1970 to pollute waters. That has been the case since 1992. This provision was put in place following investigations into erosion at Oakes State Forest on the mid-north coast of New South Wales. The Environment Protection Authority issues five licences according to regions - north, south, central, west and softwoods. Each are identical, apart from softwoods, which requires an extra condition relating to logging near Blowering Dam. The licences are issued for a period of 12 months - from 8 August in one year to 7 August in the next year. The licences use an equation known as the universal soil loss equation, or USLE to calculate the water pollution hazard rating of a compartment. The proportion of dispersible soil is also estimated. The following results determine the conditions that will apply:

USLE considers 6 factors to estimate soil loss: rainfall erosivity (R); soil erodibility (K); slope length (L); slope (S); support practice (P); and cover factor (C). A number of these factors cannot be varied, or a standard is used for the purposes of comparison. The important factors as far as manipulation of the equation is concerned are soil erodibility (K), and cover factor (C). A number of methods are used to estimate K and to determine whether soils are dispersible.

These determinations are conducted by officers from State Forests of New South Wales, or officers from the Department of Land and Water Conservation seconded to State Forests of New South Wales, and are included in harvesting plans. Serious concerns have been raised by community groups and scientists about the way in which these determinations have been carried out. For example, in the harvesting plans for four consecutive compartments in Murrah and Mumbulla State forests on the far south coast it was reported that the soils had zero dispersion, despite survey work carried out by the Department of Water and Land Conservation which showed otherwise. Of 22 samples in similar soils only one had a dispersion of zero, with most samples between 20 per cent and 40 per cent.

In that case the South East Forests Conservation Council wrote to the Director-General of the Environment Protection Authority, who replied that the determinations had been carried out in accordance with the procedures, which only demonstrated how flawed those procedures were. Furthermore, the licences enabled State Forests of New South Wales to use a compartment average - called the C factor - to estimate how fast the ground cover would regenerate. It relied on only one soil sample, or a few soil samples for large areas, rather than assessing the risk of erosion and degradation on sites most at risk within a compartment, such as steep slopes. This level of assessment was specifically criticised by Justice Cohen of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Van Son v Forestry Commission of New South Wales on 3 February 1995.

The Environment Protection Authority, in reviewing licence conditions, has a policy of negotiating only with the licensee, which is State Forests of New South Wales. Perhaps as a result of the sort of concerns to which I have referred the Environment Protection Authority, in negotiating new licences for this year - those now in force - should consult with the Department of Land and Water Conservation as well as scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Those organisations, as well as addressing technical matters, impressed upon the Environment Protection Authority the need to ensure transparency of process in licensing procedures - an expression which derives from Australia's obligations under agenda 21. Although the USLE methodology is very limited, not having been validated on slopes above 15 degrees, it is being
Page 5643
used for slopes up to 30 degrees. Following discussions with the Environment Protection Authority it was the understanding of all concerned with the proper management of our forests, based on commitments given to stakeholders, that the flaws in the previous licences would be rectified.

Imagine the surprise when this year's licences were issued with virtually the same flaws. The Environment Protection Authority response was that significant changes regarding soil testing and resulting conditions could not be made because the stakeholders could not agree. The State Government was the only organisation that resisted these efforts. I understand that the efforts of officers within the EPA and the Department of Land and Water Conservation were quashed at the executive level of the EPA. The Minister for the Environment must take immediate action to require the EPA to investigate the licences. Only one month after the introduction of the new licences, the EPA said that they were being reviewed because of major flaws to control pollution. As the EPA can amend conditions during the terms of a licence period, the licences should be tightened. There are major problems associated with the technical theory and administration of licences. [Time expired.]


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK [5.40]: I express my concern about aspects of the $30 million-plus proposal of Sydney City Council to close Haig and Boomerang Streets and to create a new road by the extension of Yurong Street which will result in the destruction of the Fragrance Garden and the closure of the Phillip Park Recreation Centre. These plans were first revealed on 25 September in the Sydney Morning Herald. I am equally concerned and object strongly to the secrecy surrounding aspects of the proposal which have made it difficult for all involved people to prepare sensible and detailed submissions in a very limited time frame. It is also difficult to marry this proposal with other proposals being examined by the city and its residents. For example, no-one knows how this project will fit in with the Finger Wharf proposal or the eastern distributor; quite frankly, I do not know. First, I declare my interest: I am a part-time resident of Park Lane Tower, which, according to proponents such as Mayor Sartor, make me an elitist NIMBY. Second, for the last year I have been a regular user of the excellent Phillip Park Recreation Centre, which, in turn, I understand makes me an urban socialist activist.

I accept neither of those descriptions. I am well placed, given that I know both of these areas very well, to understand why residents of the Park Lane Tower and Woolloomooloo residents who use and need that community centre are concerned about this proposal, are fearful of the consequences, and are angry about the hidden agenda that we suspect explains the secrecy of aspects of the scheme. The proposal will close Haig and Boomerang Streets, replace it with a new and extended Yurong Street, create a square around St Marys Cathedral, and remove the existing bowling club. Most people on the surface would think that this is not a bad concept. But the proposal provides that residents with gain, in the park, a multistorey leisure centre, an amphitheatre, and basketball courts. Page 2 of the draft management plan states that the "need to reclaim 56% of the park currently occupied by roads is fundamental". I would agree.

The road closure proposal represents a modest 25.7 per cent reduction and cannot be the reason for a $30 million proposal, especially as the new three-lane road will mean the loss of the Fragrance Garden and run virtually up the boundary of Park Lane Tower apartments. It will also isolate the Phillip Park Recreational Centre and expose it to a three-lane road carrying more than 600 cars per hour, thereby making it a prime target for redevelopment by Mayor Sartor. Mayor Sartor stated, "Cook and Phillip Parks are Sydney's forgotten parks . . . currently there is only 15% green space in the Parkland area - the amalgamation boosts the parkland area from 2.6 hectares to 4.3 hectares - an increase of about 60%." So says the management plan, à la Mayor Sartor, but this is a piece of absolute sophistry.

Analysis of the meagre details available suggests that areas occupied by lawns and trees will actually be reduced from 60.2 per cent to 36.2 per cent. The area occupied by buildings will increase from 7.7 per cent to 14.5 per cent. Of the balance, 32.5 per cent will be paved and 10.4 per cent will be water ponds - so much for this great increase in green open space. My idea of a park, and what represents green space, is a little different from that of Sydney City Council and Mayor Sartor. I am sure that ratepayers are meant to be super grateful that a leisure and aquatic centre are proposed - but I am not grateful. An examination of the pretty concept reproduced in the Sydney Morning Herald implies that the area is level - it is not - and that the proposed centre does not impinge on the landscape.

The proposed centre will be somewhere between 12 and 15 metres high and will totally dominate the landscape. If I had any involvement with the Australian Museum I would be upset too, because it will lose its view of the park. We are told that the centre will be great for the area. Well, it may be good for some central business district workers but as a commercial venture I would like to know if it will be accessible to the residents of Woolloomooloo. Part of the area is devoted to new basketball courts. Anybody who knows Phillip Park Recreation Centre will know beyond doubt that the courts are in need of an upgrade; so why not upgrade them? Before users get too exited about new courts, remember that commercially operated courts in Sydney charge approximately $25 per hour, whereas Phillip Park charges $5 per hour. [Time expired.]

Page 5644

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [5.45]: I wish to raise an important issue about a large multinational company seeking to get around the intent of recent Government legislation. The Government recently amended the Crimes Act to abolish the notorious watching and besetting clauses. This then allowed unions to undertake peaceful picketing without the threat of arrest. However, a recent event has once again threatened the rights of workers to undertake peaceful protests. The National Union of Workers has been attempting to negotiate with Coles distribution management for a new enterprise agreement at its Goulburn and Gosford distribution centres for a number of months. Coles competitors have already reached agreement with the National Union of Workers for wage increases. The National Union of Workers is claiming a 10 per cent wage increase over an 18-month period.

No agreement has been reached due to the refusal of Coles management to reach a reasonable agreement. This is all in the context of the Chief Executive of Coles Myer, Peter Bartels, recently awarding himself a $1.2 million pay increase. His salary is now $2.87 million a year, or $55,000 per week. The negotiations between the union and Coles broke down on 21 October. As a result, the workers withdrew their labour and established peaceful picket lines at Goulburn and Gosford. The workers returned to work three days later. Despite the fact that the picketing was peaceful, did not obstruct, and was not illegal, Coles has issued common law writs against the National Union of Workers, the President of the Union, Faye Campbell, and two union officials, Marissa Bernardi and David Mehan. The common law writs claim undisclosed damages as a result of the members of the union using their democratic right to withdraw their labour and peacefully picket. Recently the New South Wales Government repealed the oppressive watching and besetting section of the Crimes Act, which effectively prohibited peaceful picketing in New South Wales.

Despite the repeal of that section, Coles is attempting to use the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court to achieve the same result and prevent trade unionists exercising their democratic rights. Those of us who are students of British and Australian history recognise that the right to take industrial action, without incurring common law damages, was a very hard-won right achieved first in Britain in the Taff Vale decision, which flowed through to Australia. Coles has recently given massive payouts to senior executives and board members instead of negotiating a reasonable wage settlement with the National Union of Workers, and is attempting to smash the union through expensive legal action. The South Coast Labour Council strongly opposes Coles and fully supports the National Union of Workers, their officials and their members who are in dispute with Coles. The combined Trade Union movement on the south coast is gravely concerned with this attempt by Coles to smash the trade unions and to destroy all democratic rights of citizens.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [5.50]: As the Liberal parliamentary patron for the State seat of Parramatta I should like to raise two important issues about the proposed closure of the Family Planning Clinic at Parramatta. This clinic provides a wide range of important services to women of western Sydney. The most important services provided are breast screening, pap smears and pelvic examinations. That site is a very poor choice for closure. Parramatta is the public transport hub of a large area of western Sydney, an area that has a far greater need for women's health services than most other parts of Sydney. I am advised that the area has only three general practitioners for every 1,000 people, compared with six in the eastern region and five in the northern region. Of even greater concern is the number of female doctors. Parramatta has a high concentration of people of non-English speaking backgrounds. Because of cultural or religious constraints, many women of non-English speaking background can see only women doctors.

I am also advised that with the closure of this clinic the great majority of these women will now be referred to sexual health clinics, which are totally inappropriate for many women of any background. The region is underserved by medical services. It is a high-need area because of socioeconomic and cultural factors. Yet the clinic is to be closed. Patricia Dorian, the Chief Executive of Family Planning New South Wales, has informed me that Chatswood clinic will be retained while Parramatta will close, because the former does far more training, and that as a result of a review of services in this field family planning clinics are moving more towards training. I am not surprised that more training is carried out at the Chatswood clinic, because the Chatswood area has many more doctors. This decision only reinforces and increases the inadequacies in health services experienced by the people of western Sydney.

The second issue I wish to raise is the distressing politicisation of this matter. Much of the attendant publicity has claimed that the clinic had to close because of the cut of 5 per cent over two years to the budget of the family planning association by the Federal Government. In fact, Patricia Dorian has informed me that such cuts have been part of Federal Government policy for as long as she has been Chief Executive of Family Planning New South Wales - and she has held that position for three years, 2½ of which have been under a Federal Labor Government. In her first year the government
Page 5645
supplementation was 0.08 per cent in a period when the inflation rate was much higher. In real terms this was a substantial cut. The end result of declining funding over a number of years has been a growing debt by the family planning association, which I am informed is now some $700,000.

The Parramatta building is different from many family planning association clinic premises; it is owned by the Family Planning Association. The sale of the building will solve the debt problem. It is difficult not to suspect that this consideration was at least part of the rationale of the Family Planning Association in deciding to close the Parramatta clinic, in spite of it being a needy area. While I can appreciate the problems faced by the Family Planning Association, I am very angry at the politicisation of this issue, which is an important one for all those who care about western Sydney.

I refer especially to material being circulated by an organisation calling itself the save FPA committee. It recommends that people who object to the closure contact their member of Parliament. It gives the names of two Federal MPs - Ross Cameron and Laurie Ferguson - one Labor and one Liberal, and four State MPs, all Labor, although some Liberal MPs would be concerned about this issue.

I am concerned about women being referred to a sexual diseases clinic for gynaecological services. I am concerned also about the loss of Pap smear, breast screening and other important services for women. I am grateful to concerned local citizens for raising these issues, particularly Eric and Gabrielle Williams, who are aware that the loss of this clinic represents a further erosion of health services for the people of western Sydney. I call upon Family Planning New South Wales to consider alternative ways of meeting its budgetary needs rather than closing a service in a highly accessible high-need area. The decision is not that of the Federal Government; it is that of the FPA.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [5.54]: This evening I wish to refer to a controversial article that appeared in the Northern Star - a newspaper published in Lismore - on 26 October referring to the Lismore Base Hospital. The article impugned some claims made by my colleague the honourable member for North Shore, Mrs Jillian Skinner. My main concern in raising the matter is that all New South Wales hospitals should have the facilities, resources and funding to provide the community with optimum health care services. Unfortunately, under the current funding crisis that is crippling hospitals statewide, they do not. Ministerial mismanagement of the State's health budget, which was cut by $80 million this financial year, has meant that hospitals such as Lismore Base are fighting to maintain existing services. I became concerned when I received an extract from minutes of a Lismore medical staff council meeting that identified a problem relating to a patient's post-operative management. By leave, the extract of minutes will be incorporated in Hansard.

______

P Stanley then commented that previous medical superintendent Rod Rogers had advanced carcinoma of the bowel (Paul Earner said after the meeting that he would be writing to him personally and would mention the support from the medical staff council).

John Graham brought up a problem he had had recently with a patient's post operative management. Due to his particular surgical post operative needs, he required the definite back up of an intensive care unit/high dependency unit. Recently he was told he could do a carotid TEA which went ahead but then 9pm that day post operatively, he was telephoned by the nursing staff to be told that the area in which the patient was located could not manage his care. In view of this, he suggested that he is thinking about not doing any further surgery until the high dependency unit situation is fully sorted out. He also stated that the high dependency unit in C7 had been actively downgraded and, due to cost cutting, some of the staff in ICU were not even fully qualified.

Rob Moss replied to this by saying there were two main factors, the first, that staffing certainly needs to increase during busy times such as winter and whether this entails short term contracts or no leave within this time needs to be addressed. Secondly, the space issue, initially in the planning phase, there were to be 12 high dependency unit beds in A5, but due to downgrading of this initial plan, there has been an actual overall loss of acute beds as the money was placed elsewhere. He said the options at this stage from his point of view, were to have a long term, ICU/high dependency unit with coronary care transferred elsewhere such as A5. In the short term he suggested that C8 develop some telemetry beds to help the early decanting of patients out of coronary care, opening this up for intensive care use.

P Stanley said, in comment to John Graham's initial problem, that he had discussed this was Sue Ellis and in hindsight, she had realised that a special should have been called in for that particular patient.

John Graham made the comment that he was not keen on operating until this problem was definitely addressed. Normally if the patient is cancelled prior to theatre due to unavailability of beds, he accepts this, but to go through with the patient being accepted, operated on and then the decision being made that the patient was unsuitable for a ward bed was just completely unacceptable.

P Cook said this matter should be put through to EMAG for further discussion.

The meeting was closed at 7.48pm

______

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: According to the minutes, it was not until after the operation that Dr John Graham was advised by nursing staff that "the area in which the patient was located could not manage his care". The minutes state:

In view of this, he [John Graham] suggested that he is thinking about not doing any further surgery until the high dependency unit situation is fully sorted out.

He also stated that the high dependency unit in C7 had been actively downgraded and, due to cost cutting, some of the staff in ICU were not even fully qualified.

Page 5646

Rob Moss [head of intensive care at Lismore Base Hospital] replied to this by saying there were two main factors, the first, that staffing certainly needs to be increased during busy times such as winter and whether this entails short term contracts or no leave within this period needs to be addressed. Secondly, the space issue, initially in the planning phase, there were to be 12 high dependency unit beds in A5, but due to downgrading of this initial plan, there has been an actual overall loss of acute beds as the money was placed elsewhere.

The minutes conclude:

John Graham made the comment that he was not keen on operating until this problem was definitely addressed. Normally if the patient is cancelled prior to theatre due to unavailability of beds, he accepts this, but to go through

with the patient being accepted, operated on and then the decision being made that the patient was unsuitable for a ward was just completely unacceptable.

My primary concern is to support patients and staff who battle with funding shortfalls. The minutes were made available to me on this occasion because doctors in the area were clearly concerned with the effect that lack of funding was having on their capacity to meet the needs of patients.

Motion agreed to.