Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 17 September 1997, Corrected Copy)

The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 3.30 p.m. to elect a member of the Legislative Council in the place of the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton, resigned.

The Clerk of the Parliaments read the message from the Governor convening the joint sitting.

The PRESIDENT: I am now prepared to receive proposals with regard to an eligible person to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton.

Mr CARR: Anthony Bernard Kelly, is an eligible person to fill the vacant seat of the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton in the Legislative Council, for which purpose this joint sitting was convened. I propose that Anthony Bernard Kelly be elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton. I indicate to the joint sitting that if Anthony Bernard Kelly were a member of the Legislative Council he would not be disqualified from sitting or voting as such a member, and that he is a member of the Australian Labor Party. He replaces the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton, who was publicly recognised by the Australian Labor Party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and who publicly represented herself to be such a candidate at the time of her election at the sixth periodic Council election, held on 25 March 1995. I further indicate that the person being proposed would be willing to hold the vacant place if chosen.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I second the nomination.

The PRESIDENT: Does any other member desire to propose any other eligible person to fill the vacancy? As only one eligible person has been proposed and seconded, I hereby declare that Anthony Bernard Kelly is elected a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat vacated by the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton. I declare the joint sitting closed.


Page 26
The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 3.35 p.m. to elect a senator in the place of Senator Bruce Kenneth Childs, resigned.

Mr CARR: Mr Clerk, I move:

That the Honourable Max Frederick Willis, President of the Legislative Council, do act as President of the joint sitting of the two Houses of the Legislature for the election of a senator in place of Senator Bruce Kenneth Childs, resigned, and that in the event of his absence the Honourable John Henry Murray, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, act in that capacity.

Mr COLLINS: I second the motion.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. Max Frederick Willis took the chair.

Mr CARR: I present proposed rules for the regulation of the proceedings at the joint sitting, which have been printed and circulated. I move:

That the proposed rules, as printed and circulated, be now adopted.

Mr COLLINS: I second the motion.

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I am now prepared to receive nominations with regard to a person to fill the vacant place in the Senate caused by the resignation of Senator Bruce Kenneth Childs.

Mr CARR: I propose George Campbell, Esq., to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Bruce Kenneth Childs,
and I announce that the candidate is willing to hold the vacant place if chosen. I further announce that he is a member of the Australian Labor Party, the same political party as that of which the said Senator was, at the time when he was chosen by the people of the State, publicly recognised by that party to be an endorsed candidate and as that of which the said Senator, at that time, publicly represented himself to be an endorsed candidate.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I second the proposal.

The PRESIDENT: Does any member desire to propose any other person to fill the vacancy? There being no other nomination, the question is, That George Campbell, Esq., be chosen to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Bruce Kenneth Childs.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT: I declare that George Campbell, Esq., has been chosen to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Bruce Kenneth Childs.

Mr CARR: I move:

That the President be requested forthwith to inform His Excellency the Governor that George Campbell, Esq., has been chosen to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Bruce Kenneth Childs.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I second the motion.

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I now declare the joint sitting closed.


Page 27

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

The President offered the Prayer.

Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill
Co-operatives Amendment Bill
Port Kembla Development (Special Provisions) Bill
State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill
Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill
Totalizator Agency Board Privatisation Bill
Liquor and Registered Clubs Legislation Amendment Bill
Totalizator Bill
Trustee Companies Amendment Bill
Courts Legislation Amendment Bill
Crimes Amendment (Detention after Arrest) Bill
Guardianship Amendment Bill
Legal Aid Commission Amendment Bill
Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill
Retail Leases Amendment Bill
Trustee Companies Further Amendment Bill
Young Offenders Bill
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Australian Mutual Provident Society (Demutualisation and Reconstruction) Bill
Correctional Centres Amendment (Alternate Chairperson) Bill
District Court Amendment Bill
Gas Industry Restructuring Amendment (Customer Contracts) Bill
Investigative Bodies Legislation Amendment Bill
Local Government Amendment Bill
Sydney Market Authority (Dissolution) Bill
Water and Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill
Marine Parks Bill
Rural Fires Bill
Parliamentary Precincts Bill
Crown Lands and Irrigation Legislation Amendment (Transfer Restrictions) Bill
Drug Trafficking (Civil Proceedings) Amendment Bill
New South Wales Cancer Council Amendment Bill
Noxious Weeds Amendment Bill
Parliamentary Committees Enabling Amendment Bill
Passenger Transport Amendment Bill
Registered Clubs and Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill
Traffic Amendment (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Bill
Traffic and Crimes Amendment (Menacing and Predatory Driving) Bill
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Bill
Administrative Decisions Legislation Amendment Bill
Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Bill
City of Sydney Amendment Bill
Crimes Amendment (Assault of Police Officers) Bill
Environmental Planning and Assessment Legislation Amendment Bill
Fair Trading Legislation Amendment Bill
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Honourable Anthony Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of New South Wales and Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales:

A. M. Gleeson, Office of the Governor
Lieutenant-Governor Sydney 2000

The Honourable Anthony Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, consequent on the Governor of New South Wales, the Honourable Gordon Samuels, being absent from the State, he has this day assumed the administration of the Government of the State.

8 August 1997

I also report the following message from His Excellency the Governor:

Gordon Samuels Office of the Governor
Governor Sydney 2000

The Governor of the State of New South Wales, the Honourable Gordon Samuels, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that he re-assumed the administration of the Government of the State on 10 September 1997.

10 September 1997

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt from His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor of a communication notifying the resignation of the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton, and intimating that it had been accepted with effect from 2 September 1997. The Lieutenant-Governor advised also that the resignation had been acknowledged, and that the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton had been informed that the President of the Legislative Council had been notified of the resignation. I have acknowledged the Lieutenant-Governor’s communication and the resignation has been entered in the Register of Members of the Legislative Council.

Page 28
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor transmitting a copy of a dispatch from the President of the Senate of the Commonwealth of 10 September 1997 notifying that a vacancy had happened in the representation of the State of New South Wales in the Senate through the resignation of Senator Bruce Kenneth Childs on 10 September 1997.

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

Courts Legislation Amendment Bill
Crimes Amendment (Detention After Arrest) Bill
Guardianship Amendment Bill
Legal Aid Commission Amendment Bill
Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill
Retail Leases Amendment Bill
Trustee Companies Further Amendment Bill
Young Offenders Bill

Messages received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council’s amendments.

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Mr President

The Legislative Assembly desires to inform the Legislative Council that on this day it has agreed to the following resolution:

That the Joint Select Committee upon Injecting Rooms have leave to travel overseas to make visits of inspection.

Legislative Assembly John Murray
27 June 1997 Speaker

Honourable members will recall that on 27 June last this House passed a resolution giving leave for the Joint Select Committee into Safe Injecting Rooms to travel overseas which was in the following terms:

That, with the approval of the President and the Speaker, the Joint Select Committee upon Injecting Rooms have leave to travel overseas to make visits of inspection.

On 27 June 1997, in response to the Council’s message, the Legislative Assembly adopted a similar resolution but that resolution was later rescinded and another resolution adopted in the terms of the message I have just reported upon from the Legislative Assembly which omits the words "with the approval of the President and the Speaker". We have a situation where there is no agreement between the two Houses on the issue. Notwithstanding the resolution of the Legislative Council the Speaker gave approval for certain members of that committee to travel overseas, without seeking my joint approval. On 25 July 1997, I wrote to Mr Speaker indicating that in view of the resolution of the Legislative Council he had no authority to alone authorise a visit overseas by Legislative Council members of the joint committee and suggesting that any submission from the chair of the committee to travel overseas be jointly authorised.

I did not receive any response from Mr Speaker and it is my understanding that members of the committee did in fact travel overseas in August and September. Members should be aware that in terms of parliamentary practice a joint committee is in fact two committees, one from each House
Page 29
meeting and deliberating, and reporting jointly in accordance with the resolution agreed by both Houses. While there has been a tradition in this Parliament that joint committees are administered by and operate under the standing orders of the House in which the proposal for a joint committee is initiated, any administrative arrangement cannot be at variance with a resolution of either House. I regard it as an affront to this House that the joint committee was authorised to travel overseas without my approval in accordance with the resolution adopted by this House on 27 June 1997.

The PRESIDENT: I announce the death on 16 August 1997 of the Hon. Clive Healey, aged 78 years, a former Chairman of Committees and member of this House. On behalf of the House I have extended to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Council in the loss sustained. I ask members and officers to kindly stand as a mark of respect.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

The President tabled, pursuant to section 31AA(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1974, the following special reports:

Implementing the FOI Act - A snap-shot, dated July 1997 Alison Lewis & Lithgow Police, dated August 1997.

The President announced that pursuant to section 31AA(2) of the Act he had authorised that the reports be made public.

The President tabled, pursuant to section 103 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, the annual report of the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission for the year ended 30 June 1997.

Ordered to be printed.

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of a letter from the Auditor-General dated 29 August 1997 regarding the inquiry into the lease and development of the Sydney showground site as requested in the resolution passed by the House on 19 June 1996. The Auditor-General has advised that an amended discussion draft of the report has now been prepared and will shortly be issued for consultation before a formal draft report is forwarded to the Government by mid-September 1997, and he expects to present a report for tabling before the end of October 1997.

Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the standing orders and the resolution of the House in that behalf I nominate the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, the Hon. J. R. Johnson, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and the Hon. Ann Symonds to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees during the present session of the Parliament.

Bill read a first time.

The Hon. A. B. Manson, as Chairman, tabled Report No. 3 from the Printing Committee.

Ordered to be printed.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to resolution of the House, receipt of the report entitled "Caring for the Aged: an Interim Report of the Inquiry into Aged Care and Nursing Homes in New South Wales", dated June 1997.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to resolution of the House, receipt of the report entitled "A Report into Children of Imprisoned Parents", dated July 1997, together with relevant minutes of proceedings, transcripts of evidence and written submissions.

Page 30

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [11.20 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Ann Symonds.
The Clerk announced, pursuant to resolution of the House, receipt of the report entitled "Clinical Trials and Guardianship: Maximising the Safeguards", dated September 1997, together with relevant minutes of proceedings, transcripts of evidence and written submissions.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [11.21 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Ann Symonds.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to resolution of the House, receipt of the report entitled "Report on the Fisheries Management Amendment (Advisory Bodies) Act 1996", dated July 1997, together with relevant minutes of proceedings, transcripts of evidence and written submissions.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [11.22 a.m.]: As Deputy Chairman and Acting Chairman, I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to resolution of the House, receipt of the report entitled "STAYSAFE 37: Driver Licensing in New South Wales - First Entry into the Driver Licensing System", together with transcripts of evidence and submissions and documents received in evidence, dated June 1997.

Ordered to be printed.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to section 70A(1) of the Health Care Complaints Commission Act 1993, receipt of the following reports, together with transcripts of evidence and associated documentation:

Second Meeting on the Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission, dated August 1997
Localised Health Complaint Resolution Procedures, dated August 1997
Coopers & Lybrand: Management Review of the Health Care Complaints Commission, dated August 1997
Study Tour to Canada & the USA, dated June 1997

The Clerk announced, pursuant to section 14B of the Royal Commissions Act 1923, receipt of volumes IV to VI of the final report entitled "The Paedophile Inquiry", dated August 1997.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to section 12A(7) of the Coroners Act 1980, receipt of report entitled "Deaths in Custody - Police Operations for 1996".
Petition praying for the establishment of a royal commission to investigate the drug trade in Cabramatta, received from the Hon. J. F. Ryan.

Petition praying for total support for the family unit comprising a male and female united in marriage with or without children, the rights of parents to use appropriate discipline with their children in their home and choose the discipline to be used within their children’s school, and praying that the House take stronger action against excessive physical punishment of children, repeal the Education Reform Amendment (School Discipline) Act 1995 and reject any proposals to increase
Page 31
government control over families, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that a bill be passed to provide for a statewide referendum on legalising strictly and properly regulated voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, received from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby

The PRESIDENT: I intend to follow the procedure adopted last session when members seek the call for notices of motions, to allow only one general business notice of motion to be given by a member on each call from the Chair. This practice will not apply to Ministers or to members giving contingent notices of motion.

Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

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

That the following sessional orders be adopted:

(1) Prayers

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 10A be amended to read:

10A. Upon the President taking the Chair each day, if there be a Quorum present as provided by the 10th Standing Order, he shall offer the following Prayers:

"Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of our State and Australia.

Our Father, who art in Heaven: Hallowed by Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen."

(2) Sitting Days

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, this House meet for the despatch of business each week as follows:

Monday 11.00 a.m.
Tuesday 2.30 p.m.
Wednesday 11.00 a.m.
Thursday 11.00 a.m.
Friday 11.00 a.m.

(3) Questions

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

1. Questions are to commence at 4.00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and at 12 noon on Thursday and Friday.

2. If, at the time for interruption:

(a) a division is in progress, the division is to be completed and the result announced;

(b) the House is in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman is to leave the Chair and report progress,

and any business then under discussion, if not disposed of, is to be set down on the Notice Paper for a later hour of the sitting.

(4) Petitions

That, during the present Session, a copy of every Petition received by the House is to be referred by the Clerk to the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter which is the subject of the Petition.

(5) Cognate Bills

That, during the present Session:

1. Whenever a Minister intimates to the House that Bills specified by the Minister are cognate Bills:

(a) the Bills may be introduced on one Motion for leave and be presented and read a first time together;

(b) one Motion may be moved and one Question put in regard to each of the several stages for the passage of the Bills through the Council, but the Bills must be considered separately in Committee of the Whole.

2. When Bills sent from the Assembly are reported by the President as cognate Bills, the first reading and subsequent stages may be proceeded with in a similar manner.

(6) Right of Reply to Ministerial Statements

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

(a) the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of any party or group, where leadership of that party or group has been announced to the House; or

(b) a Member nominated by any Leader, may speak to a ministerial statement, not exceeding the time taken by the Minister in making the statement.

(7) Motion for Adjournment

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

1. Any Motion for adjournment to terminate a sitting:

(a) the Question is to be put not later than 30 minutes after the Motion has been moved or, when a Minister desires to speak or is then speaking, at the conclusion of the Minister’s remarks;

(b) any Member may speak for 5 minutes on matters not relevant to the Motion, but must not refer to matters which are not in order.

Page 32

2. Proceedings must be interrupted at 4.15 p.m. on Thursday and 3.45 p.m. on Friday to permit a Motion for adjournment to be moved to terminate the sitting if a Minister thinks fit.

3. If, at the time of interruption:

(a) a division is in progress, the division is to be completed and the result announced;

(b) the House is in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman must leave the Chair, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

4. When any business under discussion, if not disposed of, is interrupted under this Sessional Order, the debate is to stand adjourned and be made an Order of the Day for the next sitting day at the end of Government or General Business, as the case may be fixed for that day, but so as not to preclude the operation of Standing Order 67, unless a motion is moved without amendment or debate for the adjournment of the debate to a day to be stated.

(8) Divisions - Recording of Pairs

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Members paired on any division must be recorded by the tellers. The names of all Members paired must be recorded on the tellers’ lists and printed in the Minutes of the Proceedings and Hansard.

(9) Ministerial Reply to Adjournment Matters

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, a Minister may, before the House proceeds to the business of the day, make a statement in relation to any matter raised on the Adjournment at a previous sitting.

(10) Leadership of Parties and Groups

That, as soon as practicable after each periodic Council election and whenever changes occur the leaders of parties or groups with two or more Members in the House may announce the leadership of the parties or groups represented in the House.

(11) Questions on Notice

That, during the present Session and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the procedure in relation to Questions on Notice is varied, as follows:

1. Notices of Questions, signed by a Member, must be handed to one of the Clerks at the Table during the sitting of the House.

2. The Clerk is to publish in a Questions and Answers Paper, printed and circulated to Members, Notices of Questions in the order in which they are received.

3. The reply to a Question on Notice is to be delivered to the Clerk and is to be published in the Questions and Answers Paper.

4. Ministers must lodge answers to Questions on Notice within 35 calendar days after the question is first published.

5. If an answer to a Question on Notice is not received within 35 calendar days, the President is to inform the House on the next sitting day the details of any Question not answered. The relevant Minister must immediately explain to the House the reason for non-compliance.

6. If, after explanation in the House, the Minister has not submitted an answer within 3 sitting days, the President is to again inform the House, and the Minister will again be called to explain. This procedure is to continue until a written answer is submitted.

7. During any adjournment of the House, replies to Questions on Notice may be delivered to the Clerk.

8. A Questions and Answers Paper is to be printed and circulated on any prorogation of the House.

(12) Bill Passed - Message to the Assembly

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 191 be amended to read:

191. After the third reading the Bill is deemed to have passed the House and the Clerk is to certify its passage. The Bill is to be sent, with a Message signed by the President, to the Assembly for concurrence.

(13) Introduction of Public Bills

That, during the present Session notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders:

1. When any Bill, except a Bill sent from the Assembly, has been read a first time and ordered to be printed the second reading may be moved forthwith or made an Order of the Day for a later hour or for a future day. Immediately following the second reading speech by the mover, debate is to be adjourned until a future day which must be at least five calendar days ahead.

2. However, if a Minister declares a Bill to be an urgent Bill and copies have been circulated to Members, the Question "That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill" must be put forthwith, without amendment. If that Question is agreed to, the second reading debate and subsequent stages may proceed forthwith or at any time during any sitting of the House.

(14) Matters of Public Interest

1. A Member may give Notice of a Motion, for a day to be stated "That the following important matter of public interest be discussed forthwith (stating the matter to be discussed)".

2. On the day proposed for moving the Motion it is to be called on immediately before the House proceeds to the consideration of business set down on the Notice Paper for that day, except business taking precedence under Standing Order 55 (Matters of Privilege).

3. When the Motion has been moved, the Question is to be decided without amendment or debate except a statement by the mover and a statement by a Minister not exceeding 10 minutes each.

4. If the Question is agreed to, discussion of the matter may proceed for one and a half hours on the same or subsequent sitting days, except the reply of the mover.

5. The speech of:

(a) the Member moving the motion;

(b) the Minister first speaking;

(c) the Leader of the Opposition, or a person nominated by the Leader, first speaking when the Motion has been moved by a Member of the Government,

must not exceed 15 minutes each. The speech of any other Member or the proposer in reply must not exceed 10 minutes each.

6. When discussion of a matter of public interest is adjourned to a subsequent sitting day the Order of the Day for resumption is to take precedence of all other business on the Notice Paper for that sitting day, except business taking precedence under Standing Order 55 (Matters of Privilege).

Page 33

7. More than one Notice of Motion may be given for any one sitting day, although only one motion on a Matter of Public Interest may proceed on any one sitting day. The House will consider the question of urgency on the motions for which notice has been given in the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper.

8. A Notice of Motion for a Matter of Public Interest not reached on the day set down for consideration, will be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day, with precedence of all other Notices of Motions for Matters of Public Interest not specifically set down for that day.

9. The resumption of an adjourned discussion and one new matter may be dealt with on the same day.

10. Matters of Public Interest will only be considered on days on which Government Business has precedence.

(15) Routine of Business

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, the House is to proceed with its business each day in the following routine:

1. Formal Business under Standing Order 57.

2. Presentation of Petitions.

3. Notices of Motions.

4. Any proposal under Standing Order 13.
5. Ministerial Statements.

6. Ministerial replies to matters raised on the Adjournment.

7. Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper.

(16) Proposing of Questions on Amendments

That, during the present Session and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Standing Orders when any amendment is proposed in the House or Committee of the Whole, the Chair may put the question "That the amendment be agreed to".

(17) Committals

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 171 be amended to read:

171. After the second reading of a Bill, unless the Bill is referred to a Select or Standing Committee:

(a) the President may inquire of the House if leave is granted to proceed to the third reading of the Bill forthwith; or

(b) a motion may be made without amendment or debate "That the President do now leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Bill in detail" or a future day may be appointed on motion for consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole.

(18) Messages from Assembly Transmitting Bills

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

Whenever the President has several Messages from the Legislative Assembly to report transmitting Bills for concurrence, the President may inquire if leave is granted for procedural motions for the first reading, printing, suspension of Standing Orders, where applicable, and fixing the day for the second reading, to be dealt with on one motion without formalities.

(19) Precedence of Business

That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered:

1. Government Business is to take precedence of General Business on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and after 4.15 p.m. on Thursday each week.

2. General Business is to take precedence until 4.15 p.m. on Thursday each week.

(20) Precedence for Disallowance of Statutory Instruments

1. That, during the present Session and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a Notice of Motion to disallow:

(a) a Statutory Rule under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987; or

(b) any other Statutory Instrument or document made under the authority of any Act and which is subject to disallowance by either or both Houses of the Parliament,

is to be placed on the Notice Paper as Business of the House.

2. On the day proposed for moving the Motion the House will first decide on a Question proposed without amendment or debate "That the motion proceed forthwith".

3. If the Question is agreed to, the Motion will then proceed as Business of the House.

4. If the Question is not agreed to, the Motion will become a General Business Notice of Motion and will be set down on the Notice Paper of General Business for the next sitting day at the end of business already set down for that day.

5. The debate on any motion moved under paragraph (3) of this Sessional Order is to be conducted as follows:

(a) the Member moving the motion and the Minister first speaking may speak for not more than 15 minutes;

(b) any other Member and the mover in reply may speak for not more than 10 minutes;

(c) if the motion is not sooner disposed of, after a total time of one and a half hours debate, the President is to interrupt proceedings to allow the mover of the motion to speak in reply; and

(d) the President will then put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments.

(21) Unproclaimed Legislation

That the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations on the second sitting day of each month, table a list of all legislation that has not been proclaimed ninety calendar days after assent.

(22) Answers to Questions Without Notice

That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered, where Questions are put without notice by a Member and the Minister concerned refers the Question to the appropriate Minister in another place:

1. The Minister must provide the answer to the House within 35 calendar days after the Question was first asked.

2. If an answer to a Question without Notice is not received within 35 calendar days, the President is to inform the House on the next sitting day of the details of any Question not answered. The relevant Minister must immediately explain to the House the reason for non-compliance.

3. If, after explanation in the House, the Minister has not provided an answer within 3 sitting days, the

Page 34
President is to again inform the House and the Minister will again be called to explain. This procedure is to continue until an answer is provided.

4. During any adjournment of the House, replies to Questions without Notice may be delivered to the Clerk.

5. Answers to Questions without Notice delivered to the Clerk are to be printed and circulated on any prorogation of the House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I advise the House that the party that I and the Hon. Elaine Nile, MLC, have represented in the Legislative Council had its application for a change of name approved by the New South Wales State Electoral Commissioner on 26 August 1997. I draw the attention of members to a letter from the State Electoral Office of that date. I and the Hon. Elaine Nile will now represent in the Legislative Council the Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group), which was formerly called the Call to Australia (Fred Nile Group). I will continue as parliamentary leader of the party, the approved abbreviation for which is CDP Christian Party. The notification of that change of party name is signed by me, Reverend Fred Nile, and the Hon. Elaine Nile, and bears the date 17 September 1997.

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) [12.03 p.m.]: I move:

1. That the following Address of Condolence to Her Majesty the Queen and members of the royal family be adopted:

To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY -

We, the Members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, in Parliament assembled, on our own behalf and on behalf of the people of New South Wales express to Your Majesty and other members of the royal family, particularly Their Royal Highnesses Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales, our deepest sorrow and heartfelt sympathy at the tragic and untimely death of Diana, Princess of Wales on 31 August 1997.

2. That His Excellency the Governor be requested to forward the above Address to Her Majesty.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [12.04 p.m.]: I support the motion. My wife and I were fortunate to have the opportunity to meet Princess Diana, and that meeting will remain indelibly in our memories. Princess Diana was an exceptional young lady and an outstanding leader of our community. I believe it is appropriate to say that the level of sorrow expressed at her passing was far greater than anyone could have expected. The message to the community in that is significant. Clearly, during her short life she was regarded by all people of all ages as a compassionate person who could provide a high degree of leadership, particularly for the young, with regard to addressing the needs of emerging communities.

The Princess of Wales also had a significant impact upon women - a matter quickly drawn to my attention by my wife, among others. Women in our community were significantly influenced by her leadership. She was regarded as a woman of the twenty-first century; she embodied all the aspirations and ideals of women as they achieve equality of recognition in our community. I am reminded of a the following passage, which was written by Stephen Covey in his book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People:

Nothing has a greater, longer lasting impression upon another person than the awareness that someone has transcended suffering, has transcended circumstance, and is embodying and expressing a value that inspires and ennobles and lifts life.

Those sentiments are relevant to Princess Diana because there can be no doubt that she had transcended suffering, and circumstance and embodied and expressed a value that inspired, and ennobled and lifted the lives of everyone, not only those she met and touched.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.07 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party fully supports the adoption of the address of condolence. Truly Princess Diana was the people’s princess. We also support the call for prayer for Prince William and Prince Harry, who we know from media and other reports loved their mother deeply. We know also that that love was mutual. Prince William and Prince Harry will certainly be in need of our prayers. Whilst in London with the Law and Justice Committee, which was investigating motor accident insurance, a matter referred to it by this House, I took the opportunity to visit Buckingham Palace on the Friday prior to the funeral of Princess Diana. I was amazed by the thousands of people quietly queuing, reverently and respectfully, simply to place bouquets of flowers against the metal fence of the palace. They comprised people of all ages, children, men and women, family groups, and many obviously from ethnic backgrounds who now live in Great Britain.

In 1985 my wife and I had the opportunity to speak with Princess Diana at a garden party at Buckingham Palace. I recall she was very open and friendly, and our conversation with her on that occasion will remain in our memories. We share the
Page 35
sadness expressed by millions of people throughout the world at the unexpected loss of Princess Diana. Excessive invasion of her privacy over the years had a major impact on her marriage, and was certainly a factor in her tragic death in a motor vehicle accident.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.10 p.m.]: My colleague the Leader of the Opposition referred to the impact that Diana, Princess of Wales, had on women throughout the world. As a mother I took particular note of Princes Harry and William at their mother’s funeral. The Princess of Wales would have been proud of their demeanour. Our hearts go out to the young princes. I am sure that the myriad photographs depicting the life of the Princess of Wales have revived in us all happy memories of Diana. My most vivid memory is the Princess greeting her two boys on the royal yacht Britannia at the end of a long period of separation that we know is common for members of the royal family as they go about their busy lives. The Princess of Wales displayed sheer delight when she greeted her two boys; she had obviously missed them greatly.

As a contemporary woman, she combined many roles in her life - motherhood and her duties that came with royalty. As I listened to the tributes paid to her I was amazed to discover that she was patron to more than 100 community organisations throughout the world. Many organisations were represented at the funeral and paid special tribute to Princess Diana. I acknowledge her great work to abolish the use of landmines. We hope that her fight and the leadership she showed for that cause will be taken up by world leaders. The United Nations should be at the forefront of that fight. I know it is an important issue to the Red Cross. The greatest tribute that could be paid to Diana, Princess of Wales, would be the abolition of landmines.

Princess Diana was always willing to be associated with people suffering disease - for example AIDS and leprosy. The strength of her role as a humanitarian should not be overlooked. I commend to honourable members the article in the Australian on 10 September which reported comments made by Lord Attenborough about the Princess. Lord Attenborough spoke of his seven-year-old granddaughter, who practised at length a curtsy which she would make when presenting a bouquet to the Princess at a function. However, at the last minute apparently his granddaughter was asked to present a program with the bouquet and, in her confusion, she forgot to curtsy. A little while later Lord Attenborough mentioned to the Princess that his granddaughter was mortified that she had not made the curtsy, at which point Princess Diana asked that she be shown the curtsy. When the little girl curtsied Princess Diana said, "I’ve never seen a more perfect one." Result: one small child devoted to her for life. Some months after that function the Princess visited a centre for disability and the arts at the Leicester University. Lord Attenborough referred to the Princess spending time with young people who were severely disabled, many with cerebral palsy and in wheelchairs. About that occasion Lord Attenborough said:

There were no cameras, no onlookers - just . . . the dancers, their helpers and me. This I shall never forget and neither, of course, will the dancers.

Lord Attenborough then referred to a handwritten letter he and his wife received from Princess Diana on his arrival back in London later that day. In many ways, Diana, Princess of Wales, embodied so much about contemporary life. She contended with a broken marriage and with being a public figure. I recall her as somebody who set fine examples against the backdrop of her busy public life. None of us will forget the way in which the press hounded her. We should all learn a lesson from that experience: we should not be so tolerant of intrusion by the media into our private and public lives. I offer my condolences to Princes William and Harry, and I wish them well for a very secure and positive future.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [12.15 p.m.]: I place on the record my sadness and that of so many other people in the Australian Labor Party concerning the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. I extend my condolences to her two children and to her family. I puzzled, as many people did, about why there was such an outpouring of grief across the world over her death. It is interesting to analyse the reasons. I particularly draw attention to her life of public fame from the age of 19 years until her death at 36 years of age. She particularly appealed to young women not only because she was glamorous, famous and well known but also because of her ability to express her feeling openly about her problems. I refer particularly to the candour with which she spoke about her battle with eating disorders, post natal depression and other personal problems. Her ability to talk about these issues struck a chord in young women, in particular, that went far beyond the glossy and glamorous coverage to which she was subjected by magazines across the world.

Princess Diana embraced charities beyond the boundaries of the traditional charities of the royal family. She had the courage to do a great deal for victims of diseases and for other causes that are perhaps not so usually the province of the royal family. I refer to her very early action to embrace AIDS victims, to express her sympathy and to advance causes to raise money for victims of AIDS. She showed great courage in that regard years
Page 36
before it became fashionable. She showed similar courage dealing with victims of leprosy. Of course, her most recent cause to put an end to landmines throughout the world resonated in the hearts of so many people; her actions went way beyond what many governments are willing to do. As the Leader of the Opposition in the other House said in a similar debate, we feel sadness about her death whether or not we support the monarchy. I do not support the continuance of the monarchy but that is no reason not to express one’s joy at so many things that Diana, Princess of Wales, did during her life, and to regret her death. The appropriate phrase is, "Those whom the gods love die young."

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [12.18 p.m.]: I also support this motion. What struck me most about Princess Diana was her obvious love for her boys. In my opinion she was a mother first, and a royal doing her duties second. In 1985 Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and I had the privilege of meeting Diana, Princess of Wales, not long after her marriage and the birth of her two sons. On that occasion she was quite relaxed as she moved down the line of people in which we were waiting to speak with the Princess. My husband was wearing his clerical collar. As she approached us she said with a great smile, "I do not have to ask what you do for a living." My husband told her that he was also a member of Parliament. She was very concerned. As the newspapers have stated, she spoke of her boys, who were extremely young at that stage. She said, "My concern is for my boys. I want them to grow up in a world free of drugs and without attacks being made on them."

Diana was a gracious young woman. She was not nervous as she went about her duties. She impressed me greatly. As reported in the newspapers and the many articles written about Diana, she said that her wish was to see Prince William crowned King of England. I pray that Prince William and his brother, Prince Harry, will be able to live their lives free of trauma and the media, which I believe played a role in the death of the princess. Princes William and Harry will need to be protected from unnecessary and unwanted exposure as they undertake their duties. They will be in need of our prayers and support, especially Prince William, who will eventually take his place on the throne. May he exhibit the same capacity for love and concern as that shown by his mother. It was obvious that it was difficult for Prince William and Prince Harry to follow the casket of their mother in the funeral cortege. I am sure that in the future they will show great leadership for Australia and Great Britain.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [12.21 p.m.]: I strongly support the motion. This is a sad time for many people throughout the world. I was astonished by the spontaneous outpourings of grief and expressions of sadness by people from all walks of life. Diana, Princess of Wales, became the focus of attention because of her grace, her beauty and her position, but she was able to use that focus to advance certain causes. Although advertising campaigns advised people that AIDS cannot be contracted by touching or by kissing someone with AIDS, there was no more powerful message that a photograph of the Princess of Wales, without gloves on, touching and cuddling someone with AIDS. The same comment applies to such diseases as leprosy.

Diana’s work - when she was no longer Her Royal Highness - to promote the abolition of landmines was remarkable because she was scorned by the government of the day in Britain. I was personally interested in that cause. One of the first actions taken by the Howard Federal Government, and Mr Downer in particular, was to ban the use of landmines by Australian army troops and to promote the cause as best he could through the United Nations. However, nothing that Alexander Downer did had the same impact as the visits by the Princess of Wales to a number of places throughout the world. Diana went to extraordinary lengths to promote that cause and, indeed, was exposed to considerable danger in doing so; it brought her into conflict with many who should have had the same ideal.

I pay tribute to Diana’s life and the work she did. I hope that some lessons have been learnt about the invasion of privacy and its impact on public figures. I am sure we would not like our lives to be invaded in the same way as Diana’s life was invaded. We certainly should not tolerate it. I agree that there is not the same level of media interference in Australia as there is in the United Kingdom and in the United States, but it will happen here unless steps are taken by the media to control what they do. The circumstances of Princess Diana’s death have been brought to the attention of a large number of people in a very powerful way. Although the investigation is taking place in France, there appears to be no doubt that drink-driving was an element. Another lesson that people must learn is that drink-driving and not wearing seat belts can have disastrous consequences.

All my family were saddened by Diana’s death. My children, my wife and I, in different places, watched with great interest the funeral procession and the public outpourings of grief in the United Kingdom. Similar feelings have been expressed in Australia. I received many phone calls from members of my party and others expressing concern about the circumstances of Princess Diana’s death. However, all were grateful for what this young woman had given to others during her short lifetime. May she rest in peace.

Page 37

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.26 p.m.]: I support the motion and I extend my condolences to Prince William and Prince Henry in particular, and to Prince Charles. I also extend condolences to Mohammed Al-Fayed and his family; they too have suffered a great loss. I was surprised by my reaction and that of those around me to the death of Princess Diana. I have always felt that she was overrated by the media. But I seemed to take her death personally, as though I knew her as a member of my family. I am sure many shared that feeling; that we had somehow absorbed her into our lives and regarded her as we do the closest members of our families. Surprisingly, I found myself glued to the television station for almost seven hours watching the funeral. Recently a number of my friends have passed away. I did not have the same reaction to their deaths as the reaction I had to Diana’s death. I do not know how or why that happened.

The media must take a certain amount of responsibility for her death; she would not have been in that car unless she was trying to escape the paparazzi. The editors of the various newspapers, such as the editor of the Daily Telegraph, Col Allan, are as responsible for her death as the paparazzi who were chasing her. In the few days before her death Diana was being chased relentlessly by paparazzi trying to get photographs of her and her companion. Diana switched cars at the last minute. Unfortunately, the person who drove the vehicle in which she was a passenger clearly was not fit to drive. However, the fact remains that she was in that car only because the paparazzi were chasing her. Therefore, those who buy such photographs and the newspapers that publish them must share responsibility for her death. They cannot escape that responsibility. I hope that in the future Prince William and Prince Henry, and others in the public eye, will not receive the same degree of harassment from the media and will be allowed their privacy. I include in that regard members of this Parliament who are being harassed by the Daily Telegraph in particular. I hope the media take a more responsible attitude towards people in the public eye in the future.

The PRESIDENT: I should like to be associated with this motion. The House being out of session at the time of the funeral, as President I sent my condolences to the Queen, the royal family and Princes William and Harry in particular. I had the pleasure of meeting Diana, Princess of Wales, when she was here last year to give her patronage to the Victor Chang Foundation. I did not meet her on that occasion but I had the pleasure of lunching with her at the Entertainment Centre, where she was a guest of honour at a luncheon organised by the Commonwealth Day Council of New South Wales for the purpose of raising funds to establish youth scholarships within the Commonwealth of Nations. The very presence of Diana, Princess of Wales, at that function resulted in a large sum of money being raised for that worthy scholarship.

It is, of course, a great human tragedy that the princess has passed away. In particular it is a great tragedy for her two young sons. It is very difficult for anyone, irrespective of age, to lose a loving parent, which undoubtedly the princess was. But it is particularly difficult for those of tender years. Our hearts go out to those two boys, and they have our admiration for the way they have publicly handled their distress. I ask honourable members to carry this motion by standing in their places for one minute of silence.

Members and officers stood in their places.

Motion agreed to.

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) [12.32 p.m.]: I move:

(1) That this House expresses its profound sorrow at the tragic loss of lives and injury to persons in the landslide at Thredbo Village on 30 July 1997.

(2) That this House conveys its heartfelt sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives and those who suffered injury in the landslide.

(3) That this House commends the dedication and efforts of the support and rescue services in their response to the tragedy.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.33 p.m.]: I should like to associate the Opposition with the motion moved by the Treasurer and to extend the sincere sympathy of Opposition members to the families of those who lost their lives in this most unfortunate tragedy. Most honourable members would have become aware of this disaster when they awoke on the morning following the tragedy. When I turned on the 6 o’clock news I heard broken reports that a major disaster had occurred at Thredbo and that a number of people were trapped.

There was a long delay before we finally knew the fate of those who were trapped. We all shared the grief of their families as they awaited news of the fate of their loved ones. Fortunately, the rescue effort was professionally carried out and was not expedited because of the urgings of some sections of the media, which wanted the whole thing over in 24 hours. As we all know, Stuart Diver survived this unfortunate incident because of the professionalism and outstanding work of the rescuers. Those rescuers
Page 38
came from all over New South Wales; they represented small country villages and towns, metropolitan areas and local rescue volunteer services.

I take this opportunity, first, to convey our sincere sympathy to the families of those who lost their lives; secondly, to congratulate those many people who came forward to assist - the outstanding professional effort of the rescue and volunteer services who were at the accident scene for a week to finalise the rescue effort; and thirdly, to note that this accident should not have happened, having regard to planning processes that were in place at the time. I hope that those who visit the snowfields in the future will have the confidence that planning processes will prevent such a tragedy from happening in the future.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.35 p.m.]: I too support the motion. The news at the end of July that a landslip had occurred at Thredbo was greeted in my household with disbelief and shock, as it undoubtedly was in households across Australia. Thredbo is very dear to my family. We have spent more family holidays there than anywhere else. Indeed, three weeks prior to the landslip my husband, son and I had spent a few days there, and my daughter had been there one week earlier. The initial disbelief and shock deepened as we realised the number of people who were perhaps buried under the landslide and as pictures from Thredbo emerged on television that morning. For our family the news later in the week that one of the missing, later confirmed dead, was a person with whom my husband had considered entering into a business venture in Thredbo a few years ago made it all the more real and personal to us as a family.

In the days following I also discovered that a close friend had been staying in one of the adjoining lodges. That person, a senior ski instructor at Thredbo, is to this day experiencing shock. I have been able to share with him the feelings of many of the people in Thredbo and to speak to many others whom we have come to know in the years we have holidayed, including permanent residents, managers of the lodge that we regularly use, and people who run businesses in Thredbo. For all of us that sense of shock and disbelief soon passes, but it has not passed in Thredbo. Perhaps when the snow melts, the season is ended and they can reflect on this winter, they will commence the true process of recovery. When we were at Thredbo three weeks earlier, the community there was looking forward to celebrating 40 years as a snow resort. It has not been a very happy 40-year celebration.

Along with my colleagues, I acknowledge the work of all those who were involved in the rescue efforts. We sat in awe watching the rescue of Stuart Diver on the Saturday. I, for one, found it difficult to leave the television, although I had official duties to perform during the day. The rescue stopped all Australia, and we must acknowledge the enormous dedication, work and the professionalism of all those who were involved, both volunteers and trained personnel. Volunteers and professionals came together as a team of which we can be proud. The work and efforts of volunteers in Australia are often overlooked. I was immensely proud of the way in which they came together, as Australians always do in such tragedies. In conclusion, I send a message of condolence to the families of all those who died and I acknowledge all those in Thredbo who are suffering from the grief and shock that comes with being associated with such a tragedy.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.39 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion and expresses its sincere sympathy to the families who lost loved ones in the tragic landslide at Thredbo. As happens in tragic situations, everyone has expressed the sentiments, "If they had been somewhere else", or, "If the situation were different they would not have been in that particular lodge at that time." Those sorts of comments are always made. On a positive note, we thank every member of the rescue services - the Police Service, the State Emergency Service, the fire brigades, bush fire services - and the hundreds of volunteers who took part in the rescue operation. In many ways, because of the nature of the landslide, there was almost no hope of finding any survivors underneath the heavy concrete slabs. The miraculous salvation of Stuart Diver was a great shock and a great joy. His rescue was totally unexpected as so much time had elapsed, but reminded us that all our lives are in the hands of God. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh. We give thanks to all who helped save Stuart Diver’s life.

The PRESIDENT: I take the opportunity to be associated with this motion of condolence. This was a great tragedy that befell our community, not only in terms of loss of life and injuries caused to so many people, but, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, in hindsight it is a tragedy that could perhaps have been avoided. Such tragedies are always a matter of deep shock to a community, particularly to the families of people who, without any notice, lose their lives or suffer serious injury. It is proper that this House should convey its sympathy to the relatives of those who died and to those who sustained injury, and to convey also its commendation to all of those involved in a massive and extremely dedicated rescue operation. I invite honourable members to signify their support of this
Page 39
motion by standing in their places and observing a minute’s silence in memory of those who died in the tragedy.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [12.43 p.m.]: I move:

That the President be requested to communicate, through His Excellency the Governor, to the President of India, Mr K. R. Narayanan, the following resolution:

We, the Members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, on our own behalf and on behalf of the people of the State, desire to express to the President of India and the people of India and the Sisters of the Missionaries of Charity our deepest sorrow and heartfelt sympathy at the death of Mother Teresa on 5 September 1997.

We feel a sense of both national and personal loss at the passing of Mother Teresa and wish to record our sincere appreciation of her charitable work and devotion to the poor, destitute and dying not only in India but throughout the world.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [12.44 p.m.]: I take pleasure on behalf of the Opposition in being associated with the motion moved by the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations and in noting the important and significant work that Mother Teresa carried out in the cause of humanity. Her work represents an important chapter in the relationship of members of the global village. The advance of technology brings into proximity issues around the world that affect all its members. As Mother Teresa said, she provided a means whereby the dying, the sick and the suffering were able to attend with some dignity on their maker at the end of their lives. Her life has been an inspiration to the many who joined the important order she established.

Though at times her success was controversial, it won the support of world leaders, including the President of the United States of America and, of course, the Queen, who have also offered condolences. Australia, as a multicultural society, is able to relate very closely to the initiative that Mother Teresa took. Whilst the Indian community is not the largest component of our multicultural society, it has played an important and long role in the social and cultural development of this nation. The example set by Mother Teresa has inspired not only that component of our multicultural society but all Australians. The Opposition once again wishes to convey to the Sisters of the Missionaries of Charity its condolences and to express its confidence that the order will continue to achieve great success in the name of humanity.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [12.48 p.m.]: Francis of Assisi, one of the best loved saints of almost 800 years ago, left a lasting legacy to the Christian world - but not only the Christian world - through his and his companions’ tremendous efforts with corporal works of mercy. It could be said that nobody in the intervening 800 years has left such a lasting legacy as Mother Teresa. Of all the religious orders, congregations, societies and pious societies within the Catholic Church, probably no order has attracted so many to its cause as the congregation established by this little old lady. Mother Teresa was from Albania, her mother was Viennese. She did not curse the darkness; she lit the lights that shine brightly in over 100 countries, approximately 500 different institutions or foundations, and over 4,000 sisters and numerous brothers. The worldly goods of the women are three saris, one for special occasions, one to wear and one to wash; a tin plate; a bucket, to wash and carry their worldly possessions; and a pair of rosary beads. This one woman has had a profound effect on the world.

At her funeral many of the world’s leaders - queens, heads of state, or their representatives - and, above all, the millions of her beloved people of Calcutta gave full testimony to their love for this woman and for those who joined her. I once read that Mother Teresa never replied to a letter from someone saying that he or she wanted to join her congregation. Mother Teresa said that she was too busy to reply but said, "If you want to join, come." The congregation that she started has foundations in Australia; one is at Bourke and there are others. I am reminded that at some of the foundations she started the sisters take - along with the usual vows of poverty, chastity and obedience - a fourth vow, referred to as "her way", of wholehearted and free service to the poorest of the poor.

This vow binds them, jointly and without exception, actually and spiritually to feed, clothe, shelter and nurture the sick and dying, the unloved, the outcast, the lepers and those who have lost all faith and hope in life. On more than one occasion Mother Teresa said that if she and her sisters did not believe that it is Christ whom they touch in the broken bodies of the starving and the destitute, they would not be able to do their work. In pairs, for safety’s sake, they rescue people from the streets.

I recall that some years ago the late President John F. Kennedy visited a leprous area. At that leprous area he viewed a fresh-faced young nun tending the wounds of a leper. Wincing away from the stench, his facial expression showing his disgust, he said to this fresh-faced young nun, "Sister, I
Page 40
wouldn’t do that for a million dollars a week." Back came the reply, "Mr President, neither would I." There is no doubt that all the nuns and brothers in those foundations would hold the same view. And I am sure that not one of us would do it for a million bucks a week. This wonderful woman, and those whom she leaves behind, have had a tremendous effect on our terribly materialistic society. Mother Teresa handed out a business card which had these words on the back:

The fruit of silence is prayer
The fruit of prayer is faith

The fruit of faith is love
The fruit of love is service
The fruit of service is peace

There is little doubt that Mother Teresa rests in peace and is reaping the reward for which she and numerous others have given their lives. I am delighted to be associated with this motion. One must also not forget that Mother Teresa was awarded many different awards, culminating in the award probably most prized by ordinary people, the Nobel prize. She said that all public occasions on which praise was lavished on her were humiliations. I doubt that we will ever see another woman like her.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.57 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I fully support the motion of condolence, especially the expression which states:

We feel a sense of both national and personal loss at the passing of Mother Teresa and wish to record our sincere appreciation of her charitable work and devotion to the poor, destitute and dying not only in India but throughout the world.

It is right that we give thanks to God for the remarkable life of witness of Mother Teresa, described as the Mother of Mercy. Many other positive titles have been applied to her. Mother Teresa demonstrated love in action; she responded to a clear call of God. She said that God called her to give her life to serving the poorest of the poor, and she responded wholeheartedly to that call. I met her and had discussions with her on a number of occasions. Some people underestimated her and probably did not realise that she was a headmistress. She was a well-educated person, one who could have taken a high position in society in church and/or government circles. But she put all that to one side to serve the poorest of the poor.

Mother Teresa visited Australia during the International Year for Disabled Persons, a visit that I organised through the Festival of Light community standards organisation. I recall the message of love that she gave to the huge crowd of more than 9,000 people at a meeting in Parramatta Park, many of whom were disabled and lying on the ground. She went from the platform down to them and moved from one to the other, comforting, caressing and embracing complete strangers. Mother Teresa had a tremendous love which flowed out of her whole being and she was at one with people who were disabled and who probably felt neglected and unwanted. I told Mother Teresa that I had arranged a car to take her to speak at a rally of many hundreds of people at Mount Druitt but she said, "No, I will travel by public transport in the train from the city." We had also planned a welcoming dinner for 500 guests. Mother Teresa agreed to attend the dinner on the condition that no food was served at the dinner and that the money was donated to the poor.

What impressed me was that Mother Teresa was totally consistent in her life and in her witness, something one does not often see in society and not always in the church. What one saw was the real Mother Teresa. I had the privilege of interviewing Mother Teresa on a talk-back program on radio station 2GB. I asked her if she would take open-line calls and she agreed. The telephone lines were jammed with calls from many people who had not expected that they would be able to speak to Mother Teresa. When the program concluded an hour later, she surprised me by saying, "That is the first time I have ever had an opportunity to take part in an open-line session." While she was in Australia, Mother Teresa tried to start a hospice for the AIDS patients in Sydney in conjunction with Dr Kevin Hume, but for various reasons that project did not proceed.

We thank God for Mother Teresa’s Christ-like life and witness and her work for the poor, the suffering and the dying, and for the unborn children of the world. It was a remarkable testimony to her life that the President of India, a basically Hindu nation, honoured Mother Teresa with a State funeral. Although she would not have asked for it or expected it, I believe it is right that she was honoured in that way. I am certain that now she is with the Lord he has spoken to her words that in her case are certainly well-deserved: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [1.02 p.m.]: I support the motion. Although Mother Teresa came from obscurity as we know it, she was, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, a woman of considerable standing before she left her society and went to try to alleviate the suffering of the dying and give them some dignity in death. Her efforts in the poorer parts of Calcutta came to the attention of the community and, of course, she became a celebrity. That inevitable but intrusive celebrity status attracted criticism of Mother Teresa for visiting and being visited by the rich and powerful. In much the same way as Diana, Princess of Wales, she turned that around to advantage and gained resources and support for her work, gathering people
Page 41
to the harvest so to speak. As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, she was entirely consistent in her beliefs. In the midst of suffering and pain she was a firm believer in the tenets of the Catholic Church. She was totally opposed to abortion and was in no way supportive of euthanasia.

Mother Teresa believed all individuals should be treated equally and she spent her life looking after those whom no-one else would look after. She went where no-one else went to alleviate suffering. My attention was drawn to her work when my research assistant, David Barnes, went on holiday to Bangkok. Whilst he was there he met someone who suggested he take a trip to India to meet Mother Teresa. He did so and spent seven or eight days travelling around the country. He met Mother Teresa on a number of occasions and he has told me that each time she spoke to him personally and answered his questions. He said that she spoke with great wisdom and warmth, and in a practical way. David Barnes is a person respected and loved by most people. His attitude to life and to what he will do in the future has certainly changed as a result of the days he spent with Mother Teresa at her convent.

I met the sisters of Mother Teresa’s order in Kigali. As one could well imagine, they were caring for the orphans, those children they found in the gutters and wastepaper bins, and those whom no-one else would look after. Although World Vision and a number of other organisations brought to Kigali by the United Nations collected children and attempted to reunite them with their families, when the United Nations pulled out of Rwanda those children for whom no relatives could be found were cared for by Mother Teresa’s nuns in Kigali. While I was in Rwanda working with the army I visited the orphanage on a number of occasions. The sisters were always chirpy, practical and extremely well organised. Honourable members will appreciate the organisation that is required to provide three meals a day to 80 small children aged from two years to five years.

It was surprising to note how many children wandered up for a cuddle and then wandered off again. Not one was turned away because the sisters were talking to a doctor or to someone else. The children were picked up and given a cuddle, sometimes two or three children at a time. It was quite remarkable. I believe the honour paid by the Government of India to its adopted citizen was also remarkable. People all over the world wanted Mother Teresa to continue her work. When she became ill cardiac surgery was attempted, even though she was aged. She died as she lived, in poverty and without worldly goods but with a richness of being. Mother Teresa was an example to a world which may have lost its way. Today a number of organisations worldwide treat those people who have been cast down. I support the motion of the Minister. Rest in peace, Mother Teresa.

The PRESIDENT: I would like to be associated with this motion of condolence, which, when carried, I shall be pleased to ask his Excellency the Governor to convey to the President of India. In line with the words spoken by the Hon. J. R. Johnson, Mother Teresa is probably the only person in modern times who has manifested the very simple and powerful words of the scriptures that God is love; and, conversely, love in the form as shown by Mother Teresa is probably the finest manifestation of God. As a consequence I associate wholeheartedly with this motion of condolence. The world is a sadder place because of the loss of this remarkable human being but her work will be continued by the wonderful order of nuns that she founded. I ask honourable members to signify their assent to this motion by standing in their places to observe one minute’s silence in memory of Mother Teresa.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

Motion agreed to.

[The President left the chair at 1.10 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Governor:

I, the Honourable Gordon Samuels, A.C., in pursuance of the power and authority vested in me as Governor of the State of New South Wales, do hereby convene a joint sitting of the Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of the election of a person to fill the seat in the Legislative Council vacated by the Honourable Patricia Jane Staunton, and I do hereby announce and declare that such Members shall assemble for such purpose on Wednesday the seventeenth day of September 1997 at 3.30 pm in the building known as the Legislative Council Chamber situated in Macquarie Street in the City of Sydney; and the Members of the Legislative Council and the Members of the Legislative Assembly are hereby required to give their attendance at the said time and place accordingly.

In order that the Members of both Houses of Parliament may be duly informed of the convening of the joint sitting, I have this day addressed a like message to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

Office of the Governor
Sydney, 17 September 1997

Page 42

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Mr PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly desires to acquaint the Legislative Council that on Wednesday, 17th September 1997, it agreed to the following resolution:

That at the joint sitting in the Legislative Council Chamber convened by His Excellency the Governor for 3.30 p.m. this day, the House continue to sit with the Legislative Council for the purpose of voting together a place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Bruce Childs.

Legislative Assembly John Murray
17 September 1997 Speaker.

Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

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

That this House agrees to meet the Assembly for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose a person to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Bruce Kenneth Childs, in the Legislative Council Chamber today, Wednesday, 17 September 1997, immediately after the conclusion of the joint sitting to fill a vacancy in the Legislative Council.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.

The PRESIDENT: I announce to the House in relation to the adjournment debate that it is my intention to follow the procedure adopted last session of allocating members the call on the adjournment debate in rotation amongst the parties represented in the House.

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of a copy of the Speech made on Tuesday, 16 September 1997, by His Excellency the Governor, which is reported in Minutes of Proceedings.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID [2.32 p.m.]: I move:

That the following Address be adopted and presented by the Whole House to the Governor in reply to the Speech which His Excellency has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament:

To his Excellency the Honourable GORDON SAMUELS, Companion of the Order of Australia, Governor of the State of New South Wales in the Commonwealth of Australia.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY -

We, the Members of the Legislative Council of the State of New South Wales, in Parliament assembled desire to express our thanks for Your Excellency's speech, and to express our loyalty to the Sovereign.

We assure Your Excellency that our earnest consideration will be given to the measures to be submitted to us, and that we will faithfully carry out the important duties entrusted to us by the people of New South Wales.

I am honoured to be moving the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor’s Speech. His Excellency has brought a fresh approach to the Office of Governor and has fulfilled the duties of that office in a manner which is to be commended. I echo the words of His Excellency about the deep shock and grief the people of New South Wales have expressed over the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The Princess visited our State on a number of memorable occasions, and it is fitting, as His Excellency noted, that her last visit here was to support fundraising efforts for the work of the Victor Chang Memorial Foundation. The people of New South Wales warmed to the Princess for her humanity and concern for those less fortunate than herself.

The public’s response and the messages that have been pouring in to be included in the condolence book have been astounding. I am confident that we will keep the memory of her charitable works and compassion alive by our own charitable efforts. It is strange that sad events can coincide and bring the world to a standstill in its grief. I refer to the deaths of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa, who, unlike the Princess, reached a very good age. There was, however, a saintliness and permanence about Mother Teresa that somehow made us feel that she would always be there in Calcutta, working minor miracles with the poor, the sick and the dying. It is significant that such tragic events about which His Excellency spoke have affected us all.

The people of New South Wales, and Australians generally, have for some time felt weighed down by things they feel are beyond their control: unemployment, the economy, globalisation and technological change. Such issues preoccupy us, creating a pessimism that translates into lack of confidence in ourselves and the economy. The tragic events to which His Excellency referred were also totally beyond our control. But they have resulted in outpourings of emotion and concern - a feeling of community and common humanity. The Thredbo disaster and the deaths of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa have redirected our attention to things that really matter: the value of human life, our friends and families, and the compassion and concern that binds us together in times of need. Sometimes such events occur for a reason. Perhaps we should take this opportunity to take a long, hard look at ourselves, to reassess what we believe is important in our lives.

Page 43

The State Labor Government has a fundamental commitment to social justice and equality of opportunity. Members of the Labor Party believe it is the role of government to provide services and care for those unable to care for themselves; that it is the role of government to ensure that the necessities of life - good health care, education, housing - are available to all its citizens, no matter what their wealth or social standing. The Carr Labor Government is fully committed, first and foremost, to fulfilling those roles, and it is doing so successfully, despite continual attacks and cutbacks by the economic rationalist Federal Government. The New South Wales Labor Government is committed to preserving the humanity and compassionate society in this State. We have achieved so much more, which I will elaborate on later, but this has been our primary goal.

His Excellency spoke at length in outlining the achievements and plans of this Government. As I listened I again felt great pride in those achievements, but there is still so much more to come. As I mentioned earlier, there is no doubt that people feel insecure about their future, anxious about their jobs, and hesitant to spend their hard-earned money. Our Prime Minister’s dream of a relaxed and comfortable Australia seems a long way off indeed. How can people feel relaxed when their jobs are in danger? If they lose their jobs, they cannot even have the full confidence of the safety net Federal Labor governments have worked so hard to put in place.

The Federal Government is cutting more and more from the social security budget, cutting huge holes in this safety net. In my contribution to the debate on this Government’s budget estimates and related papers for 1997-98 I detailed the cuts New South Wales has endured from the Federal Government - cuts of at least $450 million annually, beginning with last year’s Federal budget. The Federal Government has cut health funding by about $260 million, yet the State Labor Government has increased health expenditure in real terms by 2 per cent, to a record $5.8 billion.

The Carr Government has targeted funding to the priority areas of western and south-western Sydney, the central coast, the Hunter, the Illawarra and the north coast. The Federal pharmaceutical benefits scheme was cut last year by $500 million, and this year by $700 million. Dental health funding has been cut altogether - a loss of $34 million. The Federal Government has reduced Medicare payments in 1997-98 by $40 million as a penalty for alleged cost shifting from the State to the Commonwealth, a legacy of the previous coalition Government. Yet in New South Wales we are undertaking 13 major hospital and redevelopment projects across the State, including six new country hospitals.

In education, the Federal Government has abolished the new schools policy, with a loss of about $11.3 million. This will mean a shift in enrolments from government to non-government schools. The Federal Government is effectively giving people aged 16 to 17 years no choice about whether to remain at school. The Federal Government has cut unemployment benefits for those young people, forcing them to stay on at school, no matter whether they are capable or not, or receive no income whatsoever. This results in an estimated 10,000 additional students at schools and TAFE, with no extra funds from the Federal Government. An amount of $65 million will have to be found each year to pay for the education of these young people.

What has this State Labor Government done for education in New South Wales? It has employed 530 additional teachers, including 200 new literacy teachers. Traditional grammar and spelling have been restored to the curriculum, with a new emphasis on literacy, backed by an $18 million literacy program - a point Dr Kemp should note before he opens his mouth and accuses the States of failing to educate their young people. All schools have been linked to the Internet, and the student-computer ratio has been reduced to less than one in 14. The Government has spent $117 million on a computer education package. It has funded an extra 5,000 places in the TAFE system.

Despite the added burdens imposed on it from Canberra, the Carr Government has managed to produce a budget which provides for the people of New South Wales, preserving services when the Federal Government is cutting them from all directions. The New South Wales Labor Government faces a huge dilemma: on the one hand, an ever-shrinking tax base, an ever-shrinking slice of the pie from the Federal Government; and on the other hand, increasing responsibilities and costs but an unshakeable commitment to meet its core responsibilities in health, education, transport and police services.

I shall now provide some hard data on the impact of Federal decisions on the New South Wales budget. This State is losing $529 million in direct Commonwealth funding. General purpose payments have been reduced in real terms over the three years from 1996 to 1999. That is in addition to the existing subsidy by New South Wales of other States to the tune of $1.3 billion through the grants system. Local government assistance grants have been arbitrarily reduced over the 1996-99 period, to
Page 44
the tune of $11 million. This has meant councils cutting back their services, from libraries to road maintenance.

When the High Court franchising decision was handed down in August much discussion took place in the media about the impact on liquor prices. People fail to appreciate the severe impact on the income of the States. After the decision the Commonwealth and the States agreed on a safety-net arrangement, with the Commonwealth imposing the taxes and returning the money to the States. New South Wales has lost $112 million under this arrangement, due to a timing difference, and the Commonwealth has refused to compensate us for it. Other High Court decisions have had an adverse impact on the bottom line of the States, especially that of New South Wales. The arrangements for liquor licence refunds and the refunds resulting from the Allders case mean that New South Wales loses out again - another $200 million. In March this year the States asked the Commonwealth to announce a windfall gains tax and the enactment of a tax equivalent regime, but the Commonwealth has refused to do so.

If this Government were a soft government which gave up at the first sign of things getting difficult, we might have cause for worry. But it is a tough and determined government. No matter what Federal Treasurer Costello dishes out, we will not take our bat and ball and go home. We will fight for the people of New South Wales to ensure that the services they deserve are provided at the most reasonable cost possible. And how do we do that? We have too much to do and not enough money to do it with - a problem many people face. We could say we will make savings in administration, that we will cut down the management structure. But we already run such a lean, mean operation in New South Wales that there is no more to cut.

The only targets left are those that the Prime Minister and his Government are aiming for: services for ordinary battling Australians. There is simply no way to cut services in health, education and transport without the people of New South Wales bleeding badly. We could demand that the Federal Government give us our fair share of revenue - and we do. But John Howard’s coalition Government is big on rhetoric and small on action. It continues to squeeze the States dry while it cuts back on services for which it is responsible.

The coalition promised to govern for all of us. But Federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, was right when, in his response to the Howard-Costello budget this year, he described what the Federal Treasurer really meant: all of us, as long as you are not unemployed; all of us, as long as you are not old; all of us, as long as you do not rely on Medicare; all of us, as long as you send your kids to a private school; all of us, as long as you can take care of yourself! We have to face the reality that we are not going to get any support from the Federal Government. We have to turn to other measures, to think laterally. How can we provide the people of New South Wales with the essential services that it is our duty to provide? The reality is that we have been hamstrung by a remote and uncaring Federal Government. We, as members of a Labor Government committed to serving the people, must work out a way to respond to this. We cannot sit back and see our revenue supplies continue to dry up. We must put our heads together and find solutions that only a Labor government can find. That is the challenge now facing us, and we will tackle it head on, as only the Labor Party can.

I referred earlier to unemployment. The Government is focused on creating jobs and encouraging investment in this State, and it is doing it very well. That is evidenced by the fact that 60 per cent of regional headquarters which move to Australia come to New South Wales in preference to other States. We have won some key strategic investments including Fox studios, worth 865 jobs; American Express Asian headquarters, 830 jobs; a copper smelter at Port Kembla, 630 jobs; a CSR timber plant at Oberon, 230 jobs; Bankers Trust Asian headquarters, 300 jobs; State Street Bank, Asian headquarters, 300 jobs; and Foxtel head office, 100 jobs. More generally on the jobs front, New South Wales leads the nation with 49,000 jobs created since Labor came to office and another 30,000 in the pipeline.

Regional New South Wales suffers most, along with western and south-western Sydney and the central coast, from the scourge of unemployment. This Government has generated 9,800 jobs in regional New South Wales, and $4.5 billion in investment. This includes the Cadia gold and copper mine, 900 jobs; the Bengalla coalmine, 5,000 jobs; and another 10 new major goldmining and coalmining projects. To create investment we have reduced water charges for business by up to 45 per cent. Electricity prices are similarly being reduced as a result of the restructuring of the industry. Rail freight charges have fallen by more than 10 per cent, due to competition in the freight rail system.

Port corporatisation has reduced port charges by 10 per cent. Conveyancing reforms have reduced costs to business by about $14 million a year. Significantly, the Government has cut government red tape by repealing 316 regulations. The Federal Government has talked about cutting red tape to help small business; this State Labor Government has actually done something about it. We have
Page 45
achieved so much more, which I will elaborate on later, but this has been our primary goal.

It is a well-known mantra that small business is the future of our economic development and a large part of the solution to unemployment. The Howard Government came to office with one prominent pledge: to help small business, but little has so far been done. Last year we witnessed the fiasco of the then Federal Small Business Minister, Geoff Prosser, sitting on his hands in relation to franchising and retail tenancy issues when he was involved as a landlord in various ventures. In that regard it was obvious to all but the Howard Government that there was a least the potential for a conflict of interest.

The Howard Government has had 18 months to implement reforms for small business, the key plank in its policy platform, but for most of that time small business had a Minister who would not take action in key areas. The nation and small businesses generally are eagerly awaiting the Federal Government’s response to the Reid report on unfair trading entitled "Finding a Balance". While we wait, small businesses continue to endure the same unfair conduct with which the report deals. By contrast, the New South Wales Government has developed many strategies to assist small business. It has scrapped refinancing duty on loans, which impacted on interest rates. Small business can now chase loan interest rates and increase competition between banks.

Reform of the electricity industry has brought down the cost of electricity - a $170 million reduction in business electricity bills. Water and gas reforms have also brought prices down. The Small Business Development Group has been working to help businesses manage themselves by providing business counselling services and directing businesses to expert help. A number of bodies have been set up to provide advice and assistance to small business. These include business enterprise centres, First Base, the Small Business Development Corporation, innovation advisory centres, the Women in Business mentor program and the Business Expansion program.

The New South Wales Government believes that the small business sector is so important that it has established a parliamentary Standing Committee on Small Business, of which I am chairman, to gain a better understanding of the sector and to make the Government more attuned to its needs. The committee comprises members of all political persuasions. The Government wants this committee to take an honest look at the issues facing small business and come up with apolitical practical solutions. As chairman, I am pleased to say that the committee has great plans and is looking forward to its investigations into a number of issues that affect small business. As a former businessman, I believe I have a feeling for the daily frustrations and obstacles that face small businesses. I trust that my experience in this regard will reap benefits for the small businesses of New South Wales.

This Government faces many challenges for the remainder of its term. Its members have had much to look back on with pride - but we are not content to look backwards and to rest on our laurels. We will march forth in many battles, particularly with the Federal Government over tax reform and State grants. The New South Wales Carr Labor Government, together with the other non-Labor State governments, will be demanding a fairer and more equitable financial deal from the Howard Government. This is the most important issue the Government has had to face for a long time. I know its resolution can only be good for the people of New South Wales.
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [2.52 p.m.]: I am honoured to second the motion for the adoption of the Address of His Excellency the Governor, which outlined the Government’s legislative and financial proposals for the third session of the Fifty-first Parliament of New South Wales. On behalf of the people of this State I extend my congratulations to His Excellency the Hon. Gordon Samuels, AC, and to Mrs Samuels on their contributions to public service and to cultural enhancement on behalf of the people of this State. Yesterday I was delighted to hear that this Government’s pursuits are consistent with a traditional Labor agenda, with priorities given in the Governor’s Speech to youth unemployment, public education, disability services, Aboriginal reconciliation and the distressing problem of youth suicide.

I was particularly pleased to note the explicit support for the reports of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service relating to police corruption and paedophilia. I look forward to participating in discussion on the recommendations of both reports. I concur with His Excellency that the community has an increasing concern about drug abuse. Therefore, I applaud the Government’s commitment to support a national summit to provide some alternative solutions for young people and for drug addicts. The Government has concluded that this national approach should include a clampdown on drug traffickers and tougher penalties on drug suppliers, tighter customs controls, education for young people and help for addicts.

I am pleased that the Government has taken a balanced view of a range of programs that need to be undertaken in order to deal with the problem of
Page 46
illicit drugs in our society. However, today I shall speak not about the particulars of the Government’s program that will be discussed in this parliamentary session, but about the serious issue of the role and function of government in today’s society. I shall speak in defence of government and politicians. I shall talk about what government is capable of achieving and the responsibilities politicians have in representing the needs and desires of Australian people. I am not alone in noting that it was distressing to see the denigration that the Chamber and the Governor’s address suffered by some sections of the press - principally the Daily Telegraph. I will not pursue that matter at this stage. The denigration of Parliament and of politicians is not in the best interests of society. The media should be alert to their responsibilities, as we are to ours.

In the 15 years that I have been a member of the Legislative Council I have witnessed a distressing trend. I have seen the role of government in the functioning of Australian society diminish. I have also observed growing cynicism and scepticism of politicians and public figures. Surely it is not entirely coincidental that these two trends occur simultaneously. Australians generally have always had a healthy disregard for those in elected positions, but I am concerned at the growing cynicism in the community about our role and function and that of government. The major problem is with the erosion of some traditional notions of government. This erosion is essentially brought about by the exclusive dominance of the economy and economic values in the government’s sphere. This can be seen in any number of ways. First, there has been the continued denigration of politicians, public servants and public officials.

The underlying assumption is that if one is in the public sector or devoted to public life, his or her motives are open to suspicion. Of course, this is not always the case and there are some notable exceptions. But there is a tendency in all aspects of society to see politicians as self-serving. Again, the media must take responsibility for concentrating their public comments on a minority of political persons and not giving due regard to the extraordinarily hard work that most members undertake in the interests of public service. I do not hesitate to say that my colleagues in this Chamber should be most highly regarded for their dedication to community service.

The Australian tradition of contempt for tall poppies is undoubted. I acknowledge that Australians generally have a history of disdain for authority - that is explained by our origins. That has been a driving force in forming the culture of this nation. Indeed, it was a very healthy and enviable culture, because it was based on the notion that authorities should not be given too much power over ordinary people. We were and are a nation that has a high regard for democratic participation. But since the governments of Thatcher and Reagan the models of society have become those directly involved in the private economy, downgrading the role of government. Over the past 10 years we have witnessed a wholesale attack on government, shedding public assets and outsourcing the roles of the public sector.

Secondly, and in tandem with the move to small government, we have experienced the erosion of the tax base. We all know those mantras that politicians of both sides repeat from time to time, particularly at election time, "No new taxes", "Tax relief" and "LAW tax cuts", which is one that will go down in history. Increasingly the assumption is that government should wind down its services, giving money back to the taxpayers - whatever that means. Again, the services of government are put in jeopardy and are under question. Women understand this better than men, I believe, as so many women’s and children’s services in particular - such as health, education and welfare services - are and were provided in the public sector.
As we say, all too often, with governments of both persuasions the approach to cuts in services is often the titanic approach: women and children first. Thirdly, to make the point more general, the public services themselves are seen to be questionable. Always, if there is a profit to be made, it is to be given to the private sector. The assumption is that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector. Cross-subsidisation of unprofitable sections of essential services is eliminated as a public policy tool aimed at achieving equitable access, as the private sector is interested only in taking on the profit-earning segments of an existing public program or service.

I should have thought that over the years the National Party would have more to say about the ending of cross-subsidisation, as country members have suffered the most from that process. On those three points, therefore, there has been an erosion of government and the intrusion of the economy. The reasons for this are not hard to recognise: there is a general tendency to the commodification of society, a tendency to think that if one cannot put a money value on something and make it into a commodity then its value is hard to define. This makes it open to suspicion. But, again, there are some notable exceptions, for instance the work of Mother Teresa or the concept of motherhood.

The overall idea, especially in the public sector, is to find a value worth in terms of the economy. These days the definition of goodness and
Page 47
rightness comes from the values of materialism. I now raise the development of a conflict between the notion of community and the notion of government, and the growing suspicion of the very idea of government. This is a highly unAustralian idea, an idea which comes largely from American practice - and more recently British practice - of small-town individualism opposed to the "necessary evil of government". It is unAustralian because Australia has had a long history of acceptance of government; indeed big government, controlling government and regulating government, which provided a very high standard of living that was envied by other parts of the world.

Up until the recent decade there had long been bipartisan political agreement that, due to the size of our country and the number of dispersed remote and rural communities, Australia needed government to play a major role in the organisation of society. Australians agreed that it was government’s role to provide for a range of basic services in health, education, transport and communication. Australians have never wanted - in any case, did not want it in the past - access to these services to be seen as a privilege, to be bought in the user-pays fashion. Australians have always believed that every member of society should have equitable access to those services so that no child should be disadvantaged because of the status of the child’s birth.

For a country such as ours, government and justice were always about equitable access to services and opportunities. The notion of community, which we have seen develop in America and more recently in this country, is about developing small centres of power away from government. This may be a noble ideal which maintains some of the liberal ideals of participatory democracy, but it also plays into the hands of those who think that big government is something which is able to be wiped out. We know that there are many political advocates in the public arena who advocate an end to big government. But emphasis on small scales of private power misunderstands the important role that government plays in providing the necessary stability and security for society to operate. In fact, I believe that capitalism requires stable government in order to flourish. Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States of America, recently said publicly that it is extraordinarily relevant to the success of capitalist systems that government provide a stable society in which capitalism can flourish.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Why didn’t he help the family? The rock-solid base of society is the family.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: The family should play a supportive, communicative, mutual role with government, caring for each other. The community cannot operate effectively without the stability that government may provide - that is the point I wish to make. Government regulation and equitable provision of services provide justice and a sense of community.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You want Fidel Castro in New South Wales.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I certainly do not. Once small scales of private power become responsible for the provision of basic human services, the sense of community and equity is lost to the false morality of competition. In fact, we will all acknowledge very soon that this is where Professor Fred Hilmer has done us a grave disservice in the way he introduced the notion of competition into all aspects of society. I am content to acknowledge that competition has a role to play in our society, but it certainly must not replace co-operation in essential areas of service to the community, particularly in the welfare field.

For all these reasons there has been this doubt of the public official and the notion of government as a basic force in society for good. That is the basic problem. In today’s society how can we understand government as a force for good? That has to be the fundamental question. What is the good of government? There appear to be two basic elements. The first is to accept the line of the economic rationalists; that is, we do live in a capitalist society. Capitalism does have certain basic beneficial aspects in terms of elements of provision of abundance, but it must not be an abundance for some only. Even if government is always to play the role of maintaining the capitalist economy, and is a part of the capitalist economy, that does not mean that that is all it should be doing. The good of government is subsumed again by the needs of the economy. It means that maintaining the economy is privileged over everything else.

That approach is reflected in the current obsession of both Labor and Liberal governments to pursue a program of debt reduction at all costs. In the name of deficit reduction the current Federal Government has cut general purpose payments to the States. As His Excellency pointed out, this will mean a reduction of $529 million, resulting in cuts to essential services in New South Wales - such as public housing, with a cut of $31 million, and vocational education and training, facing a cut of $7 million. The Federal Government is to be condemned for the way it is taking the money out of the system. The old ends of government appear to
Page 48
be lost. What were the old ends of government? Obviously, there is great dispute and argument about this, but basically it is about trying to achieve something in society for the good of society which should be part of public debate. There is some hope here because the other part of government which I think should be maintained is not merely how to maintain the capitalist economy.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The Left supporting a capitalist economy?

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: What is it, John? How would you describe it?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I have problems trying to deal with you wanting a capitalist economy.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Because I acknowledge that we live in a capitalist economy.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The honourable member wants to privatise the power stations.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: The honourable member has not been paying attention. I wish I were not using up my time responding to him. Pay attention!

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Do not put words in her mouth.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: No-one needs to put words in my mouth. We must also maintain, admittedly with great contradiction and paradox, an absolute critique of that economy - that is what is missing today - that is, to understand its wealth accumulation and necessity, but also to understand that it rests on inequality and exploitation. It is based on suffering and humiliation. If there is any doubt about this, one needs only to ask the workers in Lithgow whose jobs are threatened, or the workers in Newcastle, about the effects of the capitalist economy on their lives. There is this basic contradiction which should be maintained: yes to the economy but also no to the economy. For governments to do this there is no doubt that they have to tread a fine line. Clearly, leadership is needed to try to gain the contradictory understanding of the role of government.

[Interruption]

Someone should tell John Howard, because the whole economy went into decline with the rumour yesterday that he was about to resign. That relates to lack of leadership. That is what is wrong with the dominance of the economy on government and the deregulation of economic existence. To understand the barbarism which this is about means one has to have a different set of moral values than merely the economy. I am sure that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would agree with that. Moral values have to do with understanding the suffering which occurs in society. That is the great Australian tradition, government dealing with the battlers. Every government has to try to legitimate itself in terms of the battler. Government in Australia has traditionally had the role of trying to provide for these people, but it is not, as some might argue, merely about trying to maintain the economy for those people. It is about trying to alleviate people’s suffering which is caused by that economy - there are many other causes as well, but chiefly the economy.

The principle of democracy, even though it is so watered down in all major countries which still maintain some form of democracy, is still a laudable and great achievement. It is great because politicians still have the opportunity, which they must take, of representing the people and presenting the desires and needs of people. The desires and needs of people in our society are at this contradictory level. People need the economy to flourish and need government to be good managers, but they also need government to appreciate their struggles, and in partnership to improve their lives. The opportunity for government to do this has been under threat in the past decade or so. Some of the cynicism felt in our society about government and politicians can be understood in these terms. People believe that government is indifferent to their suffering and to their daily struggles. We have heard so much talk about vision and values, but talk about vision and values is very hollow when your job is being wiped out - and the number of jobs that have been destroyed in the public sector by previous governments is unforgivable.
My suspicion and my hope is that this era of economic rationalism is coming to an end. Concern is growing in the hearts of people. People want social justice and a balance of economic policy and social policy. That is what this Government will give them. There is a chance now for political leadership to seize the opportunity, to take up this contradictory set of values and to represent the needs of the people of this State and of Australia. To really represent the needs of the people of Australia also means we must cease diminishing the role of government. It would mean the defence of government in the name of democracy. People do not actually want the managers to manage; they want a strong, accountable, responsive government. In terms of representing the needs of people, government has to have access to funds to provide resources for programs, to take back some of the privatised areas or to rethink the privatisation process as a whole. This should be done in order to protect the needs of society as a whole.

Page 49

Government must be able to contest the rules of marketplace economy when the problem of human suffering and community disintegration starts to arise. Government does have and can have great power. That has undoubtedly been the case in this country and it is also the case that government is the only power in society which because of its strength can actually contest the rules of the economy. Government can help - sometimes in partnership with the non-government sector, for example some of the churches - to support Australians who are struggling against poverty, discrimination and injustice. There is still time to get back to mateship and a fair go, which was the distinctive feature of Australian society, but to do that we must defend government, justify our roles as advocates, collect taxes as equitably as possible and provide services in health, education and employment in a strong public sector. Public service is still a noble goal.

As the Governor began his address, I should like now to conclude: by reflecting on the recent outpouring of grief over the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. There is surely a message from the people of Britain and Australia, and in fact all nations, in their response to this young woman’s death. Diana was indeed a good person. As her brother, Earl Spencer, so eloquently said in his eulogy, Diana represented the vulnerable and the rejected. She was herself vulnerable and misunderstood and she was at times weak. She was like us all. Tony Blair called her the people’s princess. Most of all, the Princess of Wales represented the morality of compassion. She was a public figure who regularly displayed caring and kindness to others in the community.

The public saw in Diana a young person with a capacity to empathise with those who were suffering due to illness, injury or poverty, or people who simply felt lost and left behind by society, as many of our young people do today. Diana had a special kind of humanity and on her death millions wept because they understood her compassion and they craved her humanity. Governments and politicians have a responsibility to listen to these people. Of course people need the economy to flourish, but they also need government to appreciate their needs and desires. They need strong and compassionate government. I look forward to this Labor Government’s program demonstrating the best traditions and ideals of the oldest political party in Australia.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

The PRESIDENT: I shall now leave the chair. The business of the House will be suspended during the joint sitting. The House will resume at the conclusion of the joint sitting following the ringing of the bells.

[The President left the chair at 3.20 p.m. The House resumed at 4.00 p.m.]

The PRESIDENT: I report that at a joint sitting this day Anthony Bernard Kelly was elected to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Patricia Jane Staunton. I table the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting.

Ordered to be printed.

The PRESIDENT: I report that at a joint sitting this day George Campbell was chosen as senator in the place of Bruce Kenneth Charles, resigned. I table the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that after only four months into the financial year the State budget result has been revised from a $27 million surplus to a $324 million deficit, despite the Government receiving windfall gains in revenue from interest savings, stamp duty and tax increases in excess of $2.5 billion in the past two years? What has the Government done with all the money to generate this unsatisfactory position?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: There have certainly been no windfall gains since the time of the budget in May.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: What about the published papers?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The published papers relate to the 1996-97 financial year. The revenue that the Government anticipates for the 1997-98 fiscal year is contained in the budget papers tabled in the Parliament in May, and there is no reason to think that they underestimate the revenue that the State will receive this year. The only windfall gains received in the past few months have been received not by New South Wales taxpayers but by sectors of the various industries affected by the recent High Court decision. Indeed, in this
Page 50
financial year the aftermath of the High Court decision will cost New South Wales taxpayers $242 million.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It should be neutral.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I agree that it should be neutral. I understand that the Commonwealth and all the States agreed that if the High Court decision went against the States, arrangements would be put in place that would leave no-one better off and no-one worse off. However, no such thing has eventuated, and this year New South Wales taxpayers will be $242 million worse off as a result of the arrangements put in place following the High Court’s decision. That $242 million does not come off a tree; it comes out of our budget. That is why, in addition to other factors, the budget surplus of $27 million projected in the 1997-98 budget has now deteriorated to a deficit of about $300 million.

I will be introducing a special appropriation bill to enable the Parliament to appropriate $242 million. There have also been some new expenditure initiatives. Obviously, the $10 million for the Hunter Advantage Fund comes out of the project surplus of $27 million, as does the additional expenditure of $9 million for implementing the McGaw report and about $7 million for closing the Hall of Children. The water reform package announced recently by the Government will cost $18 million this year. Addressing Sydney’s stormwater problems - the Premier made an announcement about that a short time ago - will cost about $20 million this year, and extra expenditure of about $5 million this year will be provided for supported accommodation. That means that instead of a projected surplus of $27 million at this stage the Government is looking at a deficit of just over $300 million for 1997-98.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What action is the Government taking to ensure that appropriate court facilities are available for the people of Orange?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I welcome the Hon. A. B. Manson back to this House, looking in fine health and in good spirits. Honourable members will be aware that the Orange courthouse was constructed in the late nineteenth century and the existing historic court building has served the Orange community since 1883. It is generally considered to be one of the most important country courthouses in New South Wales. Over the years the internal layout of the court building has been modified several times, and the second small courtroom occupies most of the southern wing of the courthouse at present. Despite ongoing modifications to the inside of the building, it has become clear that the existing court facilities are inadequate for the needs of the late twentieth century. Security of access to the building, public and staff accommodation, overcrowding and temperature control can all be improved.

As part of my department’s 1997-98 capital works program, funding has been allocated to plan and let a contract for a new modern court building to operate in conjunction with the historic courthouse and to provide up-to-date facilities for the Orange community. The proposed accommodation includes one Local Court, one jury court and a new general office with full facilities for the public, the legal profession and staff. The existing physical location of the court is ideal as it faces the civic square. Accordingly, it is proposed to construct the new facilities on the site of the original court keeper’s cottage behind the court. Officers of my department recently met community and user groups.

The existing historic court building is to be refurbished with former offices being used for enclosed public waiting and other facilities. The project will provide improved security for judges, public and staff, with acceptable levels of accommodation for all users. The work to be undertaken at Orange is yet another concrete example of the Government’s commitment to ensure that appropriate up-to-date court facilities are available in rural and regional New South Wales, while at the same time recognising the historical significance of many of our country courthouses. The extension and refurbishment planned for Orange will enable the historic building to continue its regional role well into the twenty-first century and to provide supplementary accommodation to address the increased usage and demands made on this important regional facility.

It is important for the House to appreciate that this Government has not closed a single courthouse, either in the Sydney metropolitan area or in country New South Wales. Indeed, it has enhanced them. The Government is using them increasingly to provide a variety of government information to the people of rural and country New South Wales. The Government respects the historical nature of the courthouses yet is upgrading them to provide modern facilities for their users. I am very pleased about the Government’s record of refurbishing courthouses throughout the State, keeping them open and using them as public buildings of historical significance.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I refer the Minister for Community Services, Minister for
Page 51
Aged Services and Minister for Disability Services to the consultant’s report into the Royal Place group home for people with an intellectual disability, which details systemic sexual and physical abuse. Does the Minister stand by his comments of 27 June in this House that he did not see the consultant’s report on Royal Place until 9.00 a.m. that day?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: In a busy life it is often difficult to say precisely what hour of the day one sees a particular document. However, my clear recollection is that I did see the report quite early on the morning of the day in question mentioned in the member’s question.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask a supplementary question. Is it true that a copy of the report was sent to the Minister on 13 June, two weeks before he claims to have first seen it?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have responded to the question the member asked.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Is the Minister for Industrial Relations aware of the industrial action occurring in the Hunter Valley in response to Rio Tinto’s attempt to deunionise the work force? Could the Minister inform the House of the latest developments in this case?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The industrial dispute to which the honourable member refers is a potentially dangerous one for the State economy and, indeed, for the national economy if it spreads to the waterfront or to other areas of the coalmining industry. The underlying and core proposition is that this dispute must be settled and it must be settled expeditiously. The only way that this dispute can be settled is by a willingness to compromise, to bargain in good faith and, if need be, to accept arbitration as a fair solution to the issues in dispute between the union and the mining company. I regret to say, at least so far as I am informed of events this afternoon, that the company does not seem to be prepared to accept an arbitration procedure. I am pleased to note that the union is. I find myself in a position where I can readily defend the union’s stance as being reasonable when it says that it would accept an arbitral solution. That is the way forward in our Australian system. It is the new province for law and order that H. B. Higgins pioneered in the early years of the nineteenth century.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: They get what they want.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The stark reality is that the union is prepared to accept an arbitration but the company is not. I call upon Rio Tinto to rethink its stance on arbitration. In the Australian Industrial Relations Commission today the company has essentially suggested that Justice Boulton should disqualify himself and not proceed with arbitration. I am not sure if the representative of the New South Wales Government has got to his feet yet, but when and if he does this afternoon, he will urge that the commission go into an arbitration process. That is self-evidently the way forward if the dispute is intractable.

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

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Even the legislation of your colleague Mr Reith provides that if a dispute cannot be resolved between the parties, that is by conciliation, there is then an impartial, independent, third-party neutral adjudication of the issues in dispute between the parties. That is the civilised legal way to resolve an industrial dispute at this time.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: That has something to do with preselection.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not concerned about that. I have faith in the arbitral system. I had cause yesterday to find my way through the labyrinthine Federal legislation that the Howard Government has enacted. With the assistance of counsel briefed in the case for the New South Wales Government we found a way in which there could be a sensible arbitration of this issue, but it is not easy. The legislation puts a series of barriers in the way of the resolution of an industrial dispute. I should have thought that the basic function of a system of industrial relations was to facilitate, not to obstruct or inhibit, orderly settlement.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Did you talk to the company? You bagged it yesterday.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have been critical of the company today. It is no secret that I have been critical about its unwillingness to engage in arbitration and about its point taking, which is designed to obstruct an orderly process of resolution of this dispute. I have appealed to this company to settle down, to take a step backwards, to stop its aggressive, unilateralist form of industrial behaviour, and to engage in the orderly processes contemplated by the law. If this dispute were being dealt with under New South Wales law, it would be in arbitration at 10.00 a.m. tomorrow. There would be an order to return to ordinary work and an order for the company to maintain the status quo ante. That is the sort of flexibility and simplicity of the New South Wales system, which, regrettably, is not part of the Federal system. However, as I have said, the New South Wales Government is able to show a
Page 52
way forward through the labyrinth and complexity to resolve the dispute to the benefit of the people of New South Wales and the Australian economy.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Will the Treasurer give a guarantee that no privatisation of the New South Wales electricity industry will commence prior to the passage of enabling legislation by both Houses of this Parliament?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I refer the honourable member to the legislation that this House passed to enable the corporatisation of the generators and distributors. I recollect that there is a clear provision in that legislation that prohibits privatisation without the matter coming back before the Parliament.

The Hon. Franca ARENA: Mr President, my question is addressed to you as a matter of public importance. Have you seen the article in the Weekend Australian, dated 30 and 31 August, titled "Sallie’s Story"? The article alleges that a man who is employed at Parliament House was involved in sexual depravities involving Sallie, a 12-year-old girl. Though a person is innocent until proved guilty, in view of the seriousness of the charge, will you inform the House if this man has been suspended awaiting the result of the trial or whether he is still working at Parliament House?

The PRESIDENT: I must confess I am not aware of the article in the newspaper to which the honourable member refers. I would also point out to the Hon. Franca Arena that on previous occasions I have ruled that it is not appropriate to ask questions at question time relating to the domestic affairs of the Parliament. In this particular case, even if I were disposed to answer the question, I must confess I do not know the specific answer. If the honourable member will give me time, I will call her when I have the information and I will see her in chambers.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, in his own capacity and as the Minister representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice. Are $1 million worth of gambling chips going missing from the Sydney Casino every day and circulating in underworld drug traffic as a convenient form of legal and untraceable currency? Was a traveller from an Asian city recently caught by customs officials with $20,000 in gambling chips from the Sydney Harbour Casino in his luggage as part of an apparent drug money laundering racket? What action is the Government taking to prevent the laundering of drug proceeds through the Sydney Harbour Casino, so-called black to white money, in spite of the large number of warnings I and many others have given to this House? Will the Government admit that Sydney Harbour Casino and the massive $1 billion new Star City Casino will completely undermine every effort to fight illegal drug rings in New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am sure honourable members have seen press reports about the inappropriate use or distribution of gambling chips from the casino and the alleged laundering of money at that casino. The honourable member has raised a matter of public concern. I cannot provide the House with any detailed information at the moment on suggested remedies for problems that are most difficult to tackle. I understand that Mr Face, who is probably the more relevant Minister, has been considering the problem. The Minister for Police would also be relevant to that process, as the honourable member contemplates in his question. I will undertake to provide the honourable member with any information I can about any strategies that are available to deal with the problems he has highlighted.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Maybe new legislation?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I would not dismiss the prospect of some legislative amendment. That needs to be considered in the mix of possible solutions to the problem.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I address my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Does a memorandum from Dianne Hudson, of the office of the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, to Patricia Campbell, Manager, Cumberland-Prospect area, say that a briefing note on Royal Place, detailing systemic sexual and physical abuse, was sent to him on 13 June and returned to the department unsigned? Did the Minister bother to read the briefing note?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I read numerous briefing notes every day, every hour of the day. However, regarding the Royal Place report I adhere to the answer I gave previously, that I saw the particular document at about 9.00 a.m. on the day referred to by the honourable member in her previous question.

Page 53

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: But you had never seen it before then?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I had not seen the document before then. That clearly follows from the answer I gave previously.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General. Did the Opposition last week call for the Minister for Police to be charged with contempt? Was this call based on sound reasoning and careful thought or was it just another political stunt?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have not previously expressed any public views about the statement made by the Minister for Police and the decision of His Honour Judge Kirkham in the District Court to abort a trial in a sexual assault case. However, it is appropriate that I respond to the question that has been asked and briefly put on the record my response to the events. I accept the traditional view of the Attorney General as having essentially a role in which from time to time he needs to defend judges and their decisions against criticism that can ignorant or misconceived, and I am happy to perform that role. But from time to time judges make decisions with which I disagree, and I do not believe I should be put in the false or hypocritical position of defending decisions that cannot, according to my views, be defended.

As the Opposition has discovered in relation to this case, making hasty pronouncements in such cases is extremely unwise. Whilst the task of the trial judge in the heat of forensic battle is difficult and a task that I would not underestimate, in this case I respectfully disagree with the trial judge’s decision to discharge the jury. I do not believe that general comments relating to widely available statistical material would constitute contempt of court, particularly when the issue is already the subject of widespread public debate and when the comments are plainly not directed at any particular case.

The comments made last week by my colleague the Hon. Paul Whelan made referred to people found guilty of child sexual abuse, not to those whose guilt is yet to be determined. The Minister was seeking to emphasise the importance of reporting suspected child abuse, the aim of Operation Paradox being to reduce the disturbing incidence of this terrible crime. I believe that public debate of such issues is of great importance. In fact, the law recognises that in the bread manufacturers case principle, under which:

The discussion of public affairs and the denunciation of public abuses, actual or supposed, cannot be required to be suspended merely because the discussion or the denunciation as an incidental, but not intended by-product, caused some likelihood of prejudice to a person who happens at the time to be litigant.

The Crown Advocate, Ms Megan Latham, has given me an opinion about the statements of the Minister that is essentially supportive of the propositions I have put to this House. Ms Latham has proffered the opinion that the Minister’s speech was not in contempt of court. I conclude by issuing a note of caution. It ought to be stressed that people, including members of Parliament and other citizens in responsible positions, should be careful not to make comments about any particular ongoing case as those comments could be determined to be prejudicial to an individual trial. But I do not believe that that proposition precludes the publication of criminological generalisations or statistical propositions as were contained in the speech of the Minister for Police.

The Hon. J. KALDIS: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services provide the House with details of the recently released Department of Community Services blueprint for change?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: When I appointed Ms Helen Bauer Director-General of the Department of Community Services earlier this year I directed her to produce a statement setting out the department’s key objectives and how they could be achieved. On 19 August the director-general released two documents: "Key Directions for the New South Wales Department of Community Services" and "The Corporate Plan for 1997/98". These two documents will shape the department’s reform program into the next millennium. These documents represent the department’s commitment to change its approach to the way it delivers services to the people of New South Wales.

The department’s four priorities as outlined in the key directions and the corporate plan are: improving the quality of community services, particularly child protection; working in partnership with communities to develop services that meet their needs; supporting community initiatives to help families care for their children and for people with disabilities; and using resources more effectively, such as allocating funds to areas of highest need. I am pleased to note that the police royal commission supported the broad statements of principle contained in the corporate plan. Both the key directions and the corporate plan documents will be fortified by the recommendations of the Wood royal
Page 54
commission, and will open new avenues for improving the department’s capacity to handle this aspect of its work. The corporate plan sets the framework for improving the department’s services, management and accountability, and for implementing the Government’s social justice policy.

Clear goals for the next 12 months have been identified. These include the soon to be released child and family services manual; a code of conduct for all staff; and improved training, professional support and supervision for staff. There will be no quick-fix solutions for the Department of Community Services. Instead, we must systematically address the department’s underlying problems that were so resolutely neglected when the Hon. Virginia Chadwick was Minister. Not all the department’s goals can be achieved immediately because there is such a huge gap between present practice and the vision for the department, which is to be the best human services delivery agency in Australia. On 21 August the director-general launched these new directions in a live satellite link-up to staff gathered at 50 TAFE sites across the State. I am informed that this direct communication with staff was well received.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. What assurances will the Treasurer give that there will be no forced redundancies following privatisation of the electricity industry? Given that the Labor Party went to the people of New South Wales with a policy of no privatisation of electricity, how can the people of New South Wales trust the Government on this or any other issue? When will the people of New South Wales outside the select elite at the Labor Party conference have the opportunity to express their view on this vital issue of privatisation?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The policy of no forced redundancies has always been and will continue to be the policy of this Government. Obviously, if the electricity industry is privatised, the Government will put arrangements in place in the contract for sale.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Could the Minister for Community Services advise the House of the impact that joint investigation teams of police and community services have had on child abuse in the first month of operation?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: A JIT is a joint investigation team of specially trained Department of Community Services officers and police who handle allegations of criminal child abuse. Since late July JITs have been operating at Ashfield, Parramatta, Penrith and Liverpool. By November there will be four more JITs at Kogarah, Wollongong, Newcastle, and The Entrance.

[Interruption]

The Opposition might think there is something funny about child sexual assault, but the fact is that there is not. In the first month of operation the results from the JITs have been outstanding. A total of 129 cases have been handled by the four joint investigation teams. This has resulted in the arrest of 18 people and a total of 52 charges have been laid. Seven matters have been brought before the Children’s Court and a total of 40 apprehended violence orders have been taken out. The joint investigation teams handle criminal cases of abuse, which can be physical or sexual abuse. In the first month of operation, 73 cases of child sexual abuse have been dealt with by the JITs, 50 cases of physical abuse and six involving both sexual and physical abuse. When dealing with child abuse, one of the most important aspects is a fast response so that the security and protection of the child can be assured.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It took you two years to start this.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It did not even occur to the Hon. D. J. Gay to do anything about it in seven years. The people opposite really ought to remain silent because their record in child protection is absolutely appalling. It is necessary to preserve the security of a child. The JITs have already proven their effectiveness at acting swiftly to protect children. In one instance the case of a child with bruising was notified to the Liverpool JIT by a school. JIT officers went to the school and interviewed the child, who did not make any disclosure about how the injuries occurred. JIT officers then visited the child’s mother and saw that she had two black eyes.

An interim apprehended violence order was sought and the offender was charged that evening. The mother and her child were found a place in a refuge. Ongoing support from the Department of Community Services is being provided for this family. In another case, a 12-year-old girl made a complaint at school after watching an educational child protection video. The matter was referred to the Penrith JIT, which then interviewed the girl’s father, who immediately admitted the offences. A

Page 55
telephone apprehended violence order was taken out that night and the father was charged by police two days later. The father is now in jail and the girl and her family are receiving counselling and support from the community services and health departments.
The JIT approach is different from the way agencies have responded to notifications of child abuse in the past. Separate responses by the different agencies involved do not provide the best response for the victim and his or her family. Joint investigation teams mean a quick and co-ordinated response and a minimum delay in investigation, fewer interviews for the victim, a friendlier environment for the child during the investigation and fewer delays in getting the matter to court. With joint investigation teams, vulnerable children now have greater protection than ever before. Child abuse victims will no longer have to deal with a multitude of agencies and the investigation process will be much less traumatic for everyone involved.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services explain to the House why, when presented with a departmental briefing note and an independent consultant’s report dealing with systemic physical and sexual assaults at Royal Place, he did not bother to read it? How serious must an allegation be before it warrants ministerial attention?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I indicated previously that I certainly give close attention to any piece of paper that comes across my desk. Any matter that comes to me is signed by me if it has been dealt with by me. I do not propose to answer a question without notice in regard to one of many thousands of pieces of paper I see in any given year. Previously in response to a question I said that I had read the Royal Place report. On that occasion I gave a truthful answer, as I always do.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I ask a supplementary question. Minister, the briefing note dated 13 June details allegations of physical and sexual assaults, failure to implement policies and procedures when responding to allegations of abuse, inappropriate consumer placements, failure to care for and protect consumers adequately, and an inadequate investigation of a serious incident in which a resident fell from a first-storey window - a fall that has left him a paraplegic. Why did the Minister not bother to read this briefing note?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Department of Community Services instituted a consultant’s report into the matters of concern at Royal Place. Clearly there were matters of concern at Royal Place, but there was no attempt to cover up those matters: they were investigated by the consultant, Miss Houlahan. Her report was the subject of my earlier answers. That report was received by me at the time previously indicated. The position is quite clear: the matter was thoroughly investigated and further proceedings will arise out of that report.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that tobacco smoking accounts for a massive 71 per cent of all drug-related deaths in Australia? Is it also a fact that the fund manager for New South Wales State Super, Axiom, invests some $33 million in tobacco companies? Will the Government, through the Treasurer, write to the SAS Trustee Corporation requesting that it identify alternatives to investing in tobacco companies?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The trustees have a statutory responsibility and I will certainly be pleased to refer the honourable member’s question to them.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Mr President, my question is directed to you. Are you aware that the Joint Select Committee on Victims Compensation met this morning in the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly’s anteroom for lack of any other meeting room in this Parliament? Are you further aware that a much-used committee room, Room 1136, has recently been taken over by the Parliamentary Information Technology Services? Will you inform the House what members and their visitors are meant to do in future to be able to have meetings?

The PRESIDENT: I repeat the comment that I made earlier. The purpose of question time is to elicit information from Ministers in relation to matters of public importance in the administration of the State. It is not an opportunity for members to air their concerns about domestic operations within the Parliament. I cannot and will not answer the question now, but if the member will give me the question I will have the matter looked into. I have no personal knowledge about it.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State
Page 56
and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council a question without notice. What attempts did the Carr Government make to keep Boeing from relocating to Queensland and costing New South Wales 300 high-tech jobs? What negotiations did the Government have with Boeing? What was the issue of taxation raised during these discussions?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the issue of taxation to which the honourable member refers. Certainly I will make inquiries about that. Boeing has activities in a number of Australian States, including Ryde in New South Wales. It wanted to relocate its Ryde operations and considered a number of States. New South Wales would certainly have been much better placed to win that relocation if we had known what was happening at the Richmond Royal Australian Air Force base, but because of the uncertainty with respect to that base, the Amberley RAAF base in Queensland was a much more attractive proposition to Boeing.

I do not want to suggest that New South Wales will attract every company that is considering setting up in Australia or relocating within Australia. I am pleased to be able to say that New South Wales leads all the other States in new investment. We lead all the other States in the establishment of regional headquarters. From time to time some of them will move from other States to New South Wales and some will move from New South Wales to other States. I congratulate Queensland on getting Boeing: it will be good for Queensland. I am sorry that we were not able to get them to stay here, but that is the nature of things.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask a supplementary question. With reference to the Treasurer’s reply, what steps were taken to obtain information about Richmond’s change of plans, which he mentioned?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is a matter of public record.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Premier, a question without notice. Does the Treasurer realise that the Federation Centenary Convention meeting, which was held recently in this Parliament, decided that the oath of allegiance to the Monarch should be dropped and that people should swear allegiance only to our country and our revised Constitution? In view of the fact that the convention was a non-party political assembly, will the Minister please now reconsider changing the oath of allegiance made by members of this Parliament and officials in New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I was not aware until the honourable member pointed it out to me that the Federation Centenary Convention, which met in this Parliament, had recommended that the oath of allegiance to the Monarch should be replaced with an oath of allegiance to Australia and its Constitution. I have an inkling that the Leader of the Opposition may well agree with that and that he supported the proposition. I point that out to members of this House who previously indicated opposition to it. My recollection, and I may be corrected if I am wrong, is that it is not a matter for the government of the day to replace the oath: it is a matter that requires legislation.

My recollection is that at one stage legislation was before the House that would have changed the oath. The Attorney General advises me that that occurred during this Parliament. I will speak to the Premier and ascertain what we can do to have that legislation reintroduced. I look forward to the support of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Community Services. I refer again to the report into the Royal Place group home. Despite the Minister’s apparent confusion or prevarication earlier in question time about the instigation of the report, is it not a fact that he told Alan Jones in an interview on 11 July, "I instituted this inquiry. It has reported to me." Why, if he was the one who instigated the inquiry, did the Minister not bother to read the report when it was first sent to him on 13 June?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: At no time did I say that I have not read the report. I have read the report and I am very concerned about the content of it. The important thing is that I am the Minister responsible for this department and I have said that I received and read the report. The report dealt with some matters of seriousness. Miss Houlahan was investigating this matter some months before the Opposition got its act together, as the Hon. Patricia Forsythe well knows.

[Interruption]

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I read the document when I said I read it.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Why did you say earlier today that the department instigated the report?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not going to be verballed by the Hon. D. J. Gay or anyone else.
Page 57
Whether the report was, in a direct sense, requested by the department or by me is beside the point. The fact is that I am responsible for the department. The department recognised and I recognised that all was not well at Royal Place group home and that is why the report was requested.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask a supplementary question. Given that I am now as confused as the Minister, will he inform me and the House whether he did or did not institute the report?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: There is no confusion about this matter. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick ought to read the answer that I gave.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: That is the trouble when you tell fibs. You have to remember what you said last.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On a point of order. The Hon. J. F. Ryan said by way of interjection that when one tells fibs one ought to remember so that one does not make mistakes. I take grave exception to the honourable member accusing me of telling fibs. During my life I have made a commitment to telling the truth and I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: I repeated a well-known phrase, a maxim, about telling lies. I did not attach anyone’s name to it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is unparliamentary to suggest that another member has told fibs, in my opinion fibs being a slang word for lies. In the context in which the interjection was made, I suggest that it was fairly clear it was directed at the Minister and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: I withdraw the remark.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I ask the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development a question without notice. Is it a fact that sales of the $10,000 gold memberships for the Olympic stadium have collapsed? Is it a fact that the $160 million loan to be provided by the ANZ Bank for the Olympic stadium may be cancelled? In view of the alarming state of the New South Wales Government’s finances, what action will the Government take to save the Olympic stadium?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would refer the Hon. Elaine Nile to the public statements that have been made about this matter by the Minister for the Olympics.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: I did not know whether to believe the newspaper report.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: From what I understand, the reports of his comments are accurate. I would refer the honourable member to the published comments of the Minister.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council a question without notice. Will he inform the House how much Deutsche Morgan Grenfell was paid for its advice to the Hogg committee and the Government in relation to the privatisation of the New South Wales electricity industry?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I am not aware of that amount.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer undertake to find out the answer to my question, please?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The honourable member should have asked that question in the first place. I will be happy to try to find out.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney General, representing the Minister for the Environment, if it is a fact that planting seven trees will absorb one year’s greenhouse gas emissions from a private motor vehicle during the lifetime growth of those trees? Is the Minister aware of a scheme in Victoria whereby motorists can pay $25 to have seven trees planted to absorb one year’s carbon emissions? Will the Government consider introducing the scheme in New South Wales so that motorists can also pay $25 a year to have seven trees planted to absorb their annual carbon emissions? Will the Minister for the Environment negotiate with the Minister for Transport to allow the money to be collected through car registration premiums? Will the Minister also co-ordinate this scheme with the Minister for Land and Water Conservation with a view to using the funds raised to plant trees in the Murrumbidgee region to reduce the effects of rising water tables?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I must say that as presently advised I am not aware of the apparent mathematical equation between seven trees and one year’s carbon emissions. No doubt that is a gap in my knowledge. I am sure, however, that the
Page 58
distinguished Minister for the Environment will be aware of the correlation between trees and carbon emissions and I will be pleased to refer the honourable member’s questions to the Hon. Pam Allan and obtain a positive and detailed reply for him.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. I refer to the Minister’s advice to this House on 27 June that he had not received a copy of the report on Royal Place group home until that morning, and his further comments today in answer to earlier questions. Is it a fact that 12 briefing notes on Royal Place group home were prepared for the Minister by the department, drawing his attention to the systemic physical and sexual abuse at the home? In light of this, how does the Minister justify his claim that he did not see the report for more than a month after it was completed?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Miss Houlahan prepared the report over a period of some months and it did become available to me at the time mentioned in my previous responses to the House. That is the truth and I stand by that response.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I ask a supplementary question. Is it also a fact that the Minister had, before 27 June, received nine letters and four memorandums in relation to Royal Place group home, and that his department had received 13 letters and written 11 letters in relation to the allegations of abuse at Royal Place group home?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: There was clearly concern about the events at Royal Place, otherwise the report would not have been instituted in the first place.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask a question without notice of the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. Does the Minister accept full ministerial responsibility for the traffic volume forecast figures contained in the environmental impact statement and the environmental impact assessment which were used to grant approval for the Eastern Distributor?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member’s question to my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and will obtain a response for the honourable member as soon as I can.

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

Questions without notice concluded.

Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.02 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

I shall speak briefly to the report and allow honourable members the opportunity to deal with it in detail. The royal commission, both in relation to police corruption and its extended terms of reference concerning paedophilia, has been an historic event in the story of New South Wales. Certainly the comprehensive report on paedophilia was an Australian first. I regard the performance and the role of the royal commissioner, Justice Wood, as impeccable. He did a meticulous job presiding over hearings, distilling the evidence and formulating recommendations which will prove extremely useful for the future.

Honourable members will agree that of some previous royal commissions it can be said that, despite the expenditure of vast resources, they have not produced positive or tangible results. It must be said that a royal commissioner - usually a judge or sometimes a senior barrister, particularly in Victoria - is not always the person best equipped to deal with profound social or political issues. A judge is usually well equipped to deal with disputed questions of fact and inquiries into what actually occurred in a specific case, but it is not really the forte of most judges to formulate policies for the future.

Some notable royal commissions in our recent history in New South Wales have, however, produced some fine results. The Nagle royal commission into the prison system, for example, to the great credit of Justice Nagle and his counsel assisting, led to the transformation of our prison system and to a much more humanitarian approach to corrective services. The Wood royal commission will go down in history as also providing tangible, clear, sensible guidance for the future in relation to both police corruption and the extended terms of reference in relation to paedophilia.

Page 59

Not all honourable members will agree with every conclusion reached by the royal commissioner. It would be a utopian situation if there was consensus in relation to, for example, the 140 recommendations designed to help us to protect children from sexual predators. There can be legitimate debate on many of the recommendations but overall, in the broad, these recommendations will assist the Parliament in so far as legislation might be required, the Government in so far as administrative action might be required, and the agencies of government such as the Police Service, the Department of Health and the Department of Community Services to adopt administrative procedures that will positively assist the quality of life in this State.

The Wood report is the culmination of the commitment of the Government and the Parliament to child protection, a commitment that the Labor Party carried with it into government from its period in opposition. I shall refer briefly to a number of the recommendations. One that will cause some controversy and needs careful attention in terms of safeguards is that of a register of sex offenders. In a letter to the Prime Minister about this matter the Premier pointed out that registration legislation of that kind would be of only limited value unless it formed part of a uniform national system.

I mention also the concept of the Children’s Commissioner. The Government has already indicated its support for the creation of an independent Children’s Commissioner. As recommended by the royal commissioner, this position will take over the role of the Child Protection Council and some of the responsibilities of the Community Service Commission relating to children. In establishing the new commission it is essential that we involve key groups such as the New South Wales Council for Social Service and the New South Wales Child Protection Council in providing advice on the new commissioner’s functions, structure and resources and the future responsibilities for people with disability, and the homeless.

The New South Wales Crime Commission will receive a reference to use its powers to investigate matters relating to paedophilia. It is a body equipped with the requisite coercive powers to undertake an investigation of that kind. The Government has indicated its support for pre-employment screening for people working with children. It is quite clear that in the past that screening has not been adequate in order to satisfactorily protect children. I am pleased to say that the Government is already well advanced in relation to improvements with regard to the giving of evidence by children in courts.

Honourable members will know of the legislative proposal that has been pursued about closed-circuit television evidence by children in courts. Even prior to the learned commissioner’s recommendations the Government had taken steps with regard to having out-of-court statements videotaped or made the subject of audiotape and the presumption of the admissibility of evidence in that form. That will alleviate the trauma that children face in the court. The Government is pleased to have the imprimatur of the royal commission for that proposal, which will be dealt with by the Parliament in the near future.

There are, of course, controversial aspects of the commissioner’s recommendation of the age of consent for sexual relationships. As has been indicated by the Government, that will be a matter for a conscience vote for members of the parliamentary Labor Party. In short, the view of the Government is that the royal commission’s final report is the beginning of the Government’s work, not the end. The Government reaffirms the fundamental proposition that children must be protected by all reasonable and available means. Flowing from the royal commissioner’s report we have a blueprint to ensure that we employ that protection right across the community. The report gives New South Wales the opportunity to lead the nation in dealing with this difficult and complex issue.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.09 p.m.]: I am grateful that at least the Attorney General has allowed a debate in this Chamber on the final report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service relating to the paedophile inquiry. However, the way in which the Premier dealt with this report in another place was appalling. It is an indictment of the Government that it was not prepared to allow debate in that Chamber on one of the most significant reports received by the Parliament. It is an even sadder indictment of the Premier and the Government that the Premier was not prepared to make a ministerial statement about the Wood royal commission. That the Government prepared a statement about the report and then sought to deal with it by way of an answer in question time in the Legislative Assembly shows the Government’s total lack of judgment of the community’s attitude towards the report.

The Wood royal commission of inquiry into paedophile activity was of even greater significance than any member of this Parliament or the community believed it would be at the instigation of the reference to the royal commission. Those who have worked in the provision of child care are fully
Page 60
aware of the incidence of abuse. They know about the lack of available community resources to deal with such abuse. From time to time we heard about the problems of both systemic abuse and community organised abuse. But I am sure that no-one knew the extent of the abuse that has been uncovered by the Wood royal commission. For the Government to gloss over this report in the way it did in the Legislative Assembly today is a scandal. One would not be unjustified in saying that the Premier has dealt with the report contemptuously.

I was appalled also by the way in which the Government received this report. On the day the report was released we were deafened by the silence of the Premier and the Government. I was stunned that after such a high-profile inquiry, and after the extensive submission made to the commission by the Government through its many agencies, the Government made no response to the report. I assumed that the Government would have at least outlined its approach to the issue. Today in the other House the Premier answered a question on the matter. I shall highlight some of the remarks of the Premier. He said:

I can report to the House that of the royal commission’s 140 recommendations the Government has commenced or completed implementation of a third . . . work has begun on the remainder . . .

I should have thought that after all this time the Government would be in a better position than simply to say that it has commenced or completed implementation of a third of the 140 recommendation and work has begun on the remainder. We do not know what work has begun. "Work has begun on the remainder" is a well-known euphemism in government bureaucracy. The Government should have been in a position to outline its position on the 140 recommendations. We do not know the Government’s position on most of the recommendations.

The Government has still not provided a comprehensive statement on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. We simply do not know what the Government is doing, where it is coming from or what position it is taking. It is unbelievable. At the time the inquiry was announced I was ridiculed for suggesting that the royal commission would cost approximately $100 million. I was not far out; it cost more than $60 million. Do honourable members know what action the Government is taking on the recommendations? Has the Government bothered to burden caucus with this detail? Of course it has not.

At least we should have been burdened with an idea of where the Government is going in this regard. At least the Opposition has expressed a firm position on a number of the issues. Indeed, it has gone further than that. Today the Leader of the Opposition in the other place outlined legislation that will be introduced this week that will ban paedophiles from working with children when their primary work relates to children. Such a proposal goes further than that recommended by the royal commission. The Opposition highlighted its position on that some time ago. If the Government wants to take a pro-active approach, it should be prepared to go that far. As for the paedophile inquiry, the Premier only adverted to government agencies in the document released today. The document has nothing to do with those in the community who work with children.

Why should convicted paedophiles not be banned working with children? Why should they not be obligated to disclose to their employer that they are convicted paedophiles? Why should we not tell employers that they are entitled to immediately dismiss any employee who is a convicted paedophile? We should not have delayed inquiries or tribunals; we should simply move them away from children. The Opposition has adopted that position. It is time the Government adopted a firm position, but we have heard nothing. Months ago the Opposition called for the establishment of a children’s commissioner, yet only yesterday did we hear the Governor say that a children’s commissioner will be established.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Can the honourable member tell us how to set up a children’s commissioner at a national level?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: We are working on it.

The Hon. Franca Arena: And a national register.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Opposition supports the establishment of a national register. It continues to take the view that a much firmer and pro-active approach needs to be taken to the protection of children. I offer a note of caution about the establishment of a children’s commissioner. There is no sense in having a children’s commissioner if the Government does not resource it adequately or use it. When I was the Minister responsible I initiated the concept of a community services commissioner. To his credit Minister Longley also embraced the concept, and New South Wales now has a community services commissioner.

I established the position because I believed that the bureaucracy would never properly investigate itself. More will be said on this subject before the session is out. This present Minister does
Page 61
not use the Community Services Commissioner, and we have heard of occasions when the commissioner has openly attached the Minister because promised resources have not been received. We must be prepared to use and resource such bodies.

I have noted with interest the prevaricating positions taken on the issue of the age of consent. In a recent statement the Premier adverted to the matter, but in his answer to a question in the other place he did not read the prepared material. For my own part, I indicate that I do not support any alteration downwards of the age of consent. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place is of the same view. This was a major issue in the debate in this House on the decriminalisation of homosexual activity. Interestingly, almost without exception every mother I have talked to about this subject has asked why we do not suggest increasing the age of consent.

I note also that when the Leader of the Opposition and I made clear our views on the matter the royal commissioner said that he only raised the subject as a matter of debate, that there may even be support for increasing the age of consent. I have stated already my views in this regard and reiterate my support for public debate on the issue. I recall back in 1984 the Hon. Barrie Unsworth referring to having to bear in mind the difficulties associated with young people maturing at different ages.

The Opposition is extremely disappointed with the approach of the Government: it expected a much more fundamental and comprehensive response to this report. I should advise honourable members, lest it be suggested that although I had the opportunity to do so I did not so advise, that I have been appointed by the Catholic Church to the Professional Standards Resource Group, which is referred to in Volume V of the report. Almost everyone has expressed concern about the previous inadequate response of the churches to this issue. I was pleased that the royal commissioner in his report commended the Catholic Church for its response to the matter and for establishing what is effectively an ombudsman.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Who is that?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: John Daveron has been appointed to head up the administrative side of the Professional Standards Resource Group and a body of approximately a dozen people compose the board of the resource group to ensure that the church, in a proactive way, addresses the needs of the victims, the community, and the offenders; to ensure there is an appropriate response.

The Hon. Janelle Saffin: Are there any women on the board?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yes, I believe there are an equal number of men and women. Not all the board members are members of the Catholic Church. Professor Di Sampson from the University of Sydney is a board member. The function of the group is to provide a clear oversight of a direction taken by the churches on this issue. I am pleased that the royal commissioner has acknowledged the work of that particular group. I concede that much more needs to be done, but certainly there is a commitment from the churches to address the needs of victims right from the time that a complaint is lodged. The Opposition strongly supports the prompt establishment of a national sex offenders register. The Government wants to adopt the United Kingdom approach; but I do not believe that goes far enough. There are better means of informing the community, and if the Government’s legislation is not adequate the Opposition will seek to amend it or introduce legislation of its our own.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [5.27 p.m.]: We should all be grateful to John Hatton, a former member of Parliament, for the establishment of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, which was set up following a motion moved by him in another place on 11 May 1994. It is strange that this important initiative came from an Independent member and not a member of one of the major parties. However, it was not until my parliamentary colleague the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin agitated strongly about paedophilia that the terms of reference of the Wood royal commission were extended. I put on the record my personal gratitude, and that of the community, to Deirdre Grusovin for the excellent work she has done throughout the years on behalf of the children of this State. Deirdre, we owe you a great debt.

Paedophilia, the use of children to gratify adult sexual desire, is a terrible crime and has affected children more profoundly than any plague has affected humanity throughout the centuries. At a recent conference organised by the Australian Institute of Criminology on Paedophilia, Policy and Prevention, which was held at the University of Sydney, it was stated by various speakers that a paedophile can be anyone. If you think you can somehow distinguish a paedophile by his or her appearance and general behaviour, then you are sadly incorrect. Paedophiles are often the most cunning and devious human beings one could ever meet. Many start young, are long-term recidivists and almost always have a trial for multiple offences and multiple victims. Most paedophiles are male,
Page 62
and they generally start offending around the age of 17 years. These are statistics given by academics who have done studies on the subject.

One can never tell a paedophile just by looking at him. He could be your family doctor, the local policeman, your member of Parliament, your priest, or a close family member, such as your father or your uncle. A paedophile is unlikely to be a female. Victims of paedophiles are not always raped. Children are coerced and emotionally destroyed by paedophiles. Very often paedophiles do not use violence, they use a technique of seduction. Often they use drugs and alcohol, and children then are afraid to report them for fear of not being believed, because of fear of the offender, shame and embarrassment. The offering of drugs and alcohol to victims can turn the victims into addicts. The usual response of the paedophile to accusations against him is then, "How could you believe the statement of this drug addict or this alcoholic? I am a member of this society and he or she is only a drug addict." So very often victims are not believed.

There is also the problem that has been mentioned many times, that if the child is under five and is abused the child cannot be regarded as a credible witness. So the message for the paedophile is: get your victims young and you will get away with it because children cannot remember details and therefore do not make reliable witnesses. So this is why paedophiles get away with abusing young children. During the past 12 months I have received an enormous amount of mail from victims, and the message is always the same, "We want to see the perpetrators charged, we want to see justice" - not revenge, not a vendetta, but simple justice!

These children, the victims of paedophiles, have to suffer not only the indignity of being abused, but very often the indignity of not being believed by the authorities, or having to put up with the humiliation of being made fools of in court by clever lawyers. The royal commission, despite its failings - and I will speak about those - has presented with its report a blueprint for the future. If the royal commission recommendations are going to be implemented, we will certainly see a frontal attack on this terrible crime.

I think the commission has done a good job in exposing paedophilia in institutions such as churches or government departments such as community services and education and in the health system. We have seen how government departments, both State and Federal, the churches and various institutions have been more concerned about avoiding bad publicity about their own structures and institutions than finding out the truth and eradicating unacceptable and intolerable behaviour. This can be said also of political parties.

Paedophiles are amongst the most cunning people you can ever meet and they will often look for employment in areas where they know they can find their victims. We are grateful to the royal commission for documenting some of the networks and places where child abuse has gone unchecked for many years, such as Costello’s at Kings Cross; the Pleasure Chest Club at Kings Cross; the Bevan group connected with the former Lord Mayor of Wollongong; the Orchid Club, formed in the United States but with a flourishing Australian membership; the Children’s Liberation Railway in Glebe; and the Blaze Group, formed in 1987 along the lines of the Victorian group. But who frequented these clubs? The commission was too shy to tell us.

The Blaze Group produced its own publication called "The Blaze", which, as stated in the commission’s report on page 642, promoted man-boy sex and offered support for men who had sex with boys. Its aim was to legalise paedophilia, mainly sexual relationships between adults and children, and in particular between men and boys. All of these groups had connections with other paedophile groups in Australia, in the United Kingdom, in the United States of America and in other parts of the world.

The commission’s report on page 643 cites the Rene Guyon Society, whose infamous motto was "Sex before eight or it is too late". These animals have gone unchecked for years, preying on young, vulnerable children, often wards of the State, often children from broken families. They know how to select their victims. They know that if they abuse children of professional people such as doctors, lawyers, dentists, judges or other eminent people, there is a much bigger risk of their being charged. Does that not say something about our society? I refer to the 1985 Sturgess report in Queensland, which documented well the vulnerability of children. That report states:

Throughout this inquiry nothing has been made clearer than this: if children are removed from or denied the shelter of a good home, they are at grave risk of sexual abuse. Many of them really do not have anything else to sell except their bodies and there is no shortage of persons who will take advantage of them.

Some paedophiles choose their victims carefully, mainly the most vulnerable and least protected children in our community. I ask all honourable members, "What if these had been your own children?" I ask all honourable members to look into their souls and ask themselves this question: what if it had been my children - abused, photographed, handed around different men as if they were pieces
Page 63
of meat and not innocent children? Shame, shame, shame! I ask all honourable members to read what happened in the Mr Bubbles case, one of the case studies in the Wood report: police corruption, incompetence and worse; children scarred for life and the perpetrators getting away with it. Shame! We must never ever let it happen again.

Today’s Sydney Morning Herald carries an article by Ben Hills, which is sympathetic to some of the people who were involved. I was disgusted with it, and I intend to tell Mr Hills what I think of his article. I will not go through the commission’s timetable; it is well recorded in the report, but there are a few things I need to put on the parliamentary record. In a few years, the whole Wood royal commission will fade into oblivion and it is important that those who read the parliamentary record in the future can know how the whole issue was perceived by me and by others. Readers of this record will make up their minds if I have been wrong or if other people have been wrong. As I have said previously, there are important matters that I want to put on the record. On 17 March 1996 the Sun-Herald published an article by Alex Mitchell, a well-respected journalist. The article stated:

Prominent People to be Named - Pedophile bombshell.

At least two MPs, a judge, several senior police officers, lawyers, doctors, a socialite businessman and priest will be exposed in the police royal commission’s pedophile inquiry starting tomorrow.

The allegations are so grave that they will send shock waves through State Parliament and the judiciary and show that police corruption is even more depraved than imagined.

If any of the named child sex practitioners are from the Labor side, it has the potential to oust the Carr Government which is in office by a majority of just one seat.

Premier Bob Carr is believed to have received confidential information last week about the explosive new stage of commissioner James Wood’s inquiry.

He has invited Opposition leader Peter Collins to a private meeting in his office on Thursday at 4pm "to discuss the royal commission.

"I am certainly interested to hear what he has to say," Mr Collins said.

We have had only two formal meetings since he became Premier and they were to discuss the Olympic Games."

The impending revelations, as well as the alarm bells from the March 2 federal election, have propelled Mr Carr into a pro-active damage control mode.

Last Friday he offered to restore some of the cuts to the Department of Agriculture which has caused outrage in rural communities.

And mindful of the fatal blow Queensland independent, Liz Cunningham, dealt to the Goss Government in Queensland, Mr Carr held detailed talks with Clover Moore, the Bligh Independent, last Wednesday.

He promised to consider her nine-page "wish list" and to hold regular consultations during the year.

By wooing Ms Moore and Manly Independent Peter Macdonald, Labor strategists are hoping for their support in the event of losing an MP as a casualty of the royal commission.

In private, Liberals fear that they may suffer a casualty as well with at least one name doing the rounds in an increasingly panicky Parliament House.

Over the past nine months Wood’s investigators have gathered volumes of devastating evidence, including:

* The sworn testimony of police officers who have "rolled over";

* Affidavits from victims of secret pedophile networks;

* Videos of pedophiles in sex acts with children under the age of 14;

* Computer disc evidence giving the names, addresses and venues of pedophile networks;

* "Kiddy porn" magazines published in Australia and imported from overseas.

One of the senior officers involved in child sex activity was traced on the Internet to Sydney Police Headquarters.

At the start of its inquiry, the royal commission was specifically interested in corruption allegations that police officers had taken massive bribes not to prosecute men caught committing child sex offences.

Fearful of the exposure of prosecution and imprisonment, many of the wealthy and well-connected offenders were willing to pay large sums of money to avoid court.

As the investigation deepened, Wood’s "untouchables" found that a small group of policemen were actively involved in the pedophile networks.

When they were forced to "roll over", the inquiry made ground-breaking headway into the world of one of Australia’s most shameful secrets.

Did that not give us a lot of hope that things would change? But what happened? The next day Bob Carr’s office denied that such a meeting was ever going to take place, but it is fair to assume that a meeting did indeed take place when the furore had died down. There was also another meeting which took place here at Parliament House late the following Sunday between Bob Carr; the General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, John Della Bosca; party president, Terry Sheehan; and other important figures in the ALP. Are these people going to deny the meeting took place?

I had confirmation by security officers and others unable to talk about it publicly who could testify to it but are in fear of losing their jobs. I believe it was all to organise damage control. Following the meeting with Peter Collins and the late meeting at Parliament House, the Premier met with Justice Wood. What happened at the meeting between Justice Wood and Carr I do not know. No information was leaked, but I am bold enough to presume that an agreement was reached to ensure that people in high places would not be named as it would have been too traumatic for the community to
Page 64
realise how many of its so-called upstanding citizens were involved in criminal activities.

The result was that the whole paedophilia inquiry went into another stage. Despite the continuation of public hearings, we never heard of a single high-profile paedophile being named or exposed. I believe that this is due to the fact that it was decided that it was too damaging for the community to have members of Parliament and judges exposed. And so the whole matter was swept under the carpet. The royal commission has failed the community by failing to ask for the prosecution of some of the high-profile paedophiles in our community on whom it had evidence and witnesses. If Justice Wood had said in his report, "We diligently set up all sorts of covert and overt operations to catch paedophiles about whom we had received reliable information, but despite all our efforts we were unable to get any evidence that they were paedophiles and for this reason nobody has been named in the report", we could have accepted that, but the reality is that the commission did not even try.

I have no doubt that there has been a massive cover-up and the community is angry and distressed. The system is protecting itself. The commission unmasked corrupt policemen and paraded such corruption on a video to the community. We applauded its work. This is the reason the commission was established: to uncover the guilt in our midst. But for the untouchables in our society there is a different standard; no covert or overt surveillance for them, no hidden videos or secret microphones for them. I know that I will be strongly criticised for making these statements, but I believe it is my duty to put them on the parliamentary record. In the short term I will surely be criticised and even marginalised by my own party, but I know I will be eventually proved right.

It is imperative for me to discharge my responsibilities as an elected member of Parliament. I have my responsibilities to the community. There has always been a reluctance on the part of the powers that be to extend the royal commission’s terms of reference in a way that was needed. We never understood why. Do not forget that this royal commission cost the community $70 million, it employed more than 230 staff and during its operations it accumulated incredibly important evidence. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to look in depth at the question of paedophilia. However, this opportunity has been lost and we have seen a massive cover-up as far as important people in our community are concerned. I place on the parliamentary record the sequence of events that took place in 1996. On 22 October 1996 the Australian Labor Party caucus, after heated discussion that demanded an extension of the paedophile inquiry, unanimously supported a motion moved by me and seconded by Bob Harrison which stated:

[That Caucus] Unequivocally supports the Royal Commissioner and the Royal Commission and acknowledges that the creation of the Royal Commission was supported by the Labor Party whilst in opposition.

In view of the fact that the present terms of reference restrict the work of the Royal Commission investigating all aspects of paedophilia, the Government has agreed to:

1) amend the terms of reference of the Royal Commission,

2) extend the duration of such Royal Commission, and

3) increase the investigative staff available to the Royal Commission in order to deal with new extended terms of reference.

The passage of this motion was a great victory and many of us in the Labor caucus felt incredibly elated that the royal commission and its terms of reference had been extended. However, our elation was short-lived, as only one hour after the caucus meeting the Premier of New South Wales issued a press release that announced the extension of the terms of reference in a way that caucus members felt was a betrayal of the motion that had been accepted. The Premier’s press release dated 22 October 1996 stated:

The Premier of NSW, Mr Bob Carr, announced an extension of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service.

This followed discussions today with the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice James Wood, who agreed to the new terms of reference.

They require the Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon:

1. Whether the existing laws prohibiting paedophilia are appropriate and sufficient to effectively prosecute and punish persons accused of paedophilia and other related crimes of sexual abuse.

2. Whether the penalties currently prescribed for the crime of paedophilia are appropriate and a sufficient deterrent to the commission of that crime.

3. Whether Government departments and agencies have sufficiently effective monitoring and screening processes to protect children in the care of or under the supervision of Government departments and agencies from sexual abuse; if not, what measures should be put in place to provide effective protection in this respect.

4. Whether Police Service investigatory processes and procedures and the criminal trial process are sufficient to effectively deal with allegations of paedophilia.

Mr Carr said that if the Commissioner required, the Government would ensure extra resources or an extension of time would be granted.

Many of us felt that the Premier had subverted the wishes of his own caucus and decided to call for a
Page 65
special caucus meeting. Twenty members signed the request to our Whip, as requested by caucus rules. The letter said:

We, the undersigned members of Caucus, request a special meeting of Caucus to take place tomorrow at 1.00 pm in the Caucus Room, to further discuss today’s Caucus resolutions with regards to the extended terms of reference of the Royal Commission and the Premier’s subsequent press release.

The extra caucus meeting took place on 23 October. At that meeting I moved that two paragraphs be added to my original motion, as I was very unhappy with the terms of reference released by the Premier, which did not reflect what caucus had wanted. The paragraphs to be added were as follows:

1) That the Royal Commission be tasked with conducting criminal investigations, at large, into substantial allegations of paedophilia or pederasty, whether or not connected with protection issues, arising either as the result of corruption, or as the result of system failure, or abuse of office by a public official.

2) Fully investigate and report paedophilia in New South Wales with particular reference to:

a) Any relationship between individual paedophiles, and/or paedophile networks,

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

This motion was moved by me, seconded by Bob Harrison and supported by only 12 people. I should like to put on the record the names of those people: Bill Beckroge, Mick Clough, Paul Crittenden, Deirdre Grusovin, Bob Harrison, Dorothy Isaksen, Jim Kaldis, Ian Macdonald, Janelle Saffin, Ann Symonds and Brian Vaughan. For this reason the royal commission received the terms of reference issued by the Premier, which were more restrictive and did not reflect the will of caucus. The Premier had been at work that morning to ensure the defeat of my two additional paragraphs.

I will never know why the Premier did not want an extensive inquiry into all aspects of paedophilia. He claimed that Justice Wood was not prepared to hold such an extensive inquiry and, in effect, Justice Wood used the terms of reference issued by the Premier on 22 October as a shield every time the commission failed to uncover prominent paedophiles or shielded them. I remember very clearly the discussion I had at the time with Paul Whelan, Leader of the lower House, when I told him that neither I nor other members of caucus were happy with the terms of reference released by the Premier to Justice Wood. He replied, "Well, if Justice Wood does not want extensive terms of reference, we will be able to get another judge." Obviously, this idea, which was indeed the best solution, was vetoed by the Premier. The royal commission proceeded with terms of reference acceptable to both the Premier and Justice Wood.

These terms of reference, I emphasise again, were not as extensive as the community wanted, and many members of Parliament on our side were angry because we felt that the royal commission was a unique opportunity to look at the issue of paedophilia and a unique opportunity to deal with it in depth. Why were the terms of reference not as extensive as we wanted them? Why was the issue of paedophilia not dealt with in depth by the Wood royal commission? When will the next royal commission on paedophilia be held in this State? Why was the lid kept on this important issue? We have never been given an answer. But let me say that many of us have a fair idea why.

After all, the famous lawyer from the western suburbs was reported as saying, "If I go down, many others will go down with me". My two paragraphs became a motion which, on 23 October, was moved by Peter Collins in the lower House and also by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in the upper House. This is the motion which I supported and which I voted for by crossing the floor when it was eventually put to a vote in the upper House and agreed to.

However, all of this was of no consequence as by the time the motion was passed in the upper House the Wood royal commission had practically closed its doors and thus ignored the will of the Parliament. It is important for me to put all of this on the parliamentary record, because I feel that we have lost a golden opportunity. Who is responsible for the loss of this unique opportunity? I leave that for the community to judge. No matter how many positive things may happen in the near future regarding paedophilia, there are people who will have to answer to future generations as to why important people such as judges and members of Parliament were given protection.

I want to state that the protection of our children is an issue which transcends party political affiliation, and this is the reason I want to put all of this on the record. I am very concerned about the cavalier fashion in which the commission has dismissed serious allegations which were made against judicial officers and members of Parliament. We know of judges being investigated by both the State and Federal police for their Australian and overseas activities, but the commission did nothing about it. Maybe I am naive, but I find it almost amusing to read at page 790, paragraph 7.236, in regard to a statutory declaration by a steward of the now defunct Imperial Services Club in York Street alleging paedophilia activities by a member of this Parliament, which stated:

The politician was also called as a witness and denied ever having taken any children to the club, either for lawful or unlawful purposes. He was unable to ascribe any reason for

Page 66
the club employee either being mistaken or fabricating an allegation against himself. Moreover, he denied all knowledge of any paedophile conspiracy or ring of judges, politicians or persons in high places. He knew nothing of the matters concerning Mr Yeldham until their disclosure in the public hearings. In those circumstances, the Commission can take this matter no further, other than to observe that so far as it is aware, no other intelligence exists to suggest that this politician has engaged in paedophile activities, or that he has been in receipt of police protection.

This is an incredible assumption to be made by the royal commission. Did the commission expect the politician to admit to his paedophile activities? Did it expect him to admit that he has often used Parliament House as his private red district area? Is that what it expected of him? Either I am naive or the royal commission is very naive indeed. A lot of people know who this politician is, and I hope that his activities will be monitored very carefully by the police and the Child Protection Unit. The same goes for other judicial officers and members of Parliament who frequent The Wall and other places, and who do not care about the age of the young boys they pick up.

I have no doubt that in some cases the protection of a member of Parliament, or a judge, will prevail, and I want to say why I think that. Let us assume that the President of this Parliament, or one of our Ministers, or another high-ranking officer of the Parliament, leads a double life and is out there picking up young boys; not children, but young boys, certainly well under age, breaking the law. Of course, this is a purely hypothetical question. But do members really think that he would be prosecuted? Do you think that the powers that be would allow the institution of Parliament to be sullied publicly by his being charged? Of course not. If things became too hot, he would be told to go and retire at an early age, like Yeldham did.

In cases such as these there are massive cover-ups, both as far as judges and members of Parliament are concerned, and nothing, but absolutely nothing, will change my mind regarding this. It is enough to read the report carefully to understand what I mean. A lot has been written and said about Justice Yeldham. I did not want to revisit the whole issue, but I feel compelled to do so by the Wood report. Whether Yeldham was a poor homosexual looking for sex in public toilets, or whether he was a paedophile, or a pederast, I leave to the community to judge.

It is a matter of record, in the report, that he masturbated in front of a 15-year-old boy and he exposed himself to an 11-year-old boy. Last year a person came to see me regarding the judge’s activities with his younger brother. This person certainly convinced me that Yeldham had sex with many young boys. I have released my correspondence with the commission on this matter and, as it is available, I will not go into it here. Please read paragraph 7.333 on page 806 of the report, in which Justice Yeldham denied that he was a paedophile, but admitted to sexual encounters. The report stated that he:

•admitted to sexual encounters over the years in public toilets with various persons, of whose ages he had made no inquiries;

I repeat that, "of whose ages he made no inquiries". So it really did not matter what age the victims were, 10, 12, 15 or 21. It did not matter at all to Justice Yeldham. He also denied that he misled Justice Street in the early 1980s when confronted with the allegation that he had been stopped by police, and he acknowledged that he had been less than frank with the Chief Justice concerning his sexual activities. Lying did not seem to worry him. Can Justice Street and Justice Gleeson hold their heads high and assert that they did not cover up for Justice Yeldham? I leave it to others to judge. Let the Yeldham affair be a lesson to us all; to the police, to the judiciary, and to the community. Let us hope it never happens again. I have my doubts about that, but if we monitor the situation carefully maybe we can have some hope for the future.

I would like to commend the stationmaster at Wynyard and the railway transit police for their courage in coming forward and giving evidence. Shame on the Special Branch for covering up the disgraceful behaviour of one of our Supreme Court judges. I would like to commend Neville Ireland of Special Branch who, even though he originally lied to the commission, had the courage to admit to his lies and eventually tell the truth. Unless we acknowledge the shocking behaviour of this former Supreme Court judge holding one of the highest positions in our society, unless we acknowledge the corruption that has taken place all along regarding Justice Yeldham, we run the risk of it happening over and over again.

The reality is that because of the protection of Justice Yeldham and his shameful behaviour, he was able to retire without a blemish on his character, which meant that he became an assistant commissioner to the Giles royal commission. Theoretically he could have been appointed as an assistant commissioner to the paedophilia inquiry! Let me also remind honourable members that Justice Yeldham was the Director of the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect - NAPCAN. Can you believe the hypocrisy of it all? I also want to put on the parliamentary record my deep concern about the behaviour of Mr Ian Temby, the former head of the ICAC, who in 1989 received a complaint about Justice Yeldham.

Page 67

Apart from speaking to Justice Gleeson in his chambers about the complaint, Mr Temby did nothing about it. Shame on him as well, and shame on the Judicial Commission for its inaction. They all denied responsibility, but the community will judge their inaction. The present Commissioner of the ICAC, Mr Barry O’Keefe, another justice of the Supreme Court, has refused to hand over the file on Justice Yeldham to the parliamentary committee on the ICAC for perusal. As I have said, the whole matter has been an absolute cover-up and nothing will convince me to the contrary.

The people in charge made a deal to let Justice Yeldham retire well ahead of his time and to forget the whole business as it was too displeasing to have a Supreme Court judge charged. So Yeldham retired at the tender age of 60 years and a couple of months, certainly one of the youngest judges of the Supreme Court ever to retire. Interesting, is it not, especially in light of the fact that we had to pass legislation to ensure that judges retire at the age of 72, as they used to stay on the bench until they nearly dropped dead. Justice Yeldham retired at 60, and in excellent health, good enough to go around toilets for many years to come. I will conclude my contribution on this part of the report by quoting from page 822, paragraph 7.415 of the commission’s report:

If, as now appears to be the case, there was shared suspicion concerning Mr Yeldham’s activities, then it would have been highly desirable for an official inquiry either by the Police Service, the ICAC or the Judicial Commission to be initiated.

Highly desirable for an official inquiry to be initiated! This must be the understatement of the year! I rest my case. My last comment on this disgraceful episode will be in the words of Justice Wood, who on the ABC 7.30 Report on 26 August 1997 said about Yeldham:

Justice Yeldham was involved in breach of the criminal law for a substantial period of time.

Is that not a nice, sanitised, kind way of putting it? One can practically hear his colleagues from the big end of town saying, "He is dead now, let us protect his reputation for the sake of his family." But I ask you, what about the victims? What about all the people that have been abused by paedophiles all these years? What about the children who have had their lives destroyed, ruined by drugs and alcohol, trying to forget the abuse?

This has been a very difficult period for me and my family but the one thing that has sustained me during this whole period has been the pain and sorrow of the victims, the people who have come to my office and told me their tragic stories, some of which I have already put on the parliamentary record. If I had the time and permission from the victims I would put many more on the record. I think of them, of the victims who do not have friends in high places, who do not have the protection of important people. I want to be able to say to them, "Rest assured that in our country, in beautiful Australia, there is equality before the law." But would that be the truth? It was always the thought of the victims that kept me going and also the fact that if there is one thing that is important in all of this, it is the truth. I am not an overtly religious person but I want to put on the record the words of Jesus as reported by John the Apostle: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

The truth, I think, is the greatest casualty in the commission’s report. The commissioner lifted the lid on paedophilia in high places and the smell of rot, the ugliness of the scene, was too much. So they put the lid back on, hoping that the whole issue would go away and that all we have to do is worry about the future. But that will not be so. Paedophilia in high places has to be dealt with or this festering wound will attack the health of the whole body of society. The creation of the Wood royal commission raised expectations that could not be fulfilled, but the community was entitled to see it try harder. We certainly have to look to the future, but we forget the past at our peril. The report contains 140 recommendations which need to be looked at in detail to ensure their implementation as quickly as possible. The most important recommendation concerns the setting up of a children’s commission with special powers, completely independent of government. This commission must be well funded. I think the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber spoke about funding. This is a most important item, the funding of the commission, especially in its first years to ensure that many of the historical cases of sexual abuse are dealt with.

I will not go through all the recommendations as I am hoping that the Government will set up a special committee to supervise the implementation of the recommendations. It cannot be left to public servants. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to see real reforms in this area and we must not miss it. I strongly support the setting up of a register of sex offenders. There are precedents for this both in Manitoba, Canada, and in the United Kingdom, where a register was set up, I believe, at the beginning of September. I expect that the Council for Civil Liberties and similar bodies will raise all sorts of objections regarding the register, and the civil liberties and privacy of the people whose names are on it. The interesting thing about all this is that, so far as I know, there was no reaction at all from the Council for Civil Liberties regarding the fact that people involved or suspected of being
Page 68
involved in criminal activities will be excluded from the Sydney casino. The editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 September said it all. It stated:

It seems that many of those directed by Mr Ryan to be excluded are well known as suspected drug dealers.

We know a lot of suspected paedophiles but, of course, we have to respect their privacy; we have to respect their civil liberties. When it comes to gambling, no, because money in this country is more important than children. I am disgusted by it all. I am really disgusted by the double standards. I have not heard a single boo from the free speech committee, which writes us letters all the time, regarding the right of the Minister for Police to make the statements he made a week ago about paedophiles, and the absurd decision of two judges to abort trials. Did the Minister not have the right to make his speech? Where are all the supporters of the free speech committee? Who is going to pay for the two aborted trials? Are the judges going to pay? To whom are the judges accountable? They decide what they like, how they like, and no-one can tell them anything, not even the New South Wales Attorney General.

I think it is not acceptable in our society. We should all be accountable to someone, as should the judges. They should not have an easy ride all the way. For too long now the law has been biased in favour of the offenders; for too long the victims have not been believed. It is time to redress this imbalance and ensure that justice is done. During the past 12 months I have worked tirelessly on this issue. I have been contacted by hundreds of people. I have been to Long Bay prison and to other correctional centres to speak to prisoners who had information for me. I have met abused people who have become offenders. I certainly believe in rehabilitation and feel we should offer that alternative to first offenders, but I have no time for cunning recidivists who have ruined children’s lives. For them there must be much heavier sentences. The commission recommends the lowering of the age of consent. To include such a recommendation in a report on paedophilia is to send the wrong message to paedophiles and to the community.

The age issue is a separate issue, used as a red herring to divert attention from the real menace of paedophilia conduct. I will oppose such recommendations on the basis that already there are few prosecutions of offenders when victims are aged 17 or 18. Lowering the age to 16 will in fact mean an age of consent of 14 or 15. This is totally unacceptable to me and to the community in general. But I will speak on this when the private member’s bill is introduced in Parliament. I think that we should move quickly and wisely to implement the worthwhile recommendations of the Wood royal commission because we have to ensure justice for our children. Let us not forget the words of Edmund Burke, who said:

All it needs for evil to prosper is for people of goodwill to do nothing.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.07 p.m.]: The Greens generally support the recommendations of the report of the Wood paedophile inquiry. We are certainly very concerned that this unique opportunity to deal with paedophilia should not be lost. I listened with interest to the previous speaker, the Hon. Franca Arena, and hold the same hope that we will see real reforms that are lasting and will significantly protect our children. It is a shame that it took so long and a police corruption inquiry to begin to protect children. However, it is a start - a significant start. It is a tragedy that such an issue has been allowed to exist in society for so long. For many generations all levels of society seem to have turned their backs on something that is regarded as too difficult to deal with.

The Greens support the recommendation that a powerful and independent children’s commission be established, which would protect children involved in government, independent, community and church groups. The new independent authority would monitor and advise on the performance of the various departments and agencies involved in child protection, and would perform an important role in making administrative decisions. The Wood report specified that the commission should have three distinct divisions. To avoid the loss of expertise of the Child Protection Council, that council would provide the infrastructure for the centre for child protection, the Community Services Commission would provide the infrastructure for the employment information centre, and there would be an investigation and service unit related to persons employed or voluntarily working with children.

It is absolutely essential that the Government gives adequate funding to these areas to ensure that this action is allowed to follow through. However, the Greens are concerned about the possible effect on the Community Services Commission of establishment of the children’s commission. It appears that its establishment may cause the Community Services Commission to cease to exist, leaving disabled people without a watchdog to champion their rights, and that the disability responsibilities of the commission may be transferred to the Ombudsman. The disability sector is particularly concerned about this possible outcome. For instance, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales - NCOSS - is concerned about
Page 69
the capacity of the Ombudsman’s office to effectively deal with the range and nature of consumer complaints in the disability area, and the potential lack of focus for translating the systemic complaints into management and service practice reforms within agencies, government and non-government, which provide disability services.

The inequality in a system that starves such important areas in our society yet creates such largesse and waste in other areas of our system never ceases to amaze me. NCOSS also believes that consideration should be given to either transferring the disability functions of the Community Services Commission to the proposed children’s commission and renaming it, or to ensuring that a specific purpose disability service commission remains. The Greens support NCOSS’s position. It is essential that disabled people are left with a watchdog to champion their rights. The report recommends that the Crimes Act be amended so that the evidence of child witnesses in child assault cases be taken by the admission of an audio or videotape out-of-court statement as part or whole of the witness’s evidence in chief, and by the admission of videotape of the evidence for examination, cross-examination and evidence in chief of the child recorded at a pre-trial hearing. Child witnesses will only have to give evidence once instead of the multitude of times that some victims have had to undergo. Additionally, Justice Wood recommends new laws to make it easier and faster for child victims of sexual abuse to seek justice. They will be able to talk to judges who are not wearing conventional wigs and gowns, and can expect to be in court within six months if under the age of 12.

The Greens believe that this is an essential step in the right direction. If implemented, these recommendations will reduce the child’s trauma of seeing the accused, who is most often a family member, in court, which can adversely affect courtroom performance. It would also overcome the problem of a child’s memory fading from the time of evidence being taken to the child’s court appearance, which can be up to two years. The Greens strongly support these recommendations. A key recommendation of the report is to lower the age of homosexual consent from 18 years to 16 years in a bid to introduce a "gender-neutral approach" to the Crimes Act on male homosexual activity.

The report states that existing legislation was discriminatory, and a discriminatory age of consent is inconsistent with the underlying principles and philosophy of anti-discrimination legislation in New South Wales. The report pointed out that reform of the law to bring about a uniform age of consent of 16 years for both heterosexual and homosexual activity has had the support of the Anti-Discrimination Board since at least 1982. South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory are other States and Territories which have gender-neutral consent laws, the age being 17 years in South Australia and Tasmania and 16 years in Victoria and the ACT.

The Greens’ lesbian and gay policy states that "The Greens oppose all laws which discriminate against lesbians and gay men and will work towards equalising the ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual acts." The Greens therefore support the recommendations of the report on this basis. Justice Wood was extremely critical of the Department of Community Services and the police force. He said that there is a lack of priority given to child protection by these agencies. With regard to the police force, he said the style of policing in child abuse cases evidences a series of false starts and investigative failures, and that there was inaction and inappropriate delivery of policing services, which leads to a large number of offenders escaping proper investigation and prosecution. Also, the police force is seriously flawed in its management of paedophile intelligence and lacks sufficiently trained investigators.

Another problem is the perception by the police force that policing in this area was not serious work. The label of the "nappy squad" is attached to those working in this particular area and assignment to such duties was seen as punishment. The Department of Community Services was labelled as "dysfunctional". The report says that DOCS, which is the key agency responsible for protecting children from abuse, is in a state of crisis and is poorly managed and underfunded. There had been so many complaints about DOCS that it presented a dismal impression of its performance in caring for children.

The report pointed out that only 2 per cent of familial and only 6 per cent extra-familial child sexual abuse was ever reported to police, and that only about 10 per cent of all child sexual assaults are notified. A retrospective study of Australian women carried out in 1994 concluded that 20 per cent of women - one in five women - have suffered some form of child sexual abuse, but only 10 per cent of abuse experiences were reported to authorities. Currently the mandatory obligations under State legislation are confined to medical practitioners, teachers, school councillors and school social workers.

They expressly do not extend to ministers of religion or legal practitioners, nor in the absence of any relevant prescription by regulation do they currently extend to chief executives of bodies conducting non-government schools; other health
Page 70
workers such as nurses, psychologists, psychotherapists, natural health practitioners, paramedics, therapists and the like; social workers, welfare workers and youth workers outside schools; persons in charge of residential care centres, refuges and the like conducted for children, or child care centres; or chief executives or persons in charge of bodies providing welfare, social and sporting activities involving children even though each of these involves a high risk area for sexual abuse. The report recommended that mandatory obligations should be extended to the categories mentioned above.

The report also found that mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse to the Department of School Education was largely ignored by teachers and school principals. The Greens welcome the report and are eagerly awaiting the implementation of the recommendations of the report which hopefully will see children far better protected from child sexual abuse than they are now, the current situation being absolutely appalling. The Greens will support and work towards a fundamental change in the attitudes of many parts of society, particularly for those in positions of control and power from bureaucratic departments and the Police Service, to focus on these issues and prioritise them for the protection of our children.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.17 p.m.]: As other speakers have said, paedophilia is a major, serious and evil crime against innocent children by adult male perverts who prey on children and take advantage of them. Sadly this report of which we are taking note has only gone halfway because of the lack of political will on both sides of Parliament, especially in the Australian Labor Party at its highest level. I emphasise "highest level" because, as we have been told by the Hon. Franca Arena, caucus indicated in a majority vote its strong support for firm action. The report therefore fails for what it does not say. It does not provide information and facts that I hoped would arise from the report. The report is also disappointing and fails because of focus on the age of consent. It is no good the royal commissioner saying that the age of consent was not really a major matter. Even a novice would know that if that were included in the recommendations the media would focus on it and it would become a major issue of debate.

I note that the Sydney Morning Herald and other major newspapers have actually stated that the age of consent was the main recommendation arising from the Wood royal commission. Commissioner Wood should not be surprised about the controversy as he set it in motion. The Hon. Franca Arena referred to the original motion which was passed overwhelmingly by the Australian Labor Party caucus. If that motion had been adopted by the Premier and the Government - I understand that the Premier and the police Minister strongly opposed it - it would have given the royal commission stronger powers in its terms of reference to expose the paedophilia network in New South Wales. As honourable members know, I moved the same motion in this House and it was passed by a majority of members on 10 April 1997. I deliberately used the same wording as the original motion moved in the Australian Labor Party caucus in the hope that it would gain more support in this House. The motion stated:

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 officials.

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.

That motion was passed overwhelmingly by 23 votes to 14. I thank the Hon. Franca Arena for taking such a courageous stand in voting for the motion, knowing that she would be severely criticised by her party as it is against Australian Labor Party policy to allow a free vote on paedophilia. The Government deliberately restricted the royal commission to areas of police corruption involving paedophilia. It then reluctantly expanded the terms of reference to include paedophilia activity in such government departments as the Department of School Education and the Department of Community Services with a view to recommending various ways and means of identifying paedophile activity and those involved in that activity, and to outline what action would be taken in scrutinising the appointment of staff and so on. Obviously no honourable member in this House would criticise such recommendations, which would provide stronger precautions.

The Christian Democratic Party does not criticise the royal commission for making such recommendations as they are mainly machinery type matters dealing with the future. However, an honest, open investigation of the paedophilia network operating in New South Wales was necessary. We have seen the alarming reports of similar activities in Queensland. Over the years I have received a
Page 71
great deal of information about a paedophile network operating in South Australia. In one terrible case the body of a teenage boy was discovered in the freezer in the home of a person involved in the legal profession. Obviously the boy had been murdered and his body simply placed in the freezer. One might say that that was the tip of the iceberg. It revealed that something sick was happening in the so-called city of churches. We cannot simply say that we have a problem in Sydney. Such activity is occurring in all our capital cities in particular and in other countries.

We have seen the shocking reports of the paedophilia network in Belgium which involved the kidnapping of children. Children were not only abused but restrained for up to 12 months in sound-proofed cement cellars so that their screams of terror, agony and fear from torture and abuse could not be heard by the outside community. These activities occurred in suburban streets. The men involved were so clever and went to great lengths to protect their activities. Finally, after 12 months, they murdered the small children - in this case young girls. In Belgium up to 300,000 parents protested because, although the leader of that group was interviewed by police, no action was taken. That caused a widespread suspicion in Belgium that both senior police officers and senior politicians were protecting the activities of the paedophile network.

Of all nations, it is hard for us to associate paedophilia activity with such a beautiful and law-abiding nation as Belgium. That shows that paedophilia activity can and does happen in what appear to be places that have no prostitution, no brothels and no crime. The terms of reference meant that the royal commission could not investigate, for example, the activities of the paedophile network in non-government areas. Obviously the wall of silence fell down. When the royal commission made inquiries and saw the trail leading in a certain direction it would stop. Indeed, it often stopped witnesses from speaking. Witnesses were told not to mention certain things or to mention names because the royal commission could not go down that pathway. Indeed, the royal commissioner shut the door on witnesses giving evidence. His legal excuse was that the matters went beyond his terms of reference.

The lid was close to being taken off but, unfortunately, it was not lifted. If it had been lifted the royal commission could have investigated paedophile activity in the legal profession and in the wider community. Despite the terms of reference being restricted to one area, the royal commission moved into other areas that I believe were beyond the expertise of the commissioner, who is a judge and has sat on the bench for many years. Worse than that, he did not call expert witnesses to deal with those matters and present major points of view. The commissioner rushed into some areas and shut the door on other areas. When he rushed into some areas he was, in many ways, fulfilling the proverb, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." He moved into the area of heroin addiction, and recommended that heroin be provided to addicts and that government-sponsored heroin shooting galleries be opened.

As I said, the commissioner made a recommendation relating to the controversial matter of the age of consent. Whatever weight we put on his words - and he seems to have done some backtracking - the clear intention was to support lowering the age of consent. Some homosexual groups in Sydney have placed advertisements in newspapers advocating lowering the age of consent and stating that there should be no age discrimination against men having sex. I am talking about the age of consent for acts of buggery or sodomy - anal homosexual acts. I sincerely hope the Australian Labor Party caucus does not support what was publicised. It may not be true but the media reported that one member of this House would seek support from caucus to introduce a private members’ bill.

If the recommendation were passed by the Parliament and if the age of consent were lowered - earlier the Hon. I. Cohen emphasised that we must remove discrimination - adult male paedophiles would be allowed to sodomise and commit acts of buggery with boys as young as 14 years. We are talking about 16 being the age of consent, but the law provides a period of two years to cover these people; they know that they can be involved with a boy of 14 years. It is illogical that a royal commission of inquiry into paedophilia and into the need to protect children could make such an irresponsible recommendation. The report fails because it is silent about members of the paedophile network. It fails to name paedophile activists, and that forces members of Parliament to ask questions about particular persons, as the Hon. Franca Arena did. The royal commission and the Government have forced members to bring these matters to the floor of the House and to use parliamentary privilege. When a member is criticised one must ask why that member is being forced to ask questions.

No member wants to take such action, and the Hon. Franca Arena made it very clear that she derived no satisfaction or joy from having referred in this House to former Justice Yeldham. The Government by its lack of action is forcing members to take this course of action. Authorities should be set up to conduct such investigations so that members of Parliament do not feel it necessary to

Page 72
take on the role of the police force. In spite of everything, the royal commissioner supports the lowering of the age of consent, which is the principal demand, from my reading of paedophile propaganda, of the paedophile network in Australia and of such groups in the North American Man-Boy Love Association and the Australian Paedophiles Support Group.

The Hon. Franca Arena read to members the slogan that is unashamedly displayed on banners carried by paedophiles in homosexual mardi gras parades in San Francisco and other places. It states, "Sex before eight, otherwise it is too late." Lowering the age of consent for males to equal that related to females will only allow the realisation of the next stage of the paedophiles campaign: the abolition of the age of consent. I hope that the majority of the members of this House, particularly members of the Labor Party, will not support that recommendation.

Pressure has been mounted for the implementation of that recommendation in advertisements that have been placed by homosexual groups in Sydney recently in the Sydney Morning Herald. If the age of consent for buggery is lowered to 16 years with provision for a defence to the age of 14 years, effectively the legal age will be 14 years. It seems that people have forgotten that the law as it relates to the age of consent has a special purpose: to force adults to restrain themselves, so that even if a child is seduced or manipulated to give consent to having sex with an adult, the adult knows that if he or she proceeds to have sex with the child, he or she is breaking the law.

One of the known techniques of the paedophile is to operate as, say, a bush lawyer or bush psychologist. Paedophiles actually stand outside kindergartens and children’s playgrounds watching children deciding which are vulnerable and which are in need of love and attention; children from broken homes or who are obviously not receiving adequate love and support from their parents. Paedophiles are able to identify, focus their attentions on and win over such children and ultimately have sex with them. The paedophile literature argues that such a relationship should be legal. It suggests that it is not child abuse. It argues that if a child consents to have sex with an adult male, the adult male should be permitted to do so. All members I would hope that no member would agree with that sentiment. Many paedophiles are prepared to take risks to satisfy their desires. A paper I read recently refers to paedophilia as an addiction. Paedophiles are so addicted that they will take any risk to satisfy their unnatural lust for young boys. We must therefore continually fight and campaign against evil paedophiles, whether acting as individuals or in a network.
Even Justice Yeldham, it seemed with all his success in life, would risk all to satisfy the drive he had within him. The word "addiction" would seem to fit his situation. We must remember the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18, verse 6. As we know, Jesus Christ had a strong love for children and spoke often of the need to protect them. He said that if any man caused a child to sin, it is better for that man to have a millstone put around his neck and be drowned in the deepest sea. I suggest that Jesus was saying that if anyone hurt or abused an innocent child, such punishment would pale into insignificance when the person responsible came into the hands of God, when he faced the judgment seat. I have received from the New South Wales Council of Churches a number of responses to the report. Rather than take up the time of the House reading the documents, I seek leave to incorporate those documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.
______

CAMPAIGN FOR LOWERING THE AGE OF CONSENT IS MANIPULATIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE

The current advertising campaign being mounted for the equalising of the age of consent by a homosexual lobby group featuring large pictorial newspaper adds is not only manipulative but is also shrouded in a much deeper hidden agenda according to the NSW Council of Churches.

Council of Churches President, Rev John Edmondstone said today, "It is no secret that some members of the gay and lesbian community have been very forthright in their vocal support for the lowering of the age of consent since the inquiry into paedophilia surfaced at the Wood Royal Commission last year - some even talking about ages as low as 14 years."

He said, "The advertising campaign which features a young boy drawing a comparison between sex with a similar age girl where his peers would call him a hero to sex with a similar age boy where the law calls him a criminal subtly has far great implications that merely calling for a stop to discrimination as is highlighted in the advertisement."

Rev Edmondstone said, "The NSW Council of Churches feels that the status quo should be maintained regarding the current age of consent but if in fact there was to be any change to the current law, then the ages for both male and female should be eighteen, the legal age for other adult responsibilities."

"This campaign seeks to manipulate public emotion by falsely seizing on an anti-discrimination stance between male and female. The real agenda is a call by older people who have the financial resources to be able to pay for an advertising campaign so as to be legally free to have sex with young males without a fear of being accused of paedophilia or being prosecuted," he said.

Rev Edmondstone said, "The whole campaign reeks of self interest for the self gratification of a few at the potential expense of causing emotional confusion about sexual orientation for many young boys who would become drawn into a homosexual lifestyle before they fully have had opportunity to develop and mature emotionally."

He added, "If you have any doubts, speak to any parent or even a child psychologist who will readily tell you that boys

Page 73
usually develop and mature emotionally much later than girls - on average about two years."

Rev Edmondstone said, "Lower the age of consensual male sex now and in twelve months, these financially able, vocal lobby groups which represent a small minority of the whole population will be back again calling for the age to be lowered even further."

He said, "Both the Premier Mr Carr and Opposition Leader Peter Collins have many times given public assurances that our children need to be and will be protected and the people of New South Wales are looking to our leaders at this time for confirmation of their stand."

______

The NSW Council of Churches appreciates past responses and expressions of concern by the current government in agreeing with our call for a state government assurance to protect our children at all costs.

We are thankful for the initiatives that the Carr Government has put in place through the Education Department and Department of Community Services to avoid the child abuse problems of the past.

Prior to, and since the Wood Royal Commission, churches have also been actively installing child abuse prevention programs to make both clergy and laity more accountable for the protection of children and parishioners alike.

At this time, the Council wishes to express its concerns at the vocal lobby groups calling for the lowering of the age of consent for males and our opposition to the current advertising campaign being run in major newspapers. The advertising campaign (copy attached) which features a young boy drawing a comparison between sex with a similar age girl where his peers would call him a hero to sex with a similar age boy where the law calls him a criminal subtly has far greater implications that merely calling for a stop to discrimination as is highlighted in the advertisement.

Further we believe the call by some sections of the community who have vested interests for the lowering of the age of consent to 14 is appalling and tantamount to blatant promotion of child abuse.

We would ask the Honourable Member to maintain the status quo regarding the current the age of consent but if in fact there was to be any change in the current law, then the ages for both male and female should be eighteen, the legal age for other adult responsibilities.

Statistics released this year indicate that juveniles indulging in pre-marital sex in the main do not use contraception and apart from the dangers of sexually contracted diseases, there is always the possibility of unwanted pregnancies.

We appreciate that it is an impossibility to legislate and in general terms, police moral conduct; however, the NSW Council of Churches feels that if the age of consent was lowered, the message sent to our young people and to unscrupulous adults who would take advantage of young teens would be one of endorsement for promiscuous behaviour.

We therefore request that you take a stand against the call for the lowering of the age of consent.

Yours sincerely

Pastor Wayne F Magee
Public Affairs Director

______

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I am concerned also about the response of Commissioner Wood to criticism levelled at him in relation to the lack of exposure in his report of the paedophile network. He said that such was the role of police. My wife and I, possibly more than any other members of this House, support the police in their efforts to combat crime. In no way do I criticise the police force. I suggest that with regard to the activities of the paedophile network the powers of police are inadequate. That is why the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin and I, among others, tried in this House to ensure that the royal commission had such powers. We believed that the paedophile network was so complex and so well hidden that a royal commission was needed to take action against those who refused to answer questions asked of them about paedophilia, in the same way as people were imprisoned at Long Bay for contempt of the commission for failing to provide answers about drug related crime.

Police powers in this regard are limited, and I believe that Justice Wood misunderstood the point - even though he is a judge - when he said that this was a matter for the police. I do not believe it is. We need royal commissions with powers beyond those of the police to conduct intensive investigations. I am disappointed that so little has been achieved by the Wood royal commission in this regard especially as much effort was put into expanding the commission’s terms of reference to include the paedophilia inquiry. I congratulate the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin and the Hon. Franca Arena on their strong efforts and I thank God for the opportunities that I had to support their concerns.

I was disappointed also that when the paedophilia report was released the newspapers decided to have a go at politicians. They asked why politicians had been silent about the paedophilia network in Sydney for so long, and why it took a royal commission report to bring it to the surface. I reject that suggestion. A senior journalist from WIN Television in Wollongong interviewed me about the activities of Frank Arkell, and wanted me to make statements about him before he was charged. I said, "To be quite honest, I do not have any evidence. I do not know anything about him in that area. I know about him because he was the Lord Mayor of Wollongong, but I have no information concerning paedophile activities." The journalist laughed at me and said, "I am surprised. We have known for years." I asked the journalist, "Why have you all been so silent about it?"

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am reluctant to intervene, but I would point out that this matter is before the courts.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I am simply making the point that the media have been

Page 74
unjustified in their criticisms of politicians. It appears that the media have not been energetic in their investigations. They obviously have the means to investigate these issues and to run feature stories, and they could have done more than they have done. I took part in recent child protection vigils which were held at night outside Parliament House. In a discussion with journalists I wondered why the media appeared to have covered up the issue and remarked that perhaps some people in the media - perhaps an editor - had been involved in paedophile activity. Immediately a journalist put a tape recorder in front of me and asked me to name the editor. I told him I had no such knowledge but that I was making a generalisation. I said that in some respects the media had been part of the blanket of silence and that they are not justified in attacking members of Parliament when people like the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin have fought for so long and have put their own political careers at risk in seeking to expose this activity.

As other members of this House know, and as I have said before, I have been raising matters relating to child abuse, paedophilia, child pornography and child prostitution since at least 1973, when I was made the Director of the Festival of Light community standards organisation. One of its areas of concern was to campaign against the sexual abuse of children through child pornography and child prostitution. We held marches and rallies. We invited two senior detectives from the Los Angeles police force, who were specialists in the area of the physical and sexual abuse of children and were involved in exposing paedophilia networks, to speak at meetings and to consult with the New South Wales police force. That led to the development of our own police child protection units.

I have been speaking about this issue for 24 years. Many of my statements have been ignored, ridiculed by the media, distorted and not treated as seriously as they deserved to be. A few years ago my wife and I received a phone call informing us that two young men were speaking on ABC radio, boasting that they were involved in paedophilia. My wife recorded the discussion. The two men, probably in their 20s or 30s, boasted that they could pick up children from parks and playgrounds. These devious people said they would make love to a woman over a period of 12 months with a view to getting access to a child. After they had won her trust she would allow them to take her little boy to the zoo, and they would molest him. We complained to police.

We have received a lot of evidence over the years and we usually approach the police commissioner with that evidence. We do not go to the media; we do not try to gain political capital or publicity for ourselves. The police approached the ABC, but received no co-operation; the ABC would not provide the tape of the interview or any details of the two pederasts. When the police asked us if we could help them we gave them the tape. They went away and listened to it, then advised us that the two who took part in the program at the ABC studios were known pederasts. One wonders why those who were involved with the program were so anxious to cover up for those individuals.

Senior police officers with whom I have discussed this issue, both in the United States and in Australia, have told me that when they arrest people for molesting children they almost always find child pornography in their cars. There is a link between child pornography and paedophilia. The child pornography is a stimulant to the pederast; the children depicted in the pornography have been abused in order to produce pornographic photographs or films. Two problems are involved: first, the abuse of children, and second, the fact that the material incites paedophiles to seek out and abuse children. We are also concerned that more children will be put at risk because of the legalisation of brothels. Before they were legalised I received a complaint from a man, not one of my supporters, who regularly used the services of prostitutes in brothels. He was upset because at a brothel near Circular Quay he had been asked if he wanted an adult male or female or a child as young as 14. I passed that information on to the police commissioner.

I believe police will regard brothels as no-go areas. They have no real power against brothels. If they receive evidence that a child is being abused, of course they will act on that evidence, but with the legalisation of brothels it will become easier for children to become involved, and that would be a tragedy. I have raised the issue of child pornography and child prostitution in the House, but I have also raised the issue of paedophilia in both speeches and questions. In 1983 I raised some serious questions in this House concerning the formation of the paedophile support group in Sydney and the opening of a postbox at Haymarket, but all I got was complete silence from the media and ridicule in this House. I reject the suggestion by the media that politicians have been silent on this issue. The question should be why the media have ignored the issue when it has been raised in this House by me and by other members? But it has not always been ridiculed. I recall receiving sincere responses from the Government when Barrie Unsworth was Leader of the Government in this House. He took the issue seriously. Deirdre Grusovin also took the issue seriously and investigated any questions I raised with her.

Page 75

When I was in Queensland a few years ago there was a report in the press about my meetings, but another press report stated that a paedophile network would be established in Queensland. The American Man-Boy Love Association, which claims to have 5,000 members, announced that it had extended its network to include Queensland. I would be surprised if it did not also include New South Wales. The association, in a 40-page newsletter, stated as its main objectives the abolition or lowering of the age of consent, the end of social harassment and prosecution of paedophiles, the release of all persons in prison or in hospital for having sex with children, and freedom for a child regardless of age and an adult to have sex if they want to. I do not know the strength of the establishment of the association in Australia, but it certainly exists.

The Hon. Deirdre Grusovin, a former member of this House and a Cabinet Minister in the Labor Government, put her political reputation on the line to expose paedophile activity, whether by her references to the Seabeach kindergarten and the Mr Bubbles case or to John Marsden, a prominent millionaire solicitor. Her statement concerning John Marsden brought a firm rebuke by the Premier, Mr Carr, and she was punished by being replaced in the shadow ministry and moved to the backbench. I raised the same matter in this House out of respect for the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin. On 2 December 1994 I asked what action would the Government take to investigate the allegations made in the other place concerning Mr John Marsden, particularly given his influential position in New South Wales. A report was later made public stating that an investigation had revealed no evidence involving Mr Marsden in paedophile activity. I expressed to the then Minister for Police my surprise at the result. I said, "I am surprised that you said the police have investigated the matter and there is no evidence." His reply, off the record, was as follows:

The police did no investigation. They simply looked in Mr Marsden’s file at police headquarters and could find no evidence in the file.

I do not call that a police investigation. In a proper investigation police would interview people, talk to people in the local community and to business acquaintances. It was a clayton’s investigation if it simply involved looking in a file. Another controversial issue to which I must refer, though I am constantly criticised in this House when I do, is the link that the homosexual movement has with paedophilia. Are they two entirely separate groups, with paedophiles on one hand and homosexuals on the other? I have referred already to the campaign of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, which placed an advertisement in a newspaper campaigning for an equal age of consent - that is, the lowering of the age of consent for males. That group has been involved in the issue of sexual abuse of children.

I have much evidence to show the link between the homosexual movement and paedophiles. I am not saying that all homosexuals are paedophiles or that they abuse children, but the evidence is clear that a percentage of homosexuals prefer to have sex with or sodomise young boys, especially attractive, young blond boys, than to have sex with adult males. Surveys conducted in various countries support my view. I should like to quote the results of a number of those surveys. In 1983 a survey was undertaken of the sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in five United States cities. The survey revealed that 3 per cent of men and 7 per cent of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 13. That result reveals that 30 per cent were homosexual, that is, the adult male was homosexual. In its 1978 survey the Kinsey report - quoted with great respect by some people, but not by me - found that 37 per cent of homosexuals and 2 per cent of lesbians admitted to sexual relations with 17-year-olds, and 28 per cent of homosexuals and 1 per cent of lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under- 16-year-olds while they themselves were aged 18 years or older.

In the 1987 Kinsey Institute report 565 white homosexuals in San Francisco were interviewed and 25 per cent admitted to having sex with boys aged 16 years or younger while they themselves were at least 21 years of age. I have many such statistics. I am not homophobic, but we must be honest when debating these issues. I am sure honourable members are aware of the serious reports of teachers, even school principals, being involved in paedophile activity. A private school principal was accused of molesting young school boys. In the Daily Telegraph of 11 March 1997 it was reported that that principal was ordered to stand trial on 37 charges of sexual abuse and assault. If teachers and principals are involved in paedophilia, how many children are subjected to such activity? There has been alarming evidence of boy scout leaders, clergy of all denominations, priests, brothers of the Catholic Church, even Salvation Army officers, and those who put themselves in positions of trust with access to children being involved in paedophile activity.

An excellent report presented by Four Corners indicated that Justice Yeldham and his very good friend Peter Trebilco, who is a prominent member of Sydney’s homosexual community, were apparently involved in homosexual activity at the age of 11. Mr Trebilco says he was "doing the beats" at the age of 11 when he was a Knox Grammar boarder, and his good friend was David Yeldham. David Yeldham
Page 76
became school captain of Knox and Peter Trebilco became vice captain. Were either of those men abused by a teacher at that school? It does not explain their activity or excuse their behaviour, but it does raise concerns about the need for strong controls in education at government and non-government schools and over teacher recruitment policies to ensure such people cannot achieve high public positions.

When I was watching the Four Corners report and listening to the conclusions I was alarmed to learn that boys in private boarding schools were sexually abused. It is particularly serious given that such schools produce a high percentage of Australia’s leading professionals in the judiciary, in medicine, in government and even in the church. If students in private schools, particularly boarding schools - and Justice Yeldham may have been one - who have been abused have been able, because of their level of intelligence to achieve high positions in society, it begs the question: from where does the paedophile network operate, how serious is it and how many people in prominent positions may be involved? The possibility exists that it could involve more than we expect!

Finally, I call for a joint Federal and State royal commission into paedophile networks in all our capital cities, not only Sydney. The Wood royal commission has only scratched the surface and we must not stop. Others may have different solutions, but that is my recommendation on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party. We also call for support for the white ribbon campaign march and rally on Monday, 6 October, which is a public holiday. Marchers will assemble outside Parliament House at 12 noon and commence marching at 1.00 p.m. The march will conclude at 2.30 p.m. in Hyde Park with a child protection rally at which outstanding child protection speakers such as the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin and the Hon. Franca Arena will speak. That is a non-political, non-denominational rally which I hope members of this House will support.

There is a need for people who have problems in this area - and I know this is a hard thing to accept - and who are involved in matters about the age of consent and so on, to stand aside from positions that they may hold. If someone holds a senior position with the Law Reform Commission or the Anti-discrimination Board and is involved in homosexual activity, he or she should stand aside from debating or recommending on matters involving the age of consent or similar sensitive issues. If there is a conflict of interest in the financial area, we are strict on that. A conflict of interest in these sensitive matters is just as serious. Someone in a senior position may never have broken a law in his or her life but, because of his or her particular lifestyle, his or her decisions and objectivity may be prejudiced. I thank the House for taking note of the report.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [7.01 p.m.]: Tonight the House heard an extraordinary speech from the Hon. Franca Arena. It was extraordinary because an allegation was made with no substantiation, because there can be no substantiation. The allegation was that the Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr, and the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Collins, had reached an agreement not to name names. This allegation is absolutely without foundation: there was no agreement. There was no discussion between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition about this issue. I repeat, the Premier has never raised with the Leader of the Opposition any suggestion that a pact of silence be made and that it should involve the royal commissioner.

The Leader of the Opposition has never, and would never have, made such an agreement. Indeed, on the day that the report was released the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Collins, called for the naming of names. He is on record as criticising the royal commission for not naming names. I was with him when he received a telephone briefing about the report by counsel assisting the royal commission at the time that the report was released. I know how strongly he felt about this issue. This allegation from the Hon. Franca Arena does her credibility absolutely no good. I say to the honourable member, "If you want credibility, if you want to be taken seriously in your campaign to rid society of paedophilia, do not come in here with false allegations. Your credibility was questioned by the royal commissioner. You have done it no good by this utterly false statement."

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

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) [7.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.03 p.m.]: I raise an issue with which a number of honourable members may be familiar; the forced amalgamations of some rural lands protection boards, which are occurring across the State. Honourable members may be aware that
Page 77
the Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Richard Amery, on the advice of the Rural Lands Protection Board State Council, has forced amalgamations between Tenterfield and Glen Innes, Mudgee and Merriwa, and parts of Braidwood with Bega, against the wishes of the ratepayers.

I can understand the political process whereby the Minister took advice from the Rural Lands Protection Board State Council, and this is certainly not a hatchet job on the Government or the Minister. I point out that the process that has been arrived at, with the State council giving advice to the Minister without the support of the local boards and the ratepayers, led to a great deal of angst and bitterness and unfortunate circumstances.

That angst has especially arisen among the Merriwa people. They have held a large public rally and public meetings and have sent numerous deputations to the Minister and the Rural Lands Protection Board State Council. They believe that they fulfil the requirements that the Minister has set out for rural lands protection boards to continue individually, without being amalgamated. Yet, unfortunately, the State council recommended that they be amalgamated with Mudgee. Unfortunately, the Minister has acceded to the request of the State council. The Minister had an option to revisit that decision, to question the Rural Lands Protection Board State Council about this amalgamation. It is obvious that there is no local support for the amalgamation and, as I said, the amalgamation has created an enormous amount of bitterness which will reflect on the Minister and the State council.

The Government has made a great play about rural impact statements in respect of decisions affecting rural communities. On this occasion the Minister advised that a rural impact statement was provided to Cabinet before this decision was made. However, the impact statement was arrived at without local consultation, which is a great pity. If the Government wants to be taken seriously on these rural impact statements, it will have to consult local communities about the impact of decisions. The Government should take into account the problems that rural communities are having because of decisions such as this. The Minister can still revisit his decision about these amalgamations, about which there is obvious bitterness. Of course there have been amalgamations with which the boards are quite happy. However, in several instances there has been a great deal of local bitterness, which is continuing.

Representatives of the communities will visit Sydney over the next couple of days to speak with anyone who will hear their case. If the Minister did the right thing and listened to the concerns of the local people, he could revisit his decision about amalgamations. It is unfortunate, as I said earlier, that he has accepted only the advice of the Rural Lands Protection Board State Council. However, on this occasion the State council has misread local concerns and local feelings. The town of Merriwa has, along with a number of towns of similar size, suffered from the withdrawal of services, the withdrawal of banks and the withdrawal of many other facilities that had been enjoyed over a long time. The community will suffer from the withdrawal of the services of a rural lands protection board in favour of the larger community of Mudgee. I urge the Minister to revisit the decision. I know he is facing a difficult time and a difficult situation. However, it is in his hands now; it is beyond the Rural Lands Protection Board State Council. Merriwa and Tenterfield are hurting over these decisions.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [7.08 p.m.]: I express regret that Canberra is not to have a heroin trial after so much work has been undertaken over the years to get it up and running. The trial that was carried out in Switzerland was very successful. I have a report on the Swiss trial, entitled "Program for a Medical Prescription of Narcotics, Final Report of the Research Representatives. Summary of the Synthesis Report". The study ran from January 1994 until December 1996 and involved 18 treatment clinics in 15 cities. The study involved 1,146 patients and provided 403,402 treatment days for analysis. Patients had at least two years of heroin use, many previous unsuccessful attempts at treatment, and many also had serious problems with physical health, mental health and unemployment.

The highlights of the results of the trial were that general physical health, nutritional status and injection-related skin diseases improved following medically prescribed heroin and this improvement was stable or increased over 18 months; contact with the drug scene dropped dramatically; income from illicit and semi-legal activities decreased from 69 per cent to 10 per cent; the number of offences and the number of offenders dropped by 60 per cent; court convictions recorded in the central criminal registry also decreased significantly; the proportion retained in treatment was 89 per cent at six months and 69 per cent at 18 months, which is higher than other drug treatments.

In addition, more than half of the patients who dropped out switched to another form of drug treatment; illicit heroin and cocaine use rapidly and markedly decreased, although alcohol and cannabis consumption did not decline; employment improved from 14 per cent to 32 per cent, while
Page 78
unemployment dropped from 44 per cent to 20 per cent; there were 36 deaths among the 1,146 patients, 17 from AIDS and other infectious diseases; there were no overdose deaths of patients in the study and the annual mortality rate of 1 per cent was lower than in untreated patients; the average cost per patient was 51 Swiss francs per day, which is about $47, with the overall benefit of 96 Swiss francs per patient per day, which is about $89, leaving a net benefit of 45 Swiss francs per patient per day, or $42.

The conclusions were that medically prescribed heroin is safe; reduces overall drug use; improves recruitment and retention in treatment; improves health with benefits lasting beyond treatment; decreases crime - the all-important issue, so far as I am concerned; resulted in a low mortality rate of 1 per cent; and that the economic benefit was mainly due to decreased costs as a result of less crime, less imprisonment and reduced health costs. The proposed trial, which was supported by the health Ministers of this and other States and the Federal Minister for Health, was essentially torpedoed by a campaign run by ignoramuses such as journalist Piers Akerman and by a weak Prime Minister, John Howard. Piers Akerman wrote a number of articles during the past few weeks. In an article on 10 August he stated:

As for the notion that junkies, if given free smack, will be able to hold down a regular job - what a joke!

It has been proved that they have done so. In another article on 24 August he wrote:

Small wonder then Mr Howard’s decision to derail the ACT’s unscientific free heroin handout was attacked by apologists for drug addicts and pushers.

On and on he goes, attacking it. In an article on 27 July he said:

Society itself has to re-enforce the no-drugs message and make it harder for the drug merchants to survive.

The joke is that Piers Akerman, when he lived in Albion Street in the 1970s, used LSD and marijuana regularly. He also used cocaine regularly when he was in the United States of America, in Los Angeles and Washington. I have spoken to someone who shared a number of cocaine lines with Piers Akerman. He was a drug addict. He also sexually harassed young female employees of News Limited in Washington and was sent back to the United Kingdom, where he tried to become the editor of the London Times but was denied that. He tried to get a job recently with the Sydney Morning Herald but was denied that, too. Here we have this hypocrite who is working hard to oppose what would have been a very useful reform in the drug fight in this country and now he is working against the interests of the community by torpedoing that. He himself was a drug addict and he still is a drug addict on legal drugs to this very day.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [7.14 p.m.]: I pay tribute to a former Deputy President and Chairman of Committees, the Hon. Clive Healey. Clive Healey was a member of this House in the pre-penultimate group of the last of the so-called undemocratically elected members. He was Deputy-President of this House from 8 November 1978 until 22 February 1988. He was born at Emmaville in 1918, the son of a tin miner. He often said that the house he grew up in had a dirt floor and from time to time he referred to himself as the barefoot boy from Emmaville. Clive Healey came to Sydney in 1937 and worked at the Waddington Body Company. In 1939 he continued his apprenticeship at Tullochs. He joined the army and completed his apprenticeship in the 2/124 Field Workshops of the Silent Seventh Division. In 1941 he married Gloria, after meeting her at Luna Park. They were married on a Monday, he went back to camp at Holsworthy on the Tuesday and left on the Queen Elizabeth for the Middle East the following day. Their marriage was to last 56 years.

Between 1941 and 1944 the Seventh Division saw active service in the Middle East campaign and twice on the Kokoda Trail. The policy was that there was to be only one tour in New Guinea, but the Seventh Division went there twice and Clive was amongst them. He was in the last battle of World War II, the battle for Balikpapan, in which 229 of his comrades lost their lives and 634 were wounded. The Seventh Division was the last Australian division to come home. He was discharged from the Second AIF in 1945 and went to work as a boilermaker at the Chullora workshops. There he met Tony Mulvihill, later Senator Tony Mulvihill, and John Armitage, a former member of Federal Parliament. Both had a big influence on his political life. Clive Healey joined the Labor Party in 1946 and he told a story about selling the twopenny Labor News with Tony Mulvihill at the Chullora workshops. In 1964 he went to work on the Sydney Harbour Bridge with Paul Hogan, who was a rigger. He became a member of this House in 1970 and was elected Deputy-President and Chairman of Committees.

I worked very closely with him at the Australian Labor Party head office and we had some funny times together. Clive had diverse interests. He was a beekeeper and I recall him speaking in this House about bees, with much expertise. Graham Murphy pleaded for money for the Sydney Dance
Page 79
Company. Clive made a contribution in this House, urging the Government to provide funds, and it did. He continued to follow his beloved Western Suburbs Football Club, and served for 20 years as a member of the board of Western Suburbs Hospital. He died on 16 August. He had been made a life member of the Australian Labor Party that he loved in 1990. He is survived by his wife Gloria, his son Mark, his daughter Anne and three grandchildren. May he rest in peace. [Time expired.]

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [7.89 p.m.]: Tonight I pay tribute to my party, the Australian Democrats, because today is the anniversary of the election of our first member of Parliament. Robin Millhouse was elected to the South Australian seat of Mitcham on 17 September 1977 and went on to become a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia, where he serves to this day. I also thank the thousands of members and parliamentarians who have served the party tirelessly over the past 20 years, since that auspicious beginning. I pay tribute to their efforts to promote our policies and pursue accountability.

Without them we would not have grown and gone on to hold the balance of power in the Senate and in two State parliaments. Without them we would not have grown to the point at which we were able to change the face of the upper Houses in South Australia, New South Wales and most recently Western Australia, where my colleagues the Hon. Helen Hodgson and the Hon. Norm Kelly are part of the new wind of change that swept control of the Legislative Council away from the coalition for the first time in 103 years. Many Australian political parties have come and gone since Federation, yet only four have stood the test of time in the Federal arena. I am very proud that my party is one of those four. Our Federal leader, Senator Cheryl Kernot, encapsulated the frustration that a growing number of Australians have with our political system when she recently stated in a lecture:

There is a price for our cynical acceptance of the dishonest and farcical rituals that currently dominate our political processes and that price is the further entrenchment in Australia of a style of politics where tactics are more important than honesty, where the ends always justify the means, and where lying is just not expected - it is tolerated, encouraged and rewarded.

And it is in that political climate that the Democrats have forged a role in contemporary Australian politics both as a political insurance against the excesses of the rituals and as a party which gives greater focus to policy outcomes than to point scoring.

An increasingly politically sophisticated electorate has begun to realise that the Democrats have protected the independence of the Parliament under both Liberal and Labor administrations. People are demanding more involvement in the political process, and the Australian Democrats have brought the political process closer to the people by establishing and expanding the legislative committee process. I look forward to seeing many more Democrats elected to Parliament during the next 20 years. I know that we will be in government one day.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [7.22 p.m.]: At the request of the family involved I will put on the record a case of sexual abuse at one of our prestigious private schools. The names of the victims have been changed, but the name of the perpetrator, who was charged, pleaded guilty and was convicted a few weeks ago, will be put on the parliamentary record. I shall call the family in question "A". Mother and father worked very hard, hoping to give their sons a better future. They are loving and dedicated parents, and their greatest ambition has always been to give their sons a good education and a good start in life. They decided that a private school was their best choice, and, despite the financial burden, they chose Trinity Grammar School in Summer Hill, one of the most prestigious private schools available to students who live in the western suburbs.

I will speak tonight of the sorrow and of the distress of the "A" family on learning that two of their sons were abused by a mathematics teacher at Trinity Grammar, Mr Robert Paul Doyle, who was a teacher at the school between 1984 and 1988, teaching year 7 to year 12. Please note that when Mr Doyle left Trinity Grammar he went on to teach at St Patrick's at Dundas, where he taught from 1989 to 1993, when he was dismissed. Did he abuse children there as well? This is a typical case of a teacher offending, being given good references and then being able to move on to another school.

Mr Doyle abused Peter and John - as I said, those are fictitious names - whilst he was giving them extra tuition. He told Peter that he was very good at maths and that he could, with extra tuition, move on to a more advanced class. With private tuition started the fondling and then the abuse, which lasted for a period of 12 to 15 months. The abuse went on at the school and at a school camp in Cronulla. Peter was very keen to do well and to move on to a more advanced class to be with a group of special friends. He would get up early in the morning and be driven to school at 7 o’clock by his parents for this extra tuition. The betrayal of trust by the teacher and the lack of supervision by
Page 80
the school is something I leave to honourable members to assess. Peter was then 13. When he tried to push away Mr Doyle’s advances he was told by him, and I read from the police transcript, "It’s normal, I do it to my kids."

It is important for honourable members to hear these sordid details to realise how cunning and deceptive these abusers are, and how difficult it is for children to fully understand what is happening to them. Mr Doyle made sure that the lessons took place early in the morning, in a closed room with the blinds down. But what is the responsibility of the school principal in all of this? Why was there no supervision at all? The trauma and despair caused to Peter by the actions of Mr Doyle are indescribable. He tried to keep away from Mr Doyle, who then became abusive towards him, calling him names. Peter eventually told a friend about the abuse and Mr Doyle was charged. I quote from the police transcript. Peter said:

I did not give permission to Mr Doyle to assault me in any way. As a result of what he did to me, I have been rebellious for the last 10 years. I have a problem with keeping jobs and studying. I do not have any capability to concentrate. I am forever saying sorry to everybody for no reason. I have a problem with creating friendships because I do not trust anyone. For the last year I have stayed at home with no interaction with anyone and all I want to do is isolate myself.

Both parents made statements indicating how Peter became withdrawn, angry, uncontrollable and rebellious. He did not complete his education because of the abuse. After Mr Doyle’s conviction, Peter and his brother, who I said was also abused, are trying to put this terrible episode behind them. But the question that remains unsolved is how the school could be so negligent towards these two boys it had in its care. On 1 August 1988 the former headmaster of Trinity Grammar wrote to Peter’s father in these terms:

The incident is singularly unfortunate. It produced in the boy, feelings of repulsion and fear. Mr Doyle is insistent that the whole incident was on his part, entirely playful.

He concluded by saying, "This is certainly the end of the matter." No police investigation, no dismissal of Mr Doyle, nothing. Protecting the school’s reputation was more important than protecting the children in his care. The Wood royal commission has shown how negligent many school authorities have been towards their students. This is but one of many examples. This behaviour from school authorities must cease. Protecting teachers who are paedophiles is not what we expect from school authorities. We expect them to protect the children. I have now known Peter for nearly a year. I have seen first hand what the abuse did to him. I have met and spoken to his loving mother. They are good people who have asked over and over again, "Why us? Why did it happen to our family?" There is no answer.

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:16:51   :   Update this page