Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 11 November 1997, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

Assent to the following bills reported:

Crimes Amendment (Contamination of Goods) Bill
Health Professionals (Special Events Exemption) Bill
Motor Accidents Amendment (Board of Directors) Bill
Sea-Carriage Documents Bill
Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Amendment Bill
Local Government Amendment (Ecologically Sustainable Development) Bill
Real Property and Conveyancing Amendment Bill

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

Ordered to be printed.

The President tabled, pursuant to section 78(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the annual report for the year ended 30 June 1997.

Ordered to be printed.

The President tabled, pursuant to section 31AA(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1974, the annual report for the year ended 30 June 1997, received out of session.

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

Ordered to be printed.

The President, as Chairman, tabled the report on a citizen’s right of reply.

Ordered to be printed.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to resolution of the House, receipt of the report entitled "STAYSAFE 40(1997): A 50 km/h General Urban Speed Limit for New South Wales: Progress Report and Edited Minutes of Evidence", dated September 1997.

The Clerk announced receipt of the Government’s response, dated April 1997, to the recommendations in the report entitled "Waste Minimisation and Management".

Ordered to be printed.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to section 33E(2) of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983, receipt of the report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into allegations made in Parliament by the Hon. Franca Arena, MLC, dated 7 November 1997.

Ordered to be printed.


Page 1404
The Clerk announced receipt of a confidential supplement to the report of the Special Commission of Inquiry together with the following note from the commissioner:

The attached document is the Confidential Supplement to my Report dated 7 November 1997. That supplement, and this note, form part of that Report.

The Supplement quotes from documents tabled by Mrs Arena and supplied to the Inquiry pursuant to a resolution of the Legislative Council on Tuesday, 21 October 1997. Clause 3(c) of that resolution prohibits publication or copying of the material without a further Order of the House.

By reason of that resolution, I have in the body of my Report described the material in the way that Mrs Arena described it to the House and expressed my conclusions about it, but I have not included any analysis of the material in the body of the Report, for the reasons stated at pp.6-7. This Confidential Supplement contains a brief analysis of that material, as referred to at p.7 of the Report.

Having regard to the terms of the resolution of the Legislative Council concerning publication, I have placed the Supplement in sealed envelopes to ensure confidentiality. I recommend that the Supplement not be published until permission to do so is granted by order of the Legislative Council.

The Supplement quotes from some of the documents contained in part C of volume 4 of the material, and summarises other parts of those documents. In preparing the analysis I have been concerned to ensure that the Supplement does not name or identify persons against whom allegations are made, except for the allegations referred to in the terms of reference of this Inquiry. Apart from the restriction on publication imposed by clause 3(c) of the Resolution of the Legislative Council on 21 October 1997, I am aware of no reason why the contents of the Supplement should not be made public.

Under subsection 10(3) of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1983 I recommend that this Confidential Supplement be published.

The Honourable J. A. Nader, RFD QC
Commissioner

7 November 1997

Confidential supplement ordered to be printed.

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 government control over families, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.46 p.m.]: I move:

1. That, in view of the report by the Special Commission of Inquiry into allegations made in Parliament by the Hon. Franca Arena, MLC, including the confidential supplement to the report, the Hon. Franca Arena is adjudged guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of the Legislative Council; and

2. That the Hon. Franca Arena is expelled by this House and her seat on the Legislative Council is hereby declared vacant.

On Friday, 7 November 1997, pursuant to section 33E of the Special Commission of Inquiry Act, Commissioner Nader delivered to the Governor and to the Clerk of this House his report into allegations made in Parliament by the Hon. Franca Arena. As honourable members will recall, on 17 September 1997 the Hon. Franca Arena made serious allegations against members of this Parliament, the Government, the judiciary and others. On 25 September the House authorised by resolution the establishment of a special commission of inquiry into those allegations, to determine whether the honourable member had any evidence to support them and waived its privilege accordingly. The special commission of inquiry was established by letters patent on 26 September 1997. Its terms of reference were to inquire into and report on the following matters:

(1) claims made by Mrs Arena in the Legislative Council on 17 September 1997 to the effect that:

(i) a meeting took place between the Premier, Mr Bob Carr, and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Collins, to plan the suppression of names of individuals allegedly being investigated by the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service;

(ii) the Premier and Justice Wood met and that "an agreement was reached to ensure that people in high places would not be named"; and

(iii) a meeting took place between Premier Bob Carr, John Della Bosca and Terry Sheahan at Parliament House to plan the suppression of the names of individuals allegedly being investigated by the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service; and

(2) whether Mrs Arena had any evidence to support these claims which she made under parliamentary privilege.

Page 1405

The commission was originally required to report by 14 October, but because it was unable to proceed during the course of challenges to its validity, its reporting date was extended to 7 November 1997. Honourable members will recall also that the Hon. Franca Arena challenged the validity of the special inquiry, but her challenge was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and the High Court declined to grant special leave to appeal from that Court Of Appeal judgment. When announcing her challenge to the validity of the inquiry the honourable member said that should its validity be established she would not avail herself of any right to decline to give evidence which the Act provided. Notwithstanding that statement the Hon. Franca Arena relied upon her parliamentary privilege and did not attend the special commission of inquiry, although invited to do so. She did, however, table in Parliament on 21 October 1997 certain documents that she claimed supported her position, including part C of volume IV, which the honourable member stated relates to claims made by her in Parliament on 17 September 1997. The commission’s report, which was tabled in this House today, found that the claims made by the Hon. Franca Arena were false in all respects. The commission also found:

Mrs Arena had no evidence, sufficient or otherwise, to support these claims, or any part of them, which she made under parliamentary privilege; nor was there anything, not amounting to evidence in the strict sense, that could have provided to any reasonable person acting in good faith any justification whatsoever for these claims, or any part of them. The evidence strongly suggests Mrs Arena knew she had no such evidence.

The commissioner noted in his report that the honourable member’s allegations were calculated to, and would certainly have had the effect of, slandering the reputations of each of the persons named adversely in her speech. He also observed that even though a full inquiry has now been held and it is conclusively proved that her allegations are false, the inquiry was powerless to restore those reputations in the minds of the few who are likely to think that because the Hon. Franca Arena has said these things they may be true. The commissioner described the honourable member’s conduct as objectively reprehensible. Taking the step of seriously slandering the reputations of people under parliamentary privilege, in circumstances in which it may be that no amount of public vindication of the person may ever be able to remove completely the stain on his or her reputation, is in itself extremely serious. It is even more serious when it is done without any evidence to support the allegations made.

On 21 October 1997 this House ordered that the material tabled in the House by the Hon. Franca Arena be referred to the Special Commission of Inquiry. The commissioner noted in his report that he has carefully examined all of the tabled material, not only part C of volume IV, and has concluded that none of the documents comprising that material, whether considered individually or as a whole, is at all probative of any of the accusations made by the Hon. Franca Arena in her speech of 17 September. He further noted that it is impossible to see how the honourable member could conscientiously have believed otherwise. Elsewhere in the report the commissioner observed that there is nothing in those four folders that provides the slightest scintilla of evidence for the alleged agreement between Justice Wood and Mr Carr.

Not only has the commission found that the Hon. Franca Arena made these extremely serious allegations without any evidence to support them, but it also concluded that the evidence establishes that she was not telling the truth in her speech about the basis for her allegation that there was a meeting between the Premier, Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan on Sunday, 24 March 1996. She had said in her speech that this meeting was confirmed by security officers to have occurred. The commission’s report records, however, that each of the security officers on duty that night gave evidence that they were not aware of any meeting in Parliament House on that night between Mr Carr, Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan and that they had not been approached by the Hon. Franca Arena about the matter. If the Hon. Franca Arena did not tell the truth to Parliament about the basis for her allegation, then she was actively and knowingly misleading the Parliament. This is indeed a very serious offence against the Chamber. Finally, and most importantly, the commissioner commented:

Mrs Arena’s attack not only damaged the reputations of the persons she named, but also the public offices occupied by them. Nor can it be doubted that the use of parliamentary privilege to make such unfounded attacks on the good reputations of persons must tend to bring Members of Parliament themselves as a class into disrepute.

This goes to the crux of this expulsion motion, which is not intended to punish the Hon. Franca Arena; it is intended to protect the functioning of the House. The House must protect itself against the lack of public confidence that arises from such behaviour. The House can only function if it has the trust of the people. If its exceptional powers and privileges are abused by any of its members, the public may demand that they be limited or removed altogether. This would undermine the ability of the House to fulfil its functions. As Erskine May says of parliamentary privilege, "Fundamentally, however, it is only a means to the effective discharge of the
Page 1406
collective functions of the House that individual privileges are enjoyed by members."

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members of the public in the upper gallery must not lean over the balcony.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: There have been previous examples of a House of this Parliament taking such action to protect itself. One pertinent example, from 1917, is the expulsion of Mr Richard Price from the Legislative Assembly. He had made allegations in Parliament against a Minister, including an allegation that the Minister was involved in wasting public money by having a railway line diverted to suit himself and his constituents. A royal commission was held into these allegations and Mr Price appeared before the commission to justify his allegations. The royal commission found that Mr Price’s conduct in making these allegations was wanton and reckless and that the allegations were made without any foundation. The House then resolved that he was unworthy to sit as a member of the House and expelled him. Mr Fuller, who was Acting Premier at the time, made the following comment on the situation:

. . . the question that hon. members of this House have to ask themselves is this: whether Parliament is a place where hon. members are justified in making charges in a reckless, wanton fashion without any foundation whatever, or whether Parliament is to be a place where the reputations of hon. members will be safe and where hon. members should be careful indeed about what they say about the character and actions of other hon. members, so as to keep up that dignity which parliament ought to have, and to maintain it in the highest respect of the public of this country.

The same question should be asked of honourable members today. I would, however, expand upon the quotation by noting that it is not only the reputation of honourable members that should be safe from reckless and wanton attacks but the reputations of all citizens of this State. If privileges are abused, they can be lost; if lost, the functioning of this House would be seriously undermined. The Supreme Court has previously considered the power of the Legislative Council to expel a member. When a Mr Armstrong was expelled from the Legislative Council in 1969, the Supreme Court confirmed the inherent power of the House to expel a member for unworthy conduct.

The court considered that the continued membership of the Legislative Council by such a person would disable the Legislative Council from discharging its duty. In the case of the Hon. Franca Arena, her conduct in making false allegations without any supporting evidence and in failing to tell the truth to the House clearly makes her unfit to perform her high responsibilities and functions in the Legislative Council as a member. It certainly makes her unfit to continue to hold and exercise the privileges of this House. Her actions prevent the conduct of the functions of the Legislative Council and its members with mutual respect, trust and candour. Her actions will cause the community to doubt the honour of the House and the good faith of its deliberations. Finally they tend to bring this House into disrepute and would lower its authority and dignity if left unremedied.

This action is supported by both precedent and legal authority. The Parliament and the courts have previously recognised that the privileges conferred on members of Parliament must be exercised responsibly and with integrity, otherwise the standing and indeed the ability of the House to function is diminished. The people of this State expect no less. The Hon. Franca Arena has told this House on a number of occasions that she stands to be judged by her peers in the Parliament. In making that judgment honourable members must keep all thoughts of punishment from their minds. The judgment of this House must be made on how best to protect this House and preserve its dignity and ability to function with the respect and trust of the community. This can only be done by adjudging the Hon. Franca Arena to be guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of the Legislative Council and expelling her from it. I move:

That the debate on this motion be adjourned until after question time to give honourable members time to consider the confidential supplement to the report of the Special Commission of Inquiry.

The Hon. Franca Arena: I ask the House to give me permission to speak in reply to the Attorney.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member may speak only to the Attorney’s motion to adjourn the debate until after question time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion to adjourn the debate in order to facilitate any speech that the Hon. Franca Arena may wish to make.

Leave granted.

Motion for adjournment of debate withdrawn.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [3.00 p.m.]: I thank the Attorney General. Before I start talking about this matter I place on the record my strongest opposition to the fact that today many members of
Page 1407
the public were not allowed to come into this House to listen to the debate. There were people who were prepared to come here and behave themselves, as are those who are in the gallery now. They are members of the community, they are people who pay their taxes. This is a House of the people - our salaries are paid by the people, by their taxation. I was told by Mr Beverstock - and I suppose that he is going to say that this is not true, but I heard it myself and so did journalists - that Bob Carr did not want people demonstrating in the gallery. Since when does this House belong to Bob Carr? Mr Carr should not impose his will on this House. I came to see you, Mr President, and you allowed some of the people to come in. I wish you had allowed all of them in, because they all promised that they would behave themselves. We should be sure that when something of such importance as this motion is moved in the House people are allowed to listen to the debate.

This is going to be one of the most difficult speeches of my life. There is so much I want to say, but I feel that to a certain extent it would be futile. There are people who believe that I have been malicious and have spoken in the Parliament knowing that what I said was untrue. I will never convince those people. Nothing I will say will convince them; they have made up their minds. I am speaking today to those of you who have known me for 10, 20 or even 30 years. I ask you directly: do you think - as Mr Nader said - that I am a liar?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Yes.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I hope that members of the Italian community who are in the public gallery in great number have heard the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who goes to the Italian community -

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Franca Arena that when addressing the House she must address the Chair. In no circumstances should she address the public gallery.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I am sorry, Mr President, and I apologise. I reiterate, however, that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who is always in the Italian community pretending to be a great friend, is here getting stuck into me, a woman and a member of his own community. He has not even given himself the chance to hear what I have to say. His bias is disgraceful. As I said, I am speaking today to those of you who have known me for 10, 20 and even 30 years. I ask you, do you think - as Mr Nader said - that I am a liar? Do you think I would be so foolish as to come to the House of which I have been a member for 16 years and lie to the House? What would be my motivation?

According to the Premier, the motivation was that I was not made a Minister after the election of the Labor Government 2½ years ago. To all of you, many of whom, as I said before, have known me for a long time, I want to put this question: do you think that I am such a twisted individual that I have for 2½ years harboured inside of me a resentment and hatred for not having been made a Minister, that such hatred and resentment would explode in a speech made on 17 September - a speech which I could foresee was going to create problems for me, but which I felt compelled to make because I felt that I was acting on behalf of my constituents? If it was not serious, it would be laughable. I reject the accusation in the strongest possible terms.

I realise that the Nader report is very negative towards me, but I want to state unequivocally that what I said on 17 September last was never said out of malice or because I had held or still hold a grudge against anyone. I spoke in good faith, following information I had received. I believed and still believe my informants to be people who spoke to me also in good faith and without malice. I have spoken on behalf of victims of paedophilia, as is my duty as an elected member of Parliament. The community will judge me. There is a short-term view of this, but also a long-term view. I am confident that justice will be done and that the Pyrrhic victory of Mr Carr will go down the drain, where it belongs.

Let us look at what happened following my speech. The Premier called an emergency caucus meeting on Thursday, 18 September, at 1.00 p.m. At that meeting he asked for a censure motion to be moved against me on that day at 2.15 p.m. in the other place and at 2.30 p.m. in the upper House. The censure motion was approved and the meeting closed at 1.20 p.m. By 2.15 p.m. the Premier, without any consultation with the Labor caucus, went into the other place and, on the advice of Mr Collins, called for a judicial inquiry. So much for the need for a special caucus meeting. It was really needed! Mr Carr is becoming the little dictator of Macquarie Street; he does what he likes, as he likes and when he likes, and then obliges caucus members to vote for him because there is not much else we can do but support him. Fortunately, I am not in that position any more.

The commission of inquiry was then set up. I have been accused of costing the taxpayer a lot of money. The media has even questioned the Premier, but has the media ever questioned the Premier on
Page 1408
the reasons that the formal procedure of the House was not followed? Maybe the Attorney General will tell us - maybe you, Mr Attorney, will tell us; I have respect for you, I think you are a decent person. You might answer me: why was the procedure of the House not followed? This whole matter should have gone to the privileges committee of the House, which would not have cost the taxpayers of New South Wales a single cent. I would have been judged by my peers, a cross-section of parliamentarians to whom I would have given all the information and documentation I had, which was subsequently sent to Mr Nader, QC, and the Commissioner of Police, Mr Peter Ryan, on the advice of this Chamber.

We have heard from Mr Nader, but we have not heard from Mr Ryan. Do you think it is justice that you should move to expel me when only Mr Nader was allowed to give a report? I will speak about the report and what I think of that report in a little while. Do you think that having sent the information to two people but having heard from only one of them you should now go ahead and expel me - the most serious move that has been taken in this Parliament since I have been here? Let me talk about the paedophile issue generally. The question of investigating paedophiles in high places is extremely important.

The people of this State need to know that whenever such a hideous crime is occurring it is being properly investigated and charges are being laid. However, there is an additional point that is even more serious - that is, if higher authorities are seen to be condoning paedophilia in high places, then this gives encouragement to paedophiles who regularly abuse our children. This refers not only to those predators who prey on teenage boys in clubs and organised paedophile rings, but to all those monsters who abuse our children in secret, often in their own homes. Sometimes these criminals are friends or relatives. The message we must not allow to be sent to these people is the following: "Don’t worry I’m molesting this girl here or that boy there, because by the time the authorities get to me they won’t do anything about it anyway. If the big boys can get away with it, so can I." We must not allow that kind of mentality, which has gone on for a long time, especially when State wards were involved.

I know that the Minister for Community Services is a caring person, but what has happened to the wards of State in this State and in this country is so appalling I would never have believed it myself until I heard the stories that these people told me. We as a community, as a Government, as an Opposition, must do something about the wards of State and their treatment - they are our children; they are all our children. The terms of reference for Justice Wood in relation to the paedophilia segment were nowhere near as broad as that decided by the Labor caucus on 22 October 1996, which were to investigate all aspects of paedophilia. The terms of reference were restrictive, as I pointed out in my speech of 17 September. In fact, that was the main point of my speech: that paedophile inquiries have not been wide enough, have not had sufficient resources and have not been applied to the whole issue as in other countries such as Belgium. Justice Wood told the Nader inquiry that it would have taken 20 years to follow up all the leads. Do you think that the community would have objected to that? Do you think the community would have been upset if Justice Wood had said to Mr Carr, to the Parliament, to the Opposition, "Look, this is a most serious issue. We need to put in more money and more time to inquire into paedophilia and all its aspects."?

Two hundred and thirty-five people have been working on that commission. How many paedophiles have they caught? Not even 10 per cent of 235. One was dead, the other was overseas and the other we never heard of. What a debacle! I applaud the work of the Child Protection Enforcement Agency under the supervision of Inspector Heslop. However, past experience shows that there have been so many leads to follow that soon all his resources will be stretched to the maximum and well-meaning police officers will soon not be able to follow up anything more than the clear-cut allegations. My presumption in my speech of 17 September 1997 that parliamentarians could have done more to inquire into paedophilia or the existence of paedophilia in high places led to the calling of the special commission of inquiry. This has cost the taxpayer a significant sum of money and I have been castigated by the media, some of whom are in the gallery now. I have not forgotten that they have castigated me all the time. But where were you? Why didn’t you ask Mr Carr -

THE PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will not address the press gallery. She may talk about members of the press but may not address them.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I was just looking up for a moment.

THE PRESIDENT: Order! The member said "you", referring to the press gallery.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I am sorry, I must have had a terrible lapse. Just looking at you
Page 1409
all the time confuses me. The media could have asked the Premier why the normal procedure was not followed. Instead, fed by the PR machine of the Premier, the press continuously went out and said that it cost $800,000 - "Actually we are going to ask Arena to pay for it" - and it was all done so that I would resign. They can ruin my reputation, ruin me financially, ruin me in any way, but why such nastiness? Why not send it to the privileges committee? What have I done to my former colleagues in the Labor Party? For 25 years in this party I have worked for them. I gave them all my best loyalty and service. There is an old Italian saying, which I will not say because I find it hard to translate, about why people act in that way. Anyway, the real issue of the inquiry into paedophiles abusing our children is put to one side while the apparently besmirched reputation of high- standing citizens is looked into by an inquiry whose terms of reference were such that the outcome was going to be inevitable. Let us have an inquiry into paedophilia which we all wanted all along and none of these sideline issues would ever eventuate.

Let us look at the Nader inquiry. The terms of reference of the Nader inquiry did not accurately reflect what I said in my speech. They were not broad enough to look into the question of whether there had been a cover-up of investigations into alleged paedophiles in high places of society. The Nader inquiry has been set up by the use of special legislation, which has been nicknamed in some places the "Get Franca" legislation. I urge members of Parliament to look at the terms of reference and compare them to exactly what I said on 17 September. On that occasion I essentially asked questions. To quote that speech, I asked:

. . . what happened? . . . It is fair to assume that a meeting did indeed take place . . . Are these people going to deny the meeting took place? . . . What happened at the meeting between Justice Wood and Carr I do not know.

By the way, Justice Wood did not deny that he met with Mr Carr, but I will come to that later. I said:

. . . but I am bold enough to presume that an agreement was reached to ensure that people in high places would not be named . . .

That is what I said. The terms of reference, on the other hand, tighten up my questions to make it look as if I made clear assertions that there were meetings specifically to plan the suppression of names by the various members concerned. The terms of reference also asked whether I had any evidence to support these claims made under parliamentary privilege. Clearly, I did not go as far as to make the assertion as set out in the terms of reference. I was careful to use the word "assume", to use the word "presume", and honest enough to say, "I do not know". Such language is not used in the terms of reference, nor in the Nader inquiry, at all. The questions that were raised in my speech of 17 September still remain and have not been answered sufficiently. Why is there not a full-scale inquiry into paedophilia when everybody, including Justice Wood, admits that the problem is a large one and therefore warrants a large-scale inquiry? Precisely what was the process in decisions being made not to further investigate people of high standing in the community who were investigated by the police or the royal commission concerning allegations of paedophilia such as a judicial officer or a member of Parliament? Even a person of no great investigative nature would find some of the proceedings of the Nader inquiry quite astonishing to say the very least.

Let me discuss the testimony of Alex Mitchell of the Sun Herald. I quoted his article in my speech, but apart from Mr Mitchell’s there were a lot of other articles which discussed the fact that the commission was going to name high-profile paedophiles. For example, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 March 1996, "Paedophiles will be named: magazine"; in the Bulletin of 12 March 1996, "Not a safety-house in sight: In NSW the royal commission is about to uncork a horrible genie, which is set to implicate many well-known men in paedophilia rackets" - by Brett Martin, a full five days before Mr Mitchell, this first-class journalist, wrote his article; in the Daily Telegraph of 19 March 1996, "Carr won’t discuss evidence"; and in the Financial Review of 19 March 1996, "Paedophilia inquiry could destroy Carr Govt majority", in which Michael Dwyer reported:

The NSW Labor Government risks losing its parliamentary majority as a result of the possible resignation of an MP expected to be named at the inquiry into paedophilia by the Wood Royal Commission.

I could go on: in the Australian of 18 March 1996, "Leaders to meet over paedophilia"; in the Newcastle Herald of 29 March 1996, "Coalition warned after ‘rumours’", by Eric Aubert, political reporter; and so on. It was not just Mr Alex Mitchell who made these allegations. And where are the denials? Where are the letters to the editors to say, absolutely, this is not true at all? Where were they? None of them were there. Admittedly, Alex Mitchell was called by Mr Nader. Have all these journalists been called, Mr Nader? Did you call all these journalists and ask them why they wrote article after article about a cover-up of the naming of paedophiles? No, you only asked Mr Mitchell. I want to tell honourable members what happened with Alex Mitchell. I want to put it on the record -
Page 1410
and I can swear it on the Bible, as indeed I can swear on the most sacred thing in my life - that it is the truth and nothing but the truth.

About two weeks before I gave my speech I rang Mr Alex Mitchell and I said, "Mr Mitchell, I refer to your article in the Sun Herald of 17 March. Mr Mitchell, do you know if the meeting took place?" He said to me, "Well, I don’t know but I have to call my informer. I will let you know." I said, "Will you ring me or will I ring you." He said, "No, I will let you know when I know." I said, "Thank you, Mr Mitchell." I waited four or five days, not a week, and I rang him again. I said, "Mr Mitchell, were you able to get in touch with your informant?" He said, "No, I have not been able to get in touch with him but when I do I will ring you." He stonewalled. He said, "Don’t call me, I’ll call you." And I never heard from him. This man went to the Nader inquiry and said, under oath, that he told me that a meeting never took place. I do not know what made him do it, but on everything I hold most sacred in my life I tell you word for word what happened.

I do not know what made Mr Mitchell lie like that to the Nader inquiry but he did lie because it was not what he said happened. And what about the testimony of the President of the Australian Labor Party on page 101 of the transcript when he was asked about my allegation. I will not read it. I am aware that most of the media and members of Parliament have not got the transcript of the Nader inquiry. I could not make copies for everyone because I have almost finished my printing allowance. If anybody wants a copy, I have got it. Please come and get a copy, it makes most interesting reading. I bet that the Attorney General or the Leader of the House has made copies of the Nader report, which attacks me in every way. But I bet that they have not made copies of these documents, the transcripts from the Nader inquiry. You should all read it, so should the media. Mr Terry Sheahan, the Australian Labor Party President, was asked these questions. I am not going to read it all because it would go on and on, but you can check it. It is from page 101, if I read anything which is out of context. They are talking about allegations about members of Parliament. He said:

A. Well, I’m aware of that allegation -

that there was damage control -

but it’s just nonsense from my point of view.

Q. It is nonsense?

A. And to be blunt, the only name that had ever been rumoured to me wasn’t a member of my Party, so I wasn’t terribly concerned.

Here we have Mr Sheahan who is saying, "Look, it doesn’t matter if a paedophile is a Liberal or a crossbencher. As long as it is not a member of my party I am not concerned." This is the kind of people we are dealing with. He thought he was such a smart alec, didn’t he? It doesn’t matter who is being abused so long as it is not a member of the Labor Party. Shame on him! Absolutely shame on him! I am disgusted by such an attitude. If we are to accept the testimony put forward by both Justice Wood and Mr Carr, and also the testimony of Kate McKenzie, the Deputy Director-General of the Cabinet Office, Justice Wood and Mr Carr met twice, at least as documented, on 3 February and 30 May. To quote them from the report, "This is to the best of my recollection." But at neither of these meetings was the paedophile inquiry ever discussed.

Justice Wood said paedophilia is a terrible thing, Mr Carr said paedophilia is a terrible thing and we have got to do something about it, but they meet twice and they do not even discuss it. There is this important investigation on paedophilia in this country, and they do not even discuss it - it is not important. Our children are not important either, apparently, to Mr Wood or to Mr Carr. What other deduction can I make? They never discussed the paedophilia inquiry. I thought it would be important to ask for an answer to these questions. The evidence of Ms McKenzie is also interesting. Let me read from page 57 of the transcript of the Nader report:

Q. What is your full name please?

A. Kathryn Mary McKenzie.

Q. Are you the Deputy Director General of the Cabinet Office?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a position you have held since March of 1993?

A. Yes.

Q. In that capacity, were you responsible for maintaining contact with the Police Royal Commission on a range of matters arising out of the Royal Commission from time to time?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. You have been asked, on behalf of this Commission, to think back to any meetings which you attended, if any, in 1996 between the Premier and Wood J?

A. Yes.

Page 1411

Q. Is it a fact that your diary for that year has been shredded and you do not have any other documentary record of any such attendance?

A. That is so.

Can you tell me why the Deputy Director-General of the Cabinet Office would have shredded her diary of last year? I ask how many of you keep your diary for at least four or five years? Because things happen to members of Parliament and we all keep our diaries. I have diaries from 1981. I shredded them from 1981 to 1987 I think only last Saturday when I thought you were going to expel me and I thought I had better get prepared, but otherwise I keep my diaries. Yet the Deputy Director-General of the Cabinet Office shreds her diary of last year so that she cannot present it to the Nader inquiry. Well, tell me another one. Where has the media been? Where has their inquiry been? Why have they not been asking questions? They are only being spoon-fed by the Premier’s PR machine. Shame on you! At the Nader inquiry Justice Urquhart was asked questions. As I said, please come to my office and I will let you photocopy these very important documents. The evidence of Justice Urquhart appears at page 227. They did a job on me, you see, and they thought I was going to sit here and take it; not only take it, but resign so that then I could go out in shame. My foot am I going to go out in shame! I have done nothing to be ashamed of. I have been a decent person and have worked hard all my life, and you know it. You look at me across the Chamber: you know it, because you have seen me working. How dare you go and vote for my expulsion! How can you look at yourselves in the mirror. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members of the public in the gallery that they are required to listen to debate in silence. If there is any interjection of any nature, including applause, I may have to clear the gallery completely. If people want to remain and listen to this debate, they will observe the rules of the House.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Justice Urquhart, who was a judge assisting Justice Wood on the royal commission, was asked to go to the Nader inquiry. He was asked:

Q. Were you assigned the task of conducting public hearings in relation to two judges?

A. Originally two; subsequently one.

Q. But you conducted public hearings as to one and you were asked to conduct a hearing as to the other, but, because of events that occurred, that, I think, was taken back by Wood J. Is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. The name of that judge and what he did formed part of the public record?

A. That’s correct.

Q. In relation to the other matter, the name of that judge has been suppressed?

A. Correct.

Q. You conducted public hearings?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you do a report in relation to that matter?

A. Did I do a report?

It goes on and on. The significance of page 227 is that Paddy Bergin went to the Nader inquiry and said, "Yes, there was an inquiry into a judge, a judicial officer, but it was a public hearing." She was asked, "In a public hearing. What happened?" She answered, "The name was suppressed." Then came the question: "The name was suppressed?" Justice Urquhart said there was a public hearing into a judicial officer and the name was suppressed. A member of the public, who is very diligent and had followed the Wood royal commission all the time, knew very well that there was no public hearing into a judicial officer in the Wood royal commission, so wrote to Mr Nader. Fancy that, Mr Urquhart had to go back to the Nader inquiry and say, "I’m sorry but I made a mistake. It was not a public hearing, it was a private hearing." But why did Paddy Bergin also say that she had a public hearing and she had suppressed the name? Somebody is telling fibs, fibs as big as this Legislative Council. That is all I can say. I will not use the word "lie" because it is unparliamentary, I suppose, but they think that they can roll a steamroller over me and say I am the liar! These findings, by the way, are set out in a report by a man who made comments about me which were prejudicial to me, in the Australian on 9 October 1997:

QC will remain on Arena inquiry.

The article is by David Nason and Stefanie Balogh:

The commissioner heading the special inquiry into Franca Arena’s paedophile conspiracy claims will continue his appointment after deciding yesterday there was no reason for him to stand down.

John Nader QC announced his decision at the inquiry yesterday morning, 12 hours after telling The Australian he was considering resigning after false and malicious allegations made against him in Darwin in 1989 had resurfaced.

Page 1412

"I should make it clear that there is no reason whatsoever that I should not conduct this inquiry," Mr Nader said.

Mr Nader’s assurance came as the already ill-fated non-parliamentary inquiry into Ms Arena’s allegations of a huge cover-up . . . was again delayed by legal wrangling.

The article is available. I will not read it all but I think this is an important point:

Ms Arena said she was unaware of Mr Nader’s concerns. "I know nothing about it. I’ve been in court all morning and I can’t make any comment whatsoever," she said.

However, I did receive a phone call from a barrister up in Darwin making some very serious allegations, which I never followed up. I never followed them up for a simple reason. I asked him, "Can you give me a statutory declaration?" He said, "Mrs Arena, Darwin is a very small place. I can’t give you a statutory declaration or I will never get a court case again." I said, "As far as I am concerned I have forgotten about it." But, obviously, he rang the journalist and I have never spoken to Mr Nason about it, out of propriety.

A highly emotional Mr Nader had telephoned The Australian on Tuesday evening after learning inquiries had been made about his involvement in a 1989 police investigation in Darwin.

The investigation found the allegations against Mr Nader, then a judge . . . to be false. The allegations were unrelated to paedophilia.

Mr Nader was highly emotional but I just can't find that little bit. I ask for the full insertion of this article in Hansard instead of reading all the article. I think it is very relevant. Is permission given?

The PRESIDENT: Order! What is the document?

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: It is an article in the Australian and instead of reading it all, it is about Mr Nader. An allegation is made that I would bring up under parliamentary privilege the allegations that were made against him in Darwin. I have never done so, but by even saying that, he actually prejudiced my case. By even saying that I could do that. My barrister said, "You should ask for him to stand down," and I did not because I thought, well -

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not common practice to incorporate publicly available documents in Hansard. However, it is a matter for the House to determine.

Leave not granted.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I will read it all then, Mr President. The article states:

QC will remain on Arena inquiry.

Thank you Mr Pezzutti; another bright idea from Mr Pezzutti. I will be generous to the House and instead of reading it I will advise exactly where it is. It appears in the Australian of 9 October 1997, and it is entitled, "QC will remain on Arena inquiry". It was written by David Nason and Stephanie Balogh. People can get a copy of it from the Parliamentary Library. The journalist confirmed the story to my solicitor, even though Mr Nader later denies saying it in those terms. Any assertion against Mr Nader had nothing to do with me and any assumption by him that I would use information like that against him during the course of the inquiry was totally unfounded. I ask you: was he unbiased? My solicitor asked him that question and his answer was, of course, predictable, despite the fact that his comments as reported could be defamatory. It is fair for the people of this State to depend on an inquirer who wrongly draws inference -

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: On a point of order. This amounts to a substantive attack on a judicial officer who conducted the commission of inquiry. It amounts, as I hear the honourable member, to an allegation of bias. I would suggest that it is contrary to Standing Order 81, and that any such attack ought to be put forward to the House by a substantive motion.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: On the point of order. I have finished on Mr Nader so I think there is no point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Attorney has raised a valid point of order. If the Hon. Franca Arena does not observe standing orders for the remainder of her speech, the consequences may be serious.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I will comply with your ruling, but also my honour here is at stake and I want to be able to defend myself. Mr Nader said in his report that I somehow denied natural justice to other parliamentarians who I named on 17 September by not asking them first as to whether they were involved in meetings concerning the royal commission. Surely any unbiased person reading my speech will see that what I was doing was asking a question in Parliament. Is he saying that we have to tell other members of Parliament what we are going to ask them prior to doing so in Parliament? Then what are questions without notice about?

Page 1413

Did Mr Crean give notice to the Liberal Party before he asked questions in Parliament recently about alleged travel rorts? Did the Liberal Party give notice to Mr Sherry before asking him about alleged travel rorts? One could give countless examples, going back through our parliamentary history down the ages. While we are told that no meeting took place on that occasion, there is still no answer to the question of how decisions were made not to name high-ranking alleged paedophiles. When I asked a question of the Executive on 17 September, rather than deal with my question in Parliament they sent the matter to a commissioner who can only act on evidence admissible in court proceedings - a commissioner with no parliamentary procedure experience. Accordingly, this has been the equivalent of a court case over whether a member had any evidentiary basis for what she said. The member has upheld the privilege which is recognised by the very Act which has left her hung out to dry. You gave me the privilege and then you attacked me because I used it.

By the way, may I say to the House as a nice surprise that my constitutional lawyer told me that the new parliamentary Act we passed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the High Court means that Mr Egan, who has been saying that he is going to abolish this House, can do it without going to a referendum. The implication of that legislation, the implication of the ruling, is such that it would abolish the House without a referendum. I often asked why he was so cocky when he said, "I am going to abolish you." How can he do it without a referendum? I am not a constitutional lawyer and I can only refer to you what I have been told by constitutional lawyers, so you should think about that. I turn now to parliamentary privilege. I do not know whether or not it is a coincidence but I am glad that in recent times police investigations have been made public concerning paedophile activity both in Ormond House and at Armidale.

Let there be no doubt that allegations of this sort have been given to me over and over again by people who often state that their cries fall on deaf ears. I do not know whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support their cries as is required in a court of law. Look at the chronology of events concerning some prominent members of society. In one case a person was not called up to the royal commission until I said something in Parliament, and in another case a person was not charged until I spoke in Parliament about him. The terms of reference asked whether I had any evidence to support a claim which I made under parliamentary privilege. As I said, the terms of reference misstated what I said on 17 September, anyway. Putting that aside for one moment, since when does a parliamentarian have to be supported by evidence which can stand up in a court of law before he or she is able to raise an issue? There would be no debate whatsoever here. We always raise important issues that are of concern to our community, but I have to have evidence which stands up in a court of law.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Not allegations like that.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Be quiet, you make a lot of noise and you have no substance. The Special Commissions of Inquiry Act states that an inquiry can only receive evidence admissible in court. Is that the test of what I can say in Parliament or what any other member can say in Parliament? Must parliamentarians receive a legal opinion as to the admissibility in court of their speech prior to raising anything? Mr Attorney, maybe you would like to answer that. Is that what we have got to do? What about the recent unsubstantiated anonymous letter concerning Ormond House? My legal advice is that such a letter would have no chance of being tendered in court, no chance whatsoever, but it was useful, wasn’t it? They closed the place; maybe they saved some children. It was useful, wasn’t it?

People vote for parliamentarians to be able to speak out responsibly. I believe I have done so. The Nader inquiry and the process undertaken by the Executive is not protecting the institution of Parliament. It was a scheme put in place to protect high-ranking members of Parliament who were offended by my statements in Parliament. It was Mr Carr who was so offended. In a recent judgment of Egan v Willis and Cahill the Court of Appeal stated that the fundamental role of Parliament is to question the Executive. This is the basis of our democracy. What this Government has done is to try to silence the members of Parliament. Today it is me, tomorrow it is any of you. If the Executive can do that, there will be no more democracy, nobody will be able to speak here, because they set up a commission of inquiry and scare the - whatever - out of you. That is exactly what they are going to scare out of you. You will not be able to speak at all. Sometimes Australian colloquialisms are very useful and needed. This is what is going to happen.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Scare the living daylights out of you.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: That is what I was looking for. I could not think of it. That is
Page 1414
exactly what is going to happen. They will first ruin your reputation, then they ruin you financially. You submit to the Executive. Do you know what happened today in the Labor caucus? I was not there but I have my leaks. Ten people spoke against the motion. Do you know who voted for it? Unanimously! They all voted unanimously. This member said to me that if there is a ministry, if there is a head of a commission or if there is a trip overseas and they vote against it, you would have lost anyway. Whether it is 50 against 10 or whether it is unanimous, it does not matter. This is the Executive. This is them trying to make us their puppets, treating us exactly, as we used to say, as "mushrooms". I leave the rest to you.

Honourable members are well aware of all sorts of matters that come from reliable sources but which would not be admissible in court proceedings and which they act upon on a daily basis. When the Nader bill was passed and the members voted for it I did not have to waive my privilege. The Act entrenched in me the ability to claim such privilege but then I was criticised for upholding my privilege - the same privilege Parliament reinforced. Today the Attorney criticised me for taking up my privilege. If I had gone to the Nader inquiry - I made a mistake and I will say it here because I am an honest person. I did make a mistake. That was that I said if the Nader inquiry was proved to be constitutional I will go there. I made that mistake. It was at the beginning. I had no experience. I did not know what a constitutional and judicial inquiry was; but the more I understood, the more I realised the danger of this legislation and the danger of this judicial inquiry, if I had gone up there.

Did you see it? They had a team of QCs which was as long as this table. They even had the nerve to ask me to pay for them. Justice Wood had the nerve to ask me to pay for his trip to come back from overseas as if I had called the Nader inquiry. We really have to stand up as members of Parliament. The Executive cannot ride roughshod over us. They cannot do it. I ask you: what is my privilege worth? I am allowed to claim my privilege for what I said in Parliament but the inquiry still finds against me personally and attacks what I said in Parliament by waiving the privilege of Parliament itself. What is my privilege worth if I am not allowed to speak freely? There is now a gag placed on parliamentary privilege by this Act so that a parliamentarian can no longer speak freely, as stated in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights:

That the freedom of speech and debates of proceedings of Parliament ought not to be questioned in any place out of Parliament.

Not to be questioned in any place out of Parliament. The Privy Council, in the case of Prebble v Television New Zealand, stated:

. . . the basic concept underlying Article 9 has been to ensure that Members of Parliament can speak freely without fear that what they say will later be held against them . . . the important public interest protected by such privilege is to ensure that the member . . . at the time he speaks is not inhibited from stating fully and freely what he has to say.

The same judgment held that a Parliament:

. . . may not by resolution extend, abridge, or waive a members freedom of speech in parliament.

That quote is from an English case going back to 1839. However, this is precisely what has happened in this case. Even though the High Court denied me special leave to appeal, during the process the Chief Justice himself, Justice Brennan, stated that my application for special leave raised an issue of constitutional importance, namely, whether the New South Wales Parliament has the power to enact a law which affects the privileges of Parliament. In Egan v Willis and Cahill - I see that the Leader of the House thinks this debate is so important he has even left the House - decided on 29 November 1996, Chief Justice Gleeson stated that it was the role of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive. This is our duty and our right, not to be ridden roughshod over by the Executive. Who do they think they are?

We represent the people. If they expel me they do not expel Franca Arena; they expel my constituents as well. In the case of Prebble the House of Lords said that a member at the time he or she speaks should not be inhibited from fully and freely stating what he or she has to say. They held that of the various competing public interests the right of free speech is the pre-eminent one. Parliament is based on the grand institution of free speech. The word "parley" means to speak freely. Members should be under no delusion that the effect of my expulsion will be to remove that freedom from each and every member of this House. A procedure has been now laid whereby the Executive can ride roughshod over an individual speaking out on a lone cause. There are moves afoot to institute the private citizen’s right of reply concerning matters raised in Parliament. Many legislatures in Australia have already done so. This is the correct way to go, not to silence the member. Let us give the citizen a right to come here. Let Justice Wood come here and
Page 1415
tell us that he never plotted anything. Let Mr Carr come and tell us, not silence me.

My four folders of documents have been sent to the police commissioner. I see that there is a report but I have not read it. To tell you the truth, I think that I won’t even bother. I can just imagine what is in there. I can imagine what they have concocted again. Although I have no direct contact, I understand from press reports that Commissioner Ryan is interested in the information I provided and will take until at least the New Year to provide a report. It remains to be seen whether further people will be charged and convicted as a result of inquiries instigated by Police Commissioner Ryan. Surely if only one paedophile is convicted and his predatory ways are curtailed because of the provision of my documents, which were provided to me as a member of Parliament to be used with parliamentary procedures, then surely the whole process is justified. It will be a shame if this process, whereby I have been a first point of call for some and a place of last resort for other victims, will be expunged by my expulsion from this Parliament.

If there was ever any doubt that this inquiry was set up to get rid of me, then look at the press reports of the last few days, where it has even been reported that I might be denied my superannuation entitlement after 16 years of serving in this Parliament. Can you believe the meanness of this Government? I ask the people to remember at election time the meanness of spirit of Mr Carr, who has tried to break me in every possible way. He just does not know that I come from a race of sturdy people. I come from Genoa. You said I come from a lawless land; you told me that in this Parliament, Mr President. It might be a lawless land but it is a land of very sturdy and strong people and I will not be made submissive by Mr Carr going around and saying, "$800,000 for the Nader inquiry, we will make her pay. We will take away her superannuation. She will resign." Every night when I went to bed for a long time my husband and I kneeled at the bottom of our bed and prayed to God to give us the strength to stand up to this bully, to this despicable bully who has tried to break my spirit, but he has not.

The PRESIDENT: Order! People in the gallery will abide by my direction not to comment or to interject by applause or otherwise.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: And the Attorney should have had the decency at least to intervene because he knows very well that the only case in which I would not be entitled to my superannuation would have been if I was tainted of treason or convicted of felony or other infamous crime. I have not killed anybody. I have not done anything dishonourable. I will not resign under any circumstances, because I have acted honourably, first of all. My primary focus, like that of many other members of this Parliament - and I know that some of you say, "Does she think she is the only one who cares about children?" No. I know that a lot of you care deeply. I even know the father of a member who writes to me and tells me how much he cares about the children. I know about so many of you who care deeply about the children, so it is not just me. I know that all of you care, but we must put the paedophile issue back in focus; not focus on Franca Arena. I am not the one who should be the focus; it is the paedophiles who should be the focus. The protection of our children should be the focus.

Justice Wood made it clear that he could not conduct a paedophile inquiry because it was too big. I hope members continue in this battle like never before until this scourge is wiped out of our society. I always remember the meeting we had with Mr Whelan, and I talked about it on 17 September. A group of us met with Mr Whelan, who said, "Justice Wood, it is too big for him, the job. He is tired. He wants to go." Well, we said to Mr Whelan, "Tell him to go. We will get another judge." We had 235 people working for the Wood royal commission. The investigators were there. Everything was in place. We spent $70 million. Could we not expel this scourge of paedophilia once and for all; keep the commission going for another two years? Why did Mr Carr not want this commission to look at all aspects of paedophilia? He has never answered this.

I know the first thing he will do after trying to expel me will be to tell the Attorney, "Don’t give her a cent. Let’s punish her for what she is saying now. Let’s punish her." Even if he wrote to me, "There is some money for the Nader inquiry. Will you take it?" which I don’t know whether I would or not, but now Mr Carr is saying, "Punish her. Punish her," because that is what they do. Well, I will tell them, in a real Australian way, they know where they can get lost. Because today out there, a woman who has hardly got anything, a former ward of the State, whose children were taken, who has suffered God only knows, gave me a $10 bill. I was ashamed to take it. But she gave me a $10 bill to help me with my legal expenses, because this is what the people out there are like. They are not mean spirited like this Government and this Premier. They should be ashamed of themselves.

On the two previous occasions when a member has been expelled from Parliament it has been because of misconduct, later admitted. The case in
Page 1416
1917 concerned a retraction by a member for having lied about another member redirecting railways to his own advantage. I do not have any shares at all. Now they have been saying I have property and real estate. Yes, I did buy a unit at the Astor because my husband had three operations for cancer in five years and I wanted to be close to Parliament in order to help him. We lost $35,000 in that blooming thing because of the interest and everything we had to pay, but they are spreading the stuff that I am a wealthy woman who can afford to pay the $200,000 - mean, miserable-spirited people. I am not going to hold back anything at all. You deserve all the buckets you can get.

The case of Armstrong v Budd in 1969 focused on the powers of Parliament to expel Armstrong after he had admitted interfering with witnesses. The case held that a power of expulsion for reasonable cause may be exercised, provided the circumstances are special and its exercise is not a cloak for punishment of the offender. This is exactly what is happening here. It is sought to punish me for raising sensitive questions on 17 September. In the past, expelled members admitted to grievous misconduct. Here, a commission hearing only evidence admissible in court proceedings has made findings adverse to me in respect of terms of reference which left little room for any other conclusion. The members of this House should not be under any misapprehension that if they throw me out for making assumptions with no legally admissible evidence then the whole fabric of this Parliament is in doubt.

The same risk is on each member unless they toe the line or have evidence admissible in court. That is what they want. To speak in this place you either have to toe the line and do what they want - do not speak out of turn, do not ever say anything about anybody - or otherwise have evidence admissible in court. Our parliamentary privilege has gone out the window. I would now like to say something about my legal fees. I think it is proof of the vindictiveness of this whole inquiry. The Executive is being allowed to punish people who challenge the system. In your case, Mr Egan, against Mr Willis, was everything paid for by the Government? Every single thing was paid for by the Government. You undertook that case for the sake of the Parliament. They paid every single cent, did they not? What about Mr Collins? His case against the Parliament and constituents went to the Supreme Court. Everything was paid for Mr Collins. And rightly so. It was a case to do with his parliamentary work.

I will let you know in due course the general shake I get from the Attorney to help me pay the $245,000. When the special commission of inquiry was announced I was told that I would have my legal fees paid in relation to the inquiry, and I have sought confirmation about the constitutional challenge. But, as I said, I have very little hope and I know that the community will help me. The community will help me because it is generous and not mean spirited as this Government is. You will be happy to hear that I will now reach some conclusions. Look at the institutional abuse going on all around us. If parliamentarians are unable to raise issues which possibly may cause grievances to other parties, then what will happen is that these matters will go underground. I ask the members now: what was my privilege worth when I spoke on 17 September, when what I said can be so carefully dismantled?

I ask members of the public: if an Independent member can be expelled in this fashion, in the words of Plato, the famous Greek philosopher, "Who will guard the guardians?" My motivation has been called into question. Why would I put my parliamentary career on the line? Why risk being expelled from Parliament? It is because I believe in my cause. It has nothing to do with self-motivation, as the leader of the other place is saying. I have had enormous pressure put on me to resign. As I said, that is something I could never do, not only for my own dignity, but especially for the dignity of all the victims of abuse who have come to see me seeking justice. To experience first hand the pain and suffering of the abused victims and their courage in facing offenders has been a trauma I will never forget. My thoughts will always be with them. What I have gone through is nothing compared with their suffering.

Finally, I wish to reiterate once more what I have said over and over again, and that is that I always acted in good faith. I have said it many times, but I will never stop saying it. I bear no grudge or malice to anyone. I thank all of my supporters, wonderful people who have written to me from all over Australia. Without the strength that they have given me I would not have been here today. I accept the verdict of the House, but in the final analysis it will be the community who will judge me. I have acted with honesty on their behalf. My expulsion from Parliament will be forever a shame to the people who have expelled me. I will wear such expulsion as a badge of honour. What a victory for the paedophiles! What a victory for the abusers of children! I will go from this House, but
Page 1417
the problem of paedophilia remains. It is here; it has not been confronted fully.

As a community member and as a taxpayer, I will carefully monitor the setting up of the Children’s Commission. It has to be effective and well funded. Plus, we need a State and national register of paedophiles so that they can never ever work again in the area of children. I know that there are very well-meaning people on both sides of the House and on the crossbenches who care deeply about children. The Hon. Ann Symonds has worked all her life on behalf of children. And there are many others. I will not mention you all. I am sure the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, who is working now in the shadow portfolio, has a deep concern about children and will ensure, if I am not here anymore, that the Children’s Commission is not only well funded but that it is very effective for the sake of our children.

I have always felt that being elected to Parliament was the greatest honour I could ever receive. I have always been a people’s member, a political servant of the people. I thank all the people who elected me. I thank all the people who have supported me. As this could very well be my last speech in Parliament, I want to thank all the wonderful staff at Parliament House: the Clerk and his staff, the Hansard staff, the attendants and the lovely women of the cleaning service. This morning they came into my room and brought me the most beautiful bunch of Australian flowers. They are all women of ethnic background, like myself, and they did this most touching thing. Yet some members of the Labor Party have never even opened my door and said, "Franca, we might not agree with what you said, but how are you?" None of them have opened my door and said to me, "You must be dying on your feet." Where is their Labor principle?

I thank the women of the cleaning service, the staff of the cafeteria and Food and Beverage Services and the wonderful people in the library, the switchboard staff and all the others. To all of them, to those who have been my friends for 16 years and have always given me wonderful service with a smile and a hand of friendship, I say I will never forget you. I also thank the media representatives at Parliament House. I thank also my colleagues in this House for their kindness and friendship. Whilst some of them have abandoned me others have been true friends. To you I say: today, if you are going to expel me, you will expel not only Franca Arena; you will expel my constituents and you will be responsible to them. In the final analysis we are all responsible to the community we serve and I hope that the community - if my colleagues will not - will accept that I have always put their interests first.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.01 p.m.]: To give honourable members time to consider the confidential supplement to the report of the Special Commission of Inquiry, I move:

That this debate be adjourned until a later hour of the sitting.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Is it a fact that there has never been a review or investigation of staff working for the Department of Community Services to determine whether there are any paedophiles working within the department, despite commitments given by the Minister last year?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Advice from the Department of Community Services indicates that there certainly has been a review in regard to new staff engaged by the department, and certainly there has been a review regarding staff in the Armidale area. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe would be well aware that the Government is about to consider legislation arising out of the recommendations of the Wood royal commission, which recommended, among other things, that a children’s commission be established. Once that commission is established it will have, subject to the form of the legislation subsequently approved by the Government and the Legislature, a unit or branch within it that will give attention to the scrutiny of employees.

This matter is not without financial cost. Frankly, one matter that needs to be considered is scrutiny not only of officers of the Department of Community Services but also of people who work for funded non-government agencies. It will come as little surprise to the honourable member to learn that that also has a cost which cannot be borne readily
Page 1418
by non-government agencies. That being the case, the Government has to give detailed consideration to scrutiny mechanisms. The present employees of the department will, in some fashion, also be scrutinised. However, that is clearly a matter that requires careful consideration having regard to the cost involved and the methodologies that must be adopted. The honourable member may be assured that any new employees coming into the department are subjected to appropriate checks, lest they be people who ought not be working in particular with children.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question is addressed to the Treasurer and Minister for State and Regional Development. What is New South Wales doing to expand overseas trade?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Government is always on the lookout for opportunities to expand its overseas trade; not just into Asia, but throughout the world. Last week my parliamentary secretary, Sandra Nori, the honourable member for Port Jackson, met with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr Wim Kok, and the Greek Deputy Minister for Development, Ms Anna Diamantopoulou. Mr Kok’s visit is the first by a Dutch Prime Minister and is an indication of the strengthening ties between Australia and the Netherlands. The Netherlands is Australia’s sixth largest trading partner in the European Union and our twenty-first largest trading partner overall.

The Dutch buy more than $660 million of Australia’s wool, coal and minerals. We import from them farm machinery, office equipment, tobacco and coffee, to name a few products. The total value of our imports from the Netherlands is about $730 million. The Netherlands is the fourth largest source of direct investment in Australia. The Dutch have more than $11 billion invested in resources, the wholesale and retail industry, and finance and property services. More than 70 major Dutch businesses are based here. And, as is only natural, some of the biggest - Philips Electronics, ABN Amro, Rabo bank and ING bank - are in Sydney.

The Department of State and Regional Development is negotiating with a number of these companies about increasing their presence in Sydney. ABN Amro is considering joining some 70 international companies that have established their regional headquarters in New South Wales over the past two years. The banking and insurance giant, the ING bank, is also working with the Government to help attract other Dutch companies to New South Wales. Today staff from the Department of State and Regional Development visited Philips Electronics in Moorebank to discuss locating more of its manufacturing and research and development in New South Wales.

The other foreign dignitary to visit Sydney last week was the Greek Deputy Minister for Development, Ms Anna Diamantopoulou. In 1996 two-way trade between Australia and Greece was more than $110 million; New South Wales was responsible for more than $46 million of that amount. This year we exported wool, animal hair, hides and paints, while we imported rubber goods, vegetable oils, cheeses and curds. The Government has been working hard to establish links with the Greek Olympic organisation. Sandra Nori, on my behalf, invited the Greek team to look at New South Wales for its training camps in the lead-up to the 2000 Games. She also discussed the opportunities for Athens, as it prepares for its Games in 2004, to learn from the experience of Sydney. The development of international trade is one of the Government’s priorities.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You do not travel nearly enough.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is a criticism with which, I am afraid, I have to agree. But the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will appreciate that the burdens of my office do not enable me to travel as often as either I would like or as the requirements of the portfolio demand.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You do not spend enough time travelling.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The honourable member said that I do not spend enough time travelling, and I accept his criticism. Our exports translate into more jobs at home and our imports give us a much greater choice of products than we would otherwise have. I am sure that I speak for every member of this Chamber in saying that it was a pleasure to have had Mr Kok and Ms Diamantopoulou in Sydney and that we look forward to strengthening our trade ties with both their countries.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I ask the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, whether there were any previous complaints against the Blackmarket Cafe in Chippendale, whether those complaints were investigated, or whether the Minister for Gaming
Page 1419
and Racing waited until the Blackmarket Cafe hosted a triple murder before investigating whether it was conducting its business as a bona fide hotel.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall obtain a response to that question from my colleague the Minister for Gaming and Racing and convey it to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. J. KALDIS: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services advise the House of a new report on consultation and people with a disability?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I had the pleasure last week of launching the Disability Council of New South Wales report entitled "Consultation and People with a Disability - Issues for Public Sector Managers in New South Wales". The Disability Council investigated the many concerns about consultation expressed by people with a disability. This feedback is vitally important to the Government, which supports the principle of consultation and is committed to ensuring that people with a disability can participate in the decision-making processes - a commitment reflected in the Government’s social justice statement. The report of the Disability Council lays down practical guidelines that enable government agencies and key decision makers to conduct consultations with people with disability.

The report details the way in which consultation can be made more accountable, and it does so in two ways. First, it provides people with a disability with the opportunity to evaluate the extent to which a government agency genuinely considers the views expressed during consultation. Second, it audits consultations to enable benchmarking and continual improvement. The report of the Disability Council looks at professional practice and examines the degree to which resources need to be allocated in order to make consultation effective. The challenge for governments and their agencies is to use consultation to support actively in discussion, debates and negotiation people with a disability.

The people who share their experiences and views about consultation have made a valuable contribution to the processes of public sector decision making. This review will lead to better and more simple consultative arrangements than those currently in place via the consultation protocol developed in 1993. People with a disability often have no other way of being heard than through the consultation process. Consultation enables a co-operative and responsive relationship to be developed between government and the community wherein both the problem and the solution can be shared.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I refer the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services to the promises made by the Premier after witness T7 gave evidence to the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service in March 1996 that the independent child protection watchdog - the Community Services Commission - would review the circumstances of each one of the 6,000 State wards. Did the independent commission review the 6,000 State ward files?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have answered questions regarding this matter on at least one occasion previously. I have indicated that it is simply not necessary in practice to review the circumstances of each State ward, given that many State wards are in very happy and stable relationships with their foster parents. Mr West, I believe, would be the first to agree with me that it would be intrusive, unproductive and potentially disruptive to intervene in the lives of children and families in which children are living in a happy relationship with foster parents - which, I am happy to say, is the case in most instances. However, a review has occurred where appropriate and is continuing. The exercise is not complete at this point, and my department will continue with the review until it is complete in cases in which it is appropriate. I certainly concede that in some cases it is suitable to review the circumstances of State wards, and that process will continue. However, I do not want to mislead the House by inferring that there would be a formal review in cases in which such would clearly not be appropriate, on the grounds that I have mentioned.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Community Services. Approximately how many State ward files have been reviewed?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: That is a matter of detail. I should prefer not to give approximate figures; it is much better to give accurate information to the House, and I shall do that as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Page 1420

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I address my question to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that one or more staff members of the New South Wales Department of Health responsible for the care of vulnerable boys in Armidale has been charged with sexual child assault? Is it a fact that three males concerned were active leaders of the New England homosexual and lesbian group? Is it a fact that those three adult males attempted to suicide, two successfully? What investigation is taking place in the New South Wales Department of Health to review all staff members of the department, especially those who supervise children or young boys, to ensure that they are not paedophiles?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is well known that there has been a lot of news media publicity regarding the tragic events at Armidale. As a Minister, I must be careful not to impede any prosecutions that might be launched, and to that extent, I need to be very cautious about what I say. I shall refer this question to my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain a considered response, as the matters raised are of great seriousness and, in my view, require careful consideration and an equally careful response.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I refer to the press release of the Minister for Community Services of 10 April 1996 that outlined new measures for improving fire safety in large residential centres for people with disability. In the light of the Minister’s claims that fire safety facilities have been improved, how does he explain the finding at page 59 of the audit report into large residential centres that there is no policy for government residential facilities regarding the procedures for identifying and minimising fire risk, such as the need to have evacuation procedures or to conduct regular fire drills?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On other occasions I have answered questions in this House regarding fire safety. To my recollection, that would certainly be the case regarding the Peat Island centre. I recall that a considerable time ago the Opposition was asking questions about Peat Island and inferred that fire safety might not be all that it ought to be. I clearly do not have the text of those responses in front of me now. However, I clearly recall giving the House details of the fire-safety upgrading measures that were under way. Fire safety is always very much on my mind, having regard to a tragedy that occurred during the administration of the previous Government at a hostel in Dungog when a number of people lost their lives. Fire safety is clearly important in group homes or small residential situations, but it is even more important in large congregate facilities, some of which still exist in the State. I have sought assurances from my department regarding fire safety preparations, and I am assured that much has been done with a view to improving fire safety. I am confident that the department and its officers are alert to the dangers that a lack of preparedness regarding the possibility of a fire breaking out would pose for staff and clients at residential institutions.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask a supplementary question of the Minister. In view of the Minister’s reply, for which I thank him, does he suggest that the audit report is incorrect in stating that there are no procedures and no policies? Was the audit report incorrect in that regard?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is certainly my belief that policies and procedures do exist within the Department of Community Services regarding fire safety. It follows as a matter of necessary consequence from what I have said that under this Government fire safety procedures are in place - as they were under the previous Government - at large residential institutions. If a fire were to break out, there would be established procedures that would govern the response that occurred. However, no matter what procedures are in place, I reiterate that it is my concern that appropriate equipment should be in place and upgraded where necessary to ensure that a swift and effective fire safety response is available.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Will the Treasurer inform the House how Sydney is rated around the world as a city in which to do business?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The honourable member’s question is both pertinent and timely. Just last week the United States of America business magazine Fortune declared that Sydney is the second most improved city in Asia in which to do business. Further, the author of the article, Tony Paul, said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio that had the survey been done today, Sydney would be number one.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Who came first?

Page 1421

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is rather interesting. It is a city that I might say has momentarily hit the canvas.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: A city south of the border?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN:. No, what a silly interjection. Melbourne was way below New South Wales. In drawing up the 1997 list of most improved cities, the magazine recorded those cities that had done the best job of capitalising on opportunities presented by their thriving economies. The magazine examined the education of the work force, office rental rates and accessibility, the cost of labour, business indicators, the quality of life, the quality of schools, and recreation and cultural opportunities. Malaysia’s capital, Kuala Lumpur, topped the list as the most improved performer. However, as I said, Mr Paul said that had the survey been done today Sydney would clearly be number one. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me about Melbourne. Melbourne came in fifth, well behind Sydney on the list of the cities that have done the best job of capitalising on opportunities presented by a thriving economy. Melbourne is indeed a fabulous city and from time to time I have been known to spend a few days holiday in Melbourne. I am pleased that Melbourne attained a creditable fifth on the list, but New South Wales finished well ahead at number two.

In reaching its conclusion about how Sydney ranked, Fortune magazine was impressed that a company like Cathay Pacific now processes all its global data from Sydney and that American Express now runs its East Asia credit card operations in Sydney. The author of the article said, "When American Express looked at Sydney, they found that they could get access very quickly to staff who spoke 27 different languages. They could not get that same variety of linguistic ability even in Singapore." That is why Sydney is aiming, by 2005, to overtake Singapore as the preferred Asia Pacific headquarters location for multinational companies. We have set ourselves a pretty tall task, but I am confident, given our experience in the past couple of years, that Sydney will overtake Singapore by 2005 as a preferred location for Asia Pacific headquarters.

Whilst Hong Kong at present is still way out in front of both New South Wales and Singapore, I would not be surprised if early next century New South Wales displaces Hong Kong as well. Since April 1995 New South Wales has attracted regional headquarters that have injected $2.1 billion of investment into the economy and created 5,600 jobs. As I often point out, these are really the little acorns from which great oaks will grow over the coming decades. That $2.1 billion in investment and 5,600 jobs constitute really the tip of the iceberg, an example of the potential that these regional headquarters provide to the New South Wales and Australian economies. It is no wonder that in almost 70 per cent of cases Sydney is the preferred location for the Asia Pacific regional headquarters of multinational companies.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. I refer to the Attorney’s response to my recent question regarding statements by the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to drugs. Does the Attorney General agree with the Director of Public Prosecutions that the war on drugs has been lost?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I would regard any such generalisation as really simplistic, but in any event what the director says certainly does not reflect Government policy in that respect.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House about progress of the dispute between Rio Tinto and various trade unions at the Hunter Valley No. 1 mine?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: No doubt honourable members will have followed this damaging dispute closely and I am sure they have been concerned generally to see a resolution of the dispute. In fact, with the Government’s assistance the dispute has been resolved. As I understand it ordinary work is resuming and an orderly process has been put in place to resolve the dispute by way of conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration. It is relevant to look at how the dispute has been handled in the context of the Federal Government’s new industrial relations system. The Workplace Relations Act passed by the Federal Parliament last year reduced the Federal Industrial Relations Commission’s powers to intervene in industrial disputes. This was apparently grounded in a belief that the commission as a third party had somehow stymied the reform plans of some companies by forcing them to reach compromises with their work forces, with whom they found themselves in dispute.

Page 1422

As the Rio Tinto dispute entered its fourth and fifth months it became increasingly clear that the dispute could not be resolved between the parties. It was damaging the Hunter community, the New South Wales economy and Australia’s international trading reputation. That is why I appeared on behalf of the New South Wales Government before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to argue that the commission could use its powers to intervene and arbitrate on the issues in dispute. I argued that while the Federal Parliament had reduced the Federal commission’s power to exercise its arbitration powers, there still existed a discretion to intervene in the national interest. That argument was supported, responsibly I thought, by the trade union movement but it was vigorously opposed by Rio Tinto, which asked the commission to allow the parties to battle it out. The company did not offer any solution. It did not offer any method of resolving the dispute in the short or even medium term: it wanted the bargaining period to persist indefinitely.

The company was content apparently to allow the disputation, the strike, the lack of work to persist indefinitely. Recently Justice Boulton accepted the New South Wales Government’s submission that the dispute was so damaging that the matter should be conciliated and/or arbitrated. The decision was an important signal that the Federal Government’s Workplace Relations Act does not give the Federal commission the power or the authority to simply watch from the sidelines as employers and employees battle it out on the ground. It means there is still a role for an independent umpire in the Federal system. Indeed, it places the Rio Tinto dispute on the footing it would have been on months ago under the New South Wales industrial relations system. There is no doubt that under our Act, under our regime of industrial relations, that dispute would have been settled much more quickly and without the damage that has occurred Federally. I understand that the company has lodged an appeal against Justice Boulton’s decision. I urge the company to reconsider, accept the ruling of the commission and enter into an orderly process of arbitration. Otherwise the dispute may continue to fracture a community that is already hurting, and further damage our national economy.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister explain to the House why he did not attend the launch of the "Us and Them" report into access for people living with HIV-AIDS and their need for home and community care? Is he not aware that the report has found that poverty experienced by half of those people living with HIV-AIDS could be alleviated by access to such services? Although the Minister did not attend, is it a fact that his department indicated that a representative would attend but that the launch organisers were told only at the last minute that no representative senior enough was able to attend? Why did the Minister ignore this very important launch?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It could be said that I attend more launches than a rocket at the Kennedy Space Centre. I receive a huge number of invitations and to attend each one of those launches and other functions that occur would be an impossibility. I well recall having a conversation with the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government during which he told me how many invitations he received. I will not reveal a private conversation but he told me the percentage of invitations he was able to accept. There is absolutely no discourtesy involved to any organisation in regard to a particular invitation that I am unable to accept. In the past fortnight, while the House has not been sitting, I have attended a large number of launches and functions.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Have you? You did not invite me to one of them.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am the invitee to many of these functions, not the invitor. For example, I was invited to attend, on Wednesday of last week, the twentieth anniversary celebrations of the Parkes neighbourhood centre. That invitation was issued to me and it was not for me to invite the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti or anyone else. I was not the organiser of the function in question but I am not sure that I would necessarily have invited the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti in any event. I might have chosen another honourable member opposite in preference. I do not diminish in any way the importance of the launch to which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred. However, it is plainly ridiculous to castigate me for not attending a particular launch, given the huge number of invitations I receive each week.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Have you become popular?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have always been popular and I am constantly invited to functions throughout the State.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They had a very good function this year at Handital.

Page 1423

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has reminded me that I was not able to attend the annual function of Handital, which is an Italian-based disability body, a body for which I have great respect. I attended the function last year but was not able to attend this year. However, I am pleased to say that this year I made a substantial donation to Handital from my personal discretionary fund. I will not mention the amount because I might upset the Treasurer.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It was very generous and well received.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I was generous to Handital and I assure the honourable member and the House that that body has my utmost respect because it does a great deal of good work. However, the fact that I have that respect is in no way in conflict with the fact that I was not able to attend the function this year. I instance that as another example of the fact that I cannot attend every function to which I am invited. I am sorry I was not able to accept the invitation referred to by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and I indicate to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti that I may be able to give a different response to the invitation from Handital next year.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his very long and detailed reply and I appreciate that he may not have been able to attend. This report dealt directly with the work of the Minister’s department. Why was it not possible for the Minister to send an officer from his department to attend the launch of such a very important report?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As I do not have the facts in front of me at the moment I shall have to make inquiries as to the level of departmental representation. I will come back to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby with such information as I am able to obtain regarding the matter.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. Has the section 22 report into the future of the ADI site at St Marys been sitting on the Minister’s desk since the end of July? When will the Minister release the report outlining the Government’s plans for the ADI site at St Marys?

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

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Will State Rail’s Homebush Bay link to the new Sydney showgrounds and Olympic sites be severely compromised should freight trains not be banned during peak travel times? Is there a growing conflict between State Rail and the Rail Access Corporation on implementation of curfew hours for freight trains which use common rail lines during the period of the 1998 Royal Easter Show? Will the Government consider amending the transport administration amendment legislation in order to allow for the imposition of curfew hours for freight trains on this line during special events such as the annual Royal Easter Show and the 2000 Olympics when it will be necessary to increase the volume of passenger services to Homebush Bay?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member’s question to my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism for a considered and detailed reply.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General inform the House of what the Government is doing to ensure that the people of Toronto, in the Lake Macquarie region, are provided with up-to-date and adequate court facilities?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Last week I had the pleasure of travelling to Toronto to unveil the building plans for the new Toronto courthouse and to meet the local member of Parliament, Mr Jeffrey Hunter, in the performance of that ceremony. The Government has provided funding for the construction of an additional courthouse in the Lake Macquarie region at Toronto. The Toronto courthouse will join the courthouses at Wallsend, Belmont and Newcastle in serving the people of the Hunter region.

The site was secured in 1982 and was dedicated by the then Attorney General, Frank Walker, for the future construction of a courthouse. It is interesting to note that the member for Lake Macquarie at the time of the dedication was the
Page 1424
present member’s father, Mr Merv Hunter, whom I knew when I first came into this Parliament. The current member is very pleased to see his father’s plans for the region come to fruition. Planning for a two-court complex on this site is well advanced. It is expected that the tender for the construction of the building will be met at the end of this financial year. The building works are due to be finalised by October 1999.

My Government and the department are committed to improving access to the court system and to ensuring that courts meet the needs of the communities they serve. In line with that commitment, the new building will be at the forefront in providing adequate and appropriate facilities for the public, the legal profession, court users, the judiciary and court staff. The new courthouse will incorporate many new features which will provide a benchmark for courthouses throughout the State. Special attention is being paid to the needs of people with disabilities. The building has been oriented to take advantage of passive energy savings by allowing natural light into waiting areas while providing a pleasant private outlook into landscaped areas.

Remote witness facilities will allow evidence of vulnerable witnesses to be taken without subjecting the witness to the fear and intimidation of coming face to face with an alleged offender in the body of the courtroom. The new courthouse will also provide facilities for victims of crime which will offer privacy and seclusion. Volunteer organisations will be able to extend hospitality and support to victims of crime in secure and comfortable surroundings. The entrances to the new courthouse have been designed to provide a calm and dignified environment. The Toronto courthouse is to be the first of a new generation of courthouses where quality of service is the benchmark against which to measure and plan improvements to the existing stock of more than 160 court buildings throughout the State.

Many courthouses in New South Wales are of enormous historic significance. They are wonderful buildings. I am pleased to say that the Government has not closed and does not contemplate closing any one of them. But it must be said that it is also interesting to build a new courthouse and to embody new ideas in that structure of court procedure, the rights of victims and the like. That is the opportunity and challenge the Government has in Toronto to build a modern, state-of-the-art courthouse which will incorporate many design features that will be followed in other courthouses as they are built over time.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that crimes on trains and stations between Parramatta and Broken Hill have almost quadrupled since 1994? Is the Minister also aware that in 1994 the total number of crimes was 276 and that in 1997 it has risen to 949, with robberies increasing from 13 in 1994 to 123 in 1997, thefts up from 10 in 1994 to 78 in 1997, and sex offences rising from none in 1994 to 12 this year? What measures will the Minister take to improve security on trains and let criminals know that they cannot get away with these actions? When will the Government be serious about law and order issues which are of concern to the community?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member’s question to my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism and obtain an answer.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney provide an update on the installation of closed-circuit television in courthouses in New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The provision of closed-circuit television facilities in courthouses is very important for vulnerable witnesses, including children. The Government announced its plan to install closed-circuit television - CCTV - facilities in courts throughout New South Wales in April 1996 and a three-year program was developed to fulfil that commitment. CCTV facilities are designed to allow witnesses to give evidence from a secure location remote from the courtroom. The provision of facilities involves the conversion of existing areas for the construction of suitable accommodation as well as the installation of the technological component of the facility. Each facility will maximise the security of witnesses and comply with strict sound attenuation levels.

During 1996-97 closed-circuit television was installed in 24 courts in Sydney and in courts in the country. It would probably be tedious if I were to list all of the 24 Sydney courts but some of the major ones are Liverpool, Central, Manly, Fairfield, Newtown and Bankstown, and the Cobham Children’s Court. Coastal or rural courts include Coffs Harbour, Orange, Bathurst and Broken Hill,
Page 1425
and so the list goes on. That is a reasonable achievement.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Where is the other new one? It’s in Toronto.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Toronto courthouse is designed for this very purpose.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I saw you in Toronto.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I think I was on television in Toronto.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And the Minister for Community Services had something to say about access.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Yes. The court will be designed consciously with the needs in mind of the disabled persons involved. Not only has closed-circuit television be installed in 24 courts in 1996-97, I can tell the House that closed-circuit television will be installed in 23 courts during the 1997-98 financial year. The location of those courts may be of interest to local members with duty electorates, as we in the Labor Party call them, who have areas to look after and who would like to know where closed-circuit television will be introduced in the 1997-98 financial year. CCTV will be introduced in Armidale, Balmain, Belmont, Deniliquin, East Maitland, Griffith, Maitland, Mudgee, North Sydney, Nowra, Queanbeyan, Raymond Terrace, Gunnedah, Kempsey, Kogarah, Lidcombe, Lithgow, Redfern, Ryde, Wagga Wagga, Wallsend, Windsor and Waverley. When we talk about improving courts and the justice system for vulnerable people and victims, in the case of the Government it is not empty rhetoric; it is concrete achievement. The Government has introduced technology and other facilities to make court procedures and the justice system more amenable, more friendly to people who need assistance.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: More accessible.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho says, more accessible. I am pleased with those achievements, and the Attorney General’s Department can justly be pleased with them.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer and Minister for Energy. Is it a fact that once again the unions have rejected the Treasurer’s plans for electricity privatisation for New South Wales, despite his attempts to change their minds? What was the final cost of the recently held and Government-funded union delegates conference at the Millennium Hotel at Kings Cross to discuss electricity privatisation? How many delegates attended at taxpayers’ expense?

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Table the menus.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In fact the menus were on the front page of the Daily Telegraph.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Didn’t they invite you?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, I was there, as was the Premier.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Was it worthwhile?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It was worthwhile. About 300 delegates attended the conference. Some 600 delegates wanted to attend.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: You should have got a bigger hotel.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If a bigger hotel had been available at short notice, I certainly would have taken it. The conference was a fabulous opportunity to talk to workers from all the New South Wales electricity utilities. I know that Opposition members do not think we should talk to workers, but only to board rooms at the big end of town. However, the Government takes seriously the rights of the 13,500 men and women who work in the power industry. They have a legitimate role to play in discussions about the future of their industry.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You want to sell them. You want to flog them off.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says, I want to sell the industry. I wanted to get together with the representatives of the 13,500 workers in the industry - the distributors, the generators, the retail side of the distributors and the transmission system - so that they knew exactly where I was coming from and I would have a better appreciation of their concerns.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Two nights?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Two nights for all the delegates who lived out of Sydney. My only regret is that I have not held such a conference of work representatives a lot earlier, and I propose to
Page 1426
hold a number of other conferences. The two days were certainly worthwhile.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister advise the House of a new program to help homeless juvenile offenders?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: This is an example of another launch I have attended in the past fortnight, which only goes to prove how busy I am attending all these launches. The report of Dr Don Weatherburn of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which was released last week, highlighted the fact that there are many contributing factors to juvenile offending. Unfortunately, homelessness is a relatively common experience for juvenile offenders. It has its origin in poverty, family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, and social dislocation. While the relationship between homelessness and crime is complex, it is certainly something that must be considered when helping young offenders to break the crime cycle.

The joint tenancy assistance program, otherwise known as JTAP, has been developed to give these young people a go at maintaining a stable lifestyle. This pilot program, which will operate in the area close to the city, will provide eligible young offenders with a home to call their own. The Department of Housing will provide four bed-sit apartments and two two-bedroom apartments, and will be responsible for the cyclic maintenance of the properties. The Department of Juvenile Justice has provided funding of $156,000 to fit out the units with furniture and whitegoods, and the units will be managed by the South-West Inner Housing Co-operative, otherwise known as SWISH. Homeless young offenders aged 16 and over will be eligible for a place in the JTAP units. Their suitability will be assessed by juvenile justice officers.

This accommodation will be affordable, readily accessible, private and self-contained. The young people will pay rent and expenses and will learn, through assistance, how to maintain an independent and stable lifestyle. Centacare, a highly respected non-government organisation, will play a key role in the project by conducting a living skills program for young offenders, covering day-to-day lifestyle issues such as cooking, housekeeping, nutrition, banking and budgeting. The New South Wales Ombudsman, in her report on juvenile justice, highlighted the need to provide safe and suitable crisis medium-term and long-term accommodation. JTAP is a positive attempt to break the crime cycle and to guide young offenders towards independent living, giving them security and confidence to manage their own lives.

As I said, this was yet another launch I attended in the last fortnight. This launch was held last Friday. It reminds me that I attended another prominent launch last Saturday at lunchtime in Newcastle, where I opened a child-care centre for the Samaritans, another highly respected non-government organisation. Honourable members who looked at the Newcastle Herald of two days ago or perhaps on Monday would see a charming photograph of me and the local Anglican bishop talking to a young child outside the child-care centre. I hesitate to upset the Treasurer but I presented a discretionary fund cheque on this occasion as well. This is yet another indication of the popularity that I undoubtedly enjoy, as evidenced by the multitude of invitations I receive.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, a question without notice. Has there been a breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in relation to the redevelopment of the Headlands Hotel, Austinmer? Is it correct that the Department of Land and Water Conservation did not give development consent to the owner of the land? If it is correct, does that not constitute a breach? If so, what action will be taken?

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

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for the Environment. Does the environmental criteria set by the Environment Protection Authority make it nearly impossible for some councils to find land for waste tips?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am disappointed because I thought the honourable member was going to ask a question about the settlement of the Rio Tinto mining dispute; but I will have to live with that disappointment. I am not in a position to respond about that criteria, so I will refer the question to the Minister for the Environment and obtain a reply.

Page 1427

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer and Minister for State and Regional Development. I refer the Minister to my many questions about his drafting of the Government’s green paper on regional development. When he cleans out the drawers of his regional development desk, will he hand over a completed draft of the green paper to Minister Woods when he takes over as the new Minister for State and Regional Development? Has the draft been finished or will the new Minister have to start from square one? What is the new timetable for releasing the Government’s long-awaited regional development policy?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: When the time comes for me to hand over the responsibility to my successor as Minister for State and Regional Development, I will be handing over literally billions of dollars worth of new investments acquired during my time as Minister for State and Regional Development, which have resulted in thousands of new jobs throughout this State.

In view of the time, I suggest that if honourable members have further questions, they place them on notice.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Earlier in question time the Hon. J. M. Samios asked me about the review of children in care. I was not in possession of exact details at that time, but I can now inform the honourable member that in April 1996 the Premier made a commitment that all children in out of home care would have their placements reviewed to ensure their needs were being met. The case planning and management strategy is a two-year process, which commenced on 1 July last year and will conclude on 30 June next year. It will review the circumstances of more than 2,000 children and young people in long-term out of home care in non-government and government placements. Last year the Premier’s package provided $1.5 million to conduct the review.

I am advised that as at 1 July this year 1,053 case reviews have been completed. Clearly more would have been completed since then, but that is the latest figure available to me. I am advised further that at the half-way point the review has succeeded in improving case plans and in setting standards for improved case planning practice. The children in care whose case plans were reviewed now have an updated case plan. I advise the Hon. J. M. Samios also that the Government funded the appointment of 51 additional district officers in 1996-97 and a further 20 positions for 1997-98 to focus specifically on the substitute care work as distinct from child protection work. These specialists will ensure that the best practice standards identified through the case planning and management review strategy will continue to be implemented long after the reviews have been completed.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 23 September the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked me a question without notice regarding vaccine components. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer:

The New South Wales Department of Health advises that the sixth edition of the Australian Immunisation Handbook, prepared by the Immunisation Working Party of the National Health and Medical Research Council Communicable Diseases Standing Committee, provides a standard reference on immunisation procedures. The handbook is distributed to all general practitioners, paediatricians, community health centres, early childhood centres, hospitals and local councils in New South Wales.

Should further detail be required on vaccine components than is provided in the handbook, the department understands that specific vaccine product information is available from the appropriate manufacturer to health professionals on request. This information is very technical and usually would require expert explanation to members of the general public. Should parents have particular concerns regarding specific components of vaccine they should seek advice from their local health professional.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 23 September the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked a question without notice concerning a Building Services Corporation Ombudsman investigation. I have been provided with the following response:

There are four parts to the Question. My answers are: -

1. Yes
2. No
3. Not applicable
4. Not applicable

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 16 October the Hon. D. J. Gay asked me a question without notice concerning the Glendale regional athletics and gymnasium complex and Lake Macquarie City Council. I have been provided with the following response:

Page 1428

The question asked by the Hon D. Gay MLC in itself shows an abysmal ignorance to what is known as the Glendale Regional Athletics Complex and as shadow Minister for Hunter Development I would imagine he should be more careful with raising issues with such scant knowledge.

First of all there was no threat by the Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development, rather, it was indicated that if the site at Glendale could not be made available for various reasons, another alternate site in the Hunter Region needed to be found urgently, for a regional athletics centre.

The Minister also stated that if no suitable site could be found then the Labor Members of Parliament in the Hunter Region, that have made money available for the regional sporting facility, would have the money that they had foregone over the period of the last four years redistributed for sport and recreation facilities in their respective electorates.

The Hon D. Gay might note that it was the Labor Members who made available the money. The Liberal and National Party Members in the Hunter would not make available, either wholly or partly, portions of their sport and recreation monies for the Hunter Region regional sporting facilities. It is a case of wanting the cake and eating it too.

In addition, even though the project first was decided in August, 1992, little headway was made until the election of the Carr Labor Government in March, 1995.

The reason for that was that the previous Liberal/National Party coalition government would not make available State Rail Authority land either without cost or by planning trade-offs.

It is apparent that the previous Liberal/National Party coalition government was not interested in co-operating with Hunter Labor Members in a matter of regional significance and of major benefit to the community, either in monetary terms, co-operation or finding a site.

So that the Hon D. Gay can comprehend the order of events, I will outline for him a brief history from August, 1992. His wild and unsubstantiated outburst by the way of question happened at the very time a meeting was taking place in the precincts of Parliament House to finally find a solution to a problem that has held the project up for some months.

History of events:-

August, 1992
Mayors and shire presidents of the lower Hunter, except Maitland, agree to support in principle the development of a specialist athletics centre at Glendale.

August, 1994
A detailed plan for the establishment of a regional athletics track at Glendale compiled by Lake Macquarie City Council General Manger, Robert Gray, gains the support of the Council. Plan includes the transfer of land from the SRA’s Cardiff railway workshop site.

Late 1994, early 1995
Correspondence and meetings with the Fahey Government achieve no result or support.

June, 1995
A delegation of Newcastle Members of Parliament, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie mayors, council staff and athletics representatives meet ministers from the new Carr Government and Lake Macquarie City Council sees in principle approval from the State Government for the transfer of 11ha to the Council, subject to finalising rezoning issues for remaining land.

January, 1996
Council agrees to proceed with the development, confirming the $4 million budget. The State Government and the Council agrees for the transfer of the land in return for the Council’s provision of rezoning plans of the SRA site.

March, 1996
LMCC General Manager delivers ultimatum and threatens to shelve the Glendale plan if Newcastle Council supports a proposal to put $200,000 toward upgrading National Park athletics track.

July, 1996
Architects commissioned by Council and project said to be finished by mid-1997.

September, 1996
Rivalry flares between LMCC and Newcastle as Newcastle City councillors again consider a new synthetic surface for the National Park athletics track.

September/October, 1996
Glendale taskforce at LMCC advised threatened species and aboriginal heritage issues were in hand, and would be completed before Christmas.

December, 1996
Agreement signed to transfer the land to the Council. Work is expected to begin in February.

January, 1997
The discovery of a colony of squirrel gliders and other fauna delays approval. An archaeological study finds nine aboriginal historic sites.

March, 1997
LMCC wrote to NPWS re threatened species. NPWS replies to LMCC saying more work need on request.

April, 1997
The Council explores alternative sites after delays from the SRA in handing over the land due to a contamination audit of the site which Council had requested.

June, 1997
Council receives a $2 million State sports grant from the Budget to build a regional gymnasium on the proviso it be built within 15 months.

July, 1997
LMCC wrote again to NPWS requesting concurrence to the LMCC assessment report which proposed to relocate the threatened species plants.

August, 1997
Land contamination and flora and fauna issues continue to delay approval.

September, 1997
The plant, Black-Eyed Susan or tetratheca juncea, becomes the major blocking point as squirrel gliders and contamination issues are ruled out as major concerns. LMCC requests response from NPWS. LMCC mayor complains of delays.

Page 1429

Member for Wallsend, John Mills MP, inspects site by arrangement with LMCC. NPWS and Council’s aboriginal heritage consultant also present. Incredibly, at this stage, no complete survey of the athletics site, or the rest of the site, for tetratheca juncea has been carried out. (12/9/97)

October, 1997
A meeting with the NPWS has hopeful outcome of early resolution. A BHP and NPWS assessment of the plant is launched and will report in March, 1998.

October, 10
NPWS delivers its outcome. Council can decide to redesign the plan or wait for the report.

October, 16
MP’s, LMCC and NPWS meet at Parliament House and agree on a number of actions to resolve Glendale delays.

As mentioned previously, the Carr Labor Government in its last Budget made an additional $2 million dollars available for a gymnastics facility to compliment the athletics complex that had been proceeding since August, 1992. It is apparent from his question that the Hon. D. Gay has no idea about the difference between the athletics facility and the gymnastics facility or the amounts of monies involved in either. Also, the planning problems associated with both of the projects are obviously a mystery to him. His help, or lack of it, is not appreciated in the Hunter."

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 24 September the Hon. I. Cohen asked me a question without notice regarding the proposed pine brush nature reserve. I provide the following response:

(1) (a) Action has not been taken as this Crown lease conversion occurred under the previous government. A Voluntary Conservation Agreement was negotiated and finalised covering a portion of this parcel of land which adequately protects the significant conservation values of the site.

(b) The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) is not responsible for coordinating Crown lease conversions. This is the responsibility of the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC). Accordingly the Minister for Land and Water Conservation may be able to clarify the position taken by other agencies regarding this Crown lease conversion. The decision for the conversion of the lease to freehold was a decision of the previous government. I believe that several options for this lease were discussed and that NPWS was advised to proceed with a conservation agreement only after the lease was converted to freehold. No formal advice of the terms of conversion was received by the NPWS.

(2) (a) Two flora surveys were conducted on Portion 183 prior to the conversion of the Crown lease and are as follows:

•1974 M. Dodkin, Pine Brush - New Area Proposal. (NPWS)

•1988 S. Griffiths, Review of conservation values of Portion 183 as reported in Dodkin’s original report. (NPWS)

Further surveys were conducted at later dates as listed below:

•1993 J. Thomas et al, Initial Field Survey for Podocarpus spinulosus (NPWS)

•1994 Griffiths et al, Vegetation of Portion 183 Parish Coldstream (incorporated field survey for Podocarpus spinulosus and other vegetation values) (Contract)

•1996 J. Thomas et al, Field survey of wet sclerophyll forest (NPWS)

(b) The results of the surveys prior to conversion included:

•a small population of Podocarpus spinulosus which is considered rare on the north coast of NSW as it mainly occurs on the coast and ranges south of Woy Woy;

•scenic and landscape values - Portion 183 contains a large part of the ridgeline and western facing slopes of the Pine Brush (McCraes Knob) ridge. It provides a naturally vegetated backdrop to the mainly cleared agricultural lands surrounding the Coldstream River;

•dry sclerophyll forest on the ridges and exposed aspects, dry sclerophyll forest on the low slope areas at the base of ridges and wet sclerophyll/ swamp forest on sheltered aspects, drainage lines and depressions; and

•large amounts of outcropping and exfoliating sandstone which provide habitat for ground dwelling fauna.

(3) (a) I understand the landholder has been undertaking selective logging on areas outside the area protected by a Voluntary Conservation Agreement within Portion 183. This activity was not carried out in the vicinity of Quassia sp. B (which is listed as Endangered under Schedule 1 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995) within Portion 183. This activity does not breach Sections 118A or 118D of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 14 October the Hon. D. J. Gay asked me a question without notice about Independent Commission Against Corruption local government complaints. The Minister for Local Government has provided the following response:

The Honourable Member’s question notes that I look after only one portfolio and it is fortunate that I do so in order to be able to provide him with information and correct some of his more obvious difficulties.

Page 1430

In the case of the Independent Commission Against Corruption it has not been responsible for complaints against the Police Service since 1 January 1997. For this reason local government complaints might clearly be greater in proportion in 1996/97 than they would if that were not the case.

While, as the Hon J W. Shaw indicated, the question might be better addressed to the Minister responsible for the Independent Commission Against Corruption, I am pleased to be able to address the situation with that commission and my own portfolio.

In 1996/97 the ICAC found that 35.5 per cent of its public complaints came from Local Government. The number of local government complaints was 276. In 1995/96, 34 per cent came from Local Government but numbered 306 complaints.

The real issue is that the number of complaints referred by the public to the ICAC fell from 306 to 276, an improvement masked by the percentage calculations.

Of the complaints received by myself and the Department of Local Government there has been an increase of 7.1 per cent from 1995/96 to 1307 in 1996/97. One could draw the conclusion that the figures show an increasing number of complaints seeking my assistance rather than making submissions to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Far from doing nothing about these matters, the complaint handling procedures of the Department have been reviewed in the past 12 months to ensure that those serious matters the subject of complaints are dealt with expeditiously and the complaints which should be handled initially by councils are referred to them at an early stage. In addition, the Department has been actively working with councils to develop appropriate policies, procedures and complaints handling procedures which minimise the number of people who seek rectification of those matters which are properly the decisions of local councils. I should add that a similar view is taken by the ICAC and the Ombudsman.

Before the Honourable Member suggests that we should now examine the complaints dealt with by the Ombudsman I should advise that there are effective inter-organisational arrangements between the Department of Local Government, Ombudsman and Independent Commission Against Corruption to minimise the extent to which the same enquiries may be the subject of action and I understand that a review conducted by the Ombudsman recently has shown that there is duplication in only a very small number of cases.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 25 September Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked me a question without notice regarding the alleged use of casino chips to launder drug money. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

I am advised by the Deputy Commissioner, Specialist Operations, that the case referred to by the Honourable Member was a National Crime Authority investigation. Matters concerning the operations of the Sydney Harbour Casino should be directed to my colleague the Minister for Gaming and Racing.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 24 September Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked me a question without notice concerning former Chief Superintendent Denis Gilligan. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

I am advised by the Deputy Commissioner, Specialist Operations, that former Chief Superintendent Gilligan’s last day of service was 31 March, 1997. Until that time he was bound by the confidentiality and secrecy provisions of the Police Service Regulation 1990. Further, in March 1996, Mr Gilligan signed a Statement of Responsibility requiring strict confidentiality of police information.

I am unaware of Mr Gilligan’s current employment status. The Deputy Commissioner, Specialist Operations, has advised me that the allegations made by the Hon Reverend Nile MLC have been referred to the Commander, Internal Affairs, the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, and the Independent Commission Against Corruption for investigation.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 24 September the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked me a question without notice regarding the employment of Ms Val Kerrison at Kempsey TAFE. The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following response:

Ms Valda June Kerrison’s employment status with the NSW TAFE Commission is that of former employee.

Ms Kerrison is not currently employed by the NSW TAFE Commission.

On 16 June 1995, the NSW Government Medical Officer issued a Retirement Certificate in respect of Ms Kerrison. Ms Kerrison appealed to the Medical Appeals Panel of the NSW Health Department against the assessment made in the Retirement Certificate. Ms Kerrison’s appeal was disallowed, notice of which was given in a letter from the Chairman of the Medical Appeals Panel to Ms Kerrison, dated 13 September 1996. Ms Kerrison’s medical retirement took effect from 13 September 1996 and her employment with the NSW TAFE commission has been terminated.

Questions without notice concluded.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.05 p.m.]: My colleague the Minister for Health has requested
Page 1431
that I make the following statement on his behalf regarding the Government’s intentions in relation to the creation of a regional park at the Walker estates. Both the Dame Eadith Walker and Thomas Walker estates have unique features which are of interest to the public. My colleague the Minister for Health is committed to public access to the estates consistent with the primary health purpose of the facilities in order to meet the goals of the Government’s "The Greening of Sydney" policy. That policy requires the National Parks and Wildlife Service to develop a range of foreshore parks in preparation for the year 2000. The health portfolio is an owner of major heritage estates and my colleague the Minister for Health is committed to the protection of this important aspect of New South Wales heritage.

Current actions to that end are the completion of a detailed heritage register and the writing of a complementary thematic history of public health in New South Wales. These activities are part of an ongoing commitment to heritage preservation which will involve consultation with heritage groups on significant properties, including the Walker estates. Specifically in relation to the Walker estates my colleague the Minister for Health has advised me that he is committed to the granting of a licence to the National Parks and Wildlife Service over the land in the Dame Eadith Walker estate including the paddocks, the driveway and attendant landscape elements, and a foreshore strip of approximately 20 metres in width to enable enhancement and maintenance of the foreshore walk, compliance with obligations of the Department of Health under the Heritage Act in respect of the estates, and creation of a foreshore walk through Concord Hospital, linking the Kokoda Trail to the Dame Eadith foreshore walk.

Informal public access to the Thomas Walker Hospital by local residents will continue under existing arrangements. Enhanced access to the site in the future will be considered in light of the needs of the patients at the Thomas Walker Hospital. Finally, the Minister for Health asks me to inform the Committee that he is committed to the establishment of an estates advisory steering committee to provide a forum for interested parties to discuss issues and promote complementary development of the Dame Eadith Walker estates. The Minister for Health will ensure that the estate advisory steering committee meets within two weeks of the passage of this bill through this House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.08 p.m.]: I welcome the Minister’s statement about his intentions for the Dame Eadith Walker estates. Some aspects touch upon the bill, but some are wide and will not be addressed in the amendments or in questions to the Minister. Will the Minister indicate whether the developments and buildings around the Dame Eadith Walker estate include the heritage restoration of the stables, which was the particular issue that the Minister may remember was debated during the last sittings?

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.10 p.m.]: It might be convenient for the Committee to proceed with the Opposition and Government amendments at this stage. If subsequently I am able to address the honourable member’s question about the stables, I shall certainly do so.

Schedule 1

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.11 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1 as circulated:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1[1]. After line 16, insert:

The Minister must, out of funds available to the Government, allocate funds for the restoration and maintenance of heritage buildings (including outbuildings and statuary) comprising or associated with the Dame Eadith Walker Hospital.

This amendment has the effect of the Minister making funds available for the restoration and maintenance of heritage buildings, including the outbuildings and statuary comprising or associated with the Dame Eadith Walker hospital. The Minister earlier referred to the heritage plan and complementary development around the Dame Eadith Walker buildings. However, he did not say what he intended to do about restoration and maintenance of the heritage buildings. I am drawn to this matter because the Minister in the other place, when debating this matter, was concerned about allocating funds from the health budget to maintain heritage buildings.

In addition to land and buildings the Dame Eadith Walker estate has a large sum in a major trust fund. From that trust fund, as I understand it, the Central Sydney Area Health Service draws capital and income. It is important that the Minister guarantee his commitment that money will be set aside to restore and maintain the heritage buildings. I am aware of a Government amendment that appears much the same as mine, but does not have the same impact. The Government’s amendment provides that the Minister will:

. . . after considering the amount of funds paid to the Central Sydney Area Health Service under section 11(e) and such

Page 1432
other matters as the Minister thinks fit, allocate out of funds available to the Government, such additional funds (if any) as the Minister considers appropriate.

I ask the Minister to confirm that that means that in addition to the money that the Central Sydney Area Health Service gets from the trust, the Minister may add funds available to the Government, which hopefully will not come out of the health budget. I ask the Minister to confirm that any money the Government draws from the trust fund is called income and that the consolidated revenue supplement is reduced by that amount.

In other words, if it draws more money from the trust fund it will get less money from consolidated revenue to support the hospital activities, as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby would understand. The Opposition’s amendment is intended to make sure that this money for heritage purposes does not come from the health budget. I do not think that the Government’s amendment allows for that.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.13 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1 as circulated, which seeks to amend Opposition amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Omit from the words to be inserted by Opposition amendment No. 1 "out of funds available to the Government, allocate funds". Insert instead "after considering the amount of funds paid to the Central Sydney Area Health Service under section 11(e)(ii) and such other matters as the Minister thinks fit, allocate out of funds available to the Government such additional funds (if any) as the Minister considers appropriate".

Before I address that amendment, I will respond briefly to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s concern about the stables. I am advised that the Central Sydney Area Health Service has committed $250,000 to restoration works on the outbuildings, which include the stables. The order of restoration will be ascertained in consultation with the estate advisory committee. With regard to heritage conservation generally, the Department of Health and the Central Sydney Area Health Service have already taken significant steps in relation to the heritage restoration of the Dame Eadith Walker hospital. The department commissioned a conservation and open space management plan, which was completed and endorsed by the Heritage Council in April last year.

In addition, the Central Sydney Area Health Service has prepared a dilapidation report and asset management plan in relation to the restoration of the outbuildings. Significant funds have been expended on restoration work on the main hospital building including external painting, reroofing and replacement of the sewerage system, at a total cost of approximately $500,000. As I said, the area health service has undertaken to spend a further $250,000 on the outbuildings, beginning with the stables. Options for obtaining additional funds for heritage work are also being canvassed by the Central Sydney Area Health Service and Concord Council, including seeking Commonwealth funds under the Commonwealth Federation Fund.

Ongoing consultation on maintenance and restoration of the Dame Eadith Walker estate will be undertaken through an estate advisory committee, which will include representation from the Concord Heritage Society and Concord Council. I refer now to Government amendment No. 1, and my comments will also be relevant to Government amendments 2, 3 and 4, which will be moved in globo. The Opposition amendment requires an unspecified amount of money to be made available for the restoration and maintenance of heritage buildings. As the Minister for Health must allocate such money, the reality is that the money will come from the health budget.

The bill provides that funds be used to maintain and restore hospital buildings by recommending payment from the trust fund. The Government’s amendments allow the Minister to consider the trust money when determining the appropriate amount of additional funds to be allocated to restoration and maintenance. The Government wishes to facilitate the use of appropriate portions of the trust land for public open space, but there are other important uses of the land which may be ruled out by Opposition amendments. Cottages on the estate lands are leased to hospital staff and visiting health professionals, so there is value in maintaining those premises.

Future leases of this nature are endangered by the Opposition’s amendments. Members of the local community agist their horses on the paddocks at the Dame Eadith Walker estate. The agistment of horses does not constitute public open space and further licence agreements which allow this use are likely to be ruled out by the Opposition’s amendments. These amendments are also likely to prevent leasing or licensing of the land for purposes ancillary to its use as a public hospital and ancillary to its use as public open space. The Government’s amendments will allow the leasing or licensing of estate land for public hospital and public health purposes, public open space, agistment of horses and ancillary purposes. For those short reasons I press the Government’s amendment to the Opposition’s amendment.

Page 1433

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.19 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for Community Services for his detailed explanation. The Minister said that the department had allocated $250,000 for the restoration of these magnificent buildings, but I hand the Minister some photographs that show the condition of the stables. Frankly, having seen the photographs, I think the restoration will cost more than $250,000. Along with the Opposition, I do not believe that the money should come out of the health budget. I was delighted to hear the Minister say that the trust and Concord Council were making inquiries about attempting to get the money from a heritage source. Perhaps they will be successful in getting it from the New South Wales department or from the Prime Minister’s heritage fund. There is no doubt that the buildings are of exceptional heritage quality and are located in a magnificent setting, but it would be absolutely wrong for the money to be taken away from other health facilities.

I am happy to support the Opposition’s amendment. Having said that, I am delighted with and support the Government’s foreshadowed revised amendments 2, 3 and 4, which list specifically the purpose of public space, the purpose of the agistment of horses or purposes ancillary to public hospital, public health, public open space or horse agistment purposes. The Minister said it was likely that the cottages on the estate now leased out to hospital staff and visiting health professionals would be endangered if the Opposition’s amendment were successful. The Minister for Health admits that leasing is a value in maintaining those premises, but apparently his advisers believe that future leases of that nature would be endangered if the Opposition’s amendment were accepted.

I find it very difficult to understand how a simple requirement that the heritage buildings be maintained in good order by money that the Government obtains from sources other than the health budget would endanger the use of those premises by hospital staff and visiting health professionals. I do not see how those premises could possibly be endangered. I gather that the Government believes that the Opposition’s amendment is likely to prevent leasing or licensing of the land for purposes ancillary to its use as a public hospital and ancillary to its use as public open space. I do not understand how that could occur.

The only difference between the Opposition’s amendment and the Government amendments 2, 3 and 4 is an absolute guarantee that the land can be used for public hospital or other public health purposes or for the purpose of public open space, for the purpose of the agistment of horses or for purposes ancillary to public hospital, public health, public open space or horse agistment purposes. I believe that the Opposition is perfectly happy about those amendments and is not likely to oppose them or insist that its amendment take precedence over them. The only question at issue now is the conflict with Opposition amendment No. 1 as to whether the funds should come out of the health budget or out of other funds available to the Government. I believe that the money should come out of other funds available to the Government. In this case I do not agree with the views put forward by the advisers to the Minister for Health. I do not recognise that anything else that the Government may wish to do will be endangered by the success of Opposition amendment No. 1. Therefore I intend to support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.25 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party believes that the amendments foreshadowed by the Government go a long way to meeting the concerns raised in the House and expand the question of allocating funds further than proposed in the Opposition’s amendment No. 1. Therefore, the Christian Democratic Party supports the Government’s amendment.

Question - That the amendment of the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

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

Mrs Arena Ms Kirkby
Mr Bull Mr Lynn
Mrs Chadwick Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith
Dr Goldsmith Mr Willis
Mr Hannaford Tellers,
Mr Jones Mr Jobling
Mr Kersten Mr Moppett

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of amendment negatived.

Page 1434

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.33 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments 2, 3, and 4 in globo:

No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1[2], line 24. After "land" insert "for the purpose of public open space".

No. 3 Page 3, Schedule 1[2], line 25. After "must" insert ", for the purpose of public open space,".

No. 4 Page 3, Schedule 1[2], line 28. After "such" insert "public open space".

I congratulate the Government on taking note of the debate on this proposal that took place in the lower House and in coming forward with a sensible package.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.34 p.m.], by leave: I seek to amend the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti by moving in globo Government amendments 2, 3 and 4 as circulated:

No. 2 Omit the words to be inserted by Opposition amendment No. 2. Insert instead "for public hospital or other public health purposes, for the purpose of public open space or for the purpose of the agistment of horses, or for purposes ancillary to public hospital, public health, public open space or horse agistment purposes".

No. 3 Omit the words to be inserted by Opposition amendment No. 3. Insert instead ", for public hospital or other public health purposes, for the purpose of public open space or for the purpose of the agistment of horses, or for purposes ancillary to public hospital, public health, public open space or horse agistment purposes,".

No. 4 Omit the words to be inserted by Opposition amendment No. 4. Insert instead "public hospital, other public health, public open space, horse agistment or ancillary".

Amendments of amendments agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services), on behalf of the Hon. J. W. Shaw [5.38 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The provisions in the new Act governing public notaries are based on proposals contained in a discussion paper issued by the Attorney General’s Department in July 1996.

The proposed new legislation applies competition policy to the system for the appointment of notaries and charging of costs for notarial services.

Restrictive and anti-competitive practices were removed from the legal profession by the Legal Profession Reform Act 1993. The changes introduced by that legislation facilitated the development of competition within the profession in the public interest. The proposed legislation applies similar policies to the practice of notarial work.

At present, there are approximately three hundred notaries on the roll in New South Wales. Their functions include the certification and drafting of documents for use overseas in judicial proceedings and by government agencies. Other tasks undertaken by notaries include protesting and noting protests of bills of exchange, or bills of lading; taking affidavits to comply with the requirements of foreign law; and certifying the due execution of a bill of sale of a ship.

Notarial practice in New South Wales is currently governed by the Public Notaries Act 1985. Various provisions in the act are outdated and unduly onerous.

Under the existing Act, notaries are appointed by the Supreme Court and are required to lodge an annual statement of particulars with the Prothonotary of that court. The Act requires the Prothonotary to remove the name of any practitioner from the roll of public notaries if he or she fails to lodge such a statement.

The existing Act also provides that the Supreme Court must be satisfied that applicants for appointment as a notary meet a number of criteria, such as being a person of good fame and character.

The Supreme Court has held that applicants must provide evidence of the public interest to be served by their appointment as a notary. In practice, this means that applicants must demonstrate that there is a need for the appointment of further notaries in the geographical area of their legal practice.

Applicants for admission to notarial practice must also generally complete a course conducted by the College of Law, which lasts approximately two hours.

The provisions of the proposed new Act update requirements in relation to regulation of notaries and provide for a simplified system of appointment.

It is proposed that the Legal Practitioners Admission Board be responsible for the admission of notaries. This approach is consistent with the proposal contained in option one of the 1996 discussion paper and the underlying rationale of the

Page 1435
reforms. That is, that notarial work is simply another, specialised area of work undertaken by legal practitioners.

Nevertheless, in order to comply with established practice in Australia and overseas, it is proposed to retain a requirement that notaries be appointed by the Supreme Court.

The proposed provisions are intended to ensure that irrelevant considerations, such as geographical need, are not given undue weight in the appointment of notaries. The requirement that an annual statement be lodged with the Prothonotary has also been abolished.

The proposed provisions provide that prospective notaries receive adequate training to enable them to fulfil their obligations to their clients, the courts and other authorities which rely upon their expertise.

Because of the international significance of notarial work, it is important to ensure that only competent legal practitioners practise as notaries and that applicants for appointment receive adequate training in notarial work.

It is therefore anticipated that the training required of applicants for admission will be expanded, to take in practical exercises across the full range of notarial work. In this regard, I note that the Society of Notaries will continue to play an important role in the preparation of training materials.

I note that the discussion paper indicated that it was not proposed to regulate fees for notarial work. However, a number of practitioners have indicated that a large proportion of notarial work is conducted at short notice for international clients and involves a single interview, at a fee of less than $150.

There are currently only a small number of notaries to serve clients, particularly in suburban and rural locations. It is considered that there may be some risk of exploitation of clients if a scale of fees does not exist for notarial work, at least until such time as a market for notarial services has developed.

Accordingly, the Society of Notaries will be permitted to set an indicative fee for notarial work, with the proviso that a costs agreement may be made, which is outside this scale.

In recognising that notarial work is another area of legal work, the proposed provisions provide that complaints and disciplinary proceedings against notaries are to be dealt with under the Legal Profession Act.

The Law Society Council will be given the power to investigate and suspend a notary who is the subject of a complaint. I anticipate that the Law Society would seek the advice of a notary or the Society of Notaries in the course of investigating any complaint against a notary.

The proposed legislation also provides for a prohibition against legal practitioners carrying out notarial acts for their employer or related entities, or clients of their employer. The exception is where the employer of a notary is a solicitor or solicitor corporation, or such other body as may be prescribed.

This prohibition is designed to prevent any conflict of interest on the part of a public notary, which may also potentially threaten the independence of notaries and damage Australia’s international reputation both commercially and in other respects.

Mr President, I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [5.39 p.m.]: This legislation relates to the regulation of public notaries, who have an important role to play in the legal process. Amendments of this nature to the legal profession and the practice of law are always important because they go to the fundamentals of our Westminster system of government, in which the legal profession plays an important role. The proposed amendments to the legislation governing public notaries flowed from a discussion paper issued by the Attorney General’s Department in July 1996. The bill will amend the existing 1985 legislation, which has governed notarial practice. Today there are 300 notaries throughout urban and regional areas of New South Wales. As honourable members may be aware under the present system of administration, notaries - who are appointed by the Supreme Court - lodge an annual statement of particulars with the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court.

The role of a public notary includes the certification and drafting of documents for use in overseas judicial proceedings and by government agencies. It also includes responsibility for protesting and noting protests of bills of exchange or bills of lading, for the taking of affidavits to comply with the requirements of foreign law and for certifying the due execution for a bill of sale of a ship. Of importance in the practice of public notaries is the international aspect of their work. In the past the emphasis has been placed on the geographical placement of notaries. The proposed legislation seeks to balance that placement and, to achieve that purpose, it provides for notaries to be appointed by the Supreme Court and to fit within the administration of the Legal Practitioners Admission Board, which functions under the Legal Profession Act. The board will thus ensure that public notaries are regarded as part and parcel of the legal profession.

Public notaries are drawn from the ranks of barristers or solicitors. The proposed legislation will ensure a right of appeal if the admission board refuses to approve of a person as a suitable candidate for admission as a public notary. Clause 10 of the bill will enable the appeal to be dealt with by way of rehearing and in that instance a judge may be disqualified from hearing such appeal if he or she was a member of the admission board when the decision to which the appeal relates was made. The objects of the legislation are clearly spelled out. Principally the legislation will provide for the appointment and regulation of the practice of public notaries, repeal the Public Notaries Act 1985, and
Page 1436
amend the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1987 and the Legal Profession Act 1987. The proposed legislation will dispense with the necessity to lodge an annual statement of particulars because the Supreme Court will assume that role. In the past the Supreme Court has held that applicants must provide evidence of public interest to enable them to be appointed as notaries.

In addition, emphasis has been placed - and this is an important aspect - on the necessity for better training for notaries. Thus far applicants for admission to practice generally complete a two-hour course conducted by the College of Law. That policy will be upgraded to enable the training for applicants for admission to be expanded to take in practical exercises across the full range of notarial work. This is good housekeeping legislation which has successfully flowed from the discussion paper issued by the Attorney General’s Department in July 1996. It will affect an important profession, the practice of law, which underpins the administration of justice in this State and plays an important role in the Westminster system of government. It also underpins social cohesion of our multicultural society.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.49 p.m.]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the Public Notaries Bill, the purpose of which is to bring the Public Notaries Act 1985 into line with the principles of competition policy and to simplify and update the legislation. As has already been pointed out by previous speakers, notaries are a small and specialised arm of the legal profession; at present there are only about 300 on the roll in New South Wales. Their functions are mainly the certification and drafting of documents for use overseas in judicial proceedings and by government agencies. Notaries tasks also include protesting and noting protests of bills of exchange or bills of lading, taking affidavits to comply with the requirements of foreign law and certifying the due execution of a bill of sale of a ship.

To become a notary a person has to have been a barrister or a solicitor for at least five years. The changes encompassed in the present bill are based on a discussion paper issued by the Attorney General in July 1996. The Hilmer competition policy is applied to the appointment and cost charging for notarial services. Similar reforms were introduced into the legal profession by the Legal Profession Reform Act 1993 which helped to remove some of its anti-competitive and restrictive practices. The legislation also made it possible for members of the legal profession to advertise.

The bill replaces, largely recreates, updates and changes the present Public Notaries Act 1985. The bill also removes some of the present restrictions relating to the appointment of public notaries. At present applicants have to prove that it is in the public interest that they should be appointed. That usually means that applicants have proved that there is a need for the appointment of a further notary in the area in which they live. The charging of costs for notarial services has been deregulated and set at $150. The Society of Notaries will now be able to set an indicative scale fee, but with a proviso that a costs agreement may be made outside the scale fee.

The bill also provides for a simplified system of appointment. Currently public notaries are appointed by the Supreme Court. That practice will continue, but under the bill the Legal Practitioners Admission Board will undertake the responsibility for the admission and training of public notaries. The bill also provides that complaints and disciplinary proceedings against notaries will be dealt with under part 10 of the Legal Profession Act. The bill prohibits legal practitioners carrying out notarial acts for their employers, or related entities or clients of their employers when the practitioners-notaries are working for a corporation and not a legal firm. That will prevent any conflict of interest on the part of the notary which has potential to damage Australia’s international commercial reputation.

Apparently in another place an amendment was moved by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation whereby the Legal Practitioners Admission Board, rather than an officer of the Supreme Court as was originally envisaged by the bill, would establish and maintain a role of public notaries. That amendment was supported by the admission board and by the Supreme Court. The Society of Public Notaries, the Legal Practitioners Board and the Supreme Court support the proposed legislation. I have not received any arguments against the proposal from any quarter. Therefore, the Australian Democrats are happy to support the bill.

The bill is particularly important for country people, who previously have had to travel to metropolitan areas to avail themselves of the services of a public notary. I know from personal experience that it is not easy in Australia, particularly in New South Wales, to find a public notary. In most other countries a public notary can be found in every town, even in some of the smaller European towns. I hope that the increase in the number of public notaries will mean that more will practise in country areas thus making life easier for
Page 1437
country people. With those few remarks I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.53 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Public Notaries Bill, which will provide for the appointment and regulation of the practice of public notaries. Its principal purposes are to repeal the Public Notaries Act 1985 and to amend the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 and Legal Profession Act 1987 consequentially. This legislation arose from a discussion paper prepared by the Attorney General’s Department in July 1996. Apparently there are 300 notaries on the roll in New South Wales. The bill, which has the support of the public notaries in this State, will facilitate competition in legal practice and, accordingly, will remove certain restrictions relating to the appointment of public notaries and the charging of costs for notarial services.

The bill provides also for a simplified system of appointment. Public notaries will be appointed by the Supreme Court in accordance with established practice in Australia and overseas. The Legal Practitioners Admission Board will undertake responsibility for the admission and training of public notaries. I note that the Society of Notaries will be permitted to set an indicative fee for notarial work with the proviso that a costs agreement be made that is outside the scale. In recognising the notarial work as another area of legal work, the proposed provisions provide that the complaints and disciplinary proceedings against notaries are to be dealt with under the Legal Profession Act. The Law Society Council will be given the power to investigate and suspend a notary who is the subject of a complaint. The Law Society will generally seek the advice of a notary or the Society of Notaries in the course of investigating any complaints against a notary. The legislation will also prohibit legal practitioners from carrying out notarial acts for their employers or related entities or clients of their employers to avoid a conflict of interest and maintain the independence of notaries. The Christian Democratic Party supports that provision and the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.57 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the bill. Indeed, it is pleasing that a bill that has been the subject of widespread discussion via the mechanism of a discussion paper should be supported generally in this House as a significant law reform measure that will benefit the consumers of legal services. I thank the policy officers in the Attorney General’s Department who worked on this bill and developed it to a stage where it has gained broad and clear acceptance.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.59 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce on behalf of the Government the Inclosed Lands Protection Amendment Bill 1997.

The bill will increase the protection offered by the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 to school children, and also to persons in hospitals, nursing homes and child care centres. All of these persons may properly be considered to be in positions of vulnerability.

During 1996 and 1997, a number of incidents concerning intruders occurred in a number of schools, mainly in inner, western and south-western Sydney, and in Newcastle. Some schools have experienced difficulties, in some cases for several years, with groups of youths loitering outside the school and inciting trouble with students.

School principals and school staff are often placed in dangerous situations when dealing with intruders with whom they are neither trained nor employed to deal.

According to data collected by the Department of School Education in 1996, in that year 28 per cent of all violent incidents on school properties involved assailants who were not part of the normal school community.

While any act of violence on school premises may be adequately prosecuted under existing offences in the Crimes Act 1900, increasing penalties for those who trespass on school premises will discourage troublemakers from entering onto those premises in the first place.

As already noted, it is proposed that the higher penalties be applied also to trespassers in other locations where vulnerable persons might be expected to be. Specifically, child care centres, hospitals and nursing homes are deserving of equal protection.

In setting the higher penalties, it has been necessary to ensure that the size of the penalties does not exceed the objective seriousness of the behaviour. That behaviour would still be no more than trespass in itself (for an offence against s.4), or

Page 1438
trespass combined with offensive behaviour (for an offence against s.4a). Of course, where there is actually violence or intimidation, or some other aggravating element (such as custody of an offensive implement), a range of other offences are applicable, including those that carry very heavy penalties indeed.

I turn now to the major provisions of the bill.

Item [4] of schedule 1 doubles the existing penalty, to $1,100, for trespass offences that occur on "prescribed premises". Additionally, the bill takes the opportunity to update the rather antiquated drafting of the relevant section of the primary act, being section 4.

Item [6] of schedule 1 doubles the existing penalty, to $2,200, for offences that involve not just trespass but also offensive conduct on the premises in question.

Item [2] in schedule 1 makes a number of changes to section 3 of the primary Act, which is the definitions section. It updates the definition of "school", and introduces definitions of "child care service", "hospital" and "nursing home".

That is the effect of the bill. While the changes may be shortly stated, they are timely and appropriate. They constitute a further measured step in the building of a better criminal justice system.

Moreover, as I have already indicated, the provisions of the bill should not be seen in isolation. The bill will undoubtedly provide a deterrent to trespassers. But wherever an intruder goes further and indulges in any form of violence or other criminal behaviour, the law has the power to come down very hard indeed.

Upon the commencement of the legislation, a campaign will be directed at teenage school children explaining the changes to the law, the nature of the offences, the severity of the penalties, and the importance of maintaining schools as safe and stable environments for learning.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK [6.00 p.m.]: The community is increasingly alarmed about violence in and around schools. Of course, the Opposition shares this concern and, consequently, does not oppose this bill. All violence must be deplored, but I think all of us have a particular horror about violence in and around our schools.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Everywhere.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: That is exactly what I said. All violence is to be deplored. I think the community has a particular horror about violence in and around schools because, quite rightly, all right-minded citizens regard schools as an oasis of safety against some of the pressures, including violence, of the outside world. When parents entrust their children to schools not only do they expect an education in a traditional sense but they expect their children to be safe in that environment. Schools are places where we entrust our children to the care and protection of others. Adult members of the community become perturbed and distressed when, having given their children over to the care of the schools, the safety of their children cannot be guaranteed. Children are handed over for many hours of the day and for more than 13 years. Schools are places where, through our teachers, some of society’s most important work is undertaken. On a personal level teachers, like all workers, deserve a safe working environment. For our teachers, on a professional level a peaceful, calm, predictable, and consistent environment is the most conducive to learning.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Including Cleveland Street High School.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Indeed.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It’s my old school.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It has had a chequered past in recent years. Whilst it is optimistic to believe that this bill will reverse the current unfortunate trend, I believe it is worthy of support. It is clear not only that violence in our schools is increasing but that much of the violence is what could be called imported violence. By that I mean violence instigated by others entering onto school grounds. The violence may involve disgruntled and agitated parents, vendettas and grudges against teachers, and paybacks by students and former students. The reported incidents in our schools show that much of the violence is imported.

The Minister in another place said that there were 533 assaults on school premises in 1995. In the debate in another place the honourable member for Lakemba revealed that there was a 30 per cent increase on that experienced in 1996. Sadly, many of these incidents are serious and dangerous: a teacher stabbed by a 14-year-old, a 14-year-old stabbed by a 16-year-old, 10-year-olds and 12-year-olds rioting on school buses, and teenage gang wars spilling over into school grounds, injuring students and intervening teachers. I am not speaking about these matters to oversensationalise or overdramatise the situation; rather, I am highlighting the seriousness of the situation. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures indicate that two assaults occur every three days in New South Wales public schools. Our teachers are now officially supported when they are forced to take out apprehended violence orders against students or their parents. What a sad and serious situation!

Page 1439

We must act if we are to avoid the tragic situation that we hear so much about in some States in America, where armed security guards, locked doors and metal detectors are now part of normal - if that can be called normal - school life. I note that the ambit of the bill includes child-care services, hospitals and nursing homes. Whilst I hope that we do not see this spate of violence extending to those services, their inclusion in the bill is sensible. Without being a prophet of doom I am worried about whether this bill will have the desired effect. If the promised education campaign is a success, the effective doubling of penalties may well provide a deterrent. However, perhaps the Attorney General can indicate how many people have been charged successfully under the existing provisions. I would hazard a suggestion that the answer is none. I challenge the Minister to tell me whether I am right.

If no-one has been charged successfully under the existing provisions the Attorney should indicate what measures the Government will take to ensure that the penalties will in fact be doubled. Will one person be effectively and successfully charged? How will the Government make this stick? I accept that doubling the penalties to $100 for simple trespass, $1,100 for trespass accompanied and $2,200 for trespass accompanied by offensive conduct should act as a deterrent. However, in those cases in which the penalty is not doubled, what does the Government intend to do to a hypothetical 13-year-old, for example? Obviously a 13-year-old, a 12-year-old or a 14-year-old does not have $1,100, let alone $2,200. Does the Government intend to incarcerate a child for non-payment of the fine? Is that what the Government intends to do as part of public policy? If so, I may well have to rethink my position because I certainly do not condone that as good public policy.

Having metaphorically sabre-rattled on this issue, I am saying that conversely it does not seem like good public policy to then ignore the offence, because the consequences of charging and fining a 12-year-old $2,200, which he or she cannot pay, and incarcerating that child for non-payment seems ludicrous. The Attorney should tell us how the Government intends to ensure the workability of the bill’s provisions. A much more strategic approach is probably needed. I acknowledge the efforts made over the years to make our schools safe and happy places. I applaud the efforts to effect cultural change, racial harmony and a joyous celebration of multiculturalism through education. It is fair to say, however, that more work is needed if we are to lower tension and violence in our schools.

Thought needs to be given to more specific targeting of sources of potential violence. Sadly, research shows that the most violent incidents involve a single male attacker and a single male victim of similar age. The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research further shows that the attack is the result of an argument or in retaliation for an earlier incident. The assault usually occurs in the playground at lunchtime or during the last two hours of the school day. I am not making that up; the information comes from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. I am not trying to place yet more burdens on the hard-pressed teachers in our schools. However, the information available has clear implications for special vigilance in supervision during what are identified as dangerous times. The Government should look at that specific targeting. No single action, such as through this bill with increased fines and penalties, will provide the panacea to this problem. So while the Opposition and I support this bill, it must be acknowledged that a range of complementary initiatives are needed if our schools are to be safe and happy places which we and the community demand and our teachers and students deserve.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [6.10 p.m.]: I would like to place on record some of my concerns relating to this bill. Although I agree with a lot of the reasoning behind it, I have a real problem when talking about out-of-school-hours activities at schools. I am not concerned about having laws against trespass in school hours, but in many suburbs and country towns, and particularly in the inner city, the local high school or primary school offers the only available public playing space. The schoolyard is generally the only area that has asphalt, which is good for skateboarding, and it is generally the only area that has an available and free basketball court.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Your son can’t go skateboarding in the school on the weekend.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: That is what I am talking about. In my area the local schools are used not only by the children of the area but also by the youth of the area. I am concerned that this legislation will signal to police that we are giving them more power to deal with what they consider to be a series of problems. We are not talking about police harassing white, middle-class kids who happen to be using the local playground. However, I am concerned that some police officers, particularly in stations in the inner-
Page 1440
city areas, have not yet been re-educated in the way we would like them to be re-educated. They are racist in the extreme and they will use this legislation as an excuse to harass Aboriginal children and youths and also youths from non-English speaking backgrounds who use those asphalted areas in school grounds as their local playing fields.

I am enormously concerned about this. Better urban design and more playing space is needed for the children of the inner city, and it is dreadful that anyone found on inclosed premises without lawful excuse will be fined $2,000. Who will decide at the time what is a lawful excuse - the local Glebe police? That terrifies me. This is a real issue for youths who are already being thrown out of shopping centres because they are unemployed and do not have the money to buy cups of coffee and all the services that shopping centres draw people in to use. Youths who are being thrown out of shopping centres by security thugs simply for hanging around and not spending money will end up in the school playgrounds. We are now telling them that they cannot play there either. This is a real problem for our present urban policy.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.13 p.m.]: I support the Inclosed Lands Protection Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to double the maximum penalty for offences of trespass in schools and also to provide similar protection for child-care centres, hospitals and nursing homes. As has already been pointed out, a number of well-publicised violent attacks occurred during 1996-97. Regrettably, numerous stabbings have been reported. Indeed, the Bureau of Crime Statistics says that in 1995, 533 assaults occurred throughout the State’s 2,226 public schools. According to figures collected by the Department of School Education, 28 per cent of these violent incidents were perpetrated by people who were not part of the school community. The Government’s response, via this bill, is to increase fines for trespass on school premises and also to give child-care centres, hospitals and nursing homes the same protection.

There are two aspects to trespass on school grounds. The first, of course, is the risk of physical danger to teachers and students during school hours, and the second is damage to property out of school hours. This bill addresses the second of these problems rather more than it does the first. If somebody is intent on doing physical harm to somebody else on school premises, obviously the last thing that he or she would think about is the possibility that he or she might incur a fine. It would be more constructive for schools and teachers to develop strategies to deal with violence, possibly by close liaison with the police in their area and also by courses in self-defence. The second aspect is the damage to school property, which costs the Department of School Education a vast amount of money every year.

Indeed, the 1996 annual report of the Department of School Education contains some horrendous figures. In 1992 the managed funds value of claims was $3.7 million. In 1993 it had risen to $15 million and in 1994 to $25 million. In 1995 it dropped back to $13 million, and in 1996 it went up again to $17.2 million. These are horrendously large sums of money. Over the period 1994-96, 6,785 incidents of theft and vandalism cost the department $22.1 million and 251 fires cost the department $33.5 million. Over recent years there has been a move to use school premises out of hours for a whole variety of activities, including adult education, fund-raising for parents and citizens groups, and sporting events. In one way this is admirable, but it can become a double-edged sword.

On one side schools are used quite legitimately by various groups outside school hours, which could help to reduce the incidence of vandalism. However, such use legitimises access to school grounds for more people, and it also makes it harder to identify people who are on the premises with intent to do damage to property or those who are there for perfectly lawful and reasonable purposes. As the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann rightly pointed out, there is also a class of law-abiding citizens, both young and old, who may be in the habit of walking a dog or kicking a football out of school hours on the school playing fields. If they do not have the permission of the school principal to be on the school grounds, they are trespassing and they will be subject to these new increased fines.

In 1995, on behalf of the Democrats, I issued a press release "New Approach to School Fires, Break-Ins", and floated the idea of a permanent presence on the school grounds through the use of caretakers. In the press release I suggested that the cost of building a dwelling on the school property to be occupied by either a teacher or, perhaps, somebody on the public housing list would be fully repaid in a short time and would reduce the incidence of vandalism. I believe it could also assist as an early warning system for school fires, which is the greatest cost to the department. As the bill stands it has two objects. It will increase the maximum penalty for unlawful entry, or offensive conduct in school grounds, and it will treat child-care centres, hospitals and nursing homes in exactly the same way as schools.

Page 1441

The bill means well. Unfortunately, alone this bill will do little to solve the problem of violence by outsiders in schools. The best part of the bill is the by-product in that child-care centres, hospitals and nursing homes will have the same deterrents that are offered to schools. It is a matter of regret that in recent years child-care centres have become flash points as venues for disputes between parties involved in custody battles. There are arguments against the legislation, some of which have been very cogently pointed out by the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann. The effect of the increase in fines is unclear, and it would be better to address school violence from the preventive viewpoint. With the training of teachers and a more effective response time by police, perhaps it would be possible to install a panic button - as used in banks - so that the police can be alerted quickly. If this bill deters some people from entering school or other premises with intent to harm people or damage property, it is worthwhile. I would, however, urge the Government to consider what I have said in relation to the training of teachers in self-defence and schools being directly connected to the local police, both by liaison and by electronic panic alarms. I stress again my proposition of the live-in caretaker, which I believe deserves consideration. I seek leave to have my media release dated 21 March 1995 incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

______

The Australian Democrats want to introduce free caretaker housing in NSW schools in a new approach to slashing the multi-million dollar annual bill to taxpayer’s, caused by vandals.

The last two financial years have seen 222 school fires and 9,043 reported incidents of theft and vandalism; amounting to almost $26 million.

"This measure has the potential to save over $15 million per year in reduced damage to schools," said NSW Democrat Leader, the Hon Elisabeth Kirkby MLC.

"Under the proposal, modest dwellings would initially be built at the top ten worst hit schools. People on the public housing list and teachers would be offered the accommodation in exchange for responding to fire and burglar alarms linked to the flats.

"Fires, break-ins, graffiti and other vandalism would be dramatically reduced and pressure on the public housing sector would further be eased if a person was on hand to call police or fire brigade.

"Both the major parties are committed to spending millions on computer equipment and other expensive technology and schools will inevitably become targeted by criminals as a result," continued Ms Kirkby.

"School fires cause so much damage because they usually burn undetected until they have well and truly taken hold.

"We will be calling on whoever forms Government to seriously investigate the worth of this proposal.

"Ten dwellings could be constructed for around $850,000. Fires alone cost over $13 million last financial year.

"A live-in caretaker would also mean that the community could make use of school halls and sporting facilities in the evenings.

"Either way, more people around schools after hours will mean less opportunities for graffiti scrawlers and vandals to carry out their senseless destruction of public property," concluded Ms Kirkby.

______

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Finally, there is one other point which it is proper to make. New signs must be erected at the entrance gates of schools, child-care centres, nursing homes and hospitals, outlining the new penalties for trespass. After all, the new provisions in the bill will have very little effect if the general public does not know that if they enter school grounds without proper authority they will commit an offence, for which they could be quite heavily fined. Over the past two years, at least, many school grounds have been patrolled by security guards. Signs are erected at the gates to show that security guards regularly check the premises. Therefore, the possibility of incurring a fine could be posted in a similar manner. I hope that the Government will take that on board when the bill is finally implemented. With those remarks, I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.22 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Inclosed Lands Protection Amendment Bill. The object of the bill, which will amend the Inclosed Lands Protection Act, is stated as being:

(a) to increase the maximum penalty for unlawful entry, or engaging in offensive conduct, on land that is occupied or used in connection with a school, and

(b) to treat child care services, hospitals and nursing homes in the same way as schools by providing for increased penalties for unlawful entry, or engaging in offensive conduct, on land that is occupied or used in connection with a child care service, hospital or nursing home.

I note that inclosed lands are currently defined in the Act as land that is inclosed generally by a fence, wall or other erection, or natural feature. In travelling around the State I have noticed some schools which may not have a fence but may have a garden, footpath or roadway which identifies the school grounds. Does a "natural feature" include a garden or footpath if there is no fence? I also note
Page 1442
that the bill will provide increased protection to schoolchildren and persons in hospitals, nursing homes and child-care centres. In a tragic murder in the north of the State a nurse, apparently the only person on duty, was taken by two men from a hospital. She was savagely raped and murdered. That tragic case shows how vulnerable nurses are, especially in country hospitals without a large staff and certainly without security staff.

This bill does not provide for security staff, it provides only for penalties. I urge the Government to examine schools, hospitals, nursing homes and child-care centres, particularly residential centres, where people work at night. The staff and residents of those centres need security. Following that savage attack in the north of the State the Government undertook to look into the question of security as an urgent matter. In the past school principals and staff have been placed in dangerous situations when dealing with intruders. They are not trained or employed to deal with intruders. Teachers are not armed with batons or guns and are not equipped to physically deal with intruders who may be as big as the teacher although relatively young.

I understand that there has been an increase of 28 per cent in violent incidents at school properties involving assailants who are not part of the normal school community; they may be former students, gangs or louts that prowl the area. They try to intimidate students who take a serious attitude to their studies. Students and the school community should be protected by the Government in every way; no-one should interfere with the operation of a school and/or intimidate students. The Christian Democratic Party supports the objects of the bill. It is important to note that many modern films, television programs, videos and the lyrics of hard rock or acid rock music encourage violence, whether against schools, teachers, parents, police or any authority figure. I know some honourable members are totally opposed to any form of censorship but some attention should be given to whether there is too much emphasis on presenting a role model of a gang leader or others who are promoted as heroes for vandalising or attacking schools.

Recently schools have been vandalised or set on fire. The work of the schoolchildren and the equipment provided by the hard-working parents and citizens associations have been maliciously damaged and destroyed. It is another plus that this bill can deter that kind of activity. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann painted a picture of children lacking playgrounds in inner-city areas. That is another valid point and the main solution to that is for the Government to provide playing areas. Attempts were made to close some streets so that the children could play in an area free of vehicles. I see nothing wrong with children or young people using school grounds for recreation, and that applies to people with a genuine intention such as to play basketball. However, others go to school grounds for the purpose of vandalism.

I suggest that the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann might contact the Teachers Federation and ask it to roster volunteer teachers to supervise school grounds. Children and other people who enter school grounds for lawful purposes could be given authority to enter by the volunteer. Basketball competitions could be run at the school late in the afternoon or at night. I challenge the Teachers Federation to show its sincerity by setting up those types of rosters. I know what the federation’s answer will be, but I place that on the record as something that it should consider if it has a genuine interest in the welfare of young people.

The bill will increase from $550 to $1,100 the maximum penalty under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 for the offence of trespass, and from $1,100 to $2,200 for the offence of engaging in offensive conduct, on land that is occupied or used in connection with a school, child-care centre, hospital or nursing home. On a recent visit to Perth I noted that the Western Australian Government has introduced what I consider to be a worthwhile, albeit perhaps experimental, bill to enable the confiscation of property in certain circumstances. Many people do not have the money to pay fines or will not pay fines, and the Western Australia Government suggests that in such circumstances the offender’s property should be confiscated. A young person who will not pay a fine may find that his or her car is confiscated. This legislation is designed to bring home the seriousness of their actions to people who may not have much cash. Perhaps this Government should consider such a measure.

This bill will provide a deterrent to trespassers, but if an intruder goes further and indulges in any form of violence or other criminal behaviour the criminal law will come into effect. I call on the Government to carry out an education program. Signs in schools should point out the change to the law, the nature of the offences involved, the severity of the penalties and the importance of maintaining schools as safe and stable environments for children of all ages. There may be need for a news media education program outlining the bill and its objects, in order that its message may reach as many young people as possible and achieve the desired results. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

Page 1443

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.32 p.m.]: This is a fairly simple bill that increases penalties for unlawful entry and offensive conduct on school land. As several honourable members have commented favourably, the bill also amends the Act to treat child-care services, hospitals and nursing homes in the same way as schools in this respect. I place on record my disappointment at the speeches made by the Hon. Virginia Chadwick and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Instead of recognising this bill as being relatively minor, they spoke about violence in schools - grossly exaggerating and beating up that problem. The scaremongering of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick was not accompanied by any positive proposal to address the problem, while Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile simply indulged his obsession with the lyrics of rock songs and his hatred of the Teachers Federation.

I point out to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that at government schools all over New South Wales teachers carry out voluntary duties after hours and on the weekends. It is particularly poor that he should seize this opportunity to gratuitously attack the Teachers Federation. There is a concern that people such as the Hon. Virginia Chadwick and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, by exaggerating the problem of violence in schools - which is very small - should talk up the need for action in this regard. As I have said, this is a relatively simple bill and it would be a great pity if, through the carry-on here, the police or any other member of the community were to engage in a draconian attack on all those people who properly use schools for a variety of purposes in the evenings and on the weekends.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.34 p.m.], in reply: On behalf of the Attorney General I thank all honourable members who have spoken in the debate, and I shall respond briefly to concerns raised by the Hon. Virginia Chadwick and the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann. Responding first to the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, I am advised that the criminal law review division of the Attorney General’s Department does not have the statistics in the form mentioned by the honourable member. Neither the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research nor the Judicial Commission would differentiate trespass offences in schools from trespass offences more generally.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: So you have no statistics at all on which to base the doubling of penalties? That is a great policy.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Government is aware, no doubt through anecdotal evidence, of problems within schools resulting from trespass and more serious offences such as destruction of property that occur following trespass. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick also referred to fine default. The Fines Act 1996 establishes a comprehensive scheme for the enforcement of fines. The aim is to both increase rates of payment and minimise incarceration for fine default. Options falling short of incarceration include licence cancellation, community service orders -

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Thirteen-year-olds tend not to have driving licences.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am well aware of that, but if the honourable member cares to be patient enough and polite enough to listen to my full response she will hear me say that community service orders are also available, as is the personal follow-up of fine defaulters. The latter two alternatives are relevant to juvenile offenders. Licence cancellations, admittedly, are more appropriate to older offenders. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann asked whether the new penalties would apply to a child who happens to be playing basketball or walking a dog through school grounds. That will always depend on the particular case. A person does not commit an offence against the Act unless that person enters onto or remains upon the land in question without a lawful excuse or without the lawful consent of a person in charge.

School principals have authority, on behalf of the Department of School Education, to give permission to members of the community to make use of school premises outside school hours. In many cases principals are more than happy to give permission to local residents, whether they be adults or children, to use or pass through school grounds. In such cases no question about trespass need arise. In other cases, however, children may be upon school premises without the benefit of any specific or generally granted permission. In such cases, strictly speaking, unless the child can prove lawful excuse, the child is in breach of the Act. School science laboratories and computer rooms - to give obvious examples - are very valuable resources. Moreover, a science laboratory may contain materials that, if used irresponsibly, are potentially dangerous. The community definitely has an interest in ensuring that intruders are kept away from science laboratories, computer rooms and so on.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: What about skateboarding after hours?

Page 1444

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Virginia Chadwick seems to have an obsession about skateboarding. That may well be an activity for which the principal has granted some form of permission. The Government would encourage local residents who wish to make use of school grounds and facilities to approach the school principal about whether and how that may be done. In that way, if appropriate permission is sought, albeit informally and orally, the position will be quite clear for all concerned and no question of trespass would arise. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to fences.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: How do you define the school boundaries.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have not yet seen a school that does not have a fence. I have seen tiny schools in country areas that have fences. However, I do not think that problem arises often.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Will signs be erected to warn people that if they enter the property after hours they will be fined $2,000?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Virginia Chadwick really is looking for difficulties and I am looking to complete this reply. I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. J. R. Johnson) left the chair at 6.42 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.18 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I indicate the position that we take on this most important motion. This is effectively the second time within our memory that this House has been required to form a view as to whether a member of this House should be adjudged guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of this House and, therefore, whether or not the member should be expelled from this House. The view that I indicate is that the information available to this House from the report by the special commission of inquiry is sufficient to indicate that the member is guilty of conduct that is unworthy of a member of this House and that the member should not continue to be a member of the House. However, we do believe that there is a process which should be followed by the House in dealing with this particular set of circumstances, and I will be moving an amendment to the motion, the effect of which will be to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for report to the House and to give to the honourable member what she believes is her element of justice in relation to this matter.

I want to come back to the approach which I believe ought to have been taken in this matter by the honourable member. When the honourable member rose in this House to make the allegations that she made against the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, a person who is now a judge of the Supreme Court, a person who was the royal commissioner and a judge of the Supreme Court, as well as other prominent members in the community, she sought to convey a very clear impression. She may have used words to which she adverted today as having been, if I am correct in my recollection, selectively used, but there is absolutely no doubt that in parliamentary terms she intended to paint a picture of a conspiracy. In her defence today she sought to paint a picture that the reference to the special commission of inquiry to investigate allegations did not contain the allegations that she made in this House.

The honourable member is treating the community as fools and seeking to treat members of this House as fools if she wants us to believe that she was not making allegations of a conspiracy. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that she intended to paint a picture and to convey the message to this House and to the community that a conspiracy existed. At no time has the honourable member sought to depart from that picture she was painting. In fact, even as recently as last night on the Four Corners program, having been given a chance to recant, she almost reinforced the perception that she was alleging a conspiracy. The honourable member challenged the Government about why this matter was referred to a special commission of inquiry instead of to the privileges committee in the first place, and sought to imply that the procedure that was followed was wrong. The honourable member is wrong in that regard.

When an allegation of effectively corrupt conduct was made about a member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Price, a royal commission was conducted to ascertain the facts of the allegation. When this House considered the motion to expel Mr Armstrong, it did so after there had
Page 1445
been court hearings and findings of fact in relation to the member’s conduct. To establish a special commission of inquiry to ascertain the facts surrounding the allegation, as occurred on this occasion, was an appropriate course to be pursued by the Government. Let us keep in mind what is the role of a member who makes an allegation in Parliament. A number of members of this House have made an allegation in some form involving the behaviour of a representative of the Government, a member of the Government or an office holder in the Government.

The purpose of raising a matter in Parliament is to seek an inquiry or to get an investigation under way. Members of Parliament always raise such matters with a great degree of circumspection. The more serious the allegation, the greater certainty members must have of the nature of the allegations they are making. When an allegation involves the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition - the two most senior office holders within our democratic system and within our system of parliamentary government - one would expect that the level of circumspection would be so much the greater. When one includes in the allegations a senior member of the Land and Environment Court who holds the status of a Supreme Court judge, the weight of responsibility is even greater.

The Hon. Franca Arena: He was not a judge then: he was the President of the ALP.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My recollection is that at the time the allegations were made he was a judge of the Land and Environment Court, which has the status of the Supreme Court. When one makes such an allegation one should have available sufficient credible and objective information upon which to sustain the allegation. The Nader inquiry was an opportunity to assess whether or not that information was available. At times allegations are made in Parliament which are not correct and are found not to be correct. On a number of occasions matters have been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and to other commissions of inquiry based on allegations in Parliament which have been judged not to be correct. However, on those occasions at least the information that was available to the member on which to base the allegation was objectively sustainable. In this case not only was there a finding that there was no truth in the allegation, but the special commissioner found that the member had no information available upon which there could be any credible basis for sustaining a reasonable belief in the accuracy of the allegations being made.

In my view that latter circumstance makes the conduct more reprehensible. That is to say, a member of Parliament has made very serious allegations and the finding is that there was absolutely no evidence available to sustain those allegations; and the member knew at the time of making those serious allegations before the House that there was no basis for them. So far as the role of Parliament is concerned, the public are entitled to have confidence that members of Parliament who raise issues of public concern possess credible information which they believe sustains their allegation at the time, and do not use the forum of Parliament to make totally baseless allegations which are known at the time to be baseless. Confronted with the Nader finding in that regard, the motion of the Government is sustainable.

The honourable member was given the opportunity to appear before the Nader commission to substantiate her allegations. She chose not to appear but to provide a bundle of papers. The special commissioner has found that even amongst those papers there was no credible information available to sustain her allegation. But the honourable member did not seek to avail herself of the opportunity to appear before the commission. It is my view that when such a commission of inquiry is available it is incumbent upon members to appear before it and make available such information as they have in their possession. What role does parliamentary privilege play in all of this? Parliamentary privilege is available to enable members to protect their sources. They should, however, provide to the commission such information as can be provided to assist the commission to complete and report on its investigation. Privilege is claimed to protect sources so that members of the public will continue to have the confidence to rely on members of Parliament to act in their best interests.

That the honourable member did not seek to avail herself of that opportunity was an inappropriate judgement on her part. The honourable member has said at all times, however, that she is answerable to the Parliament and the appropriate procedures that are available to her within the Parliament. The Opposition will grant her that opportunity. I am prepared to seek to amend the motion so that the statements of the Hon. Franca Arena and the report of the Nader inquiry are referred to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. In so doing the Opposition does not in any way question or cast any doubt on the report of Mr Nader, QC. It should not be the role of that committee to second-guess the operation of the
Page 1446
Nader inquiry. The purpose of the reference will be to give the honourable member what she claims she wants: the opportunity to provide to the committee material in her possession that she claims justifies her allegations - material that should have been provided to the Nader inquiry. Effectively the Hon. Franca Arena will have to rebut the findings of Mr Nader, that at the time she made her untrue allegations in this House she had no sound reason for believing that they were true. The Opposition will seek also to move amendments relating to other aspects of this matter.

The reason that this House referred the bundle of documents produced by the Hon. Franca Arena to the Special Commission of Inquiry and to the Commissioner of Police was to require the Commissioner of Police to determine whether the information warranted further investigation and whether there was any credible evidence available to sustain the allegation of a cover-up at the highest offices of government. The Hon. Franca Arena said that there were paedophiles in this Parliament and in the judiciary and that there had been a cover-up by people in high office. Any person involved in illegal behaviour should not hold high office and if people in high office are involved in paedophile activity, they should be immediately removed from their positions and prosecuted. When examining the material produced by the Hon. Franca Arena the Commissioner of Police should also examine other material that may otherwise be available.

In relation to the activities of the special branch, Commissioner Wood expressed concern that officers of the branch had acted inappropriately in the handling of information involving people in public office. My amendment as circulated seeks to ensure that the Commissioner of Police examines not only the material produced by the Hon. Franca Arena but also any documents relevant to those papers that are contained in the files of the former special branch. The Commissioner of Police should look at everything held by the special branch and also what was made available by the Hon. Franca Arena and then report to the Parliament. When that has been done there can be no further suggestion of a cover-up, because if indeed someone in high office in the Government were responsible for an earlier cover-up, they would no longer hold their high office by virtue of the investigations of the Commissioner of Police.

The Opposition recognises that if this House is in recess when the Commissioner of Police finalises his report nothing can be done until the Parliament sits again. The Opposition is of the view that if the matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics the committee should also have access to the report of the Commissioner of Police so that when the Hon. Franca Arena appears before the committee, as I hope she will, it can report on all matters relating to her allegations. The proposed amendment also provides for the Commissioner of Police to deliver his report to the Clerk of the Parliament, who will then provide it to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for examination and report.

What should happen to the documents that have already been tabled in the Parliament by the Hon. Franca Arena? Should the committee have access to them? The Opposition contends that the committee have access to the documents but only after the Commissioner of Police has completed his inquiry. In that way there can be no suggestion that the inquiry of the Commissioner of Police had been prejudiced by some inadvertent leak - as I suggest any leak would be - of information from the honourable member’s papers. Debate on the motion of the Attorney General should be adjourned until such time as the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics has handed down its findings. My amendment provides that debate on the motion to expel the honourable member should stand as an order of the day on the notice paper for the first sitting day in 1998 or when the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics has reported, whichever is the later.

The Opposition understands from press reports that the Commissioner of Police will not be able to deal with this matter before the House adjourns to a date in 1998. If the committee reports back before the date scheduled for this House to resume, the Government may recall members to deal with the matter. This is a matter for this House, not for the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council can deal with the matter, but it is for the Government to decide when that will occur. If the House is sitting in 1998 when the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics reports, the matter will immediately be placed on the business paper and debate on this motion will be resumed. I have explained my amendment, which has been circulated to honourable members. I move:

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

"the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for inquiry and report:

(a) the statements made by Mrs Arena in the Legislative Council on 17 September 1997 concerning the alleged suppression of names of individuals allegedly

Page 1447
being investigated by the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service; and

(b) the report and confidential supplement of the Special Commission of Inquiry conducted by the Honourable John Nader QC concerning the claims by Mrs Arena.

2. That the Committee investigate and report on what sanctions should be enforced in relation to Mrs Arena’s conduct in this matter.

3. That the resolution of the House of 21 October 1997, ordering the Commissioner of Police to report to this House as soon as practicable his assessment of the documents tabled by Mrs Arena on 21 October 1997, be varied to provide that:

(a) in conjunction with the assessment of the tabled documents, the Commissioner of Police is to examine any documents which are relevant to the documents tabled by Mrs Arena contained within former special branch files in his custody;

(b) the commissioner is to lodge the report of his assessment of all these documents with the Clerk of the House as soon as is practicable; and

(c) the Clerk is to refer the commissioner’s report to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for consideration as part of its inquiry into the conduct of Mrs Arena.

4. That, following the referral of the commissioner’s report to the committee, and according to the resolution of the House of 21 October 1997, the Clerk of the House is authorised to permit members of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics to inspect the documents tabled by Mrs Arena on 21 October 1997.

5. That leave be given to members of the Legislative Council to appear and give evidence to the committee in relation to the inquiry.

6. That resumption of the debate on the original motion of Mr Shaw:

1. That, in view of the report by the Special Commission of Inquiry into allegations made in Parliament by the Hon. Franca Arena, MLC, (including the confidential supplement to the report), the Hon. Franca Arena is adjudged guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of the Legislative Council; and

2. That the Hon. Franca Arena is expelled by this House and her seat in the Legislative Council is hereby declared vacant

stand an order of the day on the notice paper for the first sitting day in 1998, or when the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics has reported, whichever is the later.

This amendment is aimed at ensuring that the Hon. Franca Arena secures the due process to which she claims she is entitled. I have indicated that I do not believe the Government or the Parliament has deprived her of due process, but as she has asked for the opportunity to have access to that process the coalition is prepared to give her that opportunity. I urge the honourable member to consider my remarks on the approach she has taken. I do not believe that in all the circumstances she has received the best advice in her handling of this particular matter.

I have little doubt that the honourable member has been encouraged by others to take the approach she has taken. I would be interested to know whether those who have encouraged her to date are still standing by her. I doubt whether that is so. When this motion is put to a vote I will be interested to see whether those who have supported and encouraged her to make the comments she has made in the House, and to deal with them in the way she has, will continue to stand by her. If this motion is carried, the honourable member will have the opportunity to put her case before the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. This House will then note what has been said and be in a position to deliberate on the motion for her expulsion.

On the face of the material available to this House from the Nader commission of inquiry - and this is consistent with the information that was available to this House on the occasion of the expulsion of Mr Armstrong and to the Legislative Assembly on the expulsion of Mr Price - it seems the motion moved by the Government is justified. The honourable member should be adjudged guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of the House and expelled. She now has an obligation to repudiate or clarify her position so that the House can consider the matter further. She should have observed this obligation earlier and appeared before the Nader inquiry. I regret that the advice given to the honourable member was not in the best interests of our system of parliamentary democracy. Regrettably, the honourable member is in this position as a result of her own actions and choices. The House must deliberate on those actions and deal with the honourable member accordingly.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.

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

That this House do now adjourn.

Page 1448

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [8.45 p.m.]: On Sunday the Melkite Catholic Church at Darlington celebrated the 107th anniversary of the church’s establishment in Australia by the first Melkite priest, Monsignor Mansour. The occasion was impressive because the Melkite Catholic Church has played an important role in attending to the needs of the Lebanese and other migrants from the Far East, who have played a pivotal role in the social and cultural development of Australian society. On this occasion Bishop Issam Darwish celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his ordination as a priest. The occasion was attended by representatives of the Government and the Opposition and by prominent church members and lay members of the community.

The Melkite Church in Australia is an important component of the many confessions of faith of the Lebanese community. Indeed, the Lebanese community has provided our multicultural society with a number of Islamic and Christian denominations: Maronites, Melkites, Antioch Orthodox, Sunnis, Shiites, the Druze community and others. The community has played an important role in providing understanding between groups of differing religious denominations.

Among the Lebanese pathfinders of this country the Melkites have provided such professional and business leaders as the chairman of trustees of the Melkite Catholic eparchy, David Scarf of commercial fame, and many others. A more recent initiative of the Melkite church has been its move to Greenacre, where a substantial edifice has been purchased to meet the expansion needs of the church - a healthy sign of the church’s success and progress. The presence also of many young members of the Melkite community who gave testimony to the successful achievements of His Grace Bishop Darwish is further evidence of the important role His Grace plays in Australia. I commend the Melkite Catholic community on its achievements and extend best wishes to His Grace Bishop Darwish on this historic occasion.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.50 p.m.]: Once again I bring to the attention of the House the problems facing the New South Wales Aboriginal community because of the Government’s refusal to acknowledge the National Aboriginal History and Heritage Council’s desire to have a building in Elizabeth Street, Sydney, declared part of Aboriginal heritage. On 10 October the council wrote to the Director-General of the Cabinet Office on the subject of the "Day of Mourning and Protest" site. In reply to a letter received from the Premier’s Office the National Aboriginal History and Heritage Council wrote:

We realise that it is difficult to obtain an audience with the Premier himself, although a number of groups seem to have had no trouble obtaining this privilege. Last year, after receiving many requests from us for a meeting, the Premier asked Mr Refshauge to meet with us. We accepted this arrangement, and contacted Mr Refshauge’s office by letter and by phone to set a suitable date. Mr Refshauge never replied.

Our letters to the Premier have also been referred to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Mr Craig Knowles. But, Mr Knowles also refused to meet with us.

The matters we raised in our letters to the Premier primarily concerned his administrations, not that of Mr Knowles. Although we accept that the decision on the site’s heritage listing primarily concerns Mr Knowles, we believe it was appropriate for us to direct our appeal against the Minister’s decision to the Premier.

One of our letters to the Premier, dated 1 July 1997, nominated the "Day of Mourning and Protest" site as a permanent memorial to the struggles of Aboriginal people. This letter was in direct response to the Premier’s apology speech in Parliament in June. More than three months have elapsed since the NAHHC sent that letter, and we have not received a reply.

And, our letters have also raised the issue of NSW Government funding to assist with the purchase of the site. Again, this is an issue for the Premier’s department, not the administrations of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning.

The NAHHC is astonished that the Government is unable to procure the building or to make a substantial contribution towards its purchase. Last year, the Government made a donation of $5M to erect spires on St Mary’s Cathedral, while it insisted there were no funds to purchase the Cyprus-Hellene Club. The current market value of the building is estimated at between $5M and $6M.

We would like to ask the Premier, why were spires of St Mary’s Cathedral considered more important than the "Day of Mourning and Protest" site?

As the Premier will no doubt be aware, the Heritage Council has now announced a review of the Cyprus-Hellene Club case, and proposes to make a recommendation to the Minister that the exemption order allowing demolition of the building be revoked. This would mean that the Permanent Conservation Order (PCO 773) would protect the entire building.

The NAHHC welcomes this review and will make a submission supporting this proposed recommendation.

However, the NAHHC reiterates its request for a meeting with the Premier or his representative, and also requests a reply to its letter nominating the site as a permanent memorial.

Page 1449

This matter has existed for many years, and in the spirit of reconciliation the Premier at least could arrange for a deputation of the National Aboriginal History and Heritage Council to visit his office - and if the Premier is too busy, a senior officer of his department could meet the deputation - so that the changes announced in the review by the heritage council can be discussed in a seemly and proper manner and the full concerns of the council considered. I urge the Premier to take this course of action.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.55 p.m.]: I wish to revisit briefly the child abuse issue, but from a perspective different from that commented upon in recent times. Events in recent months have centred on naming names and on apprehending perpetrators of abuse. This emphasis has meant that remarkably little discussion has focused on the victims - the survivors of these unconscionable crimes. Only in the 1990s are we beginning to understand the devastating and extraordinary ongoing effect of child abuse on adult life and on the likelihood of such abuse continuing to the next generation if the survivor remains unhealed. When chairing the Sydney paedophilia conference in April this year Dr Bill Glaser said:

The scourge we are speaking about . . . has accounted for probably more misery and suffering than any of the great plagues of history . . . Its effects are certainly more devastating and widespread than those modern-day epidemics which take up so much community attention and resources: motor vehicle accidents, heart disease and now AIDS. Yet the public response to child sexual abuse, even now, is fragmented, poorly co-ordinated and generally ill-informed. Its victims have no National AIDS Council to advise governments on policy and research issues. They have no National Heart Foundation to promote public education as to the risks . . . They do not have a Transport Accident Commission to provide comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation for them.

We now know one dreadful truth, that more than half of all child abuse occurs within the family. This was confirmed again this year by Operation Paradox. We can only try to imagine the dreadful ongoing trauma that impacts upon the survivors of abuse: medical and mental problems, difficulties in sustaining relationships, disruptions to gainful employment, drug dependence and so on. What does society offer survivors to help them heal? Almost nothing! The Premier is fond of claiming the existence of 50 24-hour services throughout the State, but for adult survivors of child abuse this claim is a lie. The Premier is confusing immediate care following sexual assault with the ongoing need of survivors for counselling, therapy and support. The only financially acceptable medical options for most survivors are their general practitioner or psychiatrist, but survivors confirm that these are the least successful avenues. For the tiny few who can afford it private counselling is an option, but years of treatment with fees more than $100 an hour put such counselling well outside the reach of most. Private health insurance provides very limited opportunities of help.

How big is the problem? The House should be aware that after a recent Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program that raised the issue of adults who were abused in childhood, the organisation Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse - ASCA - received telephone calls at the rate of one every four minutes for eight days on its free-call number, which was screened at the end of the program. This same organisation has advised me that none of the callers had been able to find another organisation to help them in their desperate search for practical and therapeutic assistance. Callers’ ages ranged from 17 to 73 years, both male and female. Their abusers were both men and women.

Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse is the only organisation trying to help survivors heal. Survivors are referred to ASCA by the Salvation Army, Lifeline and similar organisations - even government services. Understandably, it is being overwhelmed by demand, particularly in recent times as some high-profile personalities have gone public about their abuse. The number of adult survivors we are talking about is mind-boggling: conservatively estimated at two million Australians in a generation. And what help does ASCA get from the Government? Zero! Soothing words, yes, but no subsidy, no funding of any kind, no office space, nothing. This is despite the fact that ASCA is in a unique position, with over 600 paying members, to understand the needs of survivors, and the ways to healing. Because survivors seek healing and peace, only a tiny percentage are interested in retribution via the courts. They have little interest in being abused again by the legal system.

The Government continues to ignore the needs of survivors, while spending millions on trying to catch what has been, so far, a handful of perpetrators. With almost any other illness there is an infrastructure to help the healing process, but not so with adult survivors of abuse. If we are serious about ridding society of all forms of child abuse, then we must be prepared to help survivors through professional organisations like ASCA so that this huge, disadvantaged segment of society has a chance of recovery. This most serious issue requires of the Government a serious response. ASCA is about hope and the future. Few victims understand hope, few understand that they can have a better future. The Government has the capacity to help. I call on the Government to reflect on its role and be generous in its response.

Page 1450

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.00 p.m.]: I pay tribute to the coalminers and their union, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, involved in the dispute at the Hunter Valley No. 1 coalmine. I congratulate them on their victory in the Commonwealth Industrial Relations Commission last Friday. They won the commission’s agreement that arbitration should take place in this long-running dispute. In that context I also pay tribute to the Premier, Bob Carr, and the Attorney General, the Hon. J. W. Shaw, for their continuing efforts to ensure that this dispute has some rationality brought to it through the arbitration which they strongly supported.

I remind honourable members that coalmining is the State’s number one export earner. In long-term contracts and reliability our coalmining industry is world class. Obviously it is important that long-term contracts not be threatened or that the industry be damaged in any way by the view that the New South Wales coalmining industry is becoming less stable and is threatened by disputes. With the support of the Federal Government, Rio Tinto has continually sought to escalate this dispute. Indeed, Rio Tinto was responsible for the dispute in the first place, while the miners and their union have continually sought to seek arbitrated settlement. Last week several Labor members of Parliament visited the picket lines at the Hunter Valley No. 1 coalmine and talked at length to the workers.

Those members were myself, the Hon. A. B. Manson, several members from the Hunter, including John Mills, Bryce Gaudry and Bob Martin, and the honourable member for Wollongong, Gerry Sullivan, who knows about problems in the coalmines in the Illawarra area. We expressed our support and the support of all the Labor Party members of Parliament for the miners in that dispute. We talked to the miners about the forthcoming ballot, which, of course, Rio Tinto has since cancelled. Therefore, having made that trip last Thursday, it was pleasing to find out on Friday that sense prevailed and that the Industrial Relations Commission decided that arbitration was necessary. Through arbitration the interests of the union, the company, the Hunter Valley and the New South Wales economy as a whole can be looked after. Arbitration will put an end to the ideologically motivated efforts of Rio Tinto and the Federal Government.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.04 p.m.]: I raise the important issue of attempts by some people, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Four Corners last night, to create a false contrast between investigations into paedophilia networks versus investigations into cases of child abuse, such as incest. During the Four Corners program some of the so-called experts said that money should not be spent on investigating paedophilia networks but on incest, because there are more cases of child abuse. I believe that that is a false contrast. Both types of sexual abuse of children are serious; both should be investigated. It is not a question of transferring money from the paedophilia inquiry to an incest inquiry. Any abuse of a child within a family is something which we all strongly condemn. Normally that comes under the heading of incest, although there can be cases of sexual abuse by a de facto member of the family network.

To make that kind of contrast almost gives the community an excuse to avoid investigating the paedophilia network. Because of its serious nature, even if on the surface it appears to not involve as many children as incest, the paedophilia network should still be investigated. I remind honourable members that during a debate about paedophilia which I raised some time ago, one man involved in the paedophilia network boasted that he had had sexual relationships with 2,000 boys. That is totally different from the situation within a family between one father and one child, although the harmful impact upon the child is just as serious. The Bible emphasised three abominations. The first was incest, something totally rejected by God. The second abomination was child sacrifice, a practice in ancient days of throwing a small baby into the mouth of a large idol, called Moloch, in which a fire was burning. No normal person would accept that practice.

The third abomination was same-sex sexual activity, classified as sodomy. Resources should be provided to combat both areas of abuse. The Minister for Community Services is one of the people who must balance available funds to do what he can to protect children in our society. We were all shocked by the report from Armidale where apparently three men were involved in some type of abuse of children. They were charged and they decided to commit suicide. In fact, two men died in that suicide pact and the third man is critically ill. I was concerned to read police reports which said that these men were on their way to commit suicide but took the time to visit certain places to destroy computer records. What was on those records? What would make those computer records so important that men on a death trip would take time to destroy
Page 1451
them? I have no idea; it may be linked to other people in New South Wales, interstate or overseas. That story indicates why there has to be a follow-through investigation into paedophilia networks and why I have called for a Federal-State royal commission into that matter. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, should take leadership on that subject.

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:16:55   :   Update this page