Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 1 July 1998, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Virginia Anne Chadwick) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

Motion by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford agreed to:

That Mrs Helen Sham-Ho be discharged from the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition be appointed as a member of the committee.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Future Employment and Business Opportunities in the Hunter Region and The Downsizing of the Rack Rite Investment Proposal", dated July 1998, together with minutes of proceedings, submissions, certain transcripts of evidence and certain tabled documents.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY [11.06 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. A. B. Kelly.

Petition praying for the reinstatement of the presence of a local law enforcement officer in the town of Gerringong, received from the Hon. J. S. Tingle.

Order of the day for resumption of the adjourned debate discharged on motion by the Hon. J. W. Shaw.

Motion ordered to be withdrawn.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.14 a.m.]: I move:

That this House adopt, for the purposes of section 9 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the following code of conduct:

* The Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council have reached agreement on a Code of Conduct which is to apply to all Members of Parliament.

* Members of Parliament recognise that they are in a unique position of being responsible to the electorate. The electorate is the final arbiter of the conduct of Members of Parliament and has the right to dismiss them from office at regular elections.

* Members of Parliament accordingly acknowledge their responsibility to maintain the public trust placed in them by performing their duties with honesty and integrity, respecting the law and the institution of Parliament, and using their influence to advance the common good of the people of New South Wales.

1 Disclosure of conflict of interest

(a) Members of Parliament must take all reasonable steps to declare any conflict of interest between their private financial interests and decisions in which they participate in the execution of their office.

(b) This may be done through declaring their interests on the Register of Disclosures of the relevant House or through declaring their interest when speaking on the matter in the House or a Committee, or in any other public and appropriate manner.

(c) A conflict of interest does not exist where the member is only affected as a member of the public or a member of a broad class.

2 Bribery

Members must not promote any matter, vote on any bill or resolution, or ask any question in the Parliament or its Committees, in return for payment or any other personal financial benefit.

3 Gifts

(a) Members must declare all gifts and benefits received in connection with their official duties, in accordance

Page 6848
with the requirements for the disclosure of pecuniary interests.

(b) Members must not accept gifts that may pose a conflict of interest or which might give the appearance of an attempt to corruptly influence the Member in the exercise of his or her duties.

(c) Members may accept political contributions in accordance with part 6 of the Election Funding Act 1981.

4 Use of public resources

Members must apply the public resources to which they are granted access according to any guidelines or rules about the use of those resources.

5 Use of confidential information

Members must not knowingly and improperly use official information which is not in the public domain, or information obtained in confidence in the course of their parliamentary duties, for the private benefit of themselves or others.

6 Duties as a Member of Parliament

It is recognised that some members are non-aligned and others belong to political parties. Organised parties are a fundamental part of the democratic process and participation in their activities is within the legitimate activities of Members of Parliament.

The Government has developed a code of conduct for both Houses of Parliament which is clear and well-defined. This proposed code has been considered by the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, which supports its adoption as a code of conduct for the Legislative Council. In its report the committee agreed that the statutory implications of the code require that it be drafted with precision and clarity, and that the use of vague, aspirational terms which are open to multiple interpretations should be kept to a minimum. The committee noted that the code prepared by the Government and adopted by the Legislative Assembly falls clearly within these strictures.

The committee expressed concern, however, at the application of point 4 of the code, which refers to the application of guidelines to the use of public resources. The committee wished to ensure that a clear set of guidelines would be developed quickly so that members do not run the risk of unwittingly breaching the code. The Government has addressed this concern by introducing the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment Bill, which will allow the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal to make a determination covering all types of members’ entitlements and provide a single, clear set of rules for the application of those entitlements. The tribunal will be required to make its new determination by December 1998. The Government considers that this addresses the concerns raised by the committee.

The important issue with respect to this proposed code is its legal effect. The proposed code is not meant to be an aspirational document which sets the standard that we would hope all members of Parliament would follow. Rather, the proposed code will function as a legal document which will define the jurisdiction of the Independent Commission Against Corruption to make findings of corrupt conduct against members of Parliament. The ramifications of a finding of corrupt conduct by the ICAC are extremely serious for members of Parliament. It is therefore essential that the code of conduct relate only to matters of corruption, and define those matters with precision and clarity. The ICAC is not the only means by which members of Parliament can be disciplined for improper conduct.

Members of Parliament may be disciplined or expelled by their Houses for breaching parliamentary standards. They are also responsible to the electorate, which judges their conduct and may dismiss them from office at any election, if the public is dissatisfied with their conduct. The ICAC should not usurp the role of the House or the people. It should not be given the jurisdiction to decide whether a member should or should not have voted on a particular issue. This would undermine our system of representative democracy. Nor should the ICAC be able to interfere with the privileges of the Parliament. Certainly, the ICAC commissioner has rejected such an approach. In evidence before the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, Commissioner O’Keefe said:

The Parliament, governing its own procedure and having acted, should not have an outside body reviewing its actions, because the jurisdiction of such a body does not extend to the Parliament; it extends to members of the Parliament only acting in their capacity as members but not to the corporate body.

Even when a code of conduct is being administered by the Parliament, there are dangers in having a broad and imprecise code. The more vague and subjective the terms of this code are, the easier it would be for a majority in a House to use it unfairly for political purposes against a member of a minority party or an Independent. By tightening up the terms of the code, the possibility of misuse is all but eliminated. It is essential that the code of conduct be short, simple to read and understand, and absolutely clear on its face. This ensures that members are clear about their obligations and liabilities. It will also avoid legal challenges and disputes in the ICAC about the standards that are to apply to members of Parliament.

Page 6849

The Government wants an identical code of conduct in place for each House. Members of the public have a right to expect their representatives in both Houses to abide by the same standards and be subject to the same scrutiny. Different codes in the two Houses would lead to even more confusion and a greater possibility of mistakes being made by reliance on precedents relevant to the other House. The Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics also expressed its support for a single code of conduct for both Houses. It recognised in its report that a single code would allow for greater clarity, easier implementation and more straightforward monitoring. The adoption of this code will maintain consistency between the two Houses and ensure that the rules relating to corruption are well known and understood. I commend the code to the House.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.19 a.m.]: As a member of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics I am pleased to at last be able to speak on a code of conduct for members of this Parliament. The Government chose not to act upon the earlier report of the committee, which investigated the preparation of a code of conduct for the Parliament. The Government was belatedly prodded into action during the hard rain that resulted from the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s adverse findings in relation to a former Minister, Mr Brian Langton. The committee’s original inquiry was the result of amendments to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act in 1994, which, in turn, flowed from the findings of corrupt conduct against the then Premier of New South Wales, Mr Nick Greiner. Those findings were overturned in the Court of Appeal.

The 1994 amendment expanded the definition of "corrupt conduct" in the ICAC Act to include conduct by a member of Parliament that could constitute or involve a "breach" of an applicable code of conduct. If the motion is adopted, a substantial breach of the code - whatever "substantial breach" means - could come under the purview of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. According to the terminology of the motion, definition of what is or is not a substantial breach of the code and the process of determining whether such a breach has occurred will evolve. How those definitions and processes evolve will determine the future operations of the Parliament. It is important to place on record my thanks, as a member of the committee, to Lynn Lovelock, Deputy Clerk and clerk to the committee; Velia Mignacca; Phillipa Gateley, who assisted with the first code of conduct report; Roza Lozusic; and Daniel Noll, who came on board more recently to deal with the committee’s extremely demanding workload.

The committee worked very hard on the two reports on the code of conduct. I have no doubt that when interested parties throughout Australia and people associated with the operations of modern parliaments elsewhere in the world wish to check out principles embedded in codes of conduct for members of Parliament they will refer to the reports of this upper House committee. I am sure they will find them more useful than those written elsewhere. The Leader of the Government referred in his remarks on the code of conduct to recommendation 4 of the standing committee’s second report, that is the report on the Government’s preferred code of conduct, which was that the Government’s code of conduct be amended by inserting at the end a new section 5 in the following terms:

That the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, as a matter of priority, produce and maintain the guidelines and rules applicable to section 4 of this code.

Section 4 of the Government’s version of the code reads:

Members must apply the public resources to which they are granted access according to any guidelines or rules about the use of those resources.

That was a very important recommendation. Much of the material available to members of this House and of the other place for guidance as to appropriate and inappropriate use of public resources has been prepared in an ad hoc fashion over the decades. It is timely that that issue be addressed lest inquiry after inquiry results in a stack of precedents on what is a substantial breach of the code and when to involve the Independent Commission Against Corruption in the day-to-day operations of this Parliament. I certainly agree with the Leader of the Government that it would be improper for ICAC to usurp the role of a democratically elected Parliament. The Treasurer, quoted the evidence of the current Commissioner of ICAC, Mr Barry O’Keefe, to that effect.

However, these questions are all left up in the air. The Government’s view is that it has addressed the issue by amending the parliamentary remuneration tribunal legislation. I will reserve my judgment until I have been able to give it further consideration. Members of both Houses need to think carefully about the implications of adopting this code, which will impact upon the daily lives of members of Parliament. The committee noted in its preamble to this shortened version of the code, which the committee laboured over for a significant
Page 6850
period, that the Government said in part 1 of its draft that members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council had reached agreement on a code of conduct to apply to all members of the Parliament. At the time it was written, that simply was not true and is an indication of the Government’s arrogance.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Come off it!

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is true, and the committee noted those words. A code of conduct adopted by the House should be short and to the point rather than simply motherhood proposals. The aspirational preamble is great, but the code comes down to finer points that members will more easily comprehend. The first report of the committee recommended, among other things, that members of the House, particularly new members, have the benefit of more extensive briefings on their constitutional responsibilities and standards of behaviour, including the use of public resources, which they are expected to maintain throughout their parliamentary lives. The Legislative Council has an induction program for new members, but it needs to be expanded. The committee also flagged its intention to write guidelines for members based on case studies to help them work out whether they are facing an ethical dilemma and, if so, how to deal with it.

Perhaps before the end of the life of this Parliament, and before the next set of members are sworn in after the State election next year, we can advance the code so that new members especially are in a better position than they have been previously. It is obvious there are many grey areas. We need to work out ways of protecting the reputation of the House through educating members and ensuring they minimise their chances of being found to be in "substantial breach" of the code of conduct. Members of Parliament are now the most accountable and most scrutinised people in our society. The advent of a code of conduct is something that pervades many occupations, including the professions, academia and the public sector. It is therefore appropriate that Parliament embrace the code of conduct. Ultimately we have produced a code of conduct that is useful to members in aiding and abetting the good reputation of the Parliament in the longer term.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.29 a.m.]: As a member of the committee I speak to the report of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics but I do not necessarily support it. I thank the secretariat, which worked hard to produce both this and the previous report. Honourable members will note from the minutes at the back of the report that I was the only member to oppose the adoption of chapters 2, 3 and 4, primarily because the matter had been rushed at the last minute. After two years of careful work and study to find a suitable code of conduct, the Premier’s Department truncated the proposed code and, regrettably, the code is now flawed. That is my belief and I am sure others will feel the same way if they take care to study the code. The code of conduct is flawed because chapter 2.5 of the report states:

4. Use of public resources
Members must apply the public resources to which they are granted access according to any guidelines or rules about the use of those resources.

That sounds fine, but in fact there are no guidelines. The only so-called guidelines are fairly ad hoc and have been put together during the past few years as a result of letters from the Clerks. They were never designed to be given legal status. The present guidelines will have legal status when the report is adopted. Honourable members will have to look at their guides very carefully to ascertain whether they are in breach of them. We need properly assessed guidelines or rules which comply with those referred to in section 4 of the code of conduct. We need to know exactly what we are referring to. Section 4 of the code of conduct opens up a can of worms which we will not attempt to put back in again.

I have no doubt that in the next few months honourable members will find that to be a significant problem. Under the code of conduct any vexatious member could seek to have another member investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. That may well happen between now and the election. In the Daily Telegraph there will then be a headline that so-and- so is being investigated as a result of a reference to the ICAC - perhaps the member may have done photocopying for a group outside the Parliament. I am sure that people such as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and others will be affected.

If the Parliament adopts the report it will cause serious problems. The first code of conduct on which the committee spent so long and took so much trouble to put together should have been adopted. It is a good and detailed code that does not contain the serious flaw to which I have referred. I flag that we will have to come back and adopt a slightly altered code at another time when the guidelines to be referred to in the newly adopted code have been considered. I believe this is an interim code of conduct. I am sure that section 4 will have to be reworded to refer to a specific set of guidelines which have been properly considered by
Page 6851
either a committee of this House or by members generally.

The code of conduct has to be put together carefully so that it no longer contains the present giant loophole. I support a code of conduct but I do not support the report. I support the code of conduct put together for this House by the committee, after considerable expense, research, work and referral to codes of conduct in other countries. However, we now have a rushed code which is flawed. In the near future we will wish that we had not adopted a code in this form but had been a little more careful.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration resumed from 30 June.

Schedule 1

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.35 a.m.]: The Government supports the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. That amendment is intended to ensure that the tribunal, not the Minister, determines the time from which a special determination will take effect. The amendment is consistent with the scheme of the bill which removes the power of the Premier to veto or amend recommendations. Instead, the bill supports the complete independence of the tribunal by providing that its annual determinations will come into effect without the involvement of the Minister. Accordingly, the Government will accept and vote for the amendment.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER [11.37 a.m.]: I note that the legislation provides a new role for the Industrial Relations Commission with respect to the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal. I wish to place on record my support for Justice Sully, the present chairman of the tribunal. It is important that the community acknowledges the fine work that he has done. In my former occupation I took notice of what Justice Sully had to say. In an informed and open way he made decisions that were always deemed to be in the best interests of the community.

Shortly after becoming a member of Parliament I had the opportunity of meeting Justice Sully. I found him to be well aware of community concerns in respect not only of parliamentary remuneration but also of a large number of matters related to the criminal and civil law. He is blessed with an incredibly good sense of humour. I respect him and I am pleased that the Government has provided for him to continue with his work until he retires, which will undoubtedly be in some years. I hope the Government will continue to support him and ensure that his work of the past few years is acknowledged.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.40 a.m.]: I move the following Greens amendment:

Page 7, schedule 1. Insert after line 18:

[15] Section 14(3)-(6)

Insert after section 14(2):

(3) Before making a determination, the Tribunal is to cause a notice to be published in at least two newspapers circulating generally in the State and in such regional newspapers and such other publications as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

(4) The notice must invite written submissions to the Tribunal on any matter relating to additional entitlements for members and recognised office holders. However, if the notice relates to a special determination that is directed to be made for limited purposes, the notice must indicate that submissions are to be limited to the matters covered by the direction.

(5) The notice must specify a closing date (being a date at least one month after the date on which the notice is last published) for the making of such submissions.

(6) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Tribunal may take any such submissions into account when making the determination.

The Minister pointed out in his second reading speech that the main purpose of the bill is to ensure that the independent tribunal makes final and binding determinations about the full range of parliamentary entitlements. These decisions will be at arm’s length from the beneficiaries. The Greens support that approach. However, the Greens are of the opinion that the public should have input into the determination process, particularly in light of the parliamentary superannuation rort exposed at the beginning of the year. The amendment seeks to introduce public participation rights into the determination process.

The amendment does this by requiring the tribunal to cause a notice to be published in at least two newspapers circulating generally in the State
Page 6852
and in appropriate regional newspapers. The notice must invite written submissions to the tribunal on any matter relating to additional entitlements for members and recognised office holders and allows the public to make submissions regarding such entitlement. The tribunal may take into account the submissions when making the determination. In view of recent history this amendment will encourage the public and assure people of true transparency of process in the workings of this Chamber. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.41 a.m.]: I understand that during discussions with the Government’s advisers it might have been indicated to the Hon. I. Cohen that the Government would look favourably on this amendment but, as the Leader of the Government in this place, I do not look favourably upon the amendment and, therefore, the Government will not vote for it. Section 14 already allows the tribunal to inform itself in such manner as it thinks fit and to receive written or oral submissions. Accordingly, the Government believes that the tribunal already has the capacity to receive submissions from members of the public. For that reason the Government will not support the amendment.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.42 a.m.]: Whilst I initially gave favourable consideration to this amendment, on reflection I believe that the tribunal has the broadest possible powers to inform itself about matters relating to any determination it has to make. Up until now the practice has been to allow the tribunal to work without interference, subject to dealing with determinations after they have been made. The process of its inquiries has not been interfered with and that has worked well. I do not believe the powers of the tribunal need to be further expanded at this time.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [11.45 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I refer honourable members to the second reading speech made by the Minister for Local Government in the Legislative Assembly, which commences at page 4485 of the Legislative Assembly Hansard for 6 May. Since the bill was tabled in the Legislative Assembly a number of concerns have been raised about certain of its provisions. The Legislative Assembly amended the original bill to address these concerns. The Government is also aware of a number of amendments that will be moved in this House and it has indicated support for many of them. The new companion animals legislation is supported by key peak animal welfare and breed organisations. Leaders of the Animal Welfare League, the RSPCA, the Cat Protection Society, the Humane Society International, the Royal New South Wales Canine Council and the Wildlife Information and Rescue Service signed a positive letter to the Minister for Local Government on 17 June.

There are, however, two outstanding issues raised by the RSPCA in recent days. It is seeking, first, the introduction of an eight-day holding period for stray cats and dogs to replace the proposed 14-day holding period and, second, a requirement that there be a two-year phase-in period for compliance with the Act by the owners of all existing dogs and cats. The Government believes that the bill as it stands represents an appropriate balance between the many competing policy objectives. With respect to the holding period issue, clause 61 of the bill states that a council can sell or destroy a seized animal if it has not been claimed within 14 days after the required notice of seizure is given, or when such a notice is not required to be given within seven days after the animal is delivered to the pound. The RSPCA wants an eight-day period introduced.

The Government believes that clause 61, as drafted, is appropriate for the following reasons. First, 14 days is the law now. The Government’s bill does not propose to change that. Council pounds, including the RSPCA, must already wait 14 days before being able to sell a seized animal or have it destroyed. Second, eight days is too short. Such a short period would increase the chance of an unclaimed animal being destroyed because its owner did not receive the notice in time. The owner could be on holidays, for example. Fourteen days will reduce the chance of that happening. With respect to the phase-in period for compliance with the registration and permanent identification requirements, the Government stresses that this is not part of the bill before the House. It has always been intended that this will be included in the regulations.

Page 6853

The Government is proposing that, first, the owners of existing dogs be given three years to comply with the Act and, second, the owners of existing cats be exempted altogether. However, any cat born or acquired after the commencement of the Act will need to comply. The RSPCA proposal would require all existing dogs and all existing cats to comply within two years. The Government believes that its proposed phase-in arrangements are appropriate for a number of reasons. The three-year phase-in period for dogs owned prior to the introduction of the new Act will allow people on low or fixed incomes time to afford compliance with the new system. It also takes into account the fact that owners may not benefit from permanent identification and lifetime registration if their dogs are old and unable to leave their property.

Omitting existing owned cats from the provisions for permanent identification and lifetime registration is intended to lessen the likelihood of people dumping cats. The strategy is to build on existing community support for responsible animal management by conducting a major public campaign, urging people to voluntarily permanently identify their cats for the animals’ safety. While the transition period for dogs and the omission of owned cats may mean that it may take slightly longer to achieve the aims of the legislation, it will also provide the opportunity for the proposed concerted community education campaign without raising further concerns among people who already own cats and dogs.

Even with the Government’s phase-in proposal, compliance rates will significantly improve from day one. These phase-in arrangements have been stated by the Government from the very outset of this policy development process, and a change at this late stage would cause significant confusion. It must also be acknowledged that, as with any new law such as this, review mechanisms will be important. One of the main roles of the Companion Animals Advisory Board will be to evaluate the staged implementation of the new law and to advise the Minister on issues requiring review. As councils develop local companion animal plans, for example, the development of off-leash exercise areas may indicate a need to review the provisions relating to the location and use of such areas.

For this reason, and because introduction of the legislation will be phased, the Minister for Local Government has undertaken to review its provisions after a year, or as needed, before the overall review of the Act in five years. The board will also have responsibility for developing further provisions of the law. A major project will be to transfer the provisions for council pounds, presently covered by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Trades) Regulation, into the Companion Animals Act. At this time all aspects of the operations of council pounds, whether run directly by local councils or under contract by an animal welfare organisation or veterinarian, will be reviewed in relation to procedures, holding periods, standards of care, public access, adoption rate for animals, and the like.

The New South Wales Farmers Association has strongly supported the proposal by the Minister for Local Government to exempt farm working dogs from the registration and permanent identification requirements. The Local Government and Shires Associations have said the bill has the full support of local government, which is significant given the important role of local government role in the successful implementation of the new legislation. The Australian Veterinary Association also supports the bill and has written to the Minister supporting particularly the new provisions relating to nuisance animals and dangerous dogs. Mr Litchfield, the president of the association, said:

The welfare of both the community and the companion animals has been balanced very well with provision for community education and input.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.52 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes the Companion Animals Bill. After a lengthy lead-in time of 2½ years, the Opposition was expecting big things from the Government. Instead, the Government has introduced the most appalling and incomplete legislation I have ever seen in this Parliament. We were led to believe from the Minister’s briefing paper that the bill would receive public support. However, problems arose because of the difference between the content of the briefing paper and the proposed legislation. At this stage it is appropriate to refer to some questions that were asked of the Minister during the local government estimates committee hearing. At the commencement of the proceedings the Minister for Local Government said:

Mr Chairman, I am not concerned about budget items or numbers and so on, whatever question comes up I will answer. I am not going to, you know, because there are two sections to say that it is limited at any one time to the two - I am just happy to answer questions.

I thought, how refreshing, how terrific! I asked some questions of the Minister in relation to the genesis of
Page 6854
this bill. On page 196 of the Hansard proof of the estimates committee hearing the following exchange appears:

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Now, Minister, is there a departmental staffer supplied to your office to assist with new legislation?

Mr E. T. PAGE: No.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Is there someone with direct responsibility to read new legislation in your office?

Mr E. T. PAGE: It is the responsibility of the policy people.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Do you read new legislation that comes into your office before it goes to Cabinet and Parliament?

I put that question for the simple reason that this important piece of legislation was a mess. The Minister is not overworked; he introduces only two or three pieces of legislation each session. The proof of the committee hearing continues:

Mr E. T. PAGE: I read as much as I can. Obviously I do not read everything that comes through the office but I read what is necessary.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Did you read the Companion Animals Act before it went to Cabinet and went to Parliament?

Mr E. T. PAGE: That is not a budget question.

This Minister, who said he would answer every question, refused to answer that question. Every member of this Parliament, every person in the gallery and every person in the community would know the reason the Minister refused to answer that question. The bill before us and, more particularly, the bill that was before the lower House, has given rise to enormous fears across the community. It has inspired fervent interest and, in some cases, antagonism. Talk-back radio program switchboards have been jammed; letters have poured in to newspapers. The fears in the community were completely justified. Bearing in mind that two-thirds of households in New South Wales own pets, this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever presented to this Parliament.

According to the Australian Companion Animal Council, pet ownership is so popular that it has created one of the largest industries in this country which injects $2.2 billion into the economy each year and employs more than 30,000 people. Yet on 6 May in the other place the Minister for Local Government introduced a bill which would have allowed a person to whack a pet cat over the head with a shovel if it was digging up a flowerbed, and which made a mockery of the entire process of consultation. Numerous titles have been given to this flawed piece of legislation: the "pet kill bill" or the "whack a cat bill", to name a few. In the Daily Telegraph Piers Akerman wrote:

It is difficult to conceive how the Carr Government could have given a greater indication of its wacky sense of priorities than by threatening owners of barking dogs with greater penalties than the parents of knife-carrying children.

Piers Akerman’s article highlights the stupidity of this bill and the lack of attention that has been given to it. A resident of the Goulburn area said:

. . . the whole idea of this Bill puts off the public from the thought of ever owning a pet - dog or cat - as there are too many rules and regulations to adhere to, too many fines, too many restrictions.

The Opposition has no particular problem with progressive companion animals legislation. As I stated earlier, the briefing paper that came out of the inquiry was good; it is the legislation that is flawed. The Opposition agreed that legislation to replace the old Dog Act 1966 was needed, particularly to prevent vicious dog attacks. The Opposition also agreed that the euthanasing of about 30,000 cats and dogs, almost all unidentified, each year at RSPCA shelters in this State was a particular problem. I digress at this moment to pick up on a comment made by the Attorney General. I was pleased to see that the Attorney General came armed with a new speech today and did not re-read the old speech from the lower House. That is proper, given that in the other place 90 changes were made to this legislation, and it appears there will be another 90 changes today.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Actually, 49.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Opposition has 30, and I am told the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has 60.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Not all are acceptable.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Perhaps not all are acceptable.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: The Opposition may accept some.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: We will wait and see about that. The Attorney General, who has the carriage of the bill, noted correctly that the RSPCA has asked for a straight eight-day holding period rather than what is proposed in the bill - seven days for unidentified pets and 14 days for identified pets. At the outset I indicate, in a bipartisan way, that the Opposition agrees with the Government and not with the RSPCA on that aspect. This is one of the few
Page 6855
things in the bill that the Opposition believes the Government has got right. It has included the proper incentives in the two-tiered approach.

The RSPCA objects because of the cost of running shelters. The second seven days, or the period beyond the eighth day, involves a cost to the society because some people use the shelters as a cheap form of board. The Opposition will today move an amendment - amendment 29 - which will allow the RSPCA to charge for the second seven days. This amendment should meet the financial concerns of the RSPCA regarding people using RSPCA shelters as a boarding kennel. The Opposition amendment is excellent because it combines the philosophy of the Government with the seven-day and 14-day incentive, but it does not disadvantage the RSPCA.

After three years of waiting no-one expected the Carr Government to introduce such badly written legislation. One needs to sift through the legislation to sort out the nonsense from the decent bits. The important parts, the regulations, are still missing. Given the three years this bill has taken to be processed, the House should have been presented with draft regulations to go with it. Among the most disappointing aspects of the legislation is the lengthy lead-in time. The legislation has been heralded since November 1995, and possibly earlier. At that time the Minister for Local Government stated that he would have a bill ready to present to Parliament in 12 months. Since then the Opposition has called repeatedly for this legislation to be revealed. More significantly, a large number of dog attacks have occurred throughout the State while everyone waited to see how the Government would toughen the laws relating to dangerous dogs.

In the middle of 1996 submissions closed on the green paper and the Minister said he hoped to have a draft bill ready for further comment by the end of the year. Despite this, the white paper on companion animals was not produced or available until December 1997. There was still no sign of the legislation. In 1997 Newcastle City Council - which administers an area, Madam President, you would know well - received 33 reports of dog attacks. In Newcastle and Lake Macquarie in the fortnight from 30 December 1997 to 14 January 1998 there were four dog attacks, including one in which a two-year-old was attacked by a bull mastiff. It would be unfair to say that withholding the legislation led to such dog attacks - I certainly do not imply that - but the stronger penalties in the bill may have gone some way towards making dog owners more careful and responsible earlier.

Another major concern about this legislation is that it was introduced without the operating instructions, that is, the regulations. The Minister for Local Government will argue repeatedly that it is not the norm for regulations to be presented at the same time as bills, but in this case his argument is completely baseless. This is major legislation which will affect many residents of this State. They have waited nearly three years for it. Without the regulations they have no idea how these huge changes will affect ratepayers, how much it will cost to register a companion animal, or what form of identification will be required. The Minister has stated that the form of identification will be by microchip, and the Opposition accepts that. But none of these things has been identified. When the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing brought major legislation before Parliament he had draft regulations that went with the legislation. This Minister, despite his light workload and despite the long lead-in time, has not deigned to treat the House properly.

The Minister has said many things about this bill and, because most of the detail will be incorporated in the unseen regulations, the Opposition is required to sit back and trust him. That is a very big ask, when this bill alone has already caused outrage across the State. I cannot emphasise this enough. The Minister is saying, "Trust me", but his track record is not great - particularly on this bill. Every discussion group involved in the development of the white paper as the basis for the bill is seriously concerned that the Government failed to provide any draft of the regulations when the bill was introduced to Parliament.

One of my biggest concerns is how local government will take on the extra workload associated with the new legislation without being given extra resources. Councils will be faced with a multitude of extra tasks - registration of pet cats and associated problems, devising local companion animal plans, policing nuisance dogs, and much more. Even with extra money coming in from cat registration, I have difficulty in understanding how local government will be able to cope with the increased costs. I shall read from a letter I received from one council. It says:

Council passed the following resolution: that representations be made to the Minister for Local Government and through local State members, strongly objecting to the changes and the inadequate fee structure proposed in the Companion Animals Bill, the additional responsibilities placed on Councils and the impact this will have on resources.

Page 6856

If this legislation is to move forward, it is imperative that councils and the Local Government and Shires Associations are involved every step of the way so they can provide vital input and learn what is expected of them by this legislation. Although the Government attempted a patch-up job in the other place, the Opposition sees ongoing problems with this bill. The Opposition has received literally hundreds of letters, faxes and telephone calls from across New South Wales and Australia, and the majority of them have been complaints about the bill.

I pay tribute to my researcher and assistant, Jo Hassan, who has fielded most of those calls while I have been in Parliament. Honourable members will know the life of a shadow minister is not terrific when one shadows three Ministers who have numerous staff and departmental resources behind them, and the shadow minister has one member of staff supporting him and dealing with the public. I congratulate Jo on the work she has done in fielding the large number of phone calls we received. Confusion about the bill is reflected in the community. Apart from my concerns, I have heard outlandish conspiracy theories, which I have had to debunk on the Government’s behalf, because of the way the bill has been drafted.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: That’s the kind of guy you are.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am that sort of guy and the Attorney expects no less of me.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What sort of conspiracy theories?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It would frighten even the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: One Nation type conspiracies?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The honourable member knows what I think of One Nation.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Were they One Nation type conspiracies?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No, they were even worse.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Is that possible?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Unlikely as it may seem, yes. The Opposition remains opposed to the bill, despite the numerous amendments that were agreed to in the lower House to make the legislation more workable. One must question why the Government was forced to move more than 20 amendments in the lower House if this was sound legislation.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: And there were not just Government amendments.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones says, the amendments were not only Government amendments. Despite almost 100 amendments being moved in the lower House - though not all were agreed to - almost 100 amendments will be moved today in an effort to make the bill more workable. I refer to the infamous cat kill clause. The Minister was forced to act expeditiously, and rightly so, to remove that clause. In order to protect a person or an animal, a cat can be seized but not mutilated or killed. Removal of that clause was first on my agenda and I am pleased that the Government has finally had the sense to remove it.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It accepted my amendments.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It is unbelievable that the clause was in the bill in the first place. The Government fortunately has removed the measure allowing a person to lawfully kill or injure a dog that damages property. It is incredible that the Minister for Local Government supported this clause in the first place, but now the Government has sought to gain political mileage out of its removal. Yesterday in an article in a Griffith newspaper the Minister stated that Opposition claims that the Companion Animals Bill would give people the right to kill or injure a dog that was damaging their property were incorrect.

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

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Exactly, now; but only since the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Opposition forced the Minister to remove the clause. Under the original bill, if a dog bit the back bumper bar of the venerable Kingswood of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, not only would it have blunted its teeth but the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would have been able to kill the dog in whichever way he saw fit. That is wrong. The Government abrogated its responsibilities by introducing the bill in the lower House with a provision that meant, in effect, that any person could hit Rover with a shovel if he dug up a garden. It has now removed that provision but has sought to cover up its mistakes by blaming the Opposition.

Page 6857

The Government was also forced to back-pedal on other issues. It has removed the $550 penalty that could be imposed on owners whose dogs rushed at or chased a motor vehicle - a similar fine to that being imposed for carrying a knife! The Sunday media highlighted the fact that owners of companion animals could not walk their dogs past outdoor cafes or dine on the footpath outside those cafes because their animals would be too close to food preparation areas. Though it has taken three years to draft the legislation, that provision was still included.

In the month or so since the introduction of the legislation many concerns have been brought to the attention of the Opposition, although some have been alleviated by amendments moved in the other place. Despite opposition to the bill, it will pass through this House today in some form. A large number of people in the community would like the bill to be withdrawn, but I do not think that will happen. I understand that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will move approximately 60 amendments and the Opposition has vowed to move amendments to make the legislation workable, in particular, an amendment that will enable registration and identification to be performed simultaneously.

However, government advisers informed the Opposition that each of its propositions was unworkable. I call on the Government to investigate and revisit this issue. Joining the processes could make life simpler for pet owners and I hope that with the Government’s expertise, resources and staff a solution can be reached. Under the provisions of the bill registered cats will still have to wear a collar and tag, but those born after proclamation of the legislation must also be identified by microchip. I am concerned also about the definition of "owner". If a dog bites someone while it is in the care of a mobile dog-washing proprietor, will the proprietor or the owner be liable for the hefty fine that will be imposed? Will that preclude the dog from becoming a dangerous dog?

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: The person washing the dog would be liable because the dog would be under the care of that person.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. R. S. L. Jones will have an opportunity to speak in the debate at the appropriate time.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: In spite of Opposition allegations, I had not realised that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones had finally joined a Minister's staff.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They need some help.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Too right they need some help! They should have had you on their staff a bit earlier. I am also concerned about what will happen to other pets of people prohibited from owning a dog or a cat and whether that prohibition will apply to all dogs and cats owned by that person. Much of the correspondence I have received about the bill relates to the costs of microchipping and registration. As the coalition has not seen the regulations and is relying on the words of the Minister, I am loath to introduce that factor into the debate at this stage. However, I ask the Minister to be aware that many pet owners are fearful of, and many councils and ratepayers are concerned about, those costs. My proposed amendments relate to a number of issues, including the coalition’s concerns about working dogs on farms not being exempted from the bill. The Minister stated publicly that those animals will not be covered by the bill, while having his token kick at the Opposition through media releases. But the bill does not exempt working dogs. It contains a provision to exempt certain animals, but does not specify working dogs, and the Minister expects everyone to take his word that it includes them. The coalition is not prepared to take his word and will move an amendment to ensure that working dogs are exempted. Only in this way will we be sure.

The coalition wants more security measures, such as pool-style fences and picture warnings, to be compulsory for places where dangerous dogs are kept. The coalition will move an amendment to cover that situation, which I will explain at the Committee stage. Children, who are most at risk of dangerous dog attacks, obviously cannot read a sign which states "Beware of the dangerous dog". Toddlers aged two or three years, the main victims of dog attacks, need picture signs to warn them about dangerous dogs. Further coalition amendments will address the problem that the Minister seems to have in treating cats as if they were little dogs, which they are not. Councils will find it impossible to police some of the provisions of the legislation, and I will go further into that at the Committee stage. The bill contains a clause under which a dog owner can be fined if his or her animal worries someone. Vexatious persons could have a field day with this. The coalition amendment will address the interpretation of the word "worries".

One of the most recent complaints about this bill came from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Yesterday I received a letter, as did the crossbenchers, which stated that the RSPCA would withdraw its support for the bill unless an eight-day holding period for stray cats and dogs and a two-year phase-in period for dogs and
Page 6858
cats were introduced. The society’s letter also stated that it would cease acceptance of all strays until these measures were introduced. I have problems with those demands. Regarding the first demand, some honourable members want to extend the time that strays may spend at the RSPCA. I understand the difficulties of the RSPCA because its workload will double when cats have legal status. I cannot accept the failure to differentiate between animals that have been registered and those that have not. The coalition will move an amendment to provide that the animal owner will be forced to pay for the extra boarding costs if the animal stays at the RSPCA longer than seven days.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How much will that be?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: That is all I am prepared to offer. I cannot accept the two-year phase-in period. If the bill is successful cats will receive legal status for the first time. This alone will make owners cautious. If they are also required to legitimise ownership quickly by registration and identification, many cats will be dumped. I am sure that responsible owners will identify and register their cats. The Minister has challenged the Opposition to play a constructive role in this debate. That is exactly what the Opposition has attempted to do. The Government has unworkable legislation before the House; the Opposition wants workable legislation and will do everything it can to ensure that the legislation works; but we will not know the final cost until much later. At the estimates committee hearing the Minister was unable to explain how councils were to pay for the implementation of the provisions of the legislation, except some vagueness about income to councils increasing by a factor of three.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That was Richard Jones’ stuff.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Yes, it was. Community awareness is paramount, so effective community education is imperative. I hope it will be covered. However, no-one knows the final cost or whether it will be beyond the financial reach of pet owners or councils. At the local government estimates committee the Minister stated that he did not read everything that comes into his office. I should be very surprised if he had read the Companion Animals Bill before he presented it to the lower House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.25 p.m.]: I endorse many of the comments made by the Hon. D. J. Gay, and regret that they were necessary. This legislation was several years in the making and when it came before the House it was flawed. I also endorse his comments about the Minister not reading the legislation. The Minister would have been embarrassed when he found out what it contained, but part of the job of being a Minister is to introduce suitable legislation. Every Minister should read legislation from beginning to end before introducing it, even if it contains 100 pages. Ministers have an obligation to do that, otherwise they could be embarrassed by their advisers.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Or it could be read by someone in his office.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: No, the Minister should read the bills. If he has four or five bills a year to introduce he should take the time to read the legislation from beginning to end, even if he has to do so on the weekends. I do not think that happened on this occasion. I wonder what happened during the drafting of the legislation which resulted in it being so badly flawed. As the Hon. D. J. Gay said, when this bill was discussed on the John Laws radio show the Minister wanted to get hold of my early amendments. I rushed them to him and he moved them in the lower House to take the heat off him. I remember hearing on the John Laws show that the Minister had faxed a message that he had taken out the nastiest bits. John Laws said, "Yes, Minister, but why did you put them there in the first place?" The Minister could not answer that question, because he did not put them in.

On the general topic of animals, many people have no idea how cat and dog lovers relate to and feel about their animals. Very many people, older people in particular, regard their companion animals almost like people. They talk to their animals and give them the affection they are unable to give or can no longer give to another human. People prepare the best food for their animals, and grieve for them when they die, as they would for a human who was close to them. People who are close to their cats and dogs know a lot more about them and their behaviour than do those who do not own animals.

I have had cats and dogs since I was eight years old, and the more I live with them the more I am amazed by their intelligence and clairvoyance. Some people may raise their eyebrows at the suggestion that animals have clairvoyance, but I have seen and heard of countless examples. Many years ago I had two old english sheepdogs who knew exactly when I would be coming home. They would stand at the door waiting for me before they could possibly have known that I was coming home at that time. My current dogs always know when we
Page 6859
are going away or going out. They know we are going out before we say anything - they do understand a fair bit of English - before we give them any hint.

We find it uncanny that they seem to know exactly what is going on. Occasionally the younger dog dashes off to one side of the property and barks at something. To bring him back we open the fridge door and give a piece of cheese to the older dog. Immediately the barking dog, who may be 500 metres away, rushes back to get his piece of cheese. There is no way he could smell the cheese or hear the fridge door being opened, but every time we want to bring him back we give a piece of cheese to the older dog and the younger one returns immediately. An interesting form of dog control!

Honourable members will have heard of people who leave their homes and their fortunes to their companion animals. The other day we read in the Daily Telegraph of a woman leaving several thousands of dollars a year for someone to look after her cat. That person did not even like cats, but apparently the two of them were getting on quite well. Sometimes people have elaborate ceremonies for burying their cats and dogs. I visited a cemetery in a very expensive part of Paris that had big headstones in memory of and touching stories and pictures of cats and dogs. A cemetery in Queensland also has areas set aside just for cats and dogs. It is important to realise that some people are very close to their cats and dogs. To them, their cats and dogs are not just animals; they are almost like human beings. It is important to bear that point in mind when considering this legislation.

Many people are of the view that this bill is anti-cat and anti-dog and would like it to be thrown out completely. My research assistant, Sally Girgis, and I have over the past several weeks and weekends - including in Sally’s own time - worked with various groups and individuals such as Lynda Stoner, Jo Bell, Joan Pappayni and Katherine Rogers in an attempt to get this bill somewhere near right. That has been a very difficult task. I shall be moving some 60-odd amendments to this bill, the vast bulk of which the Government will accept - and quite rightly. Even after including the amendments that the Government has accepted - and it has not accepted them all - this legislation will not be anywhere near perfect. One might say that we are trying to patch up a rather badly injured piece of legislation.

Honourable members would know that a working party consisting of representatives from the Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies, the Cat Protection Society, the Domestic Animal Birth Control Co-operative Society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Wildlife Information and Rescue Service and the Local Government and Shires Associations, amongst others, have been meeting on a regular basis in the past few years. A green paper was published in 1996 and following submissions from members of the public a white paper was published in December 1997. Sally and I have been in constant contact with members of the working party over that time and since the introduction of this legislation.

Those groups have expressed considerable dismay at the form this bill has taken and have questioned their involvement in the consultation process. Not unreasonably, they expected - as did members of the community who have kept abreast of the issues canvassed in the green and white papers - that this companion animals legislation would encourage responsible pet ownership and emphasise animal welfare. They are extremely disappointed that the opportunity to integrate the green and white papers has been lost and wonder how on earth that happened. As I have said, this bill is deeply flawed and is completely wrong in focus. Instead of encouraging responsible pet ownership and quality of life for companion animals, the bill places heavy penalties on owners of companion animals, and sections of the bill are explicitly anti-animal.

The bill actively discourages people from owning companion animals by forcing them to comply with expensive identification and registration requirements, by introducing heavy penalties and by implying that all companion animals are nuisances and must be effectively controlled. That approach is in stark contrast to scientific studies that prove that there are a number of medical, economic and social benefits in companion animal ownership. As currently drafted, the bill provides that the owner of a companion animal can be penalised if his or her dog or cat finds its way into a schoolyard. The owner can be penalised if his or her dog or cat chases another person or an animal. How could we possibly penalise someone if his or her cat chases another person or an animal? What harm could a cat do if it chased a person?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Originally there was a penalty if a cat killed a person.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The Hon. D. J. Gay is right. In fact, the bill as originally drafted provided that if a cat had gone to the next-door garden and dug up a petunia, legally the cat could
Page 6860
have been killed with a spade. In fact, one could face a penalty of $550 if one’s cat was caught strolling onto a patch of grass in a park from which it was prohibited. That penalty is the equivalent of the fine imposed on a person caught carrying a knife in a public place. How does such a penalty encourage responsible ownership? The bill in its original form condoned violent behaviour as a means of protecting persons and property against cats and dogs.

As has been stated, clauses 21 and 31 of the first print of the bill provided that a person could lawfully injure or destroy an animal if that action was reasonable to protect a person or animal or to protect property. Even more disturbing, a person who broke a cat’s neck would not incur any civil or criminal liability for doing so. I brought that matter to the attention of Government members in the lower House before the second reading stage of the bill was concluded in that place. They, too, were outraged that such a provision was included in the bill. It is extraordinary that the Government produced legislation that effectively labelled all cats and dogs as vicious animals and their owners as irresponsible people who would be banned from owning companion animals if their pet broke the law twice.

Some sections of the bill have been amended following community outrage and suggestions that I made to diffuse the anger that had swept through the community. The Minister in the lower House moved several amendments removing the worst aspects from the bill. Despite amendments in the lower House, however, the tone of the bill still encourages vigilante behaviour and is likely to increase disharmony in the community. Enormous discretion has been given to people who wish to stop the normal activities of cats and dogs and inflict cruelty on them. Clause 18 of the second print of the bill condones trespassing onto a neighbour’s property to seize a dog. It should be borne in mind that in that situation a person does not have to be protecting his or her own property but could simply be an overzealous individual who has taken a dislike to a neighbouring dog.

That is the wrong approach to this issue. The bill contains absolutely no reference to the welfare of companion animals and has no sanctions for dumping or inflicting cruelty on companion animals. Companion animal legislation should encourage community partnership, provide incentives for de-sexing and controlled breeding, focus on rehousing stray animals and actively promote proper pound management - not inflict punitive sanctions on people who own pets. The vast majority of companion animal owners are responsible and considerate people who care for the wellbeing, health and safety of their pets, and encourage obedience. It is unfair that those people should be punished for the actions of a few recalcitrant and irresponsible companion animal owners.

I am at a complete loss to understand why the companion animal legislation contains exactly the same provisions for cats as it does for dogs. This bill represents the first time that cats have been considered in law, and if this bill is passed cats will have legal status. A major failing of the bill is that no distinction has been made between cats and dogs in the drafting of the legislation. It is almost as if someone thought, "What is a cat?" and decided, "It’s a furry animal that has four legs." The person might then have questioned, "What is a dog?" and decided, "It is exactly the same." The bill makes no distinction between cats and dogs; it has simply transferred some provisions from the Dog Act to this legislation to include cats, without any understanding that cats are completely different animals.

Cats have completely different patterns of activity from dogs, they are much more mobile, they are less able to be constrained by property boundaries and they travel great distances. Owners are much less able to control the behaviour of cats than they are of dogs. In addition, most people do not find cats to be a nuisance. In fact, one cannot really own a cat; cats own people. One can own a dog but one can never own a cat. In 1995 the national people and pets survey found that 50 per cent of people who find cats on their property rarely or never find them to be a nuisance. This bill goes against the findings of such research by suggesting that all cats are potential nuisances and their owners should be penalised for not keeping them under control.

It seems that the Government did not get the balance right in the process of transforming into legislation sound and viable ideas that were outlined in the green and white papers. As I mentioned at the estimates committee hearings, it is my understanding that Ted Pickering was presented with legislation markedly similar to this just months before an election. The present Minister denied this claim at the estimates committee hearing; he was not aware of the former legislation presented to Ted Pickering. One would need to go to Ted Pickering and ask him what was mooted. Ted Pickering, being an astute politician, decided that it would not be a good idea to introduce such legislation just before an election and canned the idea. Obviously, Ted Pickering had a sensitive nose as to what would and what would not upset the community.

Page 6861

The Hon. Ernie Page should have realised that any issue to do with cats and dogs is extremely sensitive, and he should never have thought about introducing this legislation nine months out from an election. I urge honourable members to recognise that this is a very important time. We have an opportunity to progress and to legislate for urban animal management and animal welfare in this State in a way that would benefit companion animal owners, animals themselves and wildlife. It is essential that we as a community try to eliminate the horrifying numbers of stray and discarded companion animals that are dumped each year - some 80,000 - and the acts of cruelty that occur when people buy pets on impulse and do not consider the extra responsibilities that result from properly caring for a companion animal. These include sacrifices in time, money and effort to ensure that pets are fed, healthy and well trained. This issue will affect approximately 4.5 million households in New South Wales.

Australia has the highest rate of companion animal ownership in the world. In fact, more people own pets than do not. In New South Wales 39 per cent of households own a dog and 29 per cent own a cat. That demonstrates the possible electoral impact of legislation that has a deleterious effect on cats, dogs and their owners. It is essential that laws and educational programs be introduced to transform the disposal mentality of the past to one of privilege for the opportunity to care for companion animals. The Animal Rights and Rescue Group has noted that approximately 40,000 dogs are destroyed each year in New South Wales pounds. In the main these animals have passed what is considered their use-by date and owners then either pick up another dog or take a holiday. Dogs from caring and responsible homes rarely end their days in the council pound.

The widely accepted practice of easy disposal of animals results in a cost to the community and encourages indiscriminate breeding of replacement dogs. Further, it is a cruel and thoughtless practice. Companion animals play an important role in the lives of many people. Approximately 91 per cent of pet owners report a close relationship with their pets and this reinforces the notion that pets are an integral member of the family unit, however that unit is constituted. Studies have shown that owning a companion animal can counter problems of loneliness, isolation and vulnerability created by modern lifestyles. Children who interact with pets learn about responsibility, gentleness, animal behaviour, death, have greatly improved social competence and self-esteem, and are less likely to be criminals later in life. So pets can even reduce the crime rate!

Widespread evidence suggests that owning pets is good for your health. Two landmark case studies conducted by James Serpell in England and Dr Warwick Anderson in Australia demonstrate an irrefutable correlation between human health and pet ownership. These studies indicate that pet owners typically visit the doctor less often, use less medication, have lower cholesterol and blood pressure, recover more quickly from illness and surgery, deal better with stressful situations and are less likely to report feeling lonely. It is believed also that animals in gaol reduce violent behaviour and encourage people to rehabilitate themselves. Companion animal ownership is estimated to produce savings in annual recurrent health expenditure of between $790 million for main carers and $1.539 billion for main carers and other family members.

In 1991 a University of Cambridge study found that the introduction of cats or dogs into households can lead to measurable reductions in the incidence of perennial health problems. Recent Australian scientific studies show that companion animal owners have 2 per cent lower cholesterol levels - which can lower the risk of heart attack by 4 per cent, lower levels of triglyceride fats in blood and lower blood pressure - than non-pet owners. Companion animal ownership contributes around $2.2 billion to the Australian economy and employs 30,000 people in associated industries. In New South Wales pet owners spend a total of $442 million on dogs and $227 million on cats, and $51 per person on other pet care per year. This includes nutrition, veterinary services, pet care products and equipment, non-vet pet services, and other expenditure. Ownership of companion animals has been shown to contribute also to the psychological wellbeing of owners. People who have experienced the company of pets tend to have a more positive and humane attitude towards animals and the environment, and tend also to have greater emotional empathy for people.

James Serpell, former Director of the Companion Animal Research Group at the University of Cambridge, found that companion animal owners value their pets in the same way they value humans. He said, "They have distinctive personalities with whom the owner has affectionate relationships." James Serpell believes that this friendship explains why companion animal ownership is good for our health. Pets can provide owners with a special kind of emotional support that is lacking or at least is uncommon in most relationships with people. He also showed for the first time what many people have long believed: that companion animals make owners feel respected,
Page 6862
admired and wanted; they can help to relieve depression and stress; their presence helps people to cope with loneliness and loss of loved ones; they help owners overcome helplessness and increase self-esteem; and they help to alleviate apathy, confusion, and fear. No medical drugs can claim to have such dramatic results. In fact, in most cases drugs do nothing at all.

Since this legislation was introduced I have received volumes of correspondence from individuals and animal welfare groups raising general and specific concerns about the bill. Some concerns include the introduction of compulsory microchipping, which is a new technology with uncertain physical effects on the animal; undue restrictions placed on the movement of companion animals in public places and the penalties that accrue if the provisions are contravened; increased community disharmony by allowing neighbours to trespass on property to seize a cat or dog; an increase in the number of animals that will be dumped because owners will not be able to afford the expensive identification and registration; concerns about pressure placed on pounds as more animals are dumped; and increased numbers of animals euthanased at pounds due to the short period of time owners will have to collect them.

While it is important that cats and dogs can be easily identified to reduce the number of stray animals, the real concern is using new technology to achieve this. Microchipping involves implanting beneath the animal’s skin between the shoulder blades a tiny silicon chip containing identification. When a stray pet is found, a scanner or reader is held close to the animal’s shoulders and, if a microchip is present, the scanner displays the microchip’s unique identification number. It is likely that local councils will use this method to identify lost animals and commence notification procedures. Presently Australia has three manufacturers of microchips and soon there will be a fourth. These manufacturers use different technologies to construct their products and there is no Australian standard to regulate the microchip market.

If Standards Australia has not developed a standard in time, the Government intends to adopt the International Standard for microchips. This will present a problem because not all microchips currently used in Australia comply with that standard. Will animals microchipped with a non-International Standard chip have to have those chips replaced? If so, who will pay for the procedure? I am concerned at the lack of assurance and reliability of the technology. Problems have developed in the past when microchips have moved to other parts of the animal’s body. It causes immense discomfort to the animal and identification details may never be revealed because the scanner may not be able to detect the chip. The Federation of Animal Societies has raised issues concerning microchipping and its ability to increase compliance by owners with regulations. Joan Pappayni has been very helpful in providing information for this debate, and other members referred to her earlier. She said:

Compulsory microchipping will fail the animals that most need to be identified at the cost of those owners that already do the right thing. Compliance with the existing NSW Dog Act is very low, only around 20% of owners register their dogs. Dog registration costs $4 per year. By implementing compulsory identification which is more expensive and could be perceived by the public as more complicated, the Government is missing an opportunity to encourage identification of pets by cheaper and easier means such as a collar and tag. Compulsory microchipping is not likely to achieve a higher rate of compliance than the current system of annual dog registration if it is harder for owners to comply with instead of easier.

For the majority of owners whose pets never need the service of a welfare shelter (less than 3% of pets are impounded or surrendered each year) compulsory microchipping will merely be a cost impost. For the minority of owners who don’t care for their pets compulsory microchipping is unlikely to make any difference. The very idea that by implementing a complicated and expensive law people will therefore comply with it, is perhaps naive. To believe that compulsory microchipping will also result in lower euthanasia rates is also naive. It could be perceived that the main beneficiaries of compulsory microchipping are not the pets of NSW, but commercial interests.

Education Instead of Legislation - Microchipping is a sound concept. If the problems associated with compatibility of the various brands of microchips can be resolved, it will be even better. The public should be encouraged via a concerted education campaign to recognise the benefits of identification of pets. Voluntary identification of animals through better understanding will benefit the pets of NSW far more than a law, like the Dog Act, which is not complied with.

It is a disgrace that in New South Wales 80,000 animals are dumped each year. As a community we should consider alternative approaches to encourage responsible pet ownership and proper pound management. The bill makes no attempt to address the real problems in council pounds or to set in place processes and standards that will promote re-homing, reduce the numbers of pets killed, and meet community needs and concerns. At the same time, the penalties in the bill are likely to increase pressure on pounds by the increased number of animals incarcerated. The Federation of Animal Societies noted from evidence provided to the Animal Research Regulation Review Committee that dogs caged overnight with other larger dogs at Blacktown City Council were found in the morning torn to pieces. Blacktown council should be condemned for that. This unacceptable practice is in
Page 6863
contravention of the code of practice but Blacktown council is not concerned about that. There have been further unconfirmed reports of the inappropriate housing of animals, for example, a bitch on heat housed with a number of male dogs and of animals sleeping on bare concrete.

Currently, there is no separate code of practice for pounds, which are lumped together in the code of practice for boarding establishments, despite the fact that pounds have significantly broader and more sensitive areas of responsibility. If the legislation is passed in this form it will be necessary to seriously re-evaluate current practices in pounds to work towards good pound management. Victoria has separate codes of practice for boarding establishments, breeding and rearing establishments, pet shops, and shelters and pounds. The code of practice for the management of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds is currently being revised. The Animal Societies Federation of New South Wales has suggested ways to reduce the number of stray companion animals and to increase community understanding of the needs of companion animals. The Vice President of the Animal Societies Federation, Jo Bell, has set out the strategies as follows:

- Cheap or free veterinary de-sexing clinics and support for the groups who already provide this service plus a strong government campaign to stress the absolute necessity to de-sex all companion animals

- Support for de-sex-&-return schemes to reduce and stabilise the numbers of colony cats (already hugely successful overseas and in other States)

- A high profile Government-backed public education campaign to stress the high value and benefits of companion animals

- Research into the causes of savage behaviour in dogs and insistence that such dogs be referred for retraining - confined dogs become savage dogs

- Mandatory leash-free areas for dogs in each Council area

- Strong encouragement to Pounds to find homes for stray animals as a matter of course. The highly successful San Francisco SPCA Adoption Scheme is a world beacon for what can be done by a humane and creative organisation to care for humans and animals

- An immediate moratorium on the commercial breeding of companion animals (until that dreadful figure of 80,000 NSW strays a year is no more than a memory).

Such measures as the above will accomplish the stated aims of the Minister:

- To reduce the figure of 80,000 animals put down in NSW shelters each year

- To promote responsible pet ownership

That organisation is opposed to the legislation. We should be considering how other jurisdictions solve similar problems. In San Francisco the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has had an adoption pact in place since 1994. The primary aim of that pact is that no adoptable dog or cat will be euthanased. The pact states that if the City Animal Control Centre is unable to find a home for any of its healthy dogs or cats the San Francisco SPCA will take the animals and guarantee to place them. That saves the lives of thousands of treatable dogs and cats. As a result, euthanasia at the City Animal Control Centre for sick, injured, traumatised or infant dogs and cats dropped by 1,185 in one year alone. San Francisco has the lowest per capita euthanasia rate for cats and dogs of any city or town in America. This has been accomplished in one of the most culturally and economically diverse urban areas of the United States of America, and it has been achieved without resorting to coercive or punitive government mandated programs or at a cost to taxpayers.

Some people recommend that animal shelters should offer only desirable dogs and cats for adoption, implying that all other animals should be killed for the purposes of maintaining a positive image. However, the idea behind the adoption pact is that people neglect or abandon their animals rather than take them to pounds because they think that their animal’s destiny is death if taken to a shelter. If these people know that when they take their pets to a shelter the animals will be placed in a loving home they may well give their pets to an organisation such as the San Francisco SPCA. An article about the adoption pact, which goes into some detail about the effects of it in San Francisco, states:

In the 12 months since the Adoption Pact took effect no adoptable animal has been killed in a San Francisco shelter. What this means is that all cats and dogs who were healthy and of reasonably good temperament - even if they were old, blind, deaf, missing limbs or disfigured - were placed in loving homes rather than euthanized.

And in the past year, the San Francisco SPCA provided 3,382 treatable animals with medical care, behavioural training, foster care, or a combination of these, and placed them in loving homes as well. As a direct result, euthanasias at the City Animal Control Center for sick, injured, traumatized or infant dogs and cats dropped to 1,185 this year. . . the Society intends to rehabilitate and place all such animals, demonstrating as we go that cats and dogs with treatable medical and/or behavioural problems can be saved and successfully placed if you just make the effort.

The adoption pact continues:

In the past 12 months, the vast majority (74%) of animals killed at the City Animal Control Center were non-

Page 6864
rehabilitatable. Next year when this becomes the only category being euthanized in this city, the euthanasia rate for San Francisco will drop to 47 dogs and cats killed for every 10,000 inhabitants. It will be by far the lowest euthanasia rate anywhere in the United States.

This is a lesson that the RSPCA must learn. The RSPCA shelter at Yagoona is more like an Auschwitz than an animal shelter as most of the animals are killed. The RSPCA wants to kill the animals after three days. I asked Charles Wright how many identifiable dogs and cats - they are mainly dogs - in Victoria are returned to their owners. He said that 95 per cent of the identifiable animals taken to a shelter in Victoria are returned to their owners. So only a tiny proportion of them are left in shelters. My proposal to increase the time for the animals to be held would mean that only a small fraction of identifiable animals would be held at the shelter. Unfortunately, animals which are not identifiable are killed.

It is clear from the San Francisco experience that if the RSPCA changed its focus from killing animals to embracing an adoption pact it should be able to find homes for most of its animals. Reducing the time that animals are held to three days is outrageous; the shelter then becomes simply a processing plant for killing animals. The focus should be changed. Some animal organisations in Australia fund only non-kill shelters which keep animals as long as necessary to find homes for them. As I have said before, while I support the concept of companion animals legislation, I do not support this legislation as it currently stands as it is deeply flawed. The Minister should have had a good look at the legislation before it was introduced in the lower House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

[The President left the chair at 12.57 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [2.30 p.m.]: I move:

1. That this House, having regard to the findings of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics in relation to its inquiry into the conduct of the Honourable Franca Arena, MLC:

(a) considers that the conduct of Mrs Arena, in making certain allegations in her speech on 17 September 1997, fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its members and brought the House into disrepute;

(b) calls on Mrs Arena to make a written apology to the House within five sitting days after the passing of this Resolution, and withdraw in writing the imputations against

(i) the Premier, Mr Carr;

(ii) the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Collins;

(iii) the royal commissioner, Mr Justice Wood;

(iv) the General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Della Bosca; and

(v) the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Sheahan,

of a criminal conspiracy to ensure that people in high places would not be named in the paedophile segment of the report of the royal commission into the Police Service.

2. That, in the event of Mrs Arena not submitting an apology and withdrawing the imputations by the time required in paragraph 1(b), Mrs Arena is suspended from the service of the House until the submission of a formal apology and withdrawal of the imputations referred to in paragraphs 1(b)(i) to (v).

3. That the apology be in the following terms:

I hereby withdraw the allegations made in my speech to the House on 17 September 1997, which involved imputations against Mr Carr, Mr Collins, Mr Justice Wood, Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan, of a criminal conspiracy to ensure that people in high places would not be named in the paedophile segment of the report of the royal commission into the Police Service.

I also hereby apologise to the House and to those people for making those imputations.

4. That the apology and withdrawal be read by Mrs Arena in the House and be also published in the Minutes of Proceedings.

All honourable members are aware of the circumstances giving rise to the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics into the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena and they have by now had the opportunity to read the committee’s report. Therefore I do not propose to comment upon the factual circumstances surrounding the Hon. Franca Arena’s speech to this House on 17 September 1997. Rather, I shall briefly summarise events that have led to this motion.

As members will recall, on 17 September 1997 the Hon. Franca Arena made serious allegations against members of this Parliament, the Government and the judiciary and against other people. Honourable members will recall that on 24 September Parliament passed the Special
Page 6865
Commissions of Inquiry Amendment Act 1997, and 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. Honourable members will also recall that the Hon. Franca Arena challenged the validity of the special inquiry, that her challenge was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and that the High Court of Australia declined to grant special leave to appeal from that judgment.

In his report of 7 November 1997 the Hon. John Nader, QC, concluded that there was no evidence to support the claims made by the Hon. Franca Arena, or any part of them, that they were false in all respects, and that there was nothing amounting to evidence in the strict sense that could have provided, to any reasonable person acting in good faith, any justification whatsoever for the claims, or any part of them. Mr Nader stated that "The evidence strongly suggests that Mrs Arena knew that she had no such evidence."

Following the tabling of the Nader report on 11 November 1997 I moved a motion proposing that in view of the findings of the special commission of inquiry, the Hon. Franca Arena be judged by this House to be "guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of the Legislative Council" and that she be expelled from the House. As a result of amendments to this motion the House determined to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. The terms of reference are as set out in the report of the standing committee, which was tabled and ordered to be printed on 29 June 1998. It is appropriate to note that the committee, which was chaired by the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, comprised nine members of this House who were broadly representative of the full spectrum of the political parties and the views to be found in this House.

It is obvious from a reading of the report that the conduct of this inquiry was most difficult, and I would like to commend the Chair and the members of the committee for the manner in which they conducted it. It must not go unnoticed that the report represents the unanimous views of all members of that committee. I do not wish to restate the imputations that the committee found flow from the speech made by the Hon. Franca Arena on 17 September 1997. It is sufficient to say that the committee unanimously found that the Hon. Franca Arena’s allegations were, first, untrue; second, made without any reasonable foundation upon facts known to her, or reasonably capable of being checked by her; and, third, extremely hurtful and damaging to the reputations of each of the persons referred to as participants in the alleged meetings.

The committee also found that the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena in making the relevant accusations in her speech on 17 September 1997 fell below the standard that the House is entitled to expect of a member, and brought the House into disrepute. It was for this very reason that I moved the original motion on 11 November 1997 that called for the honourable member’s expulsion from the House. It should also be noted that the committee considered that the imputations arising from the Hon. Franca Arena’s speech involved, in substance, the allegation of an illegal conspiracy, notwithstanding that the Hon. Franca Arena did not expressly describe such alleged conduct as either illegal or as involving a conspiracy.

After having reached those conclusions the committee considered that the protection of the House as a parliamentary institution required that the abuse of the privilege of freedom of speech in the House that occurred in this case must be curbed by appropriate protective measures. Today’s motion is in the terms of the recommendation of the standing committee. Its substance requires the Hon. Franca Arena to make a written apology to the House, within five sitting days after the passing of this motion, in the terms set out in paragraph 3 of the motion. In the event that no such apology is forthcoming, the motion requires that the Hon. Franca Arena be suspended from the House until the submission of such an apology.

Chapter 6 of the committee’s report contains the committee’s findings and a comprehensive discussion and weighing of the appropriate sanctions to be applied in this matter. In paragraph 6.3.2 the committee found that the false allegations contained in the Hon. Franca Arena’s speech involved abuse of the privilege that the Hon. Franca Arena enjoyed, and so damaged the standing and dignity of the House by undermining public confidence in and respect for the House itself as an institution. In paragraph 6.3.3 of the report the committee also found that the Hon. Franca Arena was in contempt of the House and breached the privileges of the House because she did not comply with the general obligation of members of the House to ensure that their conduct does not fall below the standard that the House is entitled to expect of them.

In Paragraph 6.3.10 of the report the committee concluded that the most extreme sanction of expulsion would not be appropriate in the circumstances, and in paragraph 6.3.11 it concluded that the Hon. Franca Arena be given the opportunity
Page 6866
to withdraw the offending imputations and make an apology to the House. The committee also concluded that should the Hon. Franca Arena fail to apologise, the need to protect the dignity of the House would be best served by requiring her to be suspended and remain suspended from the House until she has made the necessary formal apology and withdrawal. The committee considered that the Hon. Franca Arena should not be allowed to make a token apology and withdrawal. It therefore included in its findings the form of apology it considered appropriate, which is contained in paragraph 3 of the motion.

The report noted in chapter 4, which deals with privileges and sanctions, that this House has an inherent or implied power to suspend a member other than under the standing rules and orders for a wilful and vexatious breach of those orders. Reference is made in the report to a number of precedents and to whether suspension is self-protection or punishment. The committee considered that suspension pending compliance with a specific order of the House, such as withdrawal of specific words or an apology, regardless of the length of time involved, could constitute a reasonable and self-protective action rather than a punishment, because the length of suspension is at the discretion of the member concerned rather than the House.

As I said to the House on 11 November 1997, the privileges conferred on members of Parliament must be exercised responsibly and with integrity; otherwise the standing of the House, and, indeed, its ability to function, is diminished. The Hon. Franca Arena has said consistently that she should be judged by her peers in this House. The report of the committee has passed that judgment, and it should be supported by the House. I emphasise, and members should bear in mind in any contribution to the debate, that the motion does not seek to punish the honourable member. It is not punitive in nature; it is protective in character and is designed to preserve the dignity of the House and its ability to function with the respect and trust of the community. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.42 p.m.]: With some qualifications, which I will outline subsequently, I support the motion. The Bill of Rights is the foundation stone upon which the concept of freedom of speech in Parliament is founded. It is the anchor that stabilises the power of the Parliament, the rights of members, and the protection afforded to the community through members exercising their freedom of speech. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights is fundamental to the operation of the Westminster system of Parliament, and therefore it is fundamental to the operation of this Parliament. No-one seeks to impugn the operation of that Article. Under Article 9, members who come into this Parliament as elected representatives of the community are able to protect the community and use the Parliament to raise matters of concern.

However, the issue before the House is the extent to which members can avail themselves of that privilege bestowed upon them by the Bill of Rights, and how far members can go in exercising that right before they are considered to have gone too far and to have traduced the privilege afforded by that provision and, therefore, to have brought the Parliament into disrepute. The standing orders of this Parliament recognise freedom of speech, the right to raise matters of public concern with impunity, and the protections provided by our constitutional system. But the rules of the Parliament also recognise that certain protections are to be afforded to the institution of the Parliament - I use the term "Parliament" in its generic sense.

One of those protections is that if members wish to attack the Crown, other members of Parliament, or members of the judiciary, they must do so by way of substantive motion, which is debated. That framework has been laid down so that if a member proves an allegation against another member or a judicial officer, the only way the Parliament can act against that member or judicial officer is by a motion whose ultimate impact may be the removal of the member from Parliament or the judicial officer from office. It is unfortunate that within one week of the Parliament debating whether to exercise its disciplinary powers in respect of a judge, it is considering a motion to exercise not a disciplinary power but a power to protect the reputation of the Parliament.

This Parliament is unlike the United Kingdom Parliament, which can exercise disciplinary powers against members. This Parliament cannot punish a member of the Parliament, no matter what that member may have done. The only thing it can do is seek to protect its reputation by taking appropriate action, which is not punitive, against the member. The Parliament has now had before it three motions for consideration: a motion to expel the member, a motion to censure the member, and now a motion that could lead to the suspension of the member.

In relation to the speech that the Hon. Franca Arena delivered on 17 September 1997, it could almost be said that the Parliament has run the full gamut of its powers to protect its reputation against a member who has exceeded her privileges under
Page 6867
the Bill of Rights. The motion deals with the statement made by the Hon. Franca Arena on 17 September 1997. All of the inquiries acknowledge, as do all members of this House, that the member made no direct statement alleging a criminal conspiracy by the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, Justice Wood, Mr Della Bosca or Mr Sheahan. The allegation of criminal conspiracy arose by imputation.

Before I take that line of reasoning further I should address the role of members when they raise matters in Parliament. As representatives of the community we seek to use the Parliament and the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to raise matters of outstanding public concern, and thereby achieve an analysis, examination, review or investigation of matters surrounding that concern. If there is a wrong, we seek to correct it. When members raise matters of major concern in the Parliament they do so because they believe a wrong has been committed within the administration of Government, the Parliament, the judiciary or the public sector.

The words that members of Parliament use to raise matters of public concern are important. Members may raise matters by direct allegation, by innuendo or by imputation. It is not a defence for a member to raise a concern that they want investigated and then claim that it was not an allegation, even though an allegation clearly arises. Under the protection of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights the role of members is to raise in the House matters that the member seek to be corrected. When members exercise that power they sometimes make allegations against members of Parliament, judicial officers, other persons in an official capacity, or members of the community.

The structure of the Bill of Rights produces a dichotomy in the method of dealing with the nature of the allegations and the members of the community against whom those allegations are raised. The Bill of Rights does not provide an ordinary citizen access to the Parliament to seek correction of an allegation made against that citizen. Traditionally the avenues for correcting a perceived wrong allegation made in Parliament are to take a defamation action or to go to the media. A citizen may of course ask a member of Parliament to correct a perceived wrong allegation made against him or her in the Parliament. In the case of allegations made against members of Parliament or judicial officers, the Parliament provides for investigations to be undertaken, not to determine whether the allegation is right or wrong but to determine whether in the public interest the member or officer against whom the allegations are made should be removed from public office.

I draw that distinction because it is relevant to an amendment that I foreshadow I will move. The Hon. Franca Arena’s statement in the House that justifiably gave rise to an imputation of an allegation of a criminal conspiracy achieved what she set out to achieve, that is, an inquiry into the allegations. The Parliament established a special commission of inquiry to investigate those allegations, and I acknowledge that additional legislative reform was required to enable that inquiry to proceed. The Hon. Franca Arena believed she raised matters of serious moment: an allegation that, effectively, Mr Carr, Mr Collins, Justice Wood, Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan were involved in a criminal conspiracy. Justice Nader, who was commissioned to investigate those allegations, concluded in his report of 7 November 1997:

(1)(i) The claim made by Mrs Arena in the Legislative Council on 17 September 1997 to the effect that 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 was false in all respects.

(ii) The claim made by Mrs Arena on the said occasion to the effect that the Premier and Justice Wood met and that "an agreement was reached to ensure that people in high places would not be named" was false in all respects.

(iii) The claim made by Mrs Arena on the said occasion to the effect that 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 was false in all respects.

(2) 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 evidence strongly suggests Mrs Arena knew she had no such evidence." I repeat those words because they are fundamental to the House determining how it should act against a member who is found to have brought the House into disrepute. It is totally reprehensible and an absolute abuse of the privilege given to a member of Parliament by the Bill of Rights for a member to use the House to make allegations that he, she or any reasonable person acting in good faith knows are
Page 6868
without foundation. That action is sufficiently reprehensible to warrant consideration by the Parliament of the removal of that member from the Parliament.

Members of Parliament are afforded a protection that is not available to anyone else in the community, and that protection is fundamental to the operation of a Westminster system of democracy. It is an absolute abuse of the privilege of Parliament for a member to deliberately - not mistakenly or inadvertently - make allegations that an independent assessment finds have no reasonable basis to sustain them, and that no reasonable person acting in good faith could find to be truthful. The only way to protect the public from such an abuse is to remove the privileges of the member of Parliament. But the Parliament, having received that report and having heard further on the matter was concerned whether the removal of the member was justified. It was apparent to most members that the member could feel that she appropriately exercised the privileges afforded to her by the Bill of Rights.

This House decided to exercise an inherent right, which is part of its protection, that is, to use the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics to further examine the information available, to give the member the opportunity to explain why she acted in the way in which she did, to submit a report which analyses all that information, and to make a recommendation to this House. The privilege and ethics committee is the body to which we have given the authority of the whole of the Parliament to undertake these investigations and provide advice to us. If we did not use the privilege and ethics committee to investigate, analyse and report, appropriately, all 42 members of this House would have to sit for the 70 or 80 days that that committee sat and undertake the work undertaken by that committee. The Parliament cannot function in that way. No parliament can function in that way.

We, as a Parliament, have vested in our privilege and ethics committee our powers and our role to give it the independence it requires to examine and report. I believe that role has to be pursued independently, fiercely and fearlessly because the privilege and ethics committee is a significant protective tool of the Parliament. The Parliament has received from that committee the recommendation which is now before the House. If we are to protect the institutions of the Parliament - the committee system is one of those institutions - honourable members should be prepared to embrace a recommendation from such a committee, unless they are of the view that either the evidence does not fundamentally sustain the recommendation before the House, or the recommendation does not address the issue in a way that is commensurate with the directions in which the Parliament is going.

It is for that reason that I depart from the view I originally took when Judge Nader brought down his report. For the reasons I outlined earlier, I would have been prepared to support a motion for the member’s removal because, as I said, having regard to those findings, I believe that the statements being made justified such action. But the Parliament commissioned its own privilege and ethics committee to further review all the evidence, to give the member an opportunity to address that committee, and through it this House, about why she acted in the way she did, and to report to this House. That committee has recommended not her removal but that she give to the House an apology in precise terms and that if the member is not prepared to extend that apology to this House she should be suspended. If we are to protect the institutions and the role of the House we should support that recommendation.

I have indicated also that there are circumstances in which we should depart from a committee’s recommendations if we believe there is a flaw in them. I have circulated four amendments. I wish to deal with the first of those amendments, which calls upon the Hon. Franca Arena to make a written apology. In my view it is not appropriate for a member of Parliament to be asked to give a written apology to this House. Members address this House standing on the floor of the House. I do not believe we should be asking members to provide written apologies. If they are to apologise they should do so from the floor of the House. I advocate the deletion from the motion of the requirement for a written apology and request that there be only a verbal apology. This House acts in a protective manner in relation to allegations made against members of Parliament.

There is a clear distinction between protective measures relating to allegations against members of Parliament, the judiciary and the Crown and those which arise when a member makes an allegation against people in the community. There is a vast, yawning gap in public opinion about whether or not that distinction should exist, but that distinction has existed for several hundred years, ever since the Bill of Rights ensured freedom of speech. Many in the community have lamented that they have been the subject of allegations they consider to be unwarranted. However, freedom of speech, established by the Bill of Rights, is a vital element of our democracy.

Page 6869

In recent times, the Parliament has resolved to afford members of the community who believe that they have been wronged what is described as a citizen’s right of reply - a departure, one might say, from the principles of the Bill of Rights; a departure not embodied within a legislative framework but adopted by this Chamber, by the Legislative Assembly and by other parliaments. A member of the public who believes that he or she has been wronged is able to seek redress. If members of the community were to be afforded an opportunity of redress by petitioning the Parliament for committees of inquiry to investigate allegations that might be raised against them, that would undermine the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights.

If an allegation is made against members of this House that involves others in the general community, our role is to deal with the allegation as it affects members of our democratic institution. If a member of Parliament is to be asked to provide an apology, that apology should be given to those who, under our constitutional framework, have an oversighting role. I use that term advisedly. We are not here to oversight the community; we are here to protect the community and to oversight the actions of members of our democratic institution. It is appropriate for this House to seek an apology for allegations made against the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the royal commissioner, but it is not appropriate to require that an apology be made to members of the community, irrespective of their seniority or reputation. Mr Sheahan is now Justice Sheahan, but when these allegations were made and when the alleged incidents occurred Mr Sheahan was not a member of the judiciary; he was a member of the community.

Therefore, I will be moving an amendment to delete reference to Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan both in relation to the findings and imputations and to the apology. Those two people are afforded the same rights that are afforded to every member of the community, and they should be treated in the same way by this House. For the purpose of completion of the proposed motion and because I advocate deleting reference to them in the motion, I will seek that Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan be informed by the Clerk of the Legislative Council’s resolution of 13 November 1997 to provide procedures for a citizen’s right of reply.

This is the type of matter where certain people should be invited to exercise their right of reply, particularly having regard to the nature of Justice Nader’s findings. When Justice Nader’s report was brought down this House did not have a system of citizen’s right of reply. It could be argued that citizen’s right of reply cannot be utilised in respect of a matter that was raised before the adoption by the House of the procedure. However, that right of reply should be extended in these circumstances. I have been given a revised set of amendments, which will be circulated. As the debate on this motion will continue for some time, members will be able to give the amendment further consideration. I move:

That the question be amended as follows:

No. 1 Paragraph 1(b). Omit "a written", insert instead "an".

No. 2 Paragraph 1(b). Omit "in writing".

No. 3 Paragraph 1(b)(iv) and (v). Omit the paragraphs.

No. 4 Paragraph 3. Omit "Mr Justice Wood, Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan", insert instead "and Mr Justice Wood".

No. 5 After paragraph 4, insert:

5. That Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan be informed in writing by the Clerk of the House of the resolution of the House of 13 November 1997 providing procedures for a citizen’s right of reply.

I will complete my contribution to the debate with the following observations. This has been an unfortunate and regrettable incident. The Hon. Franca Arena has been held in the highest regard by all members of this House. I believe that the incident was generated in a time of high emotion, but, on the information that is before us, we can come to only one conclusion: that the statement was deliberate and planned. The consequences of her allegations were obvious, and should have been obvious to the member. Even though we may have strong personal regard for the Hon. Franca Arena, that regard must be tempered by our obligations and duty in the exercise of our roles as members of Parliament.

I consider that the high regard in which the Hon. Franca Arena was held by all honourable members has resulted in a tempering of reaction to the allegations, which is reflected in the motion before the House. The motion would not be regarded as reflecting the views of many members at the time immediately after the allegations were made, and certainly not after they read the findings of Justice Nader. I acknowledge that the matter we are now debating has placed significant pressure upon the member. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill of Rights bestows privileges on members of Parliament, but we also accept responsibilities for which we must be made accountable.

The Hon. Franca Arena may have underestimated the implications of her deliberate
Page 6870
decision to make the allegations that she did. Had proper consideration been given to the matter by the member or her advisers, she would have foreseen the logical outcome. Debate on this motion is significant. During my time in Parliament this is the first time we have debated the responsibilities of members and their accountability to Parliament and the public for their behaviour. Some members have experienced such a debate once before, but it fortunately tends to occur only once or twice in a century. It is an uneasy experience for members to have to deal with someone with whom they have had a close working relationship for many years. But that should not deter us from exercising our obligations as members of Parliament, for which we have been elected. For that reason I commend the motion to the House with the amendment I have advocated.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [3.17 p.m.]: I will be brief because the committee’s report speaks for itself. I pay tribute to the other committee members for their patience, perseverance and physical stamina, often working late into the night. Having deliberated for more than 100 hours during many meetings, we produced a unanimous and balanced report. To achieve unanimity on such a difficult issue, not only on the final recommendation of sanction but also on the entire report, is nothing short of a marvel. It was a tough decision, but I believe we got it right. Mr Bernie Gross, our legal adviser, made certain at all times that the Hon. Franca Arena was afforded natural justice and procedural fairness.

In conclusion, I put on the record the personal hurt I felt about the allegations of corruption and bias in my conduct of the inquiry. When those allegations of corruption and bias were constantly raised in the media I realised how awful it would be to be unjustly accused of unspeakable behaviour for which innocence is difficult to prove. It is especially terrible to be accused unjustly of crimes, particularly when one has a family and children who are affected by the unfounded allegations. What happened to me during the ongoing inquiry made me even more aware of the importance of our job of considering a speech containing unfounded allegations against citizens of New South Wales.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [3.20 p.m.]: The inquiry conducted by the committee arose from a speech given by the Hon. Franca Arena in this House on 17 September 1997 during debate on the final report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. In her speech the Hon. Franca Arena suggested that certain prominent people, including the Premier of New South Wales and the royal commissioner, had been involved in meetings or agreements concerning an alleged cover-up of names of high-profile paedophiles. The Legislative Council resolved to authorise the Governor to establish a special commission of inquiry to investigate the claims made by the Hon. Franca Arena and the basis on which she had made them.

The special commission concluded that the Hon. Franca Arena had no evidence to support these claims. On 12 November 1997, following an amendment to a motion for the expulsion of the Hon. Franca Arena, this House resolved that the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics investigate and report on what sanctions should be enforced in relation to the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena in this matter. The subsequent investigation raised issues of considerable complexity and sensitivity which required detailed and careful consideration by the committee. The committee’s task was further complicated by the fact that in some cases the evidence received could not be released publicly, given the potential impact on police investigations or damage to the reputations of persons named.

During the inquiry the committee was mindful of the importance and seriousness of the issues at stake, including the nature of parliamentary freedom of speech, the need to protect the dignity and standing of the House, the importance of protecting individual reputations from unnecessary damage, and the possible consequences for the member concerned and, ultimately, for all members of the House. In light of these various concerns the committee took care to ensure that measures were adopted that afforded the Hon. Franca Arena procedural fairness during the inquiry. Further, given the complexity of the matters involved, the committee engaged legal advice to ensure that procedural fairness was observed. Because of the sensitive nature of many of the issues under consideration, the committee conducted all hearings in camera and only authorised those sections of the evidence to be made public that it felt would not cause unnecessary damage to the reputations of individuals, compromise ongoing investigations or prejudice any matters before the courts.

An assessment of what constitutes fairness is, of course, in the mind of the beholder. It is my view that the committee sought to ensure that procedural fairness was afforded to the Hon. Franca Arena in all of its deliberations. However, I am not sure that the Hon. Franca Arena would see it this way. I believe there is some justification for her to think like that. In the first instance, her own Labor Party
Page 6871
had sought her expulsion from the Parliament. In my opinion, this would have been a travesty of justice, because it would have short-circuited the established procedures we have in place for the protection of this House, its members, and the citizens of this State. The conduct of the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics and the outcomes of that inquiry, which we are debating here today, support this view.

Having said that, however, I believe that the Hon. Franca Arena regarded the committee as a stacked deck. She often asserted that she could not expect a fair hearing, because her Labor colleagues had already voted in their party room to expel her. This feeling was inflamed by obvious animosity between herself and the chairman and that in turn led to some rather heated exchanges. The Hon. Franca Arena was also subjected to some hostile interrogation by a non-Labor member of the committee, and this would have contributed to her feeling that the cards were stacked against her. However, in the overall course of our exhaustive deliberations, I believe the findings of the committee demonstrate that procedural fairness was accorded to the Hon. Franca Arena in accordance with the terms of reference issued by the House for the conduct of the inquiry.

In the early stages of our deliberations a member of the committee expressed a feeling that we should seek to put ourselves in the position of the Hon. Franca Arena in order to understand her motives for making her speech on 17 September 1997. In other words, we should ask ourselves what course of action would we have taken as members of Parliament if we had received the same information and material that had been passed on to the Hon. Franca Arena in regard to allegations of paedophilia in our community. This led me to reflect on my own experience after my daughter’s court case in 1990. As a private citizen at the time, I felt the system of justice had failed us, and I became outspoken in my criticism of the system. The resultant publicity we received created a flood of letters from people all over the State with similar stories of injustice.

These were all in regard to sexual assault. Some were so horrific that I began to feel a strong sense of anger and frustration at a system which obviously appeared to be fair and just in the eyes of our legal fraternity but which was obviously failing to meet community expectations. I was unable to continue my crusade as an individual. However, that experience caused me to reconsider my goals. I eventually decided I would get nowhere criticising the system as an outsider and that the only effective way to bring about change was to get involved in the political process.

I suppose I had some empathy for the Hon. Franca Arena as I examined the extensive amount of material that had been forwarded to her from citizens around the State. This material ranged from the bizarre and unbelievable to the credible and believable. It was obvious to me that the Hon. Franca Arena did not attempt to investigate or censor the material she received. In numerous responses to the committee the Hon. Franca Arena advised that she did not see it as her role to investigate the material, as she was "not a policeman".

In the early deliberations of the committee a member read onto the record a number of passages of one of the more bizarre statements, and these excerpts were released and published. This was unfortunate, because it led to media reports which, in the eyes of many people, would have discredited the Hon. Franca Arena. It was unfortunate because it was unfair to create that impression at that stage of the inquiry. The parameters of the inquiry were defined by the terms of reference, which required the committee to inquire into and report on:

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

And that:

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

The deliberations of the committee in regard to the terms of reference are outlined in chapter 3 of the report. I refer honourable members to paragraph 3.3.3 of the report which stated:

Although the Committee’s investigation necessarily involves consideration of what reasonable foundation, if any, Mrs Arena had as at 17 September 1997 for making allegations concerning the "suppression of names of individuals allegedly being investigated by the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service", the Terms of Reference do not authorise or require the Committee to embark upon a wider inquiry as to whether any individual, by reason of any complaints or allegations made or capable of being made against them, deserved, in retrospect, or in the light of what the Committee itself can discover and establish, to be investigated more extensively by the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, or to survive the period

Page 6872
of operation of the Royal Commission without being prosecuted. Mrs Arena frequently during her evidence before the Committee stated that she is not a policeman. However, neither is the Committee.

Paragraph 3.3.5 advised:

Despite Mrs Arena’s submissions to the contrary, the Committee rejects her attempts to induce the Committee to go beyond its powers, and embark on a wider inquiry as to the adequacy of the Terms of Reference of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, the manner in which the Royal Commission performed its investigative task and reporting function, or whether specified individuals were undeservedly fortunate in surviving scrutiny by the Royal Commission with their reputations intact and without being criminally prosecuted.

The committee’s deliberations within the parameters of the terms of reference are detailed in chapters 3 and 4, with the committee’s findings on conduct and sanctions in chapters 5 and 6. As I stated earlier, it was not within the committee’s charter to investigate every allegation in the material submitted by the Hon. Franca Arena. Notwithstanding this, I feel it is appropriate to look at just one case investigated by the Wood royal commission in order to get a feel for the Hon. Franca Arena’s concern over the failure to have a full investigation into all aspects of paedophilia in our society. I refer to inquiry number three outlined in the Wood royal commission final report, volume 4. In investigating this issue, which involved allegations about a judicial official, the Wood royal commission found:

Although the hearings of the Commission concerning the matter were conducted before Commissioner Urquhart in camera, for the reasons already mentioned, it made every attempt to get to the truth of the matter. Necessarily, its path was more difficult, having regard to the greater opportunity which existed when the matter was first brought to police notice in 1986 . . .

The greater part of this information was uncovered by the investigations of the Royal Commission but could and should have been revealed by a proper police investigation, which, if timely, would have had the benefit of identifying and speaking to further persons. As the matter stands there cannot be any possible adverse inference against the judicial officer, to be derived from the information [the informant] provided to the AFP, the NSW Police Service, the ICAC, the Judicial Commission, or to the Royal Commission.

Importantly, the report stated:

As to the question of the adequacy of the police investigation, it is the conclusion of the Royal Commission, in the circumstances outlined, that:

•the investigation entrusted to Mr Rope was not carried out adequately -

he was an inspector of police -

•the Service was misled;

•the NSW Ombudsman and, in consequence, the ICAC, were misled;

•the Judicial Commission was not properly informed of the outcome of the police investigations, even though the Service was aware of its interest in the matter;

•[the Informant] was unfairly treated in that the information was not properly acted upon; and

•the investigation was unfair to the judicial officer in that the officer had not been afforded an impartial exhaustive and professional investigation.

The report concluded:

The matter is complicated by the manner in which the file was managed and its contents "lost". Whether or not some sinister feature underlines that event, the Commission is very troubled that Rope could have provided a report to Hadley that was clearly incorrect. The Commission finds it hard to accept that this was a result simply of inadvertence. It is more inclined to the view that it was as the result of Rope feeling that he was in a very difficult position, in which he lacked proper support or direction. This was almost certainly due in part to the undue deference paid to people in high places, and also due to the entirely inappropriate philosophy at the time that sensitive matters were better left undisturbed and unknown. In Rope’s favour, and inconsistent with deliberate misconduct on his part, is the fact that he produced his notebook to the Royal Commission, when he could easily have destroyed or concealed it.

The commissioner then made a motherhood statement about supporting police officers who are investigating allegations against people in high office. Mr Rope said that the allegation had been properly investigated and that former Commissioner Avery and former Commissioner Lauer could not recall anything about it. They did not know whether the file was stolen or lost. It was Keystone Cops stuff. Mr Rope informed the royal commissioner that when he was asked to conduct the investigation he felt he was being placed in a difficult situation. He said also that the informant was out to get the judicial officer in whatever way possible. He took the view that what he had been told was hearsay of a sensitive nature and he felt uncomfortable about it. He had little or no help and felt that the investigation had been off-loaded onto him.

At the time he was supersensitive about false allegations being made and was adamant that he wanted something in writing before he pursued the matter further. He acknowledged that as a consequence he failed to follow up the information provided or even to make fundamental checks concerning some aspects. Mr Rope said that had the information concerned someone other than the judicial officer he may well have followed it up more thoroughly. He took copies of some of the
Page 6873
documents from the file and kept them in his office until he retired from the Police Service in May 1996. When asked why he had done this he replied, "A lot of correspondence did go missing and it was one way of keeping track of what you were doing." When he retired he took the material home. He agreed that having at his home sensitive material relating to the investigation of allegations against the judicial officer was a dangerous and insecure practice. His evidence did not explain the absence of the remainder of the file.

Given all the information the committee received about the Hon. Franca Arena and about the Wood royal commission, the members of the committee, as reasonable lay people, had to consider whether her actions were justified. The committee found, in accordance with the terms of reference, that her actions were not justified. I support the recommendations in the report. I acknowledge that the members of the committee worked exceptionally well together to achieve this fair outcome, which will provide protection to the House, its members and the citizens of New South Wales. I commend each committee member and endorse the chairman’s thanks to the staff for their hard work and assistance during the long and arduous process of the inquiry.

I believe there is a need for a full and comprehensive inquiry into all aspects of paedophilia in our community. Such an investigation was not within the terms of reference of the committee’s inquiry. However, the confidential material I have read during the conduct of the inquiry has led me to believe that there is an urgent need to address paedophilia. The community will not trust the political or judicial process until such an inquiry takes place. I fully support the recommendations in the report and the Opposition’s amendments to the motion moved by the Attorney General.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.36 p.m.]: For the second time today I thank the Clerks and officers of the Parliament who assisted the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics with its inquiry into the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena relating to the delivery of her speech on 17 September 1997, the day of the tabling of the final report of the Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service on the paedophile reference, an issue in which Hon. Franca Arena is particularly interested. The committee simultaneously dealt with the Arena inquiry and the second reference dealing with a code of conduct, but the essential matters for members to focus on when deliberating on the report related to the speech of the Hon. Franca Arena on 17 September 1997. Given everything that has happened in the Legislature this year, the officers and staff of the Legislative Council deserve our special thanks.

The consensus view of the committee was that the speech delivered by the Hon. Franca Arena on 17 September 1997 contained allegations from which imputations could be drawn about certain alleged meetings and the purposes for which those meetings were held. These were the subject of the inquiry. The committee acknowledged that the Hon. Franca Arena did not expressly describe such alleged conduct as either illegal or involving a conspiracy. However, the committee found that imputations to that effect were made in her speech and, therefore, the sanction of suspension should be applied until those remarks are withdrawn and an apology is made to the House for those elements in the speech which gave rise to those imputations.

It is important to refer to the terms of reference of the Arena inquiry. They were to examine the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena in making her speech, not to conduct its own inquiry into paedophilia in New South Wales. That is for the law enforcement agencies and judicial officers of this State and, indeed, this nation, or for other commissions of inquiry should the government of the day and the Legislature so decide. The committee has decided, and this House will also probably decide, that the Hon. Franca Arena should not be expelled. That clearly signals that quite properly she, and any other member, is free to keep up the pressure to bring paedophiles to justice via the legal system. If the law enforcement and judicial processes prove inadequate, other forms of investigation and exposure, such as a dedicated royal commission with suitable and specific terms of reference, can and should be established.

In her submission to the inquiry the Hon. Franca Arena properly noted that no points of order were taken during her speech on 17 September 1997. There are various theories about why that was so, and the committee has chosen not to speculate upon them. It is noteworthy, however, that the Attorney General was in the House when the Hon. Franca Arena made that speech. He would be expected to take a point of order if a member were transgressing the privilege of free speech, especially as the verdict of the Government was that the Hon. Franca Arena should be expelled for her allegations, which were made under parliamentary privilege. He would also have been expected to take a point of order, if the Government was on alert, after the adjournment speech made by the Hon. Franca Arena the previous year when she referred to a judge, later revealed to be Justice Yeldham. This made it all the
Page 6874
more remarkable that the Attorney did not take a point of order.

It was not my intuitive judgment at the time that the Hon. Franca Arena made her speech that she warranted expulsion. I came to that view because of my fear that the application of the most severe sanction could jeopardise the important privilege that attaches to the Parliament: the right of members to speak freely on any issue on behalf of their constituents and in accordance with their consciences. From the beginning of this inquiry I was mindful that the committee’s recommendations, particularly on the question of a sanction, should not pave the way for a watering down of the right to free speech in an Australian Parliament. The Leader of the Government in this House, the Hon. M. R. Egan, is on the Hansard record as saying that the idea of expulsion is dangerous, or at least it was dangerous if he was in the line of fire. Obviously if a member offends the sensibilities of the majority of members, party political considerations may enter into the question of whether to expel that member, particularly as that sanction is by way of a simple majority if it is applied. That is inappropriate in a democracy.

The expulsion sanction as it relates to the Hon. Franca Arena is unlike that which applies to members expelled from the Legislative Assembly. In this instance consideration was given to the Constitution Act, which prohibits her from contesting the vacancy that would be caused were she expelled. So, elements of the debate about the expulsion sanction are different for a member of the Legislative Council to what they are for a member of the Legislative Assembly. It is instructive to study the case of the honourable member for Gloucester, Mr R. A. Price, who was expelled from the Legislative Assembly. Despite the findings of a royal commission that statements made under parliamentary privilege by him had been made wantonly and recklessly and without any foundation whatsoever, and despite the decision of the Legislative Assembly to expel him, that gentleman was re-elected at the general election only weeks after his expulsion.

It is interesting to note that Mr Price was not endorsed for that 1917 election by his party, the Nationalists. Presumably it disowned him as a result of the royal commission report and expulsion. That party, of course, endorsed another candidate. Mr Price stood as an Independent and beat his own party’s endorsed candidate for the electorate of Gloucester. Were the Hon. Franca Arena to be put out on to the street, so to speak, because of a motion to expel her, and she decides to run again in next year’s general election, what is the betting that sufficient people would choose to vote her back in to the House as a sort of protest at the harshness of such a sanction? Members of this House know that we have no power to punish, but the general public would not necessarily view an expulsion in that light.

I was appalled to learn that when Mr Price spoke in the Legislative Assembly in his defence most members were not in the House; the jury did not turn up. It is no wonder that the electors in Gloucester demonstrated their contempt for the Legislative Assembly’s behaviour in that instance. In the case of Mr R. A. Baker, another member of the Legislative Assembly who was expelled, there was an extraordinary unanimous rescission motion, but it was too late for Mr Baker. The Legislative Assembly, after expelling him, realised that it had initially come to the wrong conclusion about his alleged conduct unworthy of a member. He had been accused of benefiting himself improperly out of a compensation fund appropriated by Parliament. Mr Baker’s action was the subject of a royal commission.

Mr Baker’s counsel successfully argued that the royal commission had not proved the case against Mr Baker and that, in any case, due process had not been followed. He claimed that due process in a case involving allegations of potentially corrupt or criminal activity of a member of Parliament should be determined by a court of law. Like Mr Price, Mr Baker was later re-elected to the Assembly but I wonder what such a judgment, especially as it was wrong, did to the man and those close to him. His expulsion and then the carriage of a motion rescinding the motion is like the Executive Council of Victoria rescinding the motion to hang Ronald Ryan, but doing so after his execution at Pentridge gaol. The question of the possible abuse of the power to expel was considered in a case in which Alexander Ewan Armstrong sought to challenge his expulsion from this House. His counsel suggested that the Council’s power to expel a member for conduct unworthy would be capable of abuse, although Chief Justice Herron stated, "There is no record of such a power having been abused by a State or colonial Legislature in which it is vested."

It is obvious to me that had the motion to expel the Hon. Franca Arena survived and had it been carried, many people in New South Wales would have believed that the power to expel had been abused. I well remember, only a couple of months ago, the Hon. Franca Arena attempting to cross Macquarie Street during the lunch adjournment on the day New South Wales Farmers Association
Page 6875
was holding a large protest rally against the Carr Government. She was literally besieged by people from country New South Wales who urged her not to give up her fight against the exposure of paedophiles in this State. There is no question that many people in New South Wales identify with her campaign on this issue.

In contrast to the behaviour I mentioned in the Legislative Assembly surrounding the expulsion of the member for Gloucester, it is appropriate to point out that the minutes of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics report, which have been tabled, show the extraordinarily high turn-up rate by all nine members; there was generally 100 per cent attendance. At the scores of meetings held the committee sought to ensure that due process was afforded to the Hon. Franca Arena and that proper consideration was given to the weighty issues involved. The Hon. Franca Arena was concerned, quite rightly, that she be heard by her peers. It was pleasing that those of her peers who serve on that committee took their role seriously.

In coming to its recommendations about the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena, the committee was well aware that the Australian Parliament, after a thorough study of questions surrounding parliamentary privilege, including free speech, concluded that it should abandon the power to expel members and senators and acted upon that conclusion. The Australian Parliament has no power to expel one of its members or senators. I have no doubt that at the outset of the inquiry the majority of the members of the committee hoped that there would be a recommendation to expel the Hon. Franca Arena and that the House would act upon such a recommendation. Instead, the committee came to the unanimous conclusion that she should not be expelled. That was a dramatic turnaround by some members of the committee, a turnaround that I applaud.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Where does it say that?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is the subtext of the entire document. The report demonstrates that the committee’s extensive deliberations teased out the important issues to be considered on both sides of the debate. The need to protect the freedom of speech had to be balanced with the desire to protect the reputation of the House from the charge of an abuse of parliamentary privilege. During the hearings there were times when I believe that the Hon. Franca Arena had every reason to be distressed at the proceedings. I have served on a multitude of parliamentary committees which have been called upon to examine all manner of issues and cross-examine all types of persons. At times the Hon. Franca Arena received rougher than usual handling, so to speak. I am sure she would be able to detect the concerns about that behaviour which are reflected in the words sprinkled throughout the report by the members of the committee who were, like me, of that view.

The terms of the apology recommended by the committee were arrived at after months of meetings. I was concerned that as the life of the fifty-first Parliament was slipping away - and, of course, we now have fixed-term Parliaments - the committee should attempt to conclude its deliberations before the House rose for the school holiday break and that there should be an opportunity for debate on the report before that break. I believe that was in the interests of both the House and the Hon. Franca Arena.

There was a suspicion in my mind that some members of the committee were aiming, once it became clear that the numbers in favour of expulsion were not there, to achieve the same result by way of the Hon. Franca Arena effectively expelling herself in indefinite suspension. That would have been achieved had the issue dragged on - not that there was ever any instance of tardiness in the prodigious work of the standing committee, but in those circumstances it could have dragged on into the spring and until the matter was resolved by this House. Today we do not know what the timetable finally will be. There have been plenty of suggestions around this place, however, that the Parliament will get up before the scheduled completion of sitting days for the rest of the year due to the inevitability of an election in the new year.

I do not know if that was the intention of some members, but I certainly thought that that was what could have happened and I believed that was not the way the issue should be handled. The committee did consider recommending that the wording of an apology from the Hon. Franca Arena be left to be worked out between the Hon. Franca Arena and the committee, if the House agreed with the findings and that recommendation of the committee. I was concerned again that that would possibly leave the Hon. Franca Arena in limbo. What if the committee, after months of unbroken work on this issue, had found that its deliberations on the issue could not be quickly resolved with the Hon. Franca Arena? The question of timeliness did therefore enter into my thought processes, and I believe that was appropriate.

Page 6876

The ultimate wording of an apology and the way that it might be processed are, of course, still in the hands of the House. In coming to the conclusions about the appropriate sanction in the case of the Hon. Franca Arena, it is obvious that the committee was not considering any question of corruption on her part. Obviously, the Hon. Franca Arena derived no personal benefit from her conduct. Indeed, she has borne a heavy financial load in fighting aspects of her case in the courts, as is noted in the committee’s report. At the time of the bringing down of the Nader special commission of inquiry report, a day we all remember so well, 11 November 1997, the editorial in the Australian stated:

The nagging suspicion . . . is that senior politicians of all political persuasions are determined to get even with the outspoken anti-paedophile campaigner (and decidedly loose cannon) [Mrs Arena].

I do not consider that to be an accurate report of members of the National Party. I do not remember anyone in the National Party making such assertions. Certainly, however, that was the view of leaders of other political parties. The editorial continued:

NSW Premier Bob Carr believes Mrs Arena acted out of malice because she was not given a Cabinet post . . . this does show how personal feeling is injecting itself into the debate about the role of members of Parliament. Democracy should not be about getting even. Democracy might be uncomfortable from time to time but it is essential that it be respected and preserved.

Certainly that is at the core of the committee’s final unanimous finding with respect to the need to protect freedom of speech. In the previous month, when the Nader inquiry was getting under way, Bernard Lane wrote in the Australian:

But as Chief Justice Sir Gerard Brennan has pointed out, Parliament has privileges not for its convenience, and not for the ease of Members of Parliament, but for the public interest. If fear of the consequences prevents an MP from raising in Parliament some genuine grievance then it is the people who lose. That is why speech in Parliament has absolute privilege, and cannot be called into question by anyone outside the Parliament.

I agree with that sentiment. On 11 November last year the Hon. Franca Arena told an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program, "there is a short term and a long term". She was right. In having contributed to the primary finding that the Government’s motion to expel the Hon. Franca Arena was not the appropriate sanction, I have voted, and I believe the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, has voted for the long term. The old concept of freedom of speech in the Parliament contained in the Bill of Rights has been defended by the committee in considering the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena in this case. The Hon. Franca Arena at the conclusion of the speech that caused all this trouble, to her and to others, quoted the words of Edmund Burke, who said:

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

The Hon. Franca Arena has told the committee that she was inundated with information about suspected paedophile activity. With the lowly resources of a backbencher, and especially one in the Legislative Council - given that members of the Legislative Council have fewer resources than some other members in this Parliament - the Hon. Franca Arena could not possibly have investigated or checked out all the information that came her way. I accept that. The Hon. Franca Arena chose not to reveal her sources for some information that would have been of great interest and use to the committee. As all honourable members know, the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics and a previous report of the joint standing committee on parliamentary privilege have recommended that the House legislate its provisions. It has not done so.

On the question of whether sources are protected, the Clerk to the Senate, Mr Evans, has said that Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice should not be the only basis of advice in this matter. Erskine May states that no protection is afforded to informants. The Clerk to the Senate, however, has also written that, "parliamentary clerks, in advising on the matter, should not assume that the questions here considered - that is, whether or not there is protection - are closed." So one has sympathy for the Hon. Franca Arena in that regard. In my conclusion, instead of quoting Edmund Burke, I shall quote John Stuart Mill who stated in his treatise:

. . . When there are persons to be found who form an exception to the apparent unanimity of the world on any subject, even if the world is in the right, it is always probable that the dissentients have something worth hearing to say for themselves, and that truth would lose something by their silence.

I believe that members should be very careful about what they say under parliamentary privilege in a house of parliament about any people and what they do. I also believe, however, that no member of a democratic parliament should be silenced, and I am happy and relieved that the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics has in effect acknowledged that and has found a consensus on that fundamental issue.

Page 6877

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.56 p.m.]: I shall speak relatively briefly this afternoon on the inquiry into the Hon. Franca Arena and the motion before the House. It is remarkable that the committee’s report was unanimous. I believe that all members of the committee felt absolutely that the final recommendation was the correct recommendation. There was no member of the committee pushing for expulsion - I think we all believed that that was an inappropriate penalty. The Nader inquiry should never have been held; it was entirely the wrong way to go. Had we done the right thing in the first place and sent this matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics we would probably have ended up with the same report. I believe that there would never have been a motion to expel the Hon. Franca Arena.

Some of the reasons for that are detailed in the report. I urge honourable members who have not had a chance to read the report to read it thoroughly from beginning to end, because it is a very important document. No point of order was taken at the time the Hon. Franca Arena made her speech, and that is an important point. She was never given the opportunity to explain what she meant or to qualify it. The action taken against her was almost immediate and was taken in the heat of the moment. I believe she believed in what she said when she made that speech, but I also believe she was very wrong in what she said. I do not quite understand why she came to the conclusion that she did about the imputations that we would draw from what she said. The committee, having examined all the evidence, can find no reason to assume that those imputations had any foundation whatsoever.

The committee held very acrimonious hearings, and I was one of the members who led in asking harsh questions of the Hon. Franca Arena. I did that because the evidence that the committee received and the annexures to the submission of the Hon. Franca Arena to the committee contained some shocking pieces of information, part of which I read onto the record because I believed it was right to do that. It was right to let people know how bad this evidence was. I believe the Hon. Franca Arena herself was seriously misled by people around her. I believe she was very ill-advised. Some of the information she received was very wrong.

It is a great pity that the Hon. Franca Arena did not take a little more time and effort to examine the material coming to her because that material, in my view and I believe in the view of most members of the committee, was very wrong. The allegations made in the material - which I cannot canvass and I do not intend to canvass - in some instances referred to matters that had occurred 12 years before. There was heresy, things that did not exist were alleged to exist and people were supposed to be in a certain place but were not in that place. As a result of those allegations, not from the Hon. Franca Arena but from others, some people in our community have suffered enormously, and their reputations have suffered because of whispers that have circulated.

I never saw evidence that there were high profile paedophiles who had not been prosecuted or exposed or had died. Having read all the evidence I do not believe that any of the allegations were proved to be of substance. I am sure other committee members will agree. If the allegations against any people had substance, all of those people would be listed to appear before the courts, be in gaol or have committed suicide. Unfortunately, one or two did commit suicide before they got to court, and some were murdered. The significant clean-up that has occurred partly resulted from the campaign of the Hon. Franca Arena.

We must acknowledge that she has been sincere in her campaign. It is most unfortunate that she became so heated that she made unfounded allegations in this House which have led to this present situation. The whole process has been costly for her financially and emotionally. Her reputation in the community has now been almost totally destroyed. She must accept that other people have suffered from her comments in the House and from the inferences drawn from those comments - including the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Justice Wood, John Della Bosca, Justice Sheahan, and many unnamed judges. Each of them has suffered.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Does he stand by his answer yesterday that he had no role and no involvement in the approval of the contract between National Power and EnergyAustralia?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The contract between National Power and EnergyAustralia was a commercial matter for EnergyAustralia. It was not a matter for me.

Page 6878

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I ask a supplementary question. Given that answer, I refer to a letter dated 26 February 1996 from Mr A. H. Smith, Acting Chief Executive of EnergyAustralia, to the Treasurer, which stated:

The Board considered the Redbank project at its December meeting and resolved in principle to proceed with the project, subject to completion of certain matters and discussion with our shareholder -

namely, the Treasurer. How can the Treasurer claim that he had no role in the approval of the contract?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Because, as was appropriate, I informed EnergyAustralia that the proposed contract between it and National Power was a matter for the commercial judgment of EnergyAustralia.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice. Did the New South Wales Court of Appeal reduce the prison sentence of John Charles Dodd from 12 years imprisonment to 10 years for the crime of trafficking the illegal drug heroin and reduce the sentence of his accomplice, Prachaya Kavinmethavee, from six years to four years? Is it true that these two men were part of a drug trafficking ring of five people, three of whom were caught while leaving Bangkok airport in March 1996 with large commercial quantities of heroin and have been imprisoned for 50 years? Will the Attorney call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal the reduced prison sentences imposed for what courts have ruled is a serious crime?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I regret to say that I am not aware of the specific case to which the honourable member refers, but I shall make inquiries. The decision to which he refers would have been made by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The only avenue to challenge that decision would be by application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. Obviously, such special leave applications require a case to be made out of an error of principle rather than simply persuading the High Court that it would or should take a different view as to the appropriate sentence. Nonetheless, having indicated those cautionary words about the direction of appealing a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, I undertake to examine the judgment and communicate with the Director of Public Prosecutions about it.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services a question without notice. I understand that the Minister so ably outlined the operation of the natural disaster relief program in April, and the Government has finalised a series of grants for the restoration and repair of assets of 18 north coast councils under the natural disasters relief program. Will the Minister outline the benefits received by those communities?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I assure the House that the reference to the natural disasters relief program is not to be taken as a reference to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti! In an earlier response to a question on the scope of works undertaken by the Department of Public Works and Services in the north coast region, I highlighted the department’s more obvious contributions to the local infrastructure. The honourable member’s question allows me to mention some of the less obvious but no less critical contributions the Carr Government makes to the rural community. Honourable members will recall that my department manages and administers the natural disaster relief program, which provides financial assistance for the cost of emergency works and either replacement or restoration of public infrastructure.

These current grants were made in response to minor flooding of the lower Clarence River, below Grafton, as a result of storm activity on the far north coast of New South Wales in the first two weeks of May 1996. Throughout that time the local area was isolated and the Pacific Highway at Maclean was cut for several days. The adjacent areas of Tweed Heads, Ballina, Lismore and Casino also experienced damage in the aftermath of the storm. Damage was widespread and amounted to a total of $2.945 million; 18 councils applied for financial assistance to repair their community assets and restore essential services. The worst affected council region was that of the Clarence River County Council, which suffered damages totalling $1.967 million.

Clarence River County Council received financial assistance to repair flood damage to the levee systems that protect the city of Grafton and the townships of Maclean, Yamba, Iluka and Ulmarra. The funds were used to remove flood and storm debris from roadways, to repair levee banks that had partially washed away, and to check and repair floodgates that had become blocked or damaged by the floodwaters. Grafton council received approximately $330,000 for the repair of its
Page 6879
stormwater infrastructures, wharves and jetties, the reinstatement of the Grafton landfill facilities, and the removal of flood debris from footpaths, roadways, council property and buildings.

Emergency work included sandbagging the Cowan Street levee to prevent floodwaters further entering Grafton itself. Similarly, Tweed Shire Council received approximately $73,000 for emergency repairs to the Kynnumboon levee and for cleaning up Murwillumbah. Ballina Shire Council suffered severe erosion of its beaches resulting in the loss of those amenities and the chained walkways and pathways leading to the beaches. Lennox Head beach also suffered damage and had to be refaced. Maclean Shire Council received a grant of nearly $200,000 to replace boat ramps and for repairs to council properties including the civic hall, the State Emergency Services building, council depots and reserves, Maclean library, Maclean showground and the Stone Cottage Museum.

Nambucca Shire Council said the assistance of $121,000 would pay for the cost to repair walkways and the four-wheel drive tracks that provide access to the various beaches in the shire, and to restore the Macksville sewage treatment works outlet pipe and the Bowraville bore field. Other grant offers to councils from the New South Wales Government for repair and restoration of assets and the clean-up of debris ranged from $67,000 to Bogan Shire Council down to $6,000 for Richmond River Shire Council. This series of grants is confirmation of the Carr Government’s commitment to relieving communities, especially those in the country, of the heavy cost burdens of repairing public assets damaged by a declared natural disaster.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Did the Treasurer and his office receive, attached to a letter of 26 February 1996 from Mr A. H. Smith, copies of the business evaluation and legal due diligence of the agreement between EnergyAustralia and National Power for examination by the commercial sector division of Treasury? If the Treasurer, as he said yesterday in response to a question, had no role in the commercial activities of these organisations, why was such documentation provided to him and his office with the request that the Treasurer respond to EnergyAustralia as early as possible?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not recall any such correspondence but that is not to say that I or Treasury did not receive it. I certainly would not comment on it or on any possible response to it without first having a look at the records.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I ask a supplementary question. In a letter of 21 March 1996 to Mr Alf Smith, Acting Chief Executive of EnergyAustralia, the Treasurer said "there are a number of key issues associated with the project which the shareholding Ministers would like to address" in relation to approval of the Redbank project. The letter is specific about a number of elements of the contract with National Power, for example, hedge agreements, the financial standing of the consortium, the environmental benefits of the project and job creation in the Hunter. Does this not constitute a "role" in the approval of the project? Why has the Treasurer misled the House on at least two occasions in regard to this project?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not sure whether the letter of 21 March to which the Hon. D. F. Moppett refers is -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It is your letter.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As it is my letter I shall obtain a copy of it. It is probably the same letter in which I made it clear to EnergyAustralia that any contract with National Power was a commercial matter for the board.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading. As from today, 1 July, according to the Federal Government’s Workplace Relations Act, only 20 allowable matters will be permitted in Federal awards, which I think even the most anti-worker member of the Opposition would have to agree -

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: It’s me who has the threatening body language, not you.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: That was you, was it? The Hon. J. F. Ryan should talk to One Nation as he has backed that party in the past couple of days.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. I. M. Macdonald will address the Chair. He will not invite interjections and discussion across the Chamber.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: Will the Minister inform the House of the approach of the
Page 6880
New South Wales Government to the Federal Government’s so-called award simplification process and how the New South Wales award reforms differ from the horrendous Federal approach?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I respect the Hon. I. M. Macdonald’s vigilance. The question was framed in a disinterested fashion but contained a hint of the sort of answer the honourable member might expect. The so-called Federal award simplification process is a euphemism for the deprivation of rights of ordinary working people under Federal awards. Providing for only 20 allowable matters, not the full range of industrial matters as has been provided for in our Federal arbitration system since 1904, is a paring back of significant proportions. All other matters beyond the 20 matters will be subject only to a negotiation process between employers and employees. Since the passage of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 the New South Wales Government has been concerned that there is no guarantee that provisions removed from awards on the basis of so-called award simplification will be replicated in workplace agreements. This contradicts the pledge that no worker will be worse off under the current Federal system.

If certain rights and conditions are removed from awards and are not replicated in workplace agreements then by definition they have been lost, certainly as legally enforceable rights and conditions. Those who criticise the trade union movement for not taking the process seriously fail to realise that industry circumstances vary greatly and that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must act responsibly in applying the allowable matters test to each award and its clauses. The types of clauses removed from the Hospitality Industry Accommodation, Hotels, Resorts and Gaming Award 1995, which is the award that proceeded to arbitration before a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, include provisions relating to sexual harassment, standards for accommodation, a prohibition on employees being engaged as casuals in the hotel in which they are permanently employed, minimum or maximum hours of work for regular part-time employees other than the minimum number of consecutive hours, and notification and consultation on the introduction of change.

The major arbitrated decision on the award simplification process to date has been in the hospitality and metals industries. However, many Federal awards have not been through the award stripping exercise. In the coming months there will be considerable uncertainty for employers and employees at the operational level as to the status of award clauses. The New South Wales Government strongly advocates a broad review process premised on the variation of awards by consent. It intends to intervene in the Federal clothing trades award hearing. Our concern that the provisions removed from awards on the basis of award stripping will not be replicated in workplace agreements is highly relevant to clothing trades outworkers, who lack industrial relations expertise and bargaining power and are in need of award protection beyond the Federal Government’s narrow view of an award safety net.

Of all the workers who should be protected by legally enforceable rights, outworkers stand as a prime example. Yet I understand that employers and the Federal Government are seeking the removal of protective outworker provisions from the Federal clothing trades award. This Government will argue before the full bench that those provisions should be saved, that they should not be stripped from the award. I contrast that with the New South Wales industrial relations provisions enacted by this Parliament in 1996 which obviously allow for such protective measures. There is a clear ideological divide between the Federal coalition Government stripping awards and paring back on workers’ rights, and the New South Wales provisions which allow appropriate conciliation and protective measures to protect workers such as outworkers.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for Community Services. Is the Government aware that the Ryde branch of the Family Support Services Association, the largest agency within the FSSA, has been told by its accountants that unless more funding can be found it may become insolvent? What action will the Government take to ensure that the work of this important agency is not hindered by a lack of funding?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer the honourable member’s question to the Minister for Community Services and obtain a response for him.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Community Services, a question without notice. Is it a fact that members of the Family Support
Page 6881
Services Association were distributing literature in Parliament House today, Family Support Services Day, with the permission of the Presiding Officers? Is it also a fact that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Collins, objected to the distribution of material from that organisation promoting the 129 organisations funded by the Department of Community Services? Will the Minister explain to the House the objectionable nature of this material and the means by which the Family Support Services Association was told to leave the premises?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I can attest to the fact that the Family Support Services Association did distribute literature in the Parliament today, because I was given a copy of the document. Whether the presence of members of the association in the precincts of the Parliament was by arrangement with or permission of the Presiding Officers I do not know, nor do I know whether the Leader of the Opposition in the other place played some role in the matter. However, I undertake to make inquiries for the honourable member.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Services. The reduction of waste and the elimination of duplication greatly benefit the community. Will the Minister advise the House how the Department of Public Works and Services has used its administration of period contracts to achieve these benefits for the people of New South Wales?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: New South Wales Supply, which is a business unit of the Department of Public Works and Services, develops and implements procurement arrangements for the New South Wales Government, for local government authorities and community organisations on behalf of the State Contracts Control Board and some client organisations. By using the Government’s purchasing power, clients can achieve price savings of between 10 and 15 per cent through their usage of goods and services contracts. Sales through usage of these contracts in 1996-97 were estimated at a total of $1.8 billion, of which some $1.3 billion is State Government expenditure. This represents considerable savings across the whole of government. In addition, there are savings associated with reduction in costs for procurement transactions, as well as the elimination of duplication by government departments in procurement functions, thus allowing them to concentrate on their core business.

As an example of the use of purchasing power to reduce costs to taxpayers, I highlight the recent awarding of the fuel contract on behalf of government agencies. Honourable members may be aware that a new fuel contract was awarded in March this year. This is the New South Wales Government’s second largest period contract and is recognised as one of the best in its field in Australia. Each year government agencies purchase approximately 222 million litres of fuel, valued at some $155 million, through this contract. Petrol and diesel comprise the bulk of fuel covered by the contract, with minor products including heating oil, lighting kerosene, aviation fuel, two-stroke fuel and LPG Autogas. The contract services the needs of both State and local government organisations and fuels more than 40,000 motor vehicles, including mobile plant and equipment. In addition to the $49 million in savings that the contract is expected to net the Government over its first four-year term, I am delighted to announce that the contract’s principal supplier, Shell Australia -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Only a four-year term is what you mean. You will be lucky to survive that long.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s interjection indicates his invincible ignorance and lack of attention. I am referring here to a four-year contract - that is, a contract having a term of four years. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is so distracted by other matters, and so unable to focus on the business of the House - unlike you, Madam President, if I may say so - that he imagines I am talking about terms of government. I am talking about terms of contracts.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On a point of order. I find the statement by the Minister for Public Works and Services that I was distracted from the proceedings of the House to be offensive, and I would like the statement to be withdrawn. I was carefully listening to his speech - as only I can do. I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services to withdraw that offensive comment.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On the point of order. It is unbelievable that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti suggests that a reference to him being distracted from the proceedings of the House is offensive. If that reference were ruled to be out of order, it would mean that very few comments critical of a member could be made.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Further to the point of order. I was actually listening very carefully to the Minister for Public Works and Services. His
Page 6882
comment indicated that I had interjected without carefully listening to what he was saying. In fact, I was listening carefully to what he was saying. He is now saying that I was distracted from the proceedings of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I too have listened carefully to the remarks of the Minister for Public Works and Services. While I have some sympathy for the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, I do not uphold the point of order.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I was about to indicate that I am delighted to announce that the contract’s principal supplier, Shell Australia, has included an added feature in its offer. This feature provides, at no extra cost to the Government, an environmental and safety package program of inspection and remedial action in bulk fuel storage facilities which will save the New South Wales Government a further $800,000 during the term of the contract. I am certain that my colleague the Treasurer is delighted to hear me say that taxpayers and the Government will be saved $800,000 as a result of that enhancement to the contract that the Government has been able to obtain via its negotiations with Shell Australia.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is addressed to the Hon. A. B. Kelly, in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development. Will the Chairman explain why the honourable member for Paterson, Mr Bob Baldwin, was not given an opportunity to appear before the committee in its inquiry into Rack Rite’s failure to progress its proposed development in Maitland, which was the subject of a report by the committee?

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I thank the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on the matter of Rack Rite. As the honourable member would be aware, the committee’s report, which was tabled in the House today, included its finding on the Rack Rite issue after extensive inquiries of Mr O’Callaghan and a number of people from Maitland City Council.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s question relates to why Mr Baldwin was not invited to appear before the committee. Mr Baldwin actually wrote a letter to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti - not to the committee - only a few days before the report was to be printed. The committee was required to table its report in the House by 1 July. By the time Mr Baldwin wrote to the committee there simply was not time to ask him to appear before the committee to give evidence. However, Mr Baldwin advised the committee and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti of his involvement in the matter by way of letter, which the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has gracefully appended to the report.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I ask a supplementary question. Given that during the formal proceedings of the committee I asked for Mr Baldwin to be given the opportunity to appear before it, well in advance of the date that the report was to be tabled, why did the Hon. A. B. Kelly, as Chairman of the committee, not accede to that request to give Mr Baldwin the natural justice of appearing before the committee?

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: The decision to invite him or not was in the hands of the committee. I recall you discussing it with me in Orange only a week or so before that meeting. As I recall, it was at a dinner -

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. A. B. Kelly will address his remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: It was at a dinner, which was also attended by a number of other members of this House, two weeks ago, at the time of the National Party conference.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I address my question to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Corrective Services. Further to a question I asked on Monday, 29 June, regarding the proposed correctional facility at Wirra Warra station near Enngonia, is his department aware that the proposal is already placing considerable stress on families, particularly immediate neighbours, who are worried about the unavoidable times when women and children are on their own at isolated properties in the area? Is his department aware that when Wirra Warra becomes isolated by water, which occurs frequently in times of heavy rainfall, it also becomes isolated from essential services, particularly medical services?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer the honourable member’s question to the Minister for Corrective Services to obtain a response.

Page 6883

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police, whether he can give a detailed update as to how police procedures have changed in the past 12 months - since the police assassination of Roni Levi on Bondi Beach - to prevent the killing of mentally disturbed people wielding knives in public places? Will the Minister give an assurance that if a Roni Levi-type incident recurs, the mentally disturbed person will not be shot dead, but disarmed in a non-lethal way?

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: On a point of order. The honourable member used the words "the police assassination of Roni Levi on Bondi Beach". Those words could have been better phrased.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: On the point of order. That phrase was used on the radio by the late victim’s brother. The family feels it has had no justice. The words might be slightly strong, but that is how the family feels about it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is now clear that the words attributed to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones were in fact used by the brother of the deceased. The question is in order.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: This has been a difficult case for the police and the legal system. The honourable member knows, and I am sure this underpins his question, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has determined that the police officers involved will not stand trial for any offence in relation to the incident. The DPP has not in any way criticised the Coroner and, I appreciate his reasoning, has found a prima facie case but no reasonable prospect that a jury would convict the officers in all of the circumstances. My advice is that the DPP has determined the matter solely on the admissible evidence available for presentation to a court.

As honourable members know, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 was introduced to ensure that decisions made in the prosecution process are made independently of any government control and political interference, which is a good thing. It is an important attribute of our criminal justice system. Minds might differ about how it has worked in this case, but it has worked objectively and at arm’s length from the political process. The honourable member specifically asked about revision of police processes in view of the incident. Although I have some general knowledge about it and an understanding of changes that have been made, it would be prudent to refer the question to the Minister for Police to obtain appropriate details, as sought in the honourable member’s question.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Yesterday, in response to an interjection from an honourable member, the Minister said he would provide the House with information on the call centre industry in Australia. Is the Minister in a position to provide the House with any developments in that vital field of endeavour?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is true that yesterday, on the prompting of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, I gave an assurance to him and the House that today I would say something about call centres.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: You should resist such temptations.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Should I? Call centres in New South Wales come in two forms: those designed to service our domestic market, which I will call domestic call centres; and those designed to service the international market, particularly the Asia-Pacific region, which I will call Asia-Pacific call centres. Let me first give some details about the domestic call centre industry. Currently, 50,000 people are employed in about 1,000 call centres across Australia. Call centres inject nearly $1.9 billion - a lot of money - into the national economy. The industry is growing at a huge rate of about 25 per cent a year. New South Wales is home to 60 per cent of the national call centres. In New South Wales the industry employs 30,000 people in 600 call centres and injects $1.1 billion into the State’s economy.

By the year 2000 it is estimated that the call centre industry in Australia will be bigger than the $2.4 billion film and television industry. In 10 years time the Australian call centre industry will employ approximately 300,000 people, at least half of whom will be employed in New South Wales. We anticipate that within a decade the 30,000 people employed in New South Wales call centres will increase to 150,000 - an increase of 120,000 jobs in the call centre industry in New South Wales alone. As I mentioned earlier, the international call centres operating in Australia are designed to provide information to the Asia-Pacific region from the one location. Some 130 international call centres are located across the Asia-Pacific region, with more than half - 65 - located in Sydney.

Page 6884

Victoria has 30 call centres - and I apologise to Victoria because in the past I have said that it has only 10 - Queensland has 10, South Australia has four, Western Australia has one, Singapore has 10 and the rest of Asia has 10. These figures alone reinforce Sydney’s reputation as one of the region’s leading business centres. Companies are attracted to Sydney for a number of reasons, such as its multilingual work force, lifestyle benefits and cheaper operating costs compared with those in other major centres, such as Hong Kong and Singapore. The call centre industry is one of the most dynamic industries in New South Wales. The Government will do everything it can to encourage its continued growth.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development, and relates to the report tabled in this House entitled "Future Employment and Business Opportunities in the Hunter Region and the Downsizing of the Rack Rite Investment Proposal" for the Maitland district. Is it a fact that certain persons named in the Rack Rite report were given the courtesy of having copies of the Standing Committee on State Development report freighted to them overnight last night so that they would be in a position to immediately respond to the findings in the report upon its tabling in this House today? Given that the Federal member for Paterson, Mr Bob Baldwin, was arguably the prime target of the Government’s reference in this matter, why was he not selected as one of the persons to receive an early copy of the report?

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I am not aware of who in the media did or did not get copies of the report. Further to my earlier answer, the Hon. J. R. Johnson was most disappointed when we arrived at that restaurant in Orange a couple of weeks ago: he thought the Patmos restaurant was Irish, not Greek.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Hon. A. B. Kelly know whether advanced copies of the standing committee’s report were overnight freighted to any person?

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: No, I am not aware of that. Perhaps the media received advance copies, no doubt under an embargo. It was not my responsibility to distribute the report. I shall take the question on notice.

The Hon. I. COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Was an environmental impact statement required for the seawall that has been built by the Department of Sport and Recreation in conjunction with Ballina Shire Council to protect the Lake Ainsworth Sport and Recreation Centre? Why was the development agreed to when both the council and the department were advised that the additional structure was within the critical hazard zone and that it was advisable to relocate the centre? Is the seawall consistent with the New South Wales Government’s coastal policy guidelines?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not conversant with the issue raised by the Hon. I. Cohen. I will refer the question to my colleague and obtain a detailed response.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading. What can the Minister tell the House about today’s deadline for compliance with the new national standard for cot safety?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Children suffer a considerable number of accidents - unfortunately, some are fatal - caused by nursery furniture, particularly cots. Each year unsafe nursery furniture results in 6,500 treatments by doctors and 540 hospital admissions. Most of the injuries are to babies under one year of age. They are startling statistics. Thirteen infants lost their lives in accidents involving unsafe cots in New South Wales between 1988 and 1996. From today it will be illegal to sell cots that do not comply with the new national safety standard. Yesterday Professor Danny Cass, of the New Children’s Hospital at Westmead, joined me to demonstrate to observers the safety features of a cot that complies with the new standard.

The standard sets specifications for safety features, such as the space between bars to prevent infants from getting their head caught, the space between the mattress and the side of the cot to prevent infants from rolling into the gap and suffocating, and the exposure of dangerous screws and bolts that can catch infants’ clothing. Professor
Page 6885
Cass praised the Government for its initiative. While the standard is a national compulsory standard, it is widely acknowledged that New South Wales has led the way to have the reform realised. Organisations such as Kidsafe, the Australian Consumers Association, the Infants Products Association of Australia, the Sudden Infant Death Association, and the New Children’s Hospital worked with government towards the standard. I commend those organisations for their great assistance on that initiative.

From 1 July all parents who buy cots should insist that they comply with the new standard. Cot suppliers should be able to provide a copy of a valid test report on request. People who buy second-hand cots privately or pass down cots from family or friends are not affected. However, they should check the safety features of the cots with the Department of Fair Trading. A facts sheet on cot safety is available from any one of the 23 fair trading centres around the State. Parents and child carers should be aware that the new regulation also applies to second-hand dealers, as they cannot sell unsafe cots. In time, all second-hand cots will comply with the standard as unsafe cots will drop out of use.

I am advised that manufacturers of new cots assure parents that the price of new cots will not rise as a result of the change. From today my department will undertake regular inspections of manufacturers and retailers to ensure that cots on sale comply with the law. Manufacturers and retailers who are found not to conform with the standard will face fines of up to $110,000. The welcome reform means that from today very young children in New South Wales have better protection from serious injury while they sleep and play in what is supposed to be one of their safest places.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. On 31 March the Minister said in response to a question from me:

The Government is committed to comprehensive primary, central and high schools as the core of the NSW public education system.

Is the Minister aware of recent press coverage that demonstrates the failure of one size fits all comprehensive high schools to meet the needs of students in disadvantaged areas? Is the Minister further aware that such one size fits all educational strategies have been criticised as a failure by the Federal Labor shadow minister, Mark Latham? Does the Government have any plan to address the serious social injustice of an educational system that is failing its most disadvantaged students? Or will reform require the media to expose schools, such as occurred with Mount Druitt, with the ensuing horrific cruelty to the young people involved?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have a bias in this matter, having attended a comprehensive high school myself - as did the Premier, Mr Carr, and other members of Parliament. Comprehensive high schools are important institutions in our society and are worthy of defence. That is not to say that they should be the only species of public education. The system need not be homogeneous - and it is not. Obviously, diversity is in the system but the defence of comprehensive high school education is important.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading. Will the Minister inform the House what steps have been taken by the Equal Opportunity Tribunal to improve the management of matters before it?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Equal Opportunity Tribunal is an important part of the New South Wales anti-discrimination system. I have maintained the appointees of the previous Government on that tribunal, and I have appointed some new people, including a senior judicial member who was a judge of the District Court, Her Honour Judge H. G. Murrell. I am pleased to say that although the EOT has experienced a steady growth in the number of matters referred to it by the Anti-Discrimination Board, it has taken steps to be pro-active to implement management procedures, which have ensured that the tribunal, despite its increased workload, remains an efficient and effective judicial body.

The tribunal has 222 cases on hand, of which 130 matters have been referred. With the exception of group cases received in the previous year, the number of matters referred to it in the past two years remains constant. The tribunal continues to encourage the parties to participate in mediation conferences in anticipation of settlement. That process may be done with the assistance of a judicial member appointed by the tribunal or
Page 6886
independently. That approach has resulted in a high rate of success. The tribunal is endeavouring to streamline the procedures for mediation conferences. A list of mediators has been created to ensure that mediators are isolated from hearing matters and vice versa.

Parties who nominate to attempt settlement by mediation are requested to sign an agreement to participate in the mediation to ensure that they consent to it. Of the 100 matters concluded this financial year, 65 were by settlement. To ensure that delays are minimised, the tribunal is committed to its case management system and to ensure that a high level of commitment and client service is provided to all. The tribunal is in the process of implementing a registrar's call-over to deal with administrative issues that cause delays in the progress of matters. This will also help alleviate the difficulties the tribunal has experienced in filling vacancies caused by legal representatives overestimating the length of cases. The average time for the resolution of matters in 1997-98 was seven to eight months.

It is anticipated that, with the implementation of these initiatives, the time frame will be reduced to approximately six months in the next financial year. The tribunal continues to conduct general call-overs on a monthly basis for new cases referred to it. It sits to judicially manage the new cases referred and any long-standing matters that require specific judicial assistance. The call-overs are conducted by the senior judicial member sitting alone. The provision of a duty solicitor to the tribunal has greatly assisted unrepresented parties in filing their documents and securing legal assistance. I congratulate the EOT on the work it is doing.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is directed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development. Standing Order 252 states:

Evidence taken by any Select Committee of the House, and documents presented to such Committee which have not been reported to the House, may not, except with the permission of the Committee, be disclosed or published by any Member of such Committee or by any other person.

What steps will the Chairman take to inform the House who was responsible for this breach? Who authorised the release of those documents which were not tabled at that time?

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I believe that I have already answered that question to the best of my ability, but I will make further inquiries.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of a report in today’s Daily Telegraph concerning a business in Arncliffe that has been robbed 23 times in two years? Is it a fact that the insurance premiums of this business have leapt from $8,000 to $15,000 per annum? Is the Minister aware that, according to the chairman of the 1,500 strong New South Wales Food Retailers Association, every one of the members of that organisation has suffered a robbery or theft? Will the Minister accept the chairman’s claim, given that the computer system containing the association’s records were stolen yesterday? What action will the Minister take to address the crime epidemic against small business throughout New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer the honourable member’s question to the Minister for Police and obtain a response.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. What is New South Wales Government doing to assist small businesses in this State?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The New South Wales Government is committed to assisting the growth and development of small- to medium-size enterprises in both regional and metropolitan New South Wales. Unfortunately, as some honourable members may be aware, today the highly successful AusIndustry enterprise improvement scheme will cease. For more than 11 years successive Commonwealth and State governments have actively and jointly supported enterprise improvement programs aimed at small and medium businesses, but not any more. The Commonwealth Government has decided to axe its half of the $9 million for the AusIndustry program in New South Wales.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: What has the National Party done?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What has the National Party done? The Commonwealth Government’s share of $4.5 million is not a huge
Page 6887
sum, but the funding achieved exceptional results. In 1996 the average annual growth of businesses in the New South Wales AusIndustry portfolio was: 13.4 per cent in sales; 12.1 per cent in employment; 14.2 per cent in gross profit; and 69.5 per cent in exports. That translated to 6,100 new jobs, $740 million worth of new exports and $290 million worth of new investment. But those figures mean nothing to the Howard Government. While big businesses are downsizing and cutting jobs the small- and medium-size businesses are experiencing growth and creating more employment. Throughout Australia in 1996 businesses with between five and 200 employees created 104,000 net new jobs compared to a net loss of 13,000 jobs by large companies.

An independent report commissioned by the Federal Government into AusIndustry showed the greatest difference between the AusIndustry group and a controlled group was in the growth of export sales. AusIndustry participants had achieved a growth rate of 80 per cent compared with 27.5 per cent for non-AusIndustry participants. The Federal Government axed the program before it even received the report that it had commissioned. We have more than 299,000 small businesses in this State and many of them are based in regional New South Wales. It is these small businesses that provide the greatest source of employment for the regions. My Parliamentary Secretary for small business, Sandra Nori, has been campaigning for the Federal Government to have funding reinstated. I assure this House that the New South Wales Government has not and will not abandon small and medium enterprises in this State in the same way that the Federal coalition has. Further, we are continuing to provide a number of programs aimed at increasing turnover, exports and jobs in the small business sector.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Housing, why HomeFund interest rates are capped at 9.75 per cent when most other home interest rates are between 6 and 7 per cent? Why are people who are suffering hardship being penalised with high interest rates? Why is the Government still chasing people for HomeFund debts when they have lost their homes already? Will the Government forgo the remaining outstanding debts and let these people get on with their lives?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member’s question to my colleague the Minister for Housing, but I think he may have misunderstood recent action taken by the Government that has reduced HomeFund loans from around 15 per cent to 9 per cent. That is the maximum cap.

[Interruption]

The honourable member might argue that but he should not forget that that is a subsidy from the New South Wales Government. I am sure that the honourable member is not aware of that. I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Housing for a detailed response.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment, whether he will outline what actions the Minister for the Environment has taken to ensure that future chemical spills, for example, the recent incident when 10,000 litres of sodium hypochlorite spilled from a fibreglass tanker into the Brunswick River, will not and cannot occur again?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I undertake to refer that question to the Minister for the Environment and obtain a response.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is addressed to the Leader of the Government, and the Treasurer - Mr Moneybags himself. Is the Treasurer aware that the Minister for Fisheries, the Hon. Bob Martin -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I thought you were going to ask me a question about Redbank.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: No. This question is about finance and government undertakings. On 28 May the Minister for Fisheries wrote to the chairman of the management advisory committee of the estuary prawn trawl fishery stating:

I can confirm that there is no proposal by this Government to close down commercial fisheries without compensating fishers.

A month later the same Minister stated on radio that he believed that compensation would amount to $300 million for that fishery alone. Has the Treasurer made a provision in the budget to meet that figure of $300 million if that fishery is closed down, as is widely speculated? What would be the effect of such unfunded commitments on the deficit of New South Wales and on its credit rating?

Page 6888

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Fisheries. I must say that I get quite confused when people talk about fishers.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: One fish; two fishers.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: To me a fisherman is a fisherman. Is the honourable member going to ask me a question about Redbank? I hurried when giving my previous answers as I realised that the honourable member was interested in asking a question.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You have got time to go back and read your letter.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I wanted to have an opportunity to read the letter onto Hansard. Why does the honourable member not give me an opportunity to do that?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer will direct his remarks to the Chair. As the Treasurer is unwell he should not excite himself.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development, a question without notice. Is the Government planning to redraft the Liquor Act to include a provision allowing the serving of liquor without meals in restaurants? If so, will the Government give an assurance to the hotel industry that stand-and-consume style drinking will not be available in restaurants?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall obtain a full response from my colleague the Minister for Gaming and Racing.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister tell the House how many businesses can expect to benefit from the next phase of retail competition in electricity supply, which began on 28 June?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I can but I will not, it being almost 5.00 p.m.

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

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 27 May the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked me a question about pesticide exposure. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer:

There have been four reports to the mid-north coast population health unit regarding problems experienced by the Want family since October 1997. The problems are claimed to have been caused by a spray used at a nearby farm. Treatment and action concerning the Want children’s alleged condition is the province of the treating doctor. It is not the role of the unit or the New South Wales Health Department to comment on particular cases.

The unit, in co-operation with the Environmental Protection Authority - EPA - confirmed that only an approved pesticide was being used on the farm. The EPA, being the appropriate regulatory authority, was to conduct investigations in association with both parties concerned. Multiple chemical sensitivity - MCS - is generally regarded as a highly complex problem which has been debated and investigated in professional circles for many years. The long-term effects on children of exposure to pesticides is considered in the system of control and regulation of pesticides, which is presently in place to protect public health from indiscriminate use.

Assessment and registration of pesticide products is the administrative responsibility of the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, whose role it is to protect the public by ensuring that products perform to prescription and produce no unintended side effects. New South Wales Health has legislative responsibility for ensuring compliance with residue standards in food, and certain requirements must be met with respect to labelling, packaging and use.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 27 May the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti asked me a question concerning the effect of the computer millennium bug on certain medical machines and equipment. The Minister for Health has supplied the following answer:

The New South Wales Health Department and all health services in New South Wales are conducting complete year 2000 business risk analyses using a methodology developed by the Department of Public Works and Services, now the Office of Information Technology. The output of the business risk analyses will be year 2000 rectification project plans. The South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service and the Central Sydney Area Health Service are still assessing the items of equipment referred to, and the results of these assessments will be available when their year 2000 rectification plans are finalised.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 28 May the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked me a question concerning a national enhanced measles control program. The Minister for Health has supplied the following answer:

Page 6889

All registered nurses employed to vaccinate primary school children during the measles control campaign must have completed the New South Wales health immunisation accreditation training program. This comprehensive training program complies with National Health and Medical Research Council recommendations concerning vaccination of children and includes the following subjects: storage and transport of vaccines and monitoring the cold chain; methods of administration of vaccines, including appropriate sites and dosages; benefits and risks of immunisation; contraindications and side effects of vaccines; safe disposal of contaminated waste; emergency procedures in the event of an adverse reaction to a vaccine; cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques; clinical criteria of an adverse event following immunisation, and Health Department circulars relating to immunisation.

Previous immunisation experience is not required as New South Wales Health will be training the successful nurses to immunise children in the two-day immunisation accreditation training program. Although some nurses applying may have immunisation experience they will still require to be accredited by New South Wales Health to provide vaccinations. As the registered nurses will be fully trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and will have had first aid experience, it is not considered essential for the clerical support officers involved with the measles control program to have completed a first aid certificate.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 28 May the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith asked a question about marijuana use. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer:

The Minister for Health is aware of the Victorian Government’s recently launched strategy to investigate the potential link between cannabis use and the development of psychosis. The New South Wales Health Department’s Centre for Mental Health is also currently investigating those same links with a view to developing a cannabis and psychosis position paper. The national and State illicit drug strategies have an underlying policy of promoting abstinence from drug use and where cannabis use occurs developing strategies to minimise the harmful effects to the user, their families and the community in general.

In New South Wales the Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol provides information in pamphlet form, by telephone, fact sheets and through a "DrugLink" website on the risks of cannabis use. A booklet entitled A Guide to Quitting Marijuana is also available from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of Sydney. Drug education is also taught within the personal development, health and physical education key learning areas within the New South Wales school curriculum.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 28 May the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked a question concerning the contamination of kangaroo meat meant for human consumption. The Minister for Health has supplied the following answer:

The export of foodstuffs from Australia is primarily a matter for the national Government through the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service - AQIS - of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry and Energy. The New South Wales Health Department has made inquiries on the matter and has been advised that an export shipment was mishandled in transit.

Production of kangaroo meat in Australia for human consumption on both the domestic market and for export is highly regulated and controlled, producing meat which is inspected in accordance with guidelines issued by New South Wales Health, the Meat Industry Authority, and AQIS. In addition, product for export to the European Union must comply with the European Community directives for game meat, and the establishments are subject to periodic reviews from European Union veterinary authorities.

The safety of kangaroo meat, as with any other raw meat, is also dependent on adequate cooking or processing, temperature control in storage and prevention of cross-contamination. Consumers and the food industry in Australia are highly conversant with these food safety issues. Consequently kangaroo meat does not appear to have been implicated in any food-borne outbreaks.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 28 May the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked a question concerning national reconciliation. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answers to the three parts of the question:

Will the Minister inform the House how many and what kinds of programs or activities the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has undertaken or been involved in to promote reconciliation?

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs makes it a priority to incorporate reconciliation approaches in its co-ordination and integration role across government service agencies. One of the first practical steps towards promoting a series of acknowledgments of our past was an address by the chairperson of the State Reconciliation Committee to a workshop of all State chief executive officers - CEOs. This resulted in all public sector agencies in New South Wales incorporating the vision statement of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation into their own vision statements. All CEOs will report to the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, who will report to the Premier on progress across the public sector in advancing reconciliation.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been, and is, involved in a number of other activities that provide examples of reconciliation in action. For instance, the department is also actively participating in negotiations for the return of Mootwingee National Park, which will result in the first example of joint management of a national park in New South Wales. The department also assisted the Institute of Public Administration Australia in its annual conference, which was devoted to the issue of reconciliation, where the Director-General and I were keynote speakers. The department also participated in a number of Sorry Day commemorative events. For example, the department worked in collaboration with the Australian Museum to curate an exhibition on the stolen generations.

Page 6890

Is the Minister aware that a video entitled "Around the Kitchen Table", produced by the Women’s Reconciliation Network and launched by Minister Lo Po’ this morning at the Parliament House theatrette, was funded by the Department for Women?

I have been advised that the Minister for Women has launched a video called "Around the Kitchen Table", which was produced by the Women’s Reconciliation Network. I am also aware that the project was funded by the Department of Women. I believe this is a wonderful example of a whole-of-government commitment to aboriginal affairs and reconciliation. The video "Around The Kitchen Table" focuses on encouraging women to take steps in facilitating the reconciliation movement.

Will the Minister be generous and make a grant to allow reprints to be distributed to people and groups to encourage people, specifically women, to become involved in the reconciliation process?

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is committed to the process of reconciliation. I am committed to long-term projects promoting and facilitating the process of reconciliation. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is not a funding body. However, the department is in a position to continue to work with the Department for Women and the Women’s Reconciliation Network in identifying possible funding avenues and providing necessary support.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 28 May the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti asked a question about aspects of the computer millennium bug. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer:

The impact of the year 2000 date problem on the computer systems supporting the administration and clinical functions of hospitals and New South Wales Health has long been recognised. The Health Department has advised that it is aware that a number of insurance companies are acting to protect themselves from a potential liability for claims caused by the so-called millennium bug. The Health Department has a multifaceted project in place to identify, assess and address potential problems relating to both medical and administrative systems, particularly those that may threaten patient safety and welfare.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 17 June Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked a question about the Auditor General’s performance audit report entitled "Casino Surveillance". The Minister for Gaming and Racing has provided the following answer:

I am aware that the Auditor General tabled this report in the Parliament on 10 June in accordance with the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. The gaming and racing portfolio was responsible for instigating an independent review of casino surveillance. Subsequently, the Auditor General determined to undertake the review as a performance audit of casino surveillance activities performed by the Casino Control Authority and by the Director of Casino Surveillance in the Department of Gaming and Racing.

The Auditor General’s report includes comment on the working relationship between the authority and the director, but it is not correct for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to say that the report expressed condemnation of these agencies’ role in keeping criminal elements out of the Sydney casino. I have separately advised, in response to a question which Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked on 31 March 1998, that Mr Peter McClellan, QC, who conducted an inquiry into the Sydney casino licence during 1997, concluded that appropriate measures are in place to deal with law enforcement and casino operations so that criminal activity is effectively discouraged. I also advised that, for these and other reasons, Mr McClellan concluded that it was in the public interest that the casino licence continue in force.

As stated in my response to the Auditor General’s report, which is included in the published report, it is expected that the authority and the director would strive to engender the very high level of co-ordination, co-operation and communication that the report has urged. There have been improvements in this area already, and that should be acknowledged. The Auditor General’s report has, as noted by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, recommended that the Authority be accountable to a committee of the New South Wales Parliament in order to enhance present levels of accountability. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile may be assured that this recommendation, which is generally consistent with objectives in the Auditor General’s 1997 performance audit report on corporate governance, is being given the fullest consideration by the Government.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile also referred to the stated belief in the Auditor General’s report that Government casino inspectors are precluded by legislation from providing casino surveillance information to the New South Wales Police Service. In fact, there are no impediments to the lawful provision of information to the Police Service, a situation noted by the authority and the director in their published responses. Information can be, and already is, provided to the contact points nominated by the service. Overall, the report contains information which will be useful in achieving gains in the performance of government casino surveillance activities.

As many of the recommended improvements are capable of being implemented by agencies within the gaming and racing portfolio, I have taken steps to establish an effective implementation process. I have determined that a working party comprising the authority, the Director of Casino Surveillance and the Director-General of the Department of Gaming and Racing be formed to consider all matters raised in the Auditor General’s report, and to oversign changes considered to be appropriate or warranted. The Director-General has been designated with responsibility for convening this working party and for reporting to me on the implementation process and timetable. It is my expectation that the authority and the director would make an important contribution to this process.

The PRESIDENT: I announce the presence in the gallery of Mr Brian Kilmartin, Poland’s honorary consul in Queensland. I welcome him to the Legislative Council.


Page 6891
Committee reports orders of the day Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. B. H. Vaughan.

Committee report order of the day No. 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. A. B. Kelly.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.03 p.m.]: As I said earlier, a number of judges have recently been leading miserable lives because fingers have unjustly been pointed at them. They have been accused, without evidence or justification, of committing certain offences. There is no basis for such rumours circulating in the community, and they must stop. I was very much opposed to the motion to expel the Hon. Franca Arena for a number of reasons. Firstly, she had not had the opportunity to give evidence in the right forum, that being the committee of which I was a member; and, secondly, this House should not have the right to expel a member. Legislation should be introduced that denies members the right to expel a member for any purpose. A member should be judged by the voters, not by other members of Parliament.

Such a right can be used by members capriciously and wrongly. On the two or three occasions throughout Australia that a member of Parliament has been expelled, the decisions were clearly wrong. After his expulsion from the lower House, Mr R. A. Price was re-elected one month later. We should quickly instigate moves to deny ourselves the right to expel a member for any reason. Parliamentary freedom of speech is an extremely valuable privilege that must be protected. Parliaments are probably the only forums in which we can make almost any statement without the fear of being sued for defamation. I accept that that privilege carries with it a great responsibility. During the past 10½ years that I have been a member, on one or two occasions I have overstepped the mark and put incorrect information on the record of the House. I regret having done that.

Members occasionally make mistakes and there is now a form of redress by which citizens can address the House. That is all the more reason why we must defend the precious right of freedom of speech that we have had for the past 300 years. The Hon. Franca Arena did go beyond what is considered right. She should now do the right thing and withdraw the imputations that the committee unanimously concluded she made. Although the Hon. Franca Arena has publicly denied that she made such imputations, the committee decided unanimously that she did. The media obviously decided that she did, and its headlines damaged some people’s reputations. Some members were extremely angry about that, and reacted by moving an expulsion motion.

I want to see an end to this matter. The Hon. Franca Arena should acknowledge that a committee of this House unanimously considers that she did the wrong thing. However, I have never thought that she should be expelled for exercising her right of freedom of speech in this House, even though she transgressed her privileges by going beyond what is deemed to be reasonable. The Hon. Franca Arena made allegations or imputations that were considered unacceptable by the committee and in that way fell below the standards that the House is entitled to expect from members.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [5.07 p.m.]: This is a serious matter. Nine months have passed since I made my speech on 17 September 1997, and I am not ashamed to say that my husband and I have been through hell. The emotional and financial costs have been very high for both of us, and I have been able to stand the pressure only with the enormous support I have received from the community. The community realises the terrible problem of paedophilia and it has always encouraged me to call loudly for a full inquiry into all aspects of paedophilia. That inquiry is yet to take place. I will read onto the record a letter dated 9 June I received only a few days ago from Double Bay. It is the type of letter that has given me the strength to keep going in my campaign. The letter states:

Dear Ms Arena

I am writing to commend you for your brave campaign against the paedophiles of this state and the corrupt people in authority who protect them.

Your uncovering this festering sore and bringing it to public view gave my son the courage to charge the man who, unbeknown to my family, had sexually abused my son when he was a member of a Sydney ice hockey team. The revelations have been extremely painful for all of us, the effect on my son of this abuse has been devastating.

I will not read the next part of the letter because it identifies certain people. The letter continues:

I believe that . . . the man convicted of the crime of paedophilia, should stand trial for murder. He has robbed my

Page 6892
son of his life. Once a promising student attending an elite Eastern Suburbs private school, my boy did not complete his education and turned to drugs to mask his pain and blot out the horror of his experience.

He is today a hopeless heroin addict with a criminal record. He has also received the death sentence by contracting hepatitis C through sharing needles. He will die too young and without ever having lived.

My entire family suffered on account of this, the number of lives wrecked by this monster is incalculable.

Thank you for helping to bring [this man] to justice.

I read this letter because it is very important. It is the kind of support that has given me strength and has motivated me to act on behalf of the welfare of children. I thank the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, who have acknowledged my commitment to the welfare of children. Whatever happens to me, I will always be proud that in my small way I have helped to save children, given them strength to seek justice, and helped in some small way to put paedophiles in gaol.

Commander Small told the privileges committee that a number of people were charged as a result of the information I provided. Directly and indirectly I contributed to their arrest. Superintendent Woodhouse stated also that I am responsible for at least an additional three paedophiles being prosecuted in the near future. I hope I do not reveal anything, but I am always in contact with Superintendent Woodhouse, who is a very fine, top policeman. The committee’s report, consisting of three volumes, was tabled at 10.00 a.m. on Monday, two days ago, and the House has sat every day, Monday included, from 11.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. I have asked many honourable members on both sides of the House if they have had a chance to read the report, let alone to form a considered opinion. Few were honest enough to reply in the affirmative. Is that fair? I have five sitting days to decide whether to apologise and, if I do, the form it will take. Unless the House sits after Friday, the five days will not elapse until the first sitting day in September. I am grateful for that because I wanted to move an amendment to adjourn the debate until September to give members the chance to read the report and the other two volumes, which contain the transcripts and the minutes of the committee. In any case, I am grateful that I have five sitting days to respond.

I am disappointed that the House has not afforded me the courtesy it gave Justice Vince Bruce of allowing members a free, conscience vote, a non-party political vote. Members will vote on party political lines, and it is very sad to see that they will judge one of their colleagues purely on party political lines, but so be it. The committee inquiry into my conduct was never into whether there was evidence to support my claims. It was about determining what it was that I had claimed. There were two alternatives: did I allege a criminal conspiracy, or did I allege a failure to authorise a full inquiry into paedophilia?

Accordingly, it is of fundamental importance that my speech be analysed to assess exactly what I said. All sorts of diverse comments have been made about me, most without any consideration of what I actually said. Only last night one of our colleagues who will remain nameless confessed to me that he had never read my speech. In effect, he will take the party line even without knowing what I said, what I am supposed to be guilty of, or anything else. There is no substitute for studying exactly what I said in my speech. I especially ask the new members of the House to read my speech in detail. The relevant part of my speech is at page 3, and following are the appendices to the committee’s report.

My speech can be summarised as follows. First, I quoted Mitchell’s article in which he spoke about Carr meeting with Collins and about Carr and Labor strategists engaging in damage control. Second, I assumed that Carr met with Collins. Third, I claimed that Carr, Sheahan and Della Bosca met to organise damage control. Fourth, I claimed that Wood and Carr met, and I presumed they reached an agreement about ensuring that high-profile paedophiles were not named so as to not traumatise the community. Fifth, I claimed a cover-up, acknowledging the strong criticism of me that will result. Sixth, I criticised the limited terms of reference; I called it a cover-up; and I detailed the events that led to the rejection of the caucus vote calling for the terms to be widened. My barrister, Philip Taylor, who is in the Chamber tonight, and I have dealt with this extensively in all the submissions we have made to the committee.

The committee’s approach has been to combine the three meetings: the Carr-Collins meeting, the Carr-Sheahan-Della Bosca meeting, and the Carr-Wood meeting. It concluded that they were all for the same purpose; that the Carr-Wood meeting was not only chronologically after the other meetings but was "a logical outcome of the two preceding meetings." I gave a different reason for each of the meetings; it is all there in my speech. The purpose of the Carr-Collins meeting was as claimed by Alex Mitchell, that is, to discuss the paedophile segment. Nothing I said suggests a criminal conspiracy. I did not refer to the meeting again in my speech. In fact, quoting some of the royal commissioner’s words, I said:

Page 6893

Did they not give us a lot of hope that things would change? But what happened? Next day Bob Carr’s office denies that such a meeting with Collins was ever going to take place. But it is fair to assume that the meeting did indeed take place when the furore died down.

Where did I say "criminal conspiracy"? Where is the imputation? There was a letter from Mr Carr inviting Mr Collins to a meeting to discuss the paedophilia segment. Mr Collins answered and said he looked forward to it. When it became public, Mr Carr did not go, but met with Mr Whelan. Where did I say there was a criminal conspiracy? The purpose of the Carr-Della Bosca-Sheahan meeting was, as I said in my speech, "to organise damage control", the same sort of damage control that Mitchell claimed in his article. No criminal conspiracy was alleged by him and none was alleged by me. I do not refer again to this meeting either.

Where in any of this is there an allegation of a criminal conspiracy? I could read again from my speech but I will not, because it is all there. I hope all honourable members have a copy of it. I trust that honourable members can see there is no scope, even upon the most strained construction, to read any criminal conspiracy into the first two meetings I mentioned. My barrister, Phillip Taylor, gave the committee a more detailed analysis. That is found at pages 354 to 360 of the transcript. It confirms the construction I gave. The committee did not make any proper attempt to answer that. Indeed, that part of the report was written even before the committee took evidence from Mr Taylor. That is really incredible: they had already made their decision before they asked him to make a submission. That was not the first and only unfair part of the committee inquiry.

The third meeting between Carr and Wood was claimed to result in an agreement. Whether this agreement was a criminal conspiracy or a lawful policy decision - which I happen to find unacceptable - depends on whether the agreement determined the scope of Justice Wood’s duties or sought to subvert his performance of them. In other words, the question the House must consider is whether I was alleging either that the agreement was to frustrate the terms of reference under which Justice Wood was obliged to inquire, or, alternatively, that the agreement was to limit the terms of reference because it was perceived that the public interest required a narrow inquiry.

There is only one possible answer to any reasonable construction of my speech. I spent three pages in my speech criticising the mistake of a limited inquiry into paedophilia. I called the failure to extend the terms of reference a massive cover-up. I never used the words "criminal conspiracy", "suppression", "unlawful", "secretive", "illegal" or any other such term. Honourable members would all know that I call a spade a spade. If I had wanted to allege a criminal conspiracy I would have, but I did not. Did the terms of reference prevent a proper inquiry into high-profile paedophiles? I believe so. Justice Wood was reported on 19 March 1996 as saying, "It is silly to focus on those who are perceived as holding positions of responsibility," and "It is not my purpose to investigate and bring to justice paedophiles in high places."

Honourable members will know that the explanation I have given is not new. It was repeatedly given to the committee. Indeed in the week following my speech of 17 September 1997 my solicitor, upon my instructions, wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald and criticised it for reporting that I alleged a criminal conspiracy when I had done no such thing. I wish to read the letter that my solicitor, Peter Karp of McCabes Lawyers, sent to the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 September 1997. It states:

Dear Sir/Madam,

We act for The Honourable Franca Arena.

In a newspaper article published this morning your paper asserts that our client has made allegations of "high level criminal conspiracy".

There has never been any assertion of criminal conspiracy by our client in respect of the Wood Royal Commission.

Speeches in Parliament last night, which your correspondent would have heard, made this issue quite clear.

Would you please ensure that these comments are withdrawn and not used in the future, to avoid any further action by our client.

Please revert to us by 2.00 p.m. today as to your intentions to correct this blatant error which may be damaging to our client.

Yours faithfully,
McCABES
Partner: Peter Karp

We did our best but it was like talking to a brick wall. Journalists who should have known better kept using the words "criminal conspiracy". I have proposed to the Opposition and the crossbenchers a formal explanation and expression of regret, which is as follows:

The Committee has asked that I withdraw certain imputations said to have been made in my speech of September 17, and to apologise for them. I cannot withdraw things that I did not say. I never alleged or implied a "criminal conspiracy" in my speech. To those who have inferred from my speech an allegation of criminal conspiracy, I say, as I have said from at

Page 6894
least 24 September 1997 you are wrong. I ask all honourable members to again read my speech and the full explanation that my barrister Philip Taylor, gave to the Privileges Committee on 23 June 1998, particularly at transcript pages 354-360.

My speech has been misconstrued and so far as this has caused hurt to the people mentioned in my speech, I wish to express my regret. Even though it was not my fault I want to say I am sorry it happened. I regret that no point of order was taken during my speech, as I would have had the opportunity to explain myself and this matter would have been put to rest then and there.

I do not know who was sitting in the chair at that time, but it was certainly not you, Madam President. You would have been a lot more alert. I do not know who was in the Chamber but someone should have taken a point of order. I would have explained everything to the House, and my husband and I would have been saved this misery. I am grateful that my husband is sitting in the gallery and has given me magnificent support all this time. It would have saved the taxpayers the hundreds of thousands of dollars that must have been spent on the Nader inquiry and the privileges committee, so someone has also to bear some responsibility for that. The explanation continues:

My husband and I have paid a high emotional and financial price for this affair. I have never acted with malice towards anyone. I ask the House to accept the above as my expression of regrets for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. I hope to be able to provide a full and considered response to the Committee report after all the honourable members have had the opportunity to read it during the forthcoming break.

I gave this explanation to the Opposition and the crossbenchers but apparently it was not acceptable. I have been asked by the privileges committee to, in effect, mislead the House. Having said honestly on my oath that I did not claim there was a criminal conspiracy, I cannot and will not speak falsely to this House even if doing so might prevent my suspension. This House deserves better than that; it deserves the truth. It is wrong for the committee to ask me to say things that it knows I do not believe, and to ask me to deny things that I said honestly and on oath. Another important matter is that the House cherishes the freedom of speech which a House of Parliament enjoys. In 1984 the Commonwealth Privileges Committee said in a report:

We believe that there are two bedrock-elements to a democratic parliamentary system. Firstly, absolute protection must be given to a member for his participation in debates and proceedings in Parliament . . . Secondly, the most complete freedom to criticise the actions of government, Parliament itself, political parties represented with Parliament and members.

Honourable members will know that I am being sued for defamation in relation to my speech. The apology advocated by the committee uses the language of defamation; it seeks to have me concede that I made imputations of a criminal conspiracy. How am I to defend the defamation proceeding against me if I concede to this House - despite having denied them on oath before the committee - that I made those imputations. That is unfair to me. It would be a grave encroachment on the ability of members to speak freely if their words here carried pecuniary penalties. I have asked my barrister to give me an advice on this matter and this morning he wrote me a letter, which I circulated, and which I should like to put on the record. It states:

Dear Mrs Arena,

You have asked me for a brief advice as to any adverse legal consequences which may follow an apology by you in the terms recommended by the Privileges Committee.

In my opinion, the major difficulty with the terms of the apology is that it involves a concession by you that you made imputations of a criminal conspiracy, a matter which you have always strongly denied. It appears to me that three adverse consequences from such a concession are possible.

First, a concession of a criminal conspiracy is diametrically opposed to your evidence given on oath to the Committee. Although I do not regard it as likely, the concession could form a basis for perjury proceedings against you for (allegedly falsely) denying such imputations in your evidence.

I hope the Attorney, who is the first law officer of this State, is listening. Perhaps he would like to comment on this matter in reply. The advice further states:

Secondly, and conversely, parliamentary proceedings could conceivably be taken against you for misleading the House in the apology, since in your evidence to the Committee you deny the concession inherent in the apology. This consequence is, in my view, perhaps even less likely than the first.

Thirdly, the apology if given by you would make it very difficult for you to dispute in your pending defamation proceedings brought by Mr Della Bosca that you did not make imputations of a criminal conspiracy.

There are, of course, restrictions on the use which can be made of parliamentary proceedings.

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 prevents the contents of your apology from being called into question in a court. However, Mr Della Bosca, whether by tendering Hansard or by cross-examination of you, may be able effectively to utilize the apology without calling it into question. Indeed you will need to question or dispute the concession in order to maintain your defence in the defamation proceedings, but Article 9 would prevent you from doing so. Even if a parliamentary resolution was required before Hansard was tendered to prove your apology, you could not be confident that no resolution would be passed.

Page 6895

Page 22 of the discussion paper entitled "Parliamentary Privilege in New South Wales" by the Hon. J. R. A. Dowd, QC, a member of Parliament and Attorney General at that time, stated in part:

However, it is understood that in New South Wales the fact of what was said in Parliament may be proved in Court by the tender of a Hansard report and that production without a certificate does not involve a breach of parliamentary privilege.

I hope honourable members will seriously consider that statement. The letter from Philip Taylor continued:

And quite apart from Article 9 it would seem extremely difficult for you to dispute a matter you have conceded to the House.

This analysis confirms the recent case of Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321, where the Privy Council held (at page 327):

the parties to litigation . . . cannot bring into question anything said or done in the House by suggesting (whether by direct evidence, cross-examination, inference or submission) that the actions or words were inspired by improper motives or were untrue or misleading . . . However their lordships wish to make clear that, this principle does not exclude all references in court proceedings to what has taken place in the House . . . there could be no objection to the use of Hansard to prove what was done and said in Parliament as a matter of history.

As is recorded in the head note at page 322:

If [a party] wishes at the trial to allege the occurrence of events or the saying of certain words in Parliament without any accompanying allegation of impropriety or any other questioning there is no objection to that course.

Accordingly it is my view that the defence of your defamation proceedings may be substantially prejudiced should you make an apology in the terms proposed by the Privileges Committee.

That important letter made me think that maybe there is somebody who, because he could not expel me, has decided that the best avenue to take was to financially ruin my husband and me, who have worked all our lives, to ruin us completely, to bankrupt us. I have been provided with a copy of an urgent advice by the Crown Solicitor on this matter, which states:

The fact that she would apologise might be taken to infer that she accepts she was at fault in making the imputations at the time.

Can he be more clear than that? I will repeat what the Crown Solicitor said:

The fact that she would apologise might be taken to infer that she accepts she was at fault in making the imputations at the time.

This is the very problem! I will have made, to use lawyer’s language, an admission which will be evidence against me in defamation proceedings. The Crown Solicitor’s advice refers to the case NSW Branch of the AMA v Minister for Health and Community Services (1992) 26 NSW LR 114. This case gives no comfort to me or to my barrister. As the Crown Solicitor concedes on page 5, this case establishes that Hansard can be tendered for the purpose of establishing the fact of what was said, when, and by whom. This is all that is required to defeat my defamation case. If I make the apology, the court would know that in July 1998 I conceded that I had made imputations of criminal conspiracy. That admission, under the Evidence Act, is evidence that I made those imputations, not because it is necessarily true, not because it has some additional force because it is said in Parliament, but simply because it is an admission by me.

The Attorney General knows that admissions are admissible as evidence against the person who made them. I really wonder whether the privilege committee members - the honesty of the great majority of whom is at the highest level - have ever contemplated or were ever told by their legal advisers that that could be the consequence? I am sure they were not. My barrister is in no doubt that an apology by me in the terms recommended would be admissible against me. If the Attorney General is in any doubt on this matter I urge him to seek advice from the Solicitor General. I am sure that the Attorney General, as a fair person, would not want to see me financially bankrupt. I hope he will respond to my remarks when he speaks, if he speaks.

The amendments proposed by the Liberals delete Mr Sheahan and Mr Della Bosca from the apology. I still believe that this does not protect me in the defamation proceedings. I cannot concede that I imputed a criminal conspiracy to Mr Collins but deny that I imputed a criminal conspiracy to Mr Della Bosca. On a fair reading of my speech neither is involved in any conspiracy, but no sensible distinction can be drawn between them. Honourable members should be under no delusions; both the Liberal amendment and the Labor motion force me to choose between two punitive sanctions. Either I make the apology, thereby inevitably losing the defamation proceedings brought by Mr Della Bosca and possibly conceding that I am guilty of perjury for giving contrary evidence to the committee, or I refuse to make the apology and face being suspended indefinitely.

Page 6896

It is indeed a stark choice: perjury proceedings and a substantial award of damages against me if I apologise - suspension for ever if I do not. Neither choice is palatable. I can speak only the truth and let the consequences fall where they may. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has said, there is no power or duty in this House to impose sanctions to protect the members of this House. The sanctions are rather to protect "the existence of the House and the true exercise of its functions", as the Privy Council found in Barton v Taylor, and as adopted by the committee in its report at page 51. In 1989 the committee stated at page 364 of the transcript that it is:

to preserve and safeguard the dignity and honour of the House and the proper conduct and exercise of its powers and duties, and is not to be used to protect the sensitivity of members . . . no matter how prejudiced, uninformed or exaggerated that criticism may be.

It is not I who has brought this Parliament into disrepute. The committee did not find that I was malicious or dishonest. I will never forget the Premier of New South Wales, who outside the Nader inquiry said, "She lied, she knew she was lying, she knew she was malicious". The matter was still sub judice and my defamation lawyer told me I could sue him for what he said. What a pathetic performance by the Premier, who should have known better. I am only sorry that I do not have the money for a defamation case against him, which I would be entitled to.

Today the Leader of the Opposition spoke at length about the Nader inquiry. I have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition, but why did he not once mention that the Nader inquiry was a one-sided affair? Mr Nader never heard my side of the story, because despite the fact that this House took away the privilege of the House with retrospective legislation, it did not take my privilege away and I did not give my privilege away. I did not go to the Nader inquiry, so Mr Nader heard only one side of the story. History will judge Mr Nader and many others involved in this sorry affair. I have always spoken with integrity and honesty, but the motion seeks to force me to admit perjury and concede Mr Della Bosca’s defamation case against me or be suspended.

The things that bring the Parliament into disrepute are the sort of things that have happened here in the past week and in the lower House in the past couple of months. A member who is prepared to speak out against the Executive, far from bringing this House into disrepute, enhances the reputation of this House as a voice of the people against unfair encroachment by the Executive. We must all uphold principles of fairness, natural justice, democracy and parliamentary propriety. In the final analysis the Parliament and I are answerable to the community. Whatever happens to me, the community will be my judge. I thank people for their support. I reserve my response to the motion.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [5.41 p.m.]: This is a most difficult matter to consider. I note the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that this debate is important, yet in reality honourable members have had little time for preparation. In coming to my views on this matter I am conscious of the importance of both this House and its reputation and the seriousness of the findings and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. At the same time, I am conscious of the turmoil, disruption and agony that the events since 17 September 1997 have caused the Hon. Franca Arena and her husband, Joe. Equally, I am conscious of the hurt and anger that must have been felt by the Hon. Bob Carr, the Hon. Peter Collins, Justice James Wood, Terry Sheahan and John Della Bosca when the speech of the Hon. Franca Arena was reported in vivid and exaggerated tones, as it was by some sections of the news media.

There will be no satisfactory means of doing justice to all and, consequently, I must endeavour to settle on a decision that does as much justice as can be achieved in the circumstances. This motion contains some of the most important decisions that this House will ever make regarding the governing of its own functions and procedures and the restraints that it places on members. It will forever change the procedures and privileges of this House. The decision requires thought, it requires analysis and, at this moment, it requires more time. The gravity of this decision demands a delay. Even in the most advantageous of circumstances, honourable members would have been hard pressed to give this matter the attention it merits in the short time since the tabling of the report. Given what has happened in that time, and adjacent to it, we have not been afforded an environment that assists the judicious consideration of the report.

To say that the past week in this House has been eventful would be an understatement. This House and its members have never been subjected to the sustained scrutiny that has been experienced in recent weeks, and particularly since last Thursday. This has resulted, I believe, in an inability to consider properly the report of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. The committee report draws on the House of Commons privileges committee report into the behaviour of Mr David Tredinnick, MP and Mr
Page 6897
Graham Riddick, MP for the formulation of the concept of conduct that "fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members." The House of Commons in considering that report had 16 days over April 1995 between the tabling of the report and the subsequent debate.

Having just over two days to consider this report before being required to make a decision is manifestly unreasonable and is manifestly unfair not only to the Hon. Franca Arena but to all members of this House, who must give the matter careful consideration. Furthermore, this House gave ample opportunity - a month, between 26 May and 25 June - to members to consider the material relating to Justice Vince Bruce, which gave rise to the thoughtful and considered debate in the House last week. The Hon. Franca Arena is entitled to have the same thought and consideration given to her matter as that given to Justice Bruce. If we cannot extend the same consideration to a member of this House as that extended to any other person in similar circumstances, it is a sad day indeed for this House.

Given that the sanction proposed by the resolution gives the Hon. Franca Arena five sitting days to comply with its instructions, this matter will be substantially in abeyance until September in any event. This matter will not be resolved if the House concludes the debate today. Whatever happens, this matter will still be before the House in September, so I would have liked this House to proceed with due caution and take maximum advantage of the time available. Accordingly, I had intended to seek to adjourn this matter until September, but, given the sentiment of the House, I accept that such course of action would not receive sufficient support. I am also aware that a delay would have appeared to be prevarication and procrastination. That would have been unavoidable, because these matters should not be dealt with lightly or with excessive haste.

Between the tabling of the report and the commencement of this debate honourable members have had approximately 52 hours in which to read and assess the report and come to a decision on its findings and recommendations. There simply has not been the time or the opportunity to give the report of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics the attention and consideration it merits. The report has implications for the governance of this House. It has implications for the rights and duties of honourable members. The report has implications for the freedoms, privileges and responsibilities of this House. As such, extreme caution should be taken before proceeding to deal with a member in the way proposed in this resolution. The findings of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics in relation to the speech made by the Hon. Franca Arena on 17 September 1997 are serious. I have never doubted the motives of the Hon. Franca Arena in making the speech she made, and I never doubted that she sincerely believed the substance of her speech.

In a previous speech on this matter I mentioned that the Hon. Franca Arena has spent thousands of dollars on defending her case and she has consistently stood by her actions. I respect her for what she did. With the passage of time, it is difficult to determine whether the controversy surrounding the speech was based on the speech itself or on the public perception of what was said. It is very difficult now to re-read the speech free of the nuances and interpretations subsequently given to it by the media’s reporting and analysis. It is undeniable, however, that the consequences of that speech gave rise to suggestions that the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the royal commissioner, the President of the Australian Labor Party and the General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party were engaged in improper conduct with a view to minimising the scope and impact of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service inquiry into paedophilia.

Those suggestions, whether or not they were implied by the Hon. Franca Arena, have been thoroughly refuted by a succession of investigations and inquiries, culminating in the report of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. This should be nearly the end of the matter. We have only to turn our attention to the restoration of the reputation of the House in this matter and the means by which the Hon. Franca Arena can assist in restoring the integrity and reputation of the House. Components of the motion before the House and aspects of the Opposition’s amendment give rise to serious concerns. It is most undesirable to compel a member of the House to recite a form of words prepared by other members.

The standing orders do not provide for a form of words for withdrawal and apology when a point of order is taken against a member. The only constraint on any such withdrawal is that it be unconditional. To require a member to speak a particular form of words runs counter to every principle of freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege of which I am aware. Freedom of speech in this House demands that members be able to speak words freely spoken; not those formulated by a committee and approved by a majority of the House. To do otherwise on this occasion would be to establish a precedent and invite repetition.

Page 6898

I have less difficulty with the requirement that a member be required to perform an action, in this instance apologise; but to go further and prescribe the specific manner in which the action is to be carried out is excessive and, in my view, unacceptable. As I have said, withdrawal and apology are standard parliamentary procedures, but we have never considered their application so late after the event that gives rise to their consideration. The value of such a withdrawal and such an apology could be questioned, given that they may take place nearly a year after the words that caused offence were spoken.

It is important that any apology and withdrawal be duly noted by all concerned. Certainly, the Hon. Franca Arena has taken the opportunity of this debate to clarify the motives behind, and the substance of, her 17 September speech. This has assisted the situation greatly. Notwithstanding this clarification, in view of the unanimous finding of her peers that the imputations brought the House into disrepute, she should be required to make amends as far as is possible and reasonable. Certainly, given the expectation that individual members of the Legislative Council will exercise their privileges responsibly, this House and the Hon. Franca Arena need to address the general impression that she irresponsibly exercised her rights when she made her speech.

In the end the House can restore its reputation only with the co-operation of the Hon. Franca Arena. How she assists the House should be a matter for her to determine, and then a matter for the House to accept. I have difficulty with the Opposition’s amendment, in so far as it would remove the requirement that the Hon. Franca Arena withdraw the imputations against the general Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Mr John Della Bosca, and the former President of the ALP, Mr Terry Sheahan. I want to explain my difficulty, but reserve my decision. If we accept the findings, and then accept the framework of the resolution, to do justice to Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan we must afford them the same recognition and protection afforded to Mr Carr, Mr Collins and Justice Wood.

If the House accepts that the speech imputed improper conduct by some of the persons referred to, it must find that the speech imputed improper conduct by all persons referred to. In this situation are we not dividing the list of persons into those who are worthy of protection and apology, and those who are not? To say that Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan have access to a citizen’s right of reply is to deny the fact that they have been awaiting the outcome of the report of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan would not have contemplated any action involving the Parliament, believing that they were covered by the committee’s inquiry and report. It would appear manifestly unfair at this late stage to remove them from the coverage of the committee’s report.

I note, however, the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of a citizen’s right of reply. This would have been an acceptable option if it had been made available to Mr Sheahan or Mr Della Bosca at the time - indeed, if it had existed at the time, given that the right of reply was established on 13 November 1997, largely in response to the consequences arising from the Hon. Franca Arena’s speech. To remove the references to Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan from the resolution at this late stage, however, is to compound and magnify those imputations established by the committee. I will continue to consider this particular issue. I will listen to other speakers and give the matter further consideration in the limited time available to me, before deciding what aspects of each of the questions before the House adequately ensure justice, and protect the interests and reputation of this House and its members.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [5.52 p.m.]: In a democratic society, freedom of speech is a fundamental right. The members of a democracy know that such a right will sometimes be abused, because freedom - true freedom - includes the right to make a mistake; the right to be wrong. We see that abuse in our society often enough. When that abuse is sufficiently serious to trample on the rights of others, we make laws to restrict it. There are, for instance, laws against racial vilification, restrictions on publications that would expose children to pornography and violence, and legal protections against defamation. There are two institutions where freedom of political speech is fundamental: the media and Parliament.

The media function as the engine of communication in a democracy. Without a free press there cannot be true democracy. Do they abuse this right? Frequently. Major newspapers are too often used to propagandise for the vested interests of their proprietors. Columnists use their privileged spaces to push partisan political views. Reporters spin stories that have more to do with the angle they want than the events that actually occurred. We live in the world of the eight-second grab, but the question is which grab - the best or the worst from a politician’s speech? And, which politician and which story will get a run? The media are gatekeepers of what
Page 6899
becomes news and public information, and frequently they fail this fundamental function of a free society.

As well as the realities of bias and self-interest described above, there is the thirst that results in a relentless focus on sensationalism and conflict, and an impression conveyed - especially to young people forming their views of the world - that things are bad and getting worse. In spite of all these problems, freedom of the press remains fiercely defended in a democracy because the alternative of government censorship of political speech is untenable. Indeed, there are many who campaign for further freedom of the press, for the watering down of defamation law, the argument being that such laws can often function to protect the corrupt, the criminal, the culpable. However, in cases where defamation law prevents the exposure of wrongdoing in the media, there is one last bastion.

That bastion is Parliament, which has a freedom of speech not restricted by defamation law; a freedom that is fundamental to the democratic process. Can that freedom be abused? Indeed it can, as we see in the case before us today. The actions of the Hon. Franca Arena in naming people without substantiating evidence, alleging paedophilia and imputing allegations of corruption and cover-up of paedophilia, were unconscionable. Because of her actions I support the motion before the House, as amended by the Leader of the Opposition. Where I draw the line is at the original motion as moved by the Attorney General. In requiring a written withdrawal, that motion effectively negates the whole principle of parliamentary freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege.

Of course, this requirement comes directly from the report of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. But with the legal advice and resources available to the Government, the implications of the requirement must have been obvious to the Attorney, if not to the committee. A written apology would not have the protection of Parliament - nor is such a written apology necessary, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out. It is not the form of this House: it does not reflect the form of the offence. An allegation in the House should be withdrawn in the House. Indeed, in my view, it is a fundamental attack on the democratic process.

When a member behaves as the Hon. Franca Arena has done, we are subjected to sensationalised stories in the media. When the parliamentary process works as it should, the media often remain silent and the people of this State are not informed because a system working well does not generate sensational headlines. In that respect I have first- hand experience gained during the early 1980s when I served as executive officer to the former Leader of the Opposition, John Dowd, now the Honourable Justice Dowd. John Dowd is a man to whom the people of New South Wales have reason to be profoundly grateful. For many years as a member of Parliament, shadow minister and finally Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament he waged an ongoing campaign against corruption in this State, at great personal cost to himself.

Honourable members may recall the television series Scales of Justice. One of the episodes in that series - as I recall, the second - was based on the experiences of John Dowd in his campaign against corruption. Many others would have flinched under the pressure that was brought to bear on John Dowd and his family. The family cat was strangled and the body left on the front lawn of his home for his little girls to find, the same young daughters were followed home from school by known underworld figures driving a car very slowly behind them, and his family was harassed on the phone by Roger Rogerson. This speech is not about John Dowd but about parliamentary freedom of speech, so I will not continue although there are many more details in that story.

The story of his anticorruption campaign is one that needs to be told, but I will keep to only one example: his campaign against Bill Allen. Bill Allen had received extraordinarily speedy and stratospheric promotion through the Police Service, and was likely to be the next Commissioner of Police for New South Wales. An ongoing campaign of repeated questions without notice in the other place, orchestrated by John Dowd as Leader of the Opposition, assisted by Kevin Rozzoli as his deputy, gradually elicited information that led eventually to the establishment of a police tribunal to inquire into the allegations against Bill Allen, and to his demotion and resignation.

New South Wales was protected from having him as its police commissioner and John Dowd was totally vindicated, but not without great cost. Week after week he was pilloried in the House by Premier Neville Wran as a muck-raker, and this criticism was echoed in the media in ugly headlines and denigrating articles. When the Police Tribunal ultimately reported its damning findings against Bill Allen, little or no mention was made of the roles of John Dowd or Kevin Rozzoli. Certainly no remorse was expressed and no apology was given by the media for its previous and totally mistaken denigration of John Dowd. I have recounted this
Page 6900
story for one reason: to demonstrate a clear example of the necessity of the freedom of speech for parliamentarians. The subject matter of this debate is different to the subject matter of the debate to which I have just referred because John Dowd moved only with great caution when armed with substantial evidence to support his case, and the outcome vindicated his behaviour.

Whatever the risks and whatever the abuses, freedom of speech is a right that must not be lost or endangered. The bastion of last resort was fundamental in the political climate of 1981 and 1982 and should be retained. The requirement of a written apology by the Hon. Franca Arena is a serious threat to the right of freedom of speech as it effectively removes her from the protection of parliamentary privilege. The media has been at the forefront of the campaign to liberalise our defamation laws, despite knowing that such liberalisation must necessarily lead to greater risks of abuse of the rights of the innocent and the privacy of every citizen. Recent examples of the invasion of the privacy and homes of the families of public figures are glaring examples of such abuse, even under the current system.

The Parliament must deal with the abuse of parliamentary privilege, but it must not establish precedents that could diminish the democratic process. The Hon. Franca Arena should apologise to those public office holders upon whom her statements reflect, but that apology should not be in writing. Instead, the apology should be made in this House where it will be recorded and retained for posterity in Hansard. I exhort the Government to reconsider its motion requiring a written apology from the Hon. Franca Arena. Such a requirement is a betrayal of the freedom of speech, a betrayal of parliamentary privilege and a betrayal of the democratic process.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.03 p.m.]: I must confess that towards the end of last year, when I was not a member of this House, I shared the public perception that the imputation or statement about there being or not being a meeting of politicians who had or had not changed the terms of reference of the Wood royal commission seemed rather to be a case of politicians spending too much time bickering amongst themselves. I am sure that perception remains in the community. Perhaps that perception is harsh, but the time it has taken to resolve this matter has harmed the image of this House particularly and Australian politicians in general. Since I became closer to the issue I have realised that justice needs to be done, and done expeditiously. In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

In the real world words mean what they mean and while shades of emotions can influence words used at a certain time, ultimately we must deal with what is said and written. The House acknowledges that the inquiry of the committee under the chairmanship of the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann was thorough and humane. It is significant that a unanimous decision was reached. At the end of the day it is reasonable to ask that an apology be made. I am uncertain of the legal significance of whether that apology should be written or oral and on that aspect I am content to listen to the arguments of those who understand the law better than I. However, the apology should follow the recommendation of the report which has been so widely supported in this House, so that the matter is resolved as rapidly as possible.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.05 p.m.]: I should like to give my impression of the events surrounding the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics into the statements of the Hon. Franca Arena in her speech on 17 September 1997. In many ways the House is debating this issue today, and has debated it on other occasions, because of sensational newspaper headlines, particularly those in the Daily Telegraph. Before seeking the call I pondered the events of the day when the Hon. Franca Arena asked in this House why Justice Yeldham had received special treatment from the Wood royal commission and why Mr Arkell, who apparently was quite well, was not called before the royal commission. The commission, of course, had been advised he was ill.

The newspapers the following day said that the Hon. Franca Arena had named them. Everyone believed that she had said, "I name them as paedophiles." People still believe that the Hon. Franca Arena named them in this House as paedophiles. But she never did. She simply asked why, if Mr Arkell was well, he had not appeared before the commission. Many people appeared before the royal commission for a variety of reasons, including the giving of information about other people. A judge could have been giving information about matters concerning the paedophile network. Everyone who appeared before the Wood royal commission was not automatically classified as a paedophile. If that were so, many Sydney clergy, including bishops and archbishops, would be called paedophiles because they gave evidence before the royal commission as to their concerns about paedophile activity within the church.

Page 6901

When the Hon. Franca Arena gave her speech on 17 September newspapers displayed pictures of Mr Carr, Mr Collins and others on their front pages that could almost be classified as wanted posters. Everybody reading the associated articles would have assumed that the Hon. Franca Arena had set out to attack these evil men because they were involved in a criminal conspiracy. I believe the Daily Telegraph has coloured a number of these issues and has directly influenced public opinion. At public meetings I have found it almost impossible to correct that impression because people say, "I read it in the Daily Telegraph." That newspaper leaves a powerful impression in people’s minds, particularly by the use of headlines and photographs.

I was one of the members who supported the referral of the speech of the Hon. Franca Arena to the privilege and ethics committee so that her peers could assess her comments and motives. That procedure is followed all the time in this House. A similar thing happened in question time today. A member may use certain words to describe another member, who may take offence and ask the member to withdraw the words used. The committee spent a lot of time trying to discover the actual word that was said.

Sometimes members must read Hansard to establish what was said because there may have been a great deal of noise during the debate or they may not have been listening carefully and did not hear the word or words used. Not once during my 17 years as a member of this House have I heard an argument about imputations, deductions or the legal meaning of a word that was used by a member, as happened in the House today. During question time the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti raised a point of order because another member said that he was not listening to the Minister’s response. One could draw an imputation that he was asleep, drunk or on drugs. An innocent statement can result in many imputations that are untrue. Lawyers often argue about the different imputations that can be drawn from the same words.

Honourable members know that I had to fight to be appointed to the committee. The crossbench and the Labor Party fought tooth and nail to prevent my appointment. However, when I was finally appointed the Hon. P. T. Primrose, who was an unwilling conscript, was also appointed so that the Government would have the majority on the committee. At a meeting held before my appointment the committee decided that legal advisers were necessary. After my appointment the committee reconsidered the matter and decided that the Hon. Franca Arena and the persons mentioned by her in her speech could also have legal representation during the inquiry. So the inquiry changed dramatically from what I envisaged and what I wanted it be, that is, lay people assessing the conduct of another lay person.

Although some members of this House are lawyers, I did not want the committee to comprise nine lawyers who would approach the inquiry from a legal viewpoint; I wanted it to comprise a range of lay people with practical knowledge of the world. If a committee has legal advisers it is a natural progression that members are expected to accept their advice. As the inquiry progressed the Queen’s Counsel advising the committee played a major role in helping members to understand some aspects of the matter, such as the meaning of words and the imputations to be drawn from them. I would not say that I was intimidated by the legal advisers but as a lay person I felt at a disadvantage and that I should not question the legal advice.

I am not suggesting that the legal advice was wrong. Mr Bernard Gross, QC, and Joe Catanzariti of Clayton Utz were highly qualified to give the committee advice, and they acted professionally and co-operatively at all times. My comments are no reflection on them. When the committee members asked questions and made suggestions, they made further suggestions. I tried to use their suggestions in some way. We then tried to use their suggestions positively. Indeed, some of my suggestions about the proceedings were taken up by the committee. When the privileges committee is disciplining a member of this House it should, whenever possible, comprise a group of that member’s peers. Lawyers from outside should not be involved in judging a member of this House for the words he or she may have used in a speech, and an independent inquiry, such as the Nader inquiry, should not judge such matters.

Members of Parliament have the right to make speeches, ask questions and make statements which are often controversial. Much of the tension surrounding this matter has resulted from the legal view that the simple allegations or the language used by the Hon. Franca Arena contained the imputation of a criminal conspiracy. Perhaps other legal advisers would have said that other imputations could be drawn from the words, but the committee accepted the legal advice that the words contained the imputation of a criminal conspiracy. As I said, when a QC says without any hesitation that that imputation can be drawn from the words, and another lawyer says the same thing, the committee accepts that. I questioned and argued about the legal advice but I was advised that it was correct.

Page 6902

The committee and, indeed, the Hon. Franca Arena had to separate two major issues which are closely related and continue to overlap, and which add an emotional aspect to the matter. The first issue is the honourable member’s allegations that certain people held meetings and so on. It was obvious from the honourable member’s evidence that she relied on information she had ascertained from media reports and comments by other people, including parliamentary security staff. She felt that her information about the meetings and who had attended them was reliable. However, after a thorough investigation the committee was of the view that the information was unreliable. That was the main purpose of the committee’s inquiry.

The second issue, which was not included in the committee’s reference, was whether there is a paedophile network in New South Wales and, if so, whether there has been a cover-up of that network and of persons in high positions in the Parliament, the judiciary, the media, the church, et cetera. It was obvious from the honourable member’s evidence and statements to the committee that the two issues overlapped. That is understandable because the honourable member’s speech related to the possible existence of a paedophile network and whether every effort was being made to identify those involved and to take action against them. That is the reason the speech was made and why the House is now debating this motion. In the honourable member’s mind the two issues overlapped.

The committee’s terms of reference were not wrong. If they had included a reference to investigate whether a paedophile network existed and whether there was a cover-up that would have resulted in the inquiry being conducted along the lines of a police investigation. Obviously members of Parliament are not qualified, and it is beyond their role, as members, to investigate paedophilia. Justice Wood should have investigated paedophilia as part of his inquiry. However, the royal commission’s terms of reference restricted his investigation to paedophile activity involving police. Indeed, I understand that the royal commission’s amended terms of reference restricted his investigation to paedophile activities in government departments and what procedures and policies should be implemented to prevent such activity in the Department of Community Services, the Department of Education and Training and so on. There was nothing wrong with the amended terms of reference, but obviously the open and genuine inquiry into paedophile activity in New South Wales that was necessary did not take place.

The Hon. Franca Arena became frustrated when a full inquiry into paedophile activity in New South Wales did not take place. Indeed, no such inquiry was held even after the royal commission tabled its reports. I felt the same frustration and disappointment, and I made public statements along the same lines. I did not name people; I simply stated that I was disappointed that the royal commission did not achieve what many of us had hoped it would. I know that members of both Houses had worked hard to secure an investigation into paedophilia. But it was almost a no-go area; the Government did not want to get involved with the issue. The actions of the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin in the other place in trying to establish a royal commission into paedophile activity could have been a mistake, but members who were concerned about the issue had little choice; it is difficult to establish from scratch a royal commission merely to examine one issue.

It was suggested that the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service should conduct the paedophile inquiry. That strategy succeeded to a degree when Justice Wood was given additional terms of reference. Justice Wood did not oppose an investigation into paedophilia. However, he wanted to finish an inquiry which had been going for nearly three years. Another royal commission may have been needed, but all members know how difficult it is to establish royal commissions and how much money they cost. It seems that governments of all persuasions are reluctant to give royal commissions a blank cheque, so to speak; they are reluctant to allow them to take an open-door approach, because they are fearful of what they will find out. As we all know, in the past governments have had their fingers burnt by the revelations of royal commissions. Even before a royal commission begins governments like to know what its findings will be. I suppose that is only political wisdom. The Queensland Government learnt that, to its shame.

The committee recommended that the Hon. Franca Arena be required to apologise and withdraw her allegations and any imputations concerning the persons named. It seems that she is not happy with that proposal. She said in her speech that she wants to reserve her response and that her response may involve a different form of words. I hope the House will entertain any proposal she puts forward. I had a discussion with the Leader of the Opposition about that possibility before the debate commenced. He indicated that there is a strong possibility that the Opposition may accept that proposal. If the Hon. Franca Arena does not apologise tonight, tomorrow
Page 6903
or on Friday, the apology will have to be made in the first three days of the September sitting. As I understand it, the five sitting days would extend the time within which she is required to apologise to the first three days of the next session, that is, 8, 9 and 10 September.

The Hon. Franca Arena and her legal advisers will have to spend time on the wording of the apology. Whatever she says, she will not say to this Parliament that there is no paedophile activity or paedophile network in this State. The evidence on paedophilia is now overwhelming. The recent tragic murder of Mr Arkell has brought it back onto the front pages of the newspapers. It has been suggested in the media that Mr Arkell was murdered in a shocking way. Another man was also murdered recently in Wollongong in a shocking way. He was decapitated, blood was splashed around the room, and the word "Satan" was smeared in blood on the walls. I am not quoting the police directly but those murders were done in such a way that the real purpose behind them may have been concealed by making it appear that some kind of Satanist group was murdering people.

One thought that came to my mind was the possibility that someone had decided to silence both of those men, if they had been involved in paedophile activity. It is possible that Mr Arkell, who was under the pressure of an approaching trial on 29 charges, could have talked to the Director of Public Prosecutions about some sort of immunity, as happened in the case of other people such as Mr Bell. He may have asked for some of the charges to be dropped in return for naming names. Perhaps Mr Arkell knew a lot more about these matters than we know and someone wanted to silence him. He was certainly silenced in a very brutal way. Others have said that perhaps some young man whom Mr Arkell abused came back to vent his anger on him.

We do not know whether any of that is true; it is all conjecture. However, there is no doubt that there is a paedophile network in this State and, indeed, in all nations. No matter what the Hon. Franca Arena says, she will not say that a paedophile network or paedophile activity does not exist. We must focus specifically on the statements she made in her speech on 17 September 1997. I strongly support the suggestion that a joint Federal-State royal commission into paedophile networks is needed. Bearing in mind recent events, I hope Mr Howard will regard that as a priority. Some members, even members of the committee, have said that the police should investigate the matter, although we all know how difficult it is for the police to investigate this type of activity.

The Hon. Franca Arena: They don’t have the powers of a royal commission.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is right. The police do not have sufficient powers, and that is why there must be a royal commission. A royal commission can force people to give evidence and to answer questions. The royal commissioner can use different surveillance-type approaches that the police find it almost impossible to use because of all the red tape that is now involved. I still believe that prominent people in this State are involved in paedophile activity. They would breathe a sigh of relief if the Hon. Franca Arena were to be suspended or removed from her parliamentary role. From what the Hon. Franca Arena has said, it seems that she will need time to consider the form of words to be used in her apology. Some members have said that we do not need any form of words at all. The committee also faced that dilemma and realised that something must be done. From my point of view, I do not want her expelled, and I do not want her reprimanded.

The committee decided that if it could not find some way of rectifying, to everyone’s satisfaction, what was said on 17 September 1997, suspension seemed the appropriate course. As a layman, that seemed to me to be the way to go. The suggestion has been made that the Hon. Franca Arena should be suspended now, that she could make an apology at some future time and then come back. I do not support that proposition; I consider it to be heavy-handed. Some may say the present solution is heavy-handed. However, I believe the Hon. Franca Arena should at least be given the opportunity to speak and to perhaps discuss an alternative form of words for the apology and thus satisfy the concerns of both sides of the House. The first step is to get the right wording to satisfy the House so that the suspension does not come into effect at all.

I was one of the members who helped to determine the number of days within which the apology should made. At one stage it seemed that we would simply work on this session. That would have meant that the apology would have to be made today, on Thursday, or on Friday. That would have pushed the Hon. Franca Arena into a corner. I am not sure whether all members of the committee realised it, but the stipulation of five sitting days risked extending the time for the making of the apology to the next session. The committee succeeded in doing that, which gave the Hon. Franca Arena a little more breathing space, so to speak. As some members have said, the feeling was to simply expel the Hon. Franca Arena -

Page 6904

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Don’t verbal our members.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Some Opposition members said that only moments ago. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti just said it. I am simply stating that some Opposition members have that view. I am sure that Government members of the committee as a group felt that, because of what the Hon. Franca Arena said, she should have been expelled forthwith. That is evidenced by the expulsion motion. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones must have forgotten that the motion was moved. The atmosphere then was different to the atmosphere now, and it may improve even more in the time the Hon. Franca Arena has to consider the motion. At one stage it was felt that she should negotiate the words with the committee, but that seemed to be a complicated procedure.

It may be even worse for her to attempt to negotiate with the House as a group, but we no longer have a choice. It is up to the Hon. Franca Arena to find words that are acceptable to the Government, the Opposition and the crossbench so that we can bring this matter to an end and get on with the real issue of cleaning up the State and protecting children from child abuse - something that will continue to happen unless this House takes strong action to prevent it.

The Christian Democratic Party will support the Opposition’s foreshadowed amendments, which will improve the motion by giving all parties the opportunity to agree on the words of the apology. The House must consider the fact that a defamation case has already been brought by Mr Della Bosca, and I believe it has been mentioned twice in court. If the Hon. Franca Arena were forced to use words that could be used against her in court, the judge would immediately consider the award of damages and the case would come to an abrupt end. I have been involved in five defamation cases, so I am in a position to explain the process to honourable members who do not understand it. The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith does not understand defamation. She said people are trying to water down the defamation laws to protect corrupt people.

However, defamation laws already protect corrupt people; they work against honest people. The court requires proof only that the statements complained of have damaged a person’s reputation and brought that person’s name into public disrepute. Courts do not want to hear about truth. If people have the money and the time, it is not difficult for them to nail down members of Parliament for what they say outside this place. Honourable members should not put the Hon. Franca Arena at risk by insisting that she use words that could be used against her outside this Parliament. That would really be an attack on free speech: she would be loading the gun to shoot herself with bullets prepared by the committee and the House. We must show some understanding, compassion and mercy rather than harshness or the desire for punishment that some members seem to have.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [6.33 p.m.]: I have stood with the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. Deirdre Grusovin and my colleague Bruce MacCarthy at gatherings and rallies of concerned people who have been subject to child abuse and paedophilia. I understand that the Hon. Franca Arena is very passionate about this issue, and for good reason. However, I was most concerned when I heard her speech on 17 September. I will remind honourable members of the Premier’s response.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Were you in the Chamber?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Yes, I was in the Chamber; I was sitting behind the Hon. Franca Arena. If I recall correctly, she spoke from the Opposition side. On 18 September, when referring to the royal commission and the establishment of the Nader inquiry, the Premier said:

That can be the only consequence of her attempt to undermine the commission’s credibility through fantastic allegations of a cover-up. Nothing could be better or, rather, worse calculated to impede the real task - ridding the community as far as is humanly possible of this crime and, above all, protecting young children from all forms of abuse. What could be more calculated to persuade children that they would not be protected than the insinuation that the highest institutions in the land - the courts, the royal commission and both sides of the Parliament itself - were all in a conspiracy against them? . . .

No amount of sympathy for the member’s anguish or attempt to understand the member’s motives can condone what she has done . . . Once again I unreservedly support the royal commission and the royal commissioner in the way they approached their task . . .

There was no such meeting of party officers at any other time on a Sunday. There was no meeting with party officers about this matter on any other day of the week. There was no such meeting because there was no need for such a meeting.

At that stage the Hon. Peter Collins interjected and said:

There was no meeting with me, either.

Later the Premier acknowledged that there was no meeting with Mr Collins. Following Mr Carr’s statement, Mr Collins said:

Page 6905

I appreciate the brief notice given to me by the Premier a few minutes before the House resumed this afternoon. I cannot conceal my personal disgust at the claims made yesterday by Franca Arena in another place . . .

As such, I welcome the Premier’s announcement today that there will be a special inquiry to lay to rest Franca Arena’s monstrous allegations. Members on both sides of this House are committed to fighting the notorious crime of paedophilia . . .

Franca Arena’s stand on paedophilia initially enjoyed my sympathy. I have had some compassion for the personal circumstances that led to her pursuit of this issue. But let me put a few items on the record today . . .

He then put his own position on paedophilia, and said:

Until now I have never had reason to question her motives. But she now exhibits the hallmarks of a reckless assassin. If she again refuses to give evidence to the inquiry announced by the Premier or cannot substantiate her claims before it, then her continued and unfettered access to the lethal weapon of parliamentary privilege must be considered and firm action must result.

On the same day he issued a press release along those lines, and a commission of inquiry was set up, with Justice Nader as the chair. The coalition amended the process to ensure a response was received from Peter Ryan. In his response, which was tabled on 27 November, he said:

I find that some of the material in the documents examined by me is worthy of further examination but a great deal of work will be necessary to discover corroborative evidence.

•A strike force will be set up under the command of a Detective Superintendent, reporting directly to me to investigate matters not currently subject to police inquiries.

•I have discovered nothing in the documents contrary to the findings of Mr Nader QC and his Special Commission of Inquiry.

Justice Nader tabled his report on 7 November. I have read the report in detail, as is evident from the notes I made on the document. Justice Nader clearly found that there was nothing in the evidence before him to substantiate the outrageous allegations made in this House on the evening of 17 September. The matter was then referred to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Ethics on 11 November. From 7 November the Hon. France Arena has issued a series of press statements casting doubt on the Nader report and calling into question Justice Nader’s ability to make determinations. She then had a go at the Labor Party. On 13 November she had a go at Mr Whelan for trying to rush the Commissioner of Police. On 4 December in this House the Hon. Franca Arena said:

Tonight I ask the community of New South Wales to judge me and to judge the Carr Labor Government on the witch-hunt it is conducting against me.

The Nader inquiry was followed by the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. Yet the Hon. Franca Arena refers to a witch-hunt!

The Hon. Franca Arena: Have you read the transcript of the privileges committee?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I have read the report, not the transcript. On 5 February the Hon. Franca Arena stated in a press release:

It appears that Dr Meredith Burgmann, the Chairperson of a supposedly impartial Committee investigating my allegations, seeks to communicate with me via the media.

That is an attack on the committee and the way in which it operates. The Hon. Franca Arena issued a press release on 9 February, in which she referred to the fact that she was denied an additional member of staff, and I can sympathise with her for that. On 19 and 24 March she again attacked the privilege and ethics committee, its terms of reference and the way in which it was to carry out its inquiry. A press release of 24 March stated:

Franca Arena today claimed that the Privileges Committee is biased against her.

She issued another press release on 8 May entitled "A Travesty of Justice". Today honourable members received the report of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, which I have read. It is important to note that the royal commissioner did not find any evidence to substantiate many of the allegations made by the Hon. Franca Arena. The committee supported the findings of both the royal commission and Justice Nader. It considered the evidence presented by the Hon. Franca Arena and the basis of her claims in relation to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, Justice Wood, John Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan, as he then was.

The findings of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics were precisely the same as those of the other two inquiries. More importantly, the Hon. Franca Arena had no evidence on which to base her allegations, and she knew it. The committee recommended that she be called on to withdraw the allegations made in her speech on 17 September relating to a criminal conspiracy; and in the event of her failure to withdraw the imputations and make a written apology to the House within a specified time, that she be suspended.

Page 6906

The committee further recommended that the House consider a resolution in similar terms to the motion moved by the Attorney General. I understand that motion will be amended by the Leader of the Opposition. Today I received letters from the Hon. Franca Arena’s lawyers, who said that she could not possibly apologise to anybody because she would end up in court, it would be all over, and she would have to pay up. This afternoon I was advised by Mr I. V. Knight, Crown Solicitor, as follows:

I advise that an apology by Mrs Arena in the terms of the apology contained in paragraph 2 of Recommendation No 2 and publication of it in the ways required by paragraph 4 thereof cannot result in prejudice to her in any defamation proceedings Mr Della Bosca may have initiated against her . . .

While Hansard is admitted on some occasions (without now the need for a Petition to the House seeking permission) for the limited purpose only of proving the fact of certain things having been said in Parliament, any attempt to tender Hansard as evidence of the facts and opinions contained in the statements would undoubtedly breach Parliamentary Privilege (see: NSW Branch of the AMA V Minister for Health and Community Services, supra, at pp 124-126).

The amendments of the Leader of the Opposition will omit from the motion the reference to Mr John Della Bosca and Justice Sheahan and leave the reference to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and Justice Wood. The Hon. Franca Arena should know how to behave. It is obvious that she knew at the time that she had made a big mistake, but she ignored it. I can understand that she was carried away with the urgency and sincerity of her campaign against paedophiles, but if she does not know how to behave when she is confronted with the facts, and it is clear to her, should she continue to be a member of this House?

The cost of these inquiries has been enormous. She will not listen. She said in the Manly Daily, "I have nothing to apologise for". This House will judge whether the Hon. Franca Arena should apologise. This is not a punitive matter. The House has to protect itself from members’ actions that will bring it into disrepute, and that is what we will do today. If the House suspends the Hon. Franca Arena she will sit in her office, use the privileges of the House and receive the money. But what will the people of New South Wales think?

The community will think we have wimped out or lost our marbles if we stop her from coming into the House but continue to give her money and privileges. I would be happy to resolve that she be suspended for five clear days. But I give notice that if the Hon. Franca Arena has not apologised within five sitting days, the House will have to take further and more serious steps in order to protect its reputation. Members will be assailed from all sides if she is suspended until the next election because of the inability of the House to make a decision to protect itself. We would be held up to ridicule for paying somebody who is not allowed to do her job because she offends the House.

Tonight we can decide to suspend her. We can give her another bit of rope with which to hang herself and wait until the end of September - one year after she made the comment. The inquiry of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics went on and on, inveigled by lawyers on both sides. The decision to suspend the Hon. Franca Arena must be clear: she has five days to apologise, and unless she follows the steps in the motion, further action will be taken. I urge honourable members to remember that what they vote for tonight will have to be followed through.

I do not believe that the Hon. Franca Arena will resign, because she has already said she has no reason to apologise and does not believe she has brought this House and its members into disrepute. If she apologises and retracts her statement, that will go some way towards absolving her in the opinion of the House. If the matter is allowed to drag on for months, we will be the subject of ridicule.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [6.47 p.m.], in reply: It is not necessary to use the word "conspiracy" to allege a conspiracy. It is not necessary to use the words "unlawful or criminal activity" to allege that type of activity. An imputation is not some esoteric legal concept, it is an ordinary word. The committee that investigated this matter in exhaustive detail has provided, in volume 1 of its report, a cogent and well-argued account of the Hon. Franca Arena’s speech and the imputations that arise from it.

Paragraph 3.12.3 of the report concludes that the speech could not be sensibly understood as conveying anything other than very serious allegations. Those allegations are set out in the report. In particular it refers to the allegation that certain people met and agreed to confer favoured treatment on persons of social, political or judicial prominence in the community by ensuring that they would be protected from investigation, detection, exposure or punishment. The committee’s conclusions on pages 47 and 48 are similarly compelling in their reasoning and their analysis of the speech.

Page 6907

I regard the argument that the speech has been misconstrued as engaging in medieval scholasticism because the imputations arising from that speech are clear. It has been said by the Hon. Franca Arena that the Nader inquiry was one sided. I believe it was a perfectly fair and independent inquiry. The honourable member had the right to elect not to give evidence. She did not give evidence but she was provided at public expense with a team of lawyers who could cross-examine witnesses, challenge what they said, and provide alternative evidence. They did not do this. Despite the provision of a legal team the honourable member was simply not present before that inquiry except in the initial stages. She did not take the opportunity to challenge that material.

Mr Philip Taylor, barrister, points to three possible adverse consequences arising from the making of the concessions called for by the motion and by the committee’s report. On a fair reading of his advice, he accepts that the first two possible consequences are remote. I would describe them as fanciful and not matters of real concern. His third point concerns possible deleterious effects in relation to the defamation action brought against the Hon. Franca Arena by Mr Della Bosca. There are two answers to that. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti referred earlier to this part of the Crown Solicitor’s advice:

. . . an apology by Mrs Arena in the terms of the apology contained in paragraph 2 of Recommendation No. 2 and publication of it in the ways required by paragraph 4 thereof cannot result in prejudice to her in any defamation proceedings Mr Della Bosca may have initiated against her.

The Crown Solicitor also provided detailed reasoning about the use of Hansard in civil proceedings of that kind. I refer finally to the amendments moved by the Opposition to this motion. I have no difficulty in accepting amendments Nos 1 and 2, which relate to whether the apology or retraction should be in writing. A good case has been made for the apology and retraction to be given through the ordinary forms of the House. I accept that. I understand that the opinion in the House would be to favour amendments 3, 4 and 5 and I do not intend to call a division to oppose those amendments, but I must say that they trouble me a little. I am not really satisfied that we should make a distinction between members of Parliament and judges on the one hand and other citizens on the other hand. I believe it is a delineation which may be seen to be unfair and unjust to Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan, as he then was.

I would not want the view of the House that these amendments ought to be supported to be in any way construed as a view that in some way they are vulnerable to criticism or they are not equally entitled to the clearance that the Nader commission and the committee of this House gave them. In other words, there is a complete and utter absence of evidence against those gentlemen, just as there is against the members of Parliament Mr Carr and Mr Collins, and Justice Wood. I have expressed some difficulty about these amendments but I think it is sufficient for me to put my views on the record. Both Mr Della Bosca and Mr Sheahan have been utterly vindicated by two independent inquiries. There the matter should rest.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

[The President left the chair at 6.55 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.01 p.m.]: I had almost concluded my remarks earlier this afternoon. Since then I have discovered that the genesis of this bill was not the bill presented to the Hon. E. P. Pickering when he was Minister, but a report that was presented to him. That very same report was passed from the Cabinet Office to Parliamentary Counsel to be put in the shape of a bill. The report was not a white paper; it had nothing to do with the consultation process that took place. It was an old report, and Parliamentary Counsel faithfully turned that report into the very flawed legislation that was introduced into the other place. That is why the legislation is an absolute mess. If the Government had looked at the white paper, if it had taken into account all the submissions made by groups all over New South Wales and had listened to the people, the House would not have this legislation before it. Essentially it was a flawed process. At dinner I told the Minister for Public Works and Services that I would be very brief tonight and would make only one comment.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: And I told you that I would hold you accountable if you were not.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I would strongly advise Ministers to read their legislation before bringing it before the House. I also strongly urge Ministers to allow backbench members who have an interest in the subject to look at legislation before it
Page 6908
is presented to the House. If members had been given the chance to look at this bill - and I know they did not, all they saw was a briefing paper - they would not have allowed it to be presented to the House. Crossbench members read the bill when they first got it. I think we read the bill before the Minister did.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The Opposition read the bill before the Minister did too.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The Opposition read the bill and the crossbench members went through it with a fine toothcomb when it was first available. We were absolutely alarmed at what we saw in it. I alerted some Labor Party backbenchers who had not read the provisions in the bill and they were horrified. They immediately started a lobbying process. I repeat my advice to the Ministers: please read your legislation.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.05 p.m.]: The Greens are cognisant of the many complaints from the community about the companion animals legislation and its colourful history in the lead-up to debate in this House. There have been many problems. I am concerned that some good aspects of the legislation have been somewhat derailed by the public debate, especially in the media, which has changed the direction of this important legislation. Regardless of whether the bill has been developed in the most appropriate way or whether those responsible have done their homework, as a Green I am convinced of the need for legislation such as this. The Greens support the bill. It will make pet owners take responsibility for their pets. The greater regulation and control of pet ownership in this bill will lead to a greater respect for the concept of pet ownership and for companion animals and, I hope, will eventually lead to less cruelty towards animals.

Unquestionably, massive destruction of animals occurs in our community. Many problems arise in animal-care institutions and organisations because people do not have the right attitude towards companion animal control and ownership. The public does not take this responsibility seriously enough and often it is the animals that suffer. Many animals are bought without due care, not looked after adequately and then dumped. People fail to realise that many of these creatures live for 10 or 15 years and deserve a decent quality of life. I am personally appalled at the lack of care shown by pet owners both in Sydney and on the north coast where I live.

The Greens acknowledge that Australia has a unique biological heritage. Ancient animal species have evolved having survived global changes over millennia. Australia has one of the world’s highest rates of extinction of plant and animal species. The urbanisation of many areas, particularly the coastal zones of New South Wales, has involved the clearing of the habitat of many species and the introduction of predators to these environments. The loss of corridors and habitat for fauna has been impacted upon by the introduction of new animals. When debating this legislation honourable members have a direct responsibility to consider the impact of domestic animals on native wildlife.

A companion animal is any animal kept for the mutual welfare and benefit of the animal and its carer. An animal may be kept primarily as a companion or pet, for protection, to provide assistance to its carer, for working purposes or to provide assistance to people with disabilities. In 1994 approximately 66 per cent of Australian households owned a pet. The pet industry is one of the largest in Australia, employing more than 30,000 people and contributing about $2.2 billion to the economy annually. According to a BIS Shrapnel report, about a third of that amount, or $720 million, was spent in New South Wales in 1995.

Pet care industries make a significant contribution to the Australian economy and benefit greatly from pet ownership through funding and advertising campaigns that highlight the importance of pet ownership. However, our indigenous animals are used in the pet food industry, and this raises the question of animal cruelty. In 1992 there was increased support for pet ownership and a strong commitment to the care of pets. This trend was said to be in response to the relentless pace of social, cultural, economic, political and technological change which was so profoundly established in Australian society in the 1980s and into the 1990s.

The Pet Care Information Advisory Service undertook a study entitled "What Australians Feel about their Pets" which related to attitudes towards cat and dog ownership. I express concern about research prepared by or for that service because of funding by the industry. Hugh Mackay, who assisted with the report, noted that there have been three primary effects: a widespread loss of control of our lives; a growing sense of isolation as a direct result of the fragmentation of families and households; and the feeling that the traditional Australian neighbourhood is under threat. Australians appear to have lost their confidence in the future. Morale is down and people need comfort, reassurance, ritual and other experiences to help rebuild their confidence in their own future.

Page 6909

These factors apply to many situations in modern society, such as family breakdowns, suicide, drug use and violence. Mackay argues that these shifts in social attitudes help explain the increasing value that Australians place on pets in their lives. Interestingly, at the same time aggressive and emotional advertising has increased in magazines and on the television, depicting warm family moments, the close emotional rewards of pet interaction, and images of the strong outdoor male with the wild dog running free along the beach as the fashionably correct model of the moment. Human beings are often under stress and suffer loneliness, and pet ownership is a therapeutic strategy deliberately calculated to reduce those symptoms. In a more recent study in July 1996 entitled "The Mackay Report: Mind and Mood, No. 85" Mackay noted that during research, when participants made conscious attempts to find something positive to say, pets and sports were major topics. The study found:

Pets are the reliable providers of companionship of a particularly undemanding kind . . . while pets continue to be the object of some hostility - notably involving dog droppings on suburban footpaths and cat attacks on native fauna - pet owners regard their pets as being an integral part of their lives: therapeutic contributors to their sense of well being; companions of the most reliable and undemanding kind.

It is a sad indictment of society that in this socially deprived environment people resort to pets for security. There are obvious positive aspects of companion animal ownership, as Jackson cites in "Domestic Pets in New Urban Areas, Australian Planner", Volume 31, No. 3 of 1994. These are:

•pets act as protectors and companions. This is particularly so in an era when the population is ageing and more people are living alone

•pets teach children about sharing, caring, communication and responsibility

•pets assist with therapy in hospitals, prisons, psychiatric institutions, nursing homes and schools

•pets relieve stress -

it is worth noting that pets can also create stress, not just for the owner but for people in surrounding areas -

•pets act as an incentive to exercise

•and pets are good for our health.

Other implications of companion animals relate primarily to owner responsibility and addressing the need for legislation. Failure to de-sex animals leads to an increase in the population, which often results in unwanted animals being either put down or dumped. They can also have an environmental impact, particularly on native birds and animals. Dogs which are exercised in public areas have the potential to be a risk to public and native animal safety, while dogs defecating in public places is another negative effect of owner irresponsibility.

It is estimated that there are more than 500,000 dogs in Sydney alone, producing approximately 100 tonnes of excrement a day. The general health implications are significant and can result in faecal coliform pollution of waterways and the growth and spread of algal blooms. Because owners do not take proper care of their pets this crime against the environment is perpetuated. I hope that public education campaigns will be put in place to demonstrate to owners that pet ownership carries a significant responsibility.

It is important to have greater regulation of animals. Dogs left unattended for long periods have the potential, through excessive barking, to be a nuisance to neighbours. Some animals have a propensity to become feral. The green and white papers on companion animals raised fundamental principles of responsible companion animal care, such as providing safety and protection from injury, food, water, shelter, exercise and space appropriate to the needs of the animal, health care - including vaccination - parasite control, professional veterinarian treatment where necessary, identification so that the animal can be safely returned if lost, and breeding controls to ensure the health and wellbeing of the animals. De-sexing of animals is encouraged unless they are specifically kept for breeding purposes.

All carers should respect other animal carers and those who do not have companion animals. Other companion animals, livestock and native animals should also be protected. Owners have a responsibility to protect their companion animals from stray, dumped and uncared for animals by ensuring responsible breeding practices. One must respect their rights, acknowledge the benefits of keeping working and companion animals, and have an expectation that a responsible standard of companion animal care will be enforced.

I acknowledge the many years of work by organisations that care for injured native animals, such as the New South Wales Wildlife Information and Rescue Service - WIRES - Sydney Metropolitan Wildlife Services, the Native Animal Network Association, the Basin Birdwatchers Club and the Native Animal Trust Fund. These groups are responsible for caring for injured animals and informing and educating the community about the
Page 6910
potential danger to native animals. The Greens believe that responsibility for educating the community about responsible pet ownership should also lie with the pet industry and that this information could be added to pet food labels. I hope that the industry, which makes such large sums of money out of pet ownership, will be responsible in helping the Government to inform people of their new responsibilities.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It would be good if the industry could put the information on the back of labels.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes, that is exactly my point. It is incumbent on the industry to be responsible, given that it employs more than 30,000 people and makes $2.2 billion annually. The majority of the industry has headed towards the development of the interests and culture of pet ownership without looking at its responsibilities. In this respect the Government is on the right track in recognising in this bill the responsibility of pet ownership. There should be greater care, less cruelty and certainly less wastage of resources in a culture in which pets should be afforded a higher level of protection. I have said time and again that in the push to encourage the popularity of pet ownership many animals suffer. A brochure published by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service states:

A feral cat may have been a domestic cat that was unwanted and dumped, a stray, or the offspring of a feral cat. It is estimated that there are 400 000 feral cats in New South Wales and around 12 million feral cats across Australia . . .

Research shows that both feral and domestic cats kill and eat more than 100 native species of birds, 50 mammal and marsupial species, 50 reptile species, and numerous frogs and invertebrate species. In Australia, cats have no natural predators. They are most active at night, dusk and dawn when much of our native wildlife is also active.

Cats are scavengers and hunters and will naturally prey on the most available and easily caught animals. They eat approximately five to eight percent of their body weight each day, which is the equivalent of up to seven native bush rats per week. Their prey consists mainly of small to medium-sized animals, but they can also kill animals the same size as themselves. In urban areas, cats will scrounge garbage scraps and eat carrion (dead animals).

Even well-fed domestic cats will prey on and kill native wildlife because of their natural hunting instincts. Native animals killed by domestic cats include possums, bandicoots, birds, lizards, snakes, skinks, geckos, bats, native rats and marsupial mice. Domestic cats can kill, on average, about 30 native animals per year.

In urban areas, the number of domestic cats that regularly visit neighbouring bushland areas can outnumber feral cats and therefore have a greater impact on native animals . . . Cats can also carry diseases which affect humans, livestock and native animals. Toxoplasmosis is transmitted by cats and is a disease which can cause blindness, birth defects and miscarriage in humans as well as blindness and damage to the central nervous system and respiratory organs of native wildlife. Some native animals, such as bandicoots and kangaroos, never recover from the disease. Due to bacteria in the mouths of cats, wildlife injured by cats rarely survive. Feline influenza is often present in feral cat populations and can be transmitted to domestic cats.

Feral and domestic cats are a major threat to the survival of our unique Australian wildlife. They have no place in our national parks and nature reserves.

I suggest this major problem is due to irresponsible pet ownership. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has issued a leaflet in northern New South Wales about the responsibility of dog owners towards koalas. The leaflet states:

DOGS - domestic dogs were responsible for 40 known koala deaths last year in the Lismore area.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DOG DOES AT NIGHT?

Habitat loss, road kills and DOGS are seen as the major threats in the Lismore area.

To secure a healthy population of koalas in the Lismore area residents must recognise that the responsibility is theirs.

•DOGS must be secured in an enclosure at night.

•If you see a koala leave it alone and make sure dogs are kept away.

The leaflet suggests that when acquiring a dog one should consider the most suitable type for urban living and available space and that dogs should be kept in enclosed areas, or indoors from sundown to sunrise. The leaflet states that people should realise that chained dogs can still kill koalas. A leaflet produced by the Native Animal Network Association Inc. states:

Studies show that domestic (PET) cats hunt many species of native birds and animals.

It is becoming clear that some domestic (PET) cats are persistent hunters while others may be more opportunistic.

The majority of cats will attack small ground dwelling birds such as the beautiful blue wren, once common, but now rare where cats dominate.

Small night animals are also hunted if cats are left to roam after dark.

These include feathertail gliders, sugargliders, pigmy possums, ring tail possums, baby brush tail possums, bandicoots, small bats, etc.

It is fine to have cats in the community. They can exist happily in a domestic area but they do not need to be left out at night. A leaflet published by the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage states:

Page 6911

Research has shown that cats have been in Australia for at least two centuries. They were possibly carried to northern Australia by traders from the East Indies or survived the wrecks of Dutch ships.

Estimates vary but there are probably five to ten million cats in Australia. About 2.8 million are domestic cats . . .

Cats have been found to eat more than 186 species of native birds, 64 species of mammals, 87 species of reptiles, 10 species of frogs, and numerous invertebrates.

The document makes the point that cats, because of their amazing adaptability, revert very well to a wild state if allowed to escape. It is important to have proper protection of native wildlife through responsible cat ownership. I have taken part in many debates about the Companion Animals Bill. I will study with interest the massive number of amendments to be put before the Committee following the second reading debate. I hope that the bill succeeds and that sensible amendments are acknowledged and agreed to. It cannot be stressed too greatly that native wildlife is suffering terribly from irresponsible ownership of domestic animals. We all have a primary responsibility to wildlife, not only to protect them from cruelty but also to ensure their survival.

Dog owners must take responsibility for the welfare of their animals and be considerate neighbours to those who often suffer from reckless animal ownership. I am concerned that many animals are purchased as Christmas presents and then dumped. Each year approximately 80,000 stray cats are put down. I am also concerned that through misguided care for animals they will continue to be destroyed in large numbers. I look forward to there being greater regulation in the industry, including microchipping and licensing of dogs and cats. If it is a little more difficult to own an animal people will take their responsibilities more seriously. The New South Wales authorities who deal with masses of strays should find their work a little easier. Local councils have the right and responsibility to deal with animals humanely, and I hope that we do not have a continuum of irresponsible animal ownership. I support the bill and will endeavour to ensure that the amendments agreed to will benefit the community as well as the animals.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [8.30 p.m.]: I know exactly what is meant by people fighting like cats and dogs, because this legislation is the biggest fight on the part of cat and dog owners I have ever witnessed. I have received a huge amount of correspondence from a great many people, for which I am grateful. I am always pleased when my constituents feel so strongly about an issue that they write to me about it. However, the correspondence received is so contradictory that it is very difficult to know who or what to believe. While the majority of animals kept in our society are kept as pets, some are kept for more functional purposes, such as guard dogs, guide dogs used by those with physical disabilities - and what wonderful work they do - and dogs used as working animals on rural properties. You, Madam Deputy-President, being of a rural background, would realise what wonderful work dogs do on farm properties. Dogs are also used by the police, customs officials and those in the security industry.

To ensure that all those aspects of animal ownership are addressed, the working party defined "companion animal" as any animal that is kept for the mutual welfare and benefit of the animal and its carer. It may be kept primarily as a companion or pet, for protection or for providing assistance to its carer, such as for working purposes or for providing assistance for people with disabilities. The guide dog charity is one of my favourites, and it is one that I am sure we are all incredibly fond of. Guide dogs do so much for people who have lost their sight. According to a study released in 1995, caring for a pet is the norm in Australia. In 1994, 66 per cent of Australian households owned a pet: 57 per cent owned a dog or a cat, 42 per cent owned a dog and 31 per cent owned a cat.

There were approximately 3.8 million dogs and 2.9 million domestic cats Australiawide at that time, with New South Wales accounting for 1.226 million dogs and 865,000 cats. When market research figures were first collected in 1996, the total number of owned dogs in Australia was estimated to be 1.3 million. From 1978 to 1988 the number of dog-owning households increased from 1.74 million to 2.13 million. I thank the Parliamentary Library research service for those figures and for the excellent paper on this legislation produced by Marie Swain. I have recited the figures to emphasise the very large number of animals we have in this country. That is why people feel so strongly about this bill. People own cats, dogs, birds and many other animals. When I grew up in Italy I did not own an animal because I lived in a flat, but I remember that people who did own pets used to feed them leftovers.

The Australian pet food industry is unbelievably huge. Sometimes I am upset to think that so many millions of dollars are spent on animal food, when leftovers seemed to be good enough for pets in years gone by, yet so many thousands of children go to bed hungry every night. It is sad to think about how much money is wasted in that way. I intend to quote from only two of the letters sent to
Page 6912
me, in order to give honourable members an idea of the difficulty I faced in reaching a decision on this legislation. Charles Wright, Chief Executive Officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has written the first of those letters. I remember meeting Charles Wright about 20 years ago, when he was a board member of the Evatt Foundation. His letter reads in part:

The Bill must be passed
The RSPCA puts down some 30,000 cats and 15,000 dogs per year simply because we are unable to identify their owners. This bill will go a long way towards eliminating this tragedy.

Dangerous Dogs
This bill allows council officers to take action on dangerous dogs which has caused numerous problems in the community and even caused death . . .

We all know of incidents of children and adults being attacked by dogs. Sadly, many older people are afraid to walk the streets or parklands, especially at night, for fear of being attacked. The RSPCA letter also states:

Holding Periods
The RSPCA has never had to hold cats for any period of time but generally do so for 7 days.

The current bill requires the pounds, for which RSPCA represents 13, in the Sydney metropolitan area to hold cats and dogs for 7 days if not identified, 14 if identified.

Mr Wright’s letter continues with reasons for which I should support the legislation, and I thank the RSPCA for putting that case so well. The second letter to which I shall refer comes from the Animal Societies Federation, in Gladesville. The writer states:

I beg you to read this before attending the Companion Animals Debate today. It reflects the views of many thousands of your constituents.

Last week representatives of several peak animal welfare organisations (International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Animal Societies Federation (ASF), Animal Liberation, Cat Defence, PAWS, World League for Protection of Animals) held an emergency meeting to discuss the new legislation.

The Animal Societies Federation states its belief that this legislation is terrible and will not go any way towards dealing with the problems. The federation has asked me to oppose the bill. I pay tribute to the Minister for Local Government, who has worked very hard on this issue. I realise that it would be extremely difficult to satisfy everybody. However, I recognise that 180 amendments have been proposed to this legislation. In my opinion, any bill that has so many amendments should be sent back to the drawing board to be redrafted. A bill that has 180 amendments is surely an impossibility. We have all had a difficult day - particularly me - and the thought of debating 180 amendments is not attractive. One of the many letters I received came from the Ronnoco Cattery - I would have had to read that letter if only because of the author’s beautiful name.

I realise that other honourable members wish to speak in the debate and I shall not delay the House. I have read all of the letters that have been sent to me. Animal Liberation has stated that the bill is a disgrace, yet so many other letters I have received have asked me to support it. I shall oppose the second reading of this bill only because I feel that any bill that needs 180 amendments cannot be good. Let us at least reach agreement on the essential parts of the bill, send it back to the drawing board and make sure that it is better drafted, and ensure that it will be legislation acceptable to the community. Obviously, pets are extremely important in the lives of so many people.

For elderly people a cat or dog can be like a member of the family. So many older people are incredibly lonely - children grow up and have their own families and sometimes do not seem to think of their parents. I always remember my father saying that a father can keep 10 children but 10 children cannot keep a father. That statement is so true so often. For people living alone a companion animal can be wonderful company, whether it be a cat, a dog or even a little bird. Let us do the right thing by animal owners and by this legislation. I shall oppose the second reading of this bill. That is not because I consider the Minister has not tried hard enough; certainly he has tried hard. Unfortunately, however, it would appear that his department has not advised him fully and this bill is in need of major redrafting.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.40 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are proud to be the party with the soundest record on animal welfare issues. We support the changes proposed in the bill at a philosophical level, but we recognise that it is a compromise that balances the competing interests of animal welfare groups, pet owners, wildlife protection groups, animal breeders, animal traders, the RSPCA, those affected by noise and those fearful of dog attacks. However, we are concerned that in some respects the balance between the various groups may not be optimal. Ultimately the Australian Democrats agree with the Greens that native animals that may be at risk should take precedence over animals that exist in large numbers and have their future guaranteed by their relationship as domestic companions to humans.

Page 6913

As such, companion animals are part of human husbandry. Already human activity is by far the greatest threat to the biodiversity of the planet. The Australian Democrats wildlife policy states that all exotic species that compete with the indigenous species, or pose a threat to the survival of such species, will be listed as pests and legislation for their control will be initiated. We do not suggest that companion animals are pests, but we recognise the necessity of keeping control of species that humans favour. Democrat policy also states that measures will be taken to stem the disappearance of smaller vertebrate species, with the dedication of reserves where necessary; and that particular studies will be carried out to identify and protect wildlife corridors and migration routes.

It must be pointed out that some small native marsupials have been made extinct, and that others are in grave danger of becoming extinct. Recently I visited Warrawong Sanctuary near Adelaide and saw species that are close to extinction, and I had not even been aware of their existence. The only conclusion is that while efforts are being made to offset the needs and aspirations of companion animals and their owners with the protection of the public, the vital conservation of native birds and animals must not be neglected. The protection of native birds and animals should be the primary objective of animal welfare policy in New South Wales. I flag that I will move an amendment to that effect during the Committee stage of the bill.

Protection of native wildlife is particularly important with regard to endangered species. In sensitive areas restrictions on domestic pets are necessary to achieve that protection. It must be recognised that cats are active nocturnally and instinctively hunt. Dogs are pack animals, and as such are also a danger to ground nesting birds and small marsupials. I am pleased to note that the bill bans cats from wildlife protection areas set apart for that purpose by local councils, via clause 25(f). Local councils should be encouraged to identify sensitive wildlife areas in council regions so that native species, and particularly endangered species, can be properly protected from unaccompanied cats and dogs. The fine under this section is a maximum of $550.

Clause 71 of the bill provides for the establishment of a register of companion animals. I am pleased to note that, for the first time in New South Wales, it will be necessary for cats to be registered, following the lead set by Victoria and South Australia. I would, however, flag an amendment that will improve the identification of companion animal owners who change address. The amendment will provide for optional cross-referencing of the address of the owner on the companion animal register with his or her car registration, and with gas, electricity and water utilities. It is generally accepted that pets may become disoriented when an owner moves house, and may take off back to the old residence. Some of them make it and some become lost on the way.

It is also the case that when people move house they sometimes forget to lodge change-of-address notices as promptly as they should, and the dog and cat registration may be left at the bottom of the list. The foreshadowed amendment will make it possible to link the address on the companion animal register with, say, the address for the electricity account - one address that must be provided prior to taking up residence in new premises. The owner could therefore be contacted at the new address if necessary. Another pleasing feature of the legislation is the provision of protection from dangerous dogs. Division 2 of part 5 makes provision for a dog to be declared dangerous and division 5 of part 5 contains provisions for dealing with restricted dogs.

Restricted breeds are listed as pit bull terriers, american pit bull terriers, japanese tosas, argentinian fighting dogs, brazilian fighting dogs and any other breed as prescribed by regulation. The list has been compiled from the Customs Act, which sets out the breeds of dog that may not be imported. In addition, any dog, irrespective of breed, may be declared dangerous. The provisions relating to ownership and control are comprehensive and onerous for dangerous dogs and restricted dogs. This covers the concerns expressed in our submission regarding responsibilities associated with the ownership of dangerous dogs.

I am concerned about security dog training and the proliferation of such dogs with the growth of the private security industry. This issue was discussed in the white paper but was omitted from the bill. The Minister for Police has the carriage of this matter and provisions relating to security dogs will be included in the second wave of amendments to the Security Industry Act. I have been informed that standards being contemplated are those standards at present in place relating to police dogs. In principle the Australian Democrats support the bill before the House.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [8.45 p.m.]: Companion animals are special and precious to a great many people, which explains why this Page 6914
legislation has generated so much debate and concern among members of the general public. When I was a child I had a cat called Snappy. Snappy was my pet for 16 years and used to sleep on my chest. It would wait for me to return from school, and would comfort me when I was upset. When Snappy died I was very upset. I remember going to school and sharing my sorrow with a number of my colleagues. Snappy was taken to the vet to be put down because it had kidney disease. My mother and I buried Snappy in a box in the backyard, complete with flowers and a cross. My pet truly was a companion, a very loving companion that I remember with affection. However, Snappy was also a proficient hunter and, as we lived next to a reserve, it would often disappear and return with some birds or lizards and very proudly miaow to tell us of its conquest.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Was it a swimmer as well as a hunter?

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: No, it hated water. A balance has to be reached between addressing the concerns and needs of people who have companion animals and protecting native wildlife, to ensure that native animals have their rightful place and security in our country. I support the legislation on the basis that it promotes an understanding and acceptance of the important role of companion animals in the community and in the lives of many individuals who are socially isolated or have special needs. The legislation was introduced to promote responsible ownership of companion animals, and to provide for their effective care and welfare. It also contains measures to reduce the adverse impacts that some animals may have on the environment and on individuals - very often animals that are not properly cared for by their owners, who become stray, nuisance or dangerous animals. The legislation makes special provision for restricted dogs, which are notoriously dangerous.

The bill proposes mechanisms that are likely to achieve these objectives, some of which include a system of permanent identification and lifetime registration for companion animals, legislative status for cats as well as dogs, strengthening regulations relating to dangerous and restricted dogs, and promoting local companion animal planning and control strategies. The benefits of pet ownership for individuals and the community have been widely recorded and recognised. As reported by David Leser in the Good Weekend on 10 May 1997, dog owners are happier and healthier than non-dog owners. That article notes also that community links are fostered and improved through pet ownership.

Children who grow up in families with healthy and well-trained pets also benefit from learning about friendship and responsibility. The benefits of owning pets are emphasised more in today’s community when changing lifestyles cause people to feel more isolated and in need of a companion. Most pet owners in New South Wales are responsible and care for their pets by giving them attention and love, ensuring they are vaccinated, registered, trained and socialised. However, the busy lifestyles of owners of companion animals, amongst other reasons, can have adverse effects on those animals and cause problems for the community.

Irresponsible ownership causes behavioural problems in the animals; they become a nuisance and most often a danger. Irresponsible pet ownership results in approximately 30,000 dog attacks in Australia each year, of which a large proportion are on small children. Stray or improperly restricted pets can be a danger to property, particularly on farms, and to wildlife. They also pose health risks to humans and other animals. Irresponsible pet ownership results also in many family pets being dumped and destroyed. I support the bill because it will ensure more responsible pet ownership. I have received many representations from individuals and community groups emphasising the positive aspects of the legislation but raising also some concerns, including imposing additional expenses and rules and regulations that will bring hardship to responsible pet owners.

Many of the concerns with regard to this legislation relate to low compliance with pet ownership legislation, requirements of microchipping, qualities of pounds and the provisions over seizing, destroying and selling animals. I am satisfied that most of these issues will be addressed during the Committee stage. I emphasise the importance of the legislation to protect wildlife and individuals, particularly children. Though I support the bill, I foreshadow that I shall move amendments during the Committee stage to address some of my concerns. My first amendment relates to the meaning of "owner". For the purposes of the legislation my amendment shall propose that owners must be aged 16 years or older. This will ensure mature and responsible ownership of companion animals and that children and young people are not held liable for breaches of the legislation in civil and criminal proceedings.

My other amendments will propose that dangerous and restricted dogs be controlled only by persons aged 16 years or over. Apart from ensuring the security of the person controlling the animals and the security of others, the amendments will
Page 6915
promote ownership and control of animals bred and trained to be pets rather than killers. The amendments will clarify and strengthen the bill as they will ensure more responsible pet ownership. I have other concerns about certain aspects of the bill, most of which arise from past instances when children were attacked and mauled by dogs. As these relate to the details of the regulation-making powers of the legislation, I seek assurances from the Minister that the following concerns will be addressed.

First, I seek clarification from the Minister, in his own capacity and on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, about the definition of "wound". In other jurisdictions wounding in relation to companion animals legislation has been interpreted to mean a bite that punctures the skin. I seek an assurance that "wound" means any physical injury directly caused to the victim by the animal, which, in all likelihood, is a dog. I wish to ensure that when a person breaks a limb as a consequence of being lunged at or attacked by a dog that injury will be covered by clause 20 of part 3 as it currently stands. Second, I seek an assurance from the Minister that during the drafting of regulations for off-leash areas councils will take into account the proximity of children’s playgrounds and schools, and the likelihood of children frequenting the areas. Third, I wish to ensure that the areas in which dangerous and restricted dogs are kept are designed to prevent them from exiting on their own.

I seek an assurance also that the regulations will prescribe that dangerous and restricted dogs be properly restrained and muzzled when children are present on the property. These concerns arose from the many cases of children being mauled by dogs on private property, mostly because children wandered into areas where the dogs were kept. Finally, I commend the bill for making provisions for community education in relation to companion animal care, responsible ownership and management of the responsibilities of the Companion Animals Advisory Board, which was established by the legislation. These education programs will promote better ownership practices and help to reduce the incidence of dog attacks. I seek an assurance from the Government that a significant proportion of these programs will specifically target children, serve to educate them on the benefits of family pets and teach them how to avoid dog attacks.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.56 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.56 p.m.]: The coalition will not oppose this package of legislation because it provides for the appropriation of moneys for the Government to undertake its operations in the community. The House has engaged in an extensive debate on the budget papers. Therefore, in accordance with the practice of this House, it is not appropriate for honourable members to pursue a detailed debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills. The budget debate will take place in this House during the normal take-note debate. However, I wish to bring one issue to the attention of the House. I refer to the estimates committee relating to the Attorney General’s portfolio, which was conducted on 22 June. During the hearing an answer was given that I had never heard. I asked the Attorney General a series of questions about certain figures that related to the capital works appropriation. As can be seen on pages 203 and 204 of the Hansard proof of the estimates committee hearing, he said in response to one question:

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Generally these figures have been compiled within the Treasury and they do not always accord with the estimate that my department has put forward but I am informed that the total cost of that project is estimated at $5.439 million. It is expected that the contract will be let in the 1998-1999 financial year with expenditure of $4.5 million in that year.

I then asked:

Page 6916

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: So those figures are wrong as well?

The Hon J. W SHAW: Yes.

I repeatedly asked the Attorney General that question and he responded, "Yes". Finally, in answer to a question the Attorney General said, "I will ask Mr Glanfield to answer that." Mr Glanfield is the head of the department. What did Mr Glanfield say about the capital works budget allocation for his department? He said:

Can I indicate in relation to this whole schedule that the figures that we provided to the Treasury are not reflected in that page. Each of these items you identify, we had a similar difficulty with. In relation to the costs of the projects though, the figures identified last year are the correct estimates according to us.

Mr Glanfield basically said that the figures provided for last year are correct but that the figures for this year, which were not provided by the department, are incorrect. He further said:

In relation to the courts administration system, the reason for the lower than anticipated expenditure is that we have been concentrating on the form and processes and in fact it has had a slower start up than we would have liked, but we have been also looking to employ a project manager.

I then asked the Attorney General:

So again the figures contained in the budget papers are wrong?

The Attorney General replied:

That schedule, those figures, particularly in the estimated total cost and the estimated expenditure, do not accord with the figures that we provided.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Do you mean the bids?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Attorney General basically said that he gave Treasury the necessary figures for capital works.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: But they are bids.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: No. The figures are what the department said were necessary to complete the projects. The Attorney General basically said that Treasury rewrote the figures; the department has no idea where the figures came from but they were not the figures supplied to Treasury. Basically, Mr Glanfield said in relation to the whole of the capital works budget that the figures provided to the Treasury are not reflected in that page of the budget papers. The Attorney General and his department have walked away from the budget. I have never seen that happen before and I have never heard of it happening before. Something has gone wrong in Treasury in this regard. I picked it up in the Attorney General’s portfolio; I do not know what happened in other portfolios.

It is an indictment of the Government that the Attorney General has walked away from the budget papers. As a consequence, the Committee of the Whole will receive a report stating that the committee cannot recommend the budget estimates in relation to capital works for the Attorney General’s Department until accurate figures for that department are provided to the House. The Treasurer has a look of shock on his face. I am staggered that a bureaucrat has not informed him that Treasury has made a monumental bungle in relation to this part of the budget papers at least. Therefore, whilst the Opposition does not oppose the passage of these bills, there will be extensive debate on the budget estimates and related papers. I have never seen a committee seriously question a substantial part of one Minister’s budget, and I have never heard of any member seeing that happen in their experience in the Parliament.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.04 p.m.], in reply: The matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition had not previously been drawn to my attention. However, I will inquiry into it and report to the House at the first available opportunity.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Reports of General Purpose Standing Committees Nos 1 to 5 adopted.

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

Assent to the following bills reported:

Fair Trading Amendment Bill
Home Building Amendment Bill
Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Amendment (Penalty Notices) Bill
Motor Vehicle Repairs Amendment Bill
Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment (Penalty Notices) Bill
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill
Retirement Villages Amendment Bill

Page 6917

Local Government Amendment (Parking and Wheel Clamping) Bill
Duties Amendment (Managed Investments) Bill
Police Integrity Commission Amendment Bill
Public Sector Management Amendment Bill
Thoroughbred Racing Board Amendment Bill

Debate resumed from 25 June.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: [9.11 p.m.]: Some aspects of this budget are highly commendable, particularly those relating to selected areas of western New South Wales, most notably the city of Broken Hill. I congratulate the Treasurer on that. It is particularly pleasing to note that some $17 million has been allocated for the redevelopment of the Broken Hill Base Hospital. That is wonderful. The reason I am so pleased about this is that the coalition was initiated that funding, but I pay credit to the present Government for continuing what is essentially a coalition project.

To give honourable members a different perspective on health services, I should like to inform them of the view of the Collarenebri Improvement Association. At the request of the Orana section of the Far West Area Health Service, which is based in Bourke, several members of the Collarenebri community were invited to attend a meeting held in Collarenebri on 4 February 1997. At the meeting it was stated that the health service would be reduced - not improved - by the removal of seven acute-care beds. This meant that the Collarenebri health service would only have an accident and emergency service and nursing home beds. It was said that this would result in a saving to the Government of $160,000.

That sounds like a lot of money; however, following several questions asked on behalf of the community it became painfully obvious that the basis upon which the Far West Area Health Service costings were determined was flawed. No allowance had been made for the fact that the staffing level required to operate a seven-bed nursing home is the same as the staffing level required to operate seven acute-care beds, bearing in mind the ruling of the Minister for Health and the Nurses Association that each shift must be manned by a minimum of two staff - that is, one registered nurse and one enrolled nurse. That is simple mathematics, Eddie. Write this down as I explain it to you. Do you have those figures, or would you like me to repeat them? It is simple, is it not?

Apart from the morning shift, that is the current staffing level of Collarenebri District Hospital. In addition, no allowance was made for the increased cost of ambulance transport. Are you writing this down, Eddie? From figures extracted by assessing a month’s activity at Collarenebri hospital, assessing the number of patients who would have required ambulance transport to another hospital had the acute-care beds not been available, and applying this percentage to 12 months activity, the cost of ambulance transport would have been an additional $300,000. Work that out, Eddie! That factor was not taken into account in the $160,000 potential saving to the health service. So, rather than effect a saving, this will actually cost $140,000 more each year.

The Far West Area Health Service has rightly identified that Collarenebri has an ageing population - as do all Australian communities, as the post-war baby boomers move through the system - but this statistical bubble will eventually pass through the system and the number of people over 70 years of age will fall. That is just simple mathematics. The area health service has also pointed out that Collarenebri - which I am sure many honourable members have never been to - has a high population of Aborigines, a group that is recognised as having an extremely low average life span and precarious health status, as I heard the Minister say recently in the House. The Government has failed to acknowledge that the Collarenebri district also has a highly intensive agricultural industry based on cotton and cereal crops, and that that industry has one of the highest accident records of any industry operating in Australia, including mining.

It is envisaged that people requiring hospital treatment will be assessed at Collarenebri - that is a reasonable assumption - given first-stage emergency treatment, and then transported by ambulance or private transport, depending on the patient’s condition, to the nearest hospital, which is Walgett District Hospital. This scenario fails to highlight the fact that when the new hospital was built at Walgett the number of acute-care beds for the region was reduced from 32 to 20. That hospital was supposed to serve the combined population of Walgett and Lightning Ridge, which was conservatively estimated at around 10,000. Additionally, Goodooga District Hospital has now been downgraded from a six-bed facility to a two-bed acute-care facility, and that will result in patients having only a four-hour maximum stay. Another factor that honourable members, particularly those on the Government side, have not taken into consideration is that the only all-weather road to Walgett is via Lightning Ridge, and
Page 6918
that will add another group of people whose needs must be met. Most communities that do not have a fully functioning hospital do not have access to a local medical practitioner or chemist. Indeed, the visiting medical officer operating in Collarenebri at present told me that should the hospital be downgraded he would immediately leave Collarenebri.

Collarenebri does not have a public transport system in or out of the town, and that means that many members of the Aboriginal community who do not have access to a private vehicle must rely on the grace and favour of relatives and friends in order to obtain medical treatment. It is recognised that some of the community’s health care needs can be met by Aboriginal health workers and community health sisters with the support of Home and Community Care services. Indeed, those support services do a wonderful job, especially in the outback. However, they rely heavily on the back-up of acute-care hospital and medical treatment when it is necessary.

It is the right of all citizens, whether they live in Sydney or Goodooga, to receive hospital and medical treatment within an adequate time frame. I think that all members of this House would agree that it is unacceptable for a person to have to travel even one hour to obtain medical treatment. The Collarenebri district produces much export income for Australia. Downgrading the hospital is short-sighted and not cost-effective.

I wish to refer also to lead remediation - a matter that is dear to the heart of every mother who lives in Broken Hill. Whilst it is of some comfort to hear that a couple of million dollars has been allocated in the budget towards the $10 million lead remediation program, I am absolutely determined that Broken Hill will receive funding for a total lead clean-up, such as was carried out in Port Pirie, South Australia. I have raised this matter in the House on several occasions. It is no secret that people in Broken Hill live on one of the largest contaminated lead sites in the world. I live there, my children live there, and most of my family lives there. The lead levels in Broken Hill children have been unacceptably high for far too long.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Can it be retreated?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: No, it cannot. The problem is that Broken Hill is built on one of the largest naturally contaminated lead sites in the world. The smeltering and extraction processes used 100 years ago - that is how long the town has been established - have resulted in dust and lead particles being carried through the air and deposited in the soil, as well as under the floor, in the roofs and in the walls of most of the houses. It is everywhere. One has to learn to live with lead. Children have to be very careful and mothers have to be acutely aware of what their children do, what they touch and what they play with. The problem will not go away overnight.

The budget provides $10 million for a lead-remediation program, which I welcome and accept. Ultimately it will cost a lot of money but, quite frankly, I do not care about that. On 13 May 1997 the Minister for Health provided me with information about blood lead levels of children in Broken Hill. My children had elevated blood lead levels, which any fair-minded and caring parent would be concerned about. Fortunately for me and my family the problems were not insurmountable and the situation has been reversed. But my brother-in-law, whose blood was contaminated by lead, was mentally disabled as a consequence. Broken Hill has naturally occurring lead in the soil. Mining practices in the first half of the century saw significant lead dust and fallout from smelters increase lead contamination around the city. It is in every house. It is everywhere one goes. One cannot get away from it. The arid and windy climate of Broken Hill exacerbates widespread contamination.

Trail, in Canada, is covered by snow for half the year and is not the location of a mine, nor does it have a naturally high lead level in the soil. Likewise, circumstances differ between Broken Hill and Port Pirie where the smelter represents the single source of contamination. Babies born in Broken Hill are, on average, likely to have higher blood lead levels because many of their mothers will have grown up in Broken Hill and will have been exposed to environmental lead. It is a tragic situation. Although I acknowledge the problem will not be fixed overnight, it needs to be addressed quickly. The Far West Area Health Service has advised that relocation of families - for which I pay credit to the Government - with very high blood lead levels was discussed at length in the lead-up to the establishment of the Broken Hill environmental lead centre in 1994, and the development of its management strategies.

Relocation was rejected primarily for the following reasons. An exclusive evaluation of environmental lead concerns was undertaken in 1993 by the environmental division of the consulting firm Woodward-Clyde. The report found that distribution of lead in Broken Hill was widespread. This came about from the presence of naturally high lead levels in urban soil, the widespread distribution of
Page 6919
contaminant due to poor early mining practices, early smelters that operated with no emission control and the arid and windy climate of Broken Hill. The report concluded that Broken Hill had few similarities with other mining and smeltering communities. Therefore, it is not always valid to compare Broken Hill with smeltering communities such as Port Pirie. It may or may not be valid to make a comparison, but try telling that to mothers whose children have high blood lead levels or families whose loved one has died as a result of lead poisoning.

I make no secret of the fact that I put governments of all persuasions - this Government and the Federal Government - on notice that I will never be silent until the city of Broken Hill, which has contributed greatly to the wealth of this State and this country, has been given the total lead clean-up it so richly deserves. The amount of money that has come out of Broken Hill in the last 100 years - royalties paid by mining companies and the mining community - filling the coffers of both State and Federal governments, has been significant. Thanks, but no thanks! I do not point the finger at this Government entirely, but it is the Government and Broken Hill deserves a clean-up.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: There has been a Labor member out there for long enough.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Yes, but he has been pretty useless. Lead contamination is a serious issue. The people of Broken Hill deserve much better treatment than they have received. It is tragic for families whose children are mentally disabled, or who suffer severe learning difficulties because of the environment in which they live. Far western New South Wales also has needs from the Minister for Education and Training. I know when you held that portfolio, Madam President, you were acutely aware of the situation and you did all you could to meet those needs. In fact, I made you aware of it on many occasions. I would like to give honourable members the perspective from a small place in New South Wales I picked at random. Although I could not speak about every single town in the electorate of Broken Hill in the time available to me tonight, I have chosen to speak about the town of Burren Junction, a place that many honourable members probably have never visited nor heard of. Burren Junction Public School has provided me with the following information. The condition of school buildings has been an ongoing concern for many years. The school community is seeking action to rectify the key problems associated with the buildings.

The community requested that I ask the Treasurer to accompany me the next time I visit Burren Junction. I told them I would, and that he would probably join me. So long as the Minister visits Burren Junction, the people will be happy. Burren Junction is a small, but nice place with an active community. Problems with the school seem quite insurmountable to the community, but they are quite insignificant to a government. I have written to the Minister for Education and Training on several occasions. On a couple of occasions I have received the usual perfunctory reply which says "Your letter has been noted" and that is about the end of it. The people of Burren Junction are not satisfied with that reply when I send it to them. The school is a major focus in Burren Junction and in that rural community. Against all odds, the school has delivered excellence in teaching and learning for more than a century, and continues to do so.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is renowned for it.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: It is renowned for it. Burren Junction is an excellent place.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Hermidale is another fine example.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Hermidale is another excellent town. The Hon. D. F. Moppett and I visited Hermidale not long ago.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am afraid I do not know where Hermidale is.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: When the Minister and I go to Burren Junction we will also visit Hermidale. The current state of the Burren Junction Public School buildings in which staff and students work leaves much to be desired. Many promises of assistance have been made over the years but no action has been taken to improve those conditions. Immediate requests for assistance are made for key areas. The major need is a new or at least refurbished administration block. The current state of that block is quite appalling. Two new or refurbished classrooms which provide adequate floor and desk space, with teacher storage areas and a wet area, are needed.

Burren Junction Public School needs an outside storage shed and an accident and sick room. Most other schools in the State have a room designated as a sick room that can be used by children or others who become sick. Burren Junction school does not even have that facility, even though it deserves it as much as any school in the city of
Page 6920
Sydney. Why not? The school also lacks a principal’s office. It is appalling that the principal at the school does not even have his own office but has to work from a classroom. The school needs a reading recovery tutorial room. I might add that the school does not even have appropriate staff toilets.

It is appalling and disgraceful that Burren Junction Public School should suffer when sister city school communities at Rowena and Pilliga, with less than half the school population on figures projected to 2000, enjoy a 1990s standard of buildings. Buildings at Burren Junction Public School have ceased to stand the test of time. The Hon. A. B. Kelly will be interested that Burren Junction school was built before the turn of this century, and has been a source of education for 100 years. By 2000 the school will have spanned three centuries, without any physical improvement. The school council takes its role in the partnership of education seriously. As the Minister has already noted, Burren Junction school has won awards for excellence on many occasions.

The school council quite rightly regards provision of better buildings as a major focus of their endeavours. They are likewise committed to obtaining the best teaching and learning environment for their students and the best working conditions for school staff to enhance student outcomes. Last year in September I played a small part in obtaining a property inspection of the school by the district properties officer. As a result of that inspection a recommendation was made for the provision of a demountable classroom. That was great news for the staff and students of Burren Junction Public School. However, 12 months after that recommendation the school is still waiting for the arrival of the demountable. Each letter that goes down to the Minister’s office is not answered.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: They would not have waited in our term in office.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: No, they would not have waited in the time of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. R. T. M. Bull, when he was Parliamentary Secretary. One day I recall going to Burren Junction school in response to a problem about staffing levels. It was a matter of one phone call to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who in turn rang the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, and within one hour the problem was fixed. That is what I call good government and good Ministers. I never ever congratulated the Minister of the day on her action. Madam President, well done. Investigation into the arrival date of the demountable has revealed that, despite all the Government’s promises, no demountables were provided to Burren Junction school or to any other rural school to improve their facilities.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Labor stopped constructing those buildings and is not freeing up any demountables.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: A deplorable situation. It is lip service at its absolute worst. The school council was sent a letter which stated that a demountable would be sent to keep the school happy for a while - but of course no demountables ever showed up. Burren Junction Public School also needs a new or refurbished administration area. Current conditions affect the morale and performance of senior school assistants. Working conditions at Burren Junction are below occupational health and safety minimum standards. Provision of adequate space for storage or records and supplies is almost nonexistent. Previous attempts as late as 1996 to provide new working space have resulted once again in promises of relocation but no action. Burren Junction also needs two new or refurbished classrooms to provide adequate desk and floor space for teaching programs. Honourable members must keep in mind that I am speaking about only one town in western New South Wales.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Has Bill Beckroge been there?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Bill who?

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Are you still talking about Burren Junction?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Yes, but most small towns throughout the western part of this State are suffering the same problem. None of the classrooms at Burren Junction Public School has a teacher resource store room. All school equipment has to be housed in the classrooms, and that is appalling. Currently year 3 to year 6 classes have no access to a wet area or to art, craft, and science activities. The current cramped conditions for students and staff are unacceptable. No adequate accident or sick room is provided. Due to distance and isolation no medical facilities are available at Burren Junction and students may have to wait up to an hour for parents to arrive to pick them up, if they are lucky. Children may have to wait up to an hour or even four hours for their parents, that is, if they are able to contact their parents.

No room is available to locate those children with adult supervision. The current practice is that children remain in the classrooms where teachers
Page 6921
can monitor their safety and wellbeing, but that is really not the role of a teacher. First aid supplies and a locked medical cabinet for prescribed drugs is located in the school assistant’s crowded space. A large outside storage shed is needed. At present no space is available to house large items such as high jump mats, trampolines and a vaulting horse. That equipment should, as a matter of safety at least, be stored in a shed that has a cement floor.

At present the principal does not have an office and works out of the storeroom. Like me, most members would find it unacceptable that their children should have to attend a school in Sydney where the principal’s office is the storeroom. At Burren Junction school there is no other exit from or entry to the principal’s office apart from the through school assistant’s work area or through the year 5-year 6 classroom. The principal has no privacy for appointments or interviews, and the space is crowded and poorly lit. I could go on and list another dozen schools in western New South Wales suffering similar difficulties, but I will not. I am speaking broadly about schools in the west of this State, and Burren Junction Public School is but one example.

Burren Junction Public School also needs a teaching area for a reading recovery teacher. Honourable members would not accept such a lack of facilities for their children at schools in Sydney or even Byron Bay. At present because of lack of space the reading program at Burren Junction school is conducted in the canteen, which seriously limits storage of necessary teaching resources and display of children’s work. It is difficult to camouflage a sink, a pie warmer and a fridge. On canteen days when the reading recovery program is being conducted it is pure bedlam. The program is severely affected by noise levels and the behaviour of the children.

This might be amusing to Government members, but staff at Burren Junction school do not even have a toilet. The current staff toilet is located at the back of the students’ toilet block. This is an issue that involves the Government. The location of the staff toilet is inconvenient and impractical because of its distance from the staff room. Visitors and staff alike are seriously inconvenienced by the location of the toilet. The toilet, which is difficult to clean, is a favourite spot for insects and snakes as the septic outlet is next to the door. The school has no permanent library facility. The fourth classroom has been used for a number of years as the resource centre for six schools in the country area program. Burren Junction, because of its central location, has continued to support the CAP initiative by housing this resource centre. The demountable building has been used as a library and for Aboriginal tutoring, which is funded by the Department of Education and Training. The school council is concerned that the department will move the demountable building and leave the school without a library.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Is Burren Junction going into the new seat of Broken Hill?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Unfortunately, no. I am concerned about all schools in western New South Wales and this school is a perfect example.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: How long will you be?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Does the honourable member not think that the town of Burren Junction needs this amount of time spent on it? I have never heard the honourable member for Broken Hill make a speech about Burren Junction. Burren Junction certainly deserves this amount of time being dedicated to it.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You should speak to Mr Slack-Smith.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Mr Slack-Smith is not the member for Burren Junction; he is the honourable member for Barwon. Burren Junction falls within the Broken Hill electorate, held by Bill Beckroge. The Treasurer should not cast aspersions on my colleague. If the Treasurer looks at his electorate map he will see that Burren Junction is not in the electorate of Barwon; it is in the electorate of Broken Hill. The Treasurer should take my speech to his mate over the road, get him to read it and do something about it. The school library is also used for meetings and adult education initiatives. Government members might find all this funny but this is a significant issue for the people of Burren Junction. This is the first time that Burren Junction community has ever had matters such as this raised in the Parliament. Burren Junction school has television and video facilities, computer, Internet and satellite facilities and radio communications. Those valuable resources must be retained. The condition of roads in the Burren Junction area should be brought to the attention of honourable members.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What is the population?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: It does not matter; I am speaking in broad terms. Burren
Page 6922
Junction is a perfect microcosm of all western New South Wales towns and its needs are those of all residents of western New South Wales. Government members should tell Bill all about it tomorrow.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Are we talking about 2,000, 10,000 or 200,000 people?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I am talking about the entire population of western New South Wales.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I want to know how many live in Burren Junction.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: The Treasurer should go and look it up. I know, but the Treasurer has never been to Burren Junction. The roads in the Burren Junction area, like so many in far western New South Wales, are deplorable. Attendance of 44 of the 64 students at Burren Junction school is affected by wet weather. The three buses which transport students all have to travel on red or black soil roads which become impassable in wet weather. Over 85 per cent of the student population travel to school by bus and the state of the dirt roads makes student and driver safety a real concern. I cannot understand why all bus routes are not tarred before a tragedy occurs. In light of the building needs of the school, the school council is seeking action by the Minister and the honourable member for Broken Hill for the benefit of students, staff and the Burren Junction community. While I am on the subject of education I will place on record the needs of Warren Central School.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: It is a good school.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: It is a good school. Warren is a good town. The Hon. A. B. Kelly knows all about Warren.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Bill has looked after it well.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Bill who? At that school students in years 11 and 12 are being counted as part-time students. All small and isolated schools are struggling to offer students access to a range of different subjects in senior school. In order to do this Warren Central School is relying on joint secondary school-TAFE and distance education to fill the gaps. As a result, students numbers are counted as being less than one student, which has the effect of reducing staff and the choices that the school can offer. This process continues in ever-diminishing circles, and schools become trapped. Warren Central School, which has 325 students, has a difficult time without a deputy principal.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It is a beautiful school.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: It is a beautiful school and Warren is a beautiful town. The secondary section of the school relies on two head teachers who are responsible for the deputy’s duties as well as for running their own departments. Each head teacher is responsible for diverse faculty groups. Many of these subjects have only one teacher and that teacher has often had little or no experience, which places an immense workload on the executive. In the primary section of the school the scenario is the same. Executive teachers are given no relief from face-to-face teaching to do their jobs.

Attracting executive staff is also difficult. For the past two years the school has been advertising for the primary assistant principal position but as yet has received no applications. Currently the job is being done by one of the teachers, who is shouldering the extra workload. The school council is in favour of the Teachers Federation log of claims, which provides for one deputy principal and three head teachers for central schools with an enrolment of 220 students. Warren Central School has a high school section which is as large as some high schools that have one deputy principal and four head teachers. I find it difficult to believe that the Government would allow such a disparity to occur.

What is the big deal? Why are people in the country so disadvantaged when schools in Sydney or the metropolitan areas take these things for granted? It is really appalling. The Carr Government has no idea about the needs of rural families and farmers in the Western Division. Take, for example, the appalling way in which the Carr Government conducted itself when dealing with the irrigation industry in the Bourke region. Those in the irrigation industry, in particular cotton growers and processors, are the backbone of economic growth and development in places like Bourke. Farmers also grow lucerne, peanuts and grains, and the local horticultural industry is steadily growing in importance to the Bourke economy. I pay tribute to those industries. Companies like Clyde Agriculture and people like Albert Ensering are addressing the problems and providing real relief for Bourke, particularly by generating jobs.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Labor wants to cut the water.

Page 6923

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: The Government has just raised taxes. How ridiculous is that? The Government makes reference to things like river stress, but when we question it about the meaning of river stress we do not get an answer.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Rivers always run dry.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Of course they do. In places like Bourke, which has a high Aboriginal population and the highest crime rate in New South Wales, irrigators such as the Buster family and Clyde Agriculture are to be congratulated. They should be given a medal as they do more for their area with their own money than any government has ever done.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Heavy on the water though.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: They might be heavy in their usage of water, but so what! The honourable member wears cotton shirts. We all benefit from the crops that are grown in that region. Most irrigation in Bourke is for cotton. Currently growers have $150 million invested in the area, including two cotton gins built at their own expense. Industry employs more than 300 full-time workers in the Bourke area, plus numerous seasonal contractors and casuals, and in good times that figure increases to 600 or 1,000 workers. There were no government handouts, not one. They did it on their own, for which they are to be congratulated.

Irrigation investments in Bourke also attract input from support industries, such as equipment dealers, chemical suppliers and fertiliser and fuel companies. The spin-off from places such as Bourke, which relies heavily on irrigation, brings money into the town’s economy and into government coffers. But the Carr Government ignored the positive effects that irrigation is having on Bourke and surrounding community areas. It pandered to the minority groups. Ian Cole, a member of the Barwon-Darling River Management Committee, told me that the proposals that have been decided upon will damage the economy of Bourke and surrounding districts. He said that the proposals are only marginally preferable to the original rules that were put up by the State Government.

The original rules, which were to be implemented over a 30-year period, would have meant 12 years with a reduction of more than 10 per cent in water access, three years with a reduction of 40 to 60 per cent and three years with a reduction of 100 per cent. The most disturbing aspect of those draconian laws is that three of the bad years would hit one after the other. I emphasise: three of the bad years would hit one after the other, causing havoc and devastation to the Bourke community. To determine the importance of the irrigation industry to the Bourke economy, academics and professional consultants from Hassall and Associates and the University of New England Centre for Water Policy Research were employed to conduct an analysis of the social and economic impact of the proposed Department of Land and Water Conservation rules on communities between Brewarrina and Louth.

A chief executive officer of a magnificent business that operates in western New South Wales, Tandou Ltd, is in the gallery tonight as my guest. Tandou Ltd is a prime example of what companies can achieve without government handouts. On its own merits and using its own money Tandou Ltd, which is located near Menindee, has won many awards for excellence. I will shortly be visiting this staggering enterprise, for which I understand expansion plans are in progress. The people at Tandou Ltd ought to be congratulated.

The studies found that irrigated agriculture accounts for 64 per cent of the value of all agricultural output in the Bourke region, that 45 per cent of employment in the Bourke region is directly or indirectly reliant on irrigated agriculture, and that implementation of the State Government’s rules will result in an average annual reduction of 1,990 hectares of irrigated crops between Brewarrina and Louth. The social impacts have not been properly assessed, but are expected to include the usual problems associated with unemployment, lack of opportunity, loss of young people from the district, an ageing population and a deterioration in social and cultural institutions. Those sorts of losses cannot be sustained by a fragile economy without a great deal of pain.

That type of information forced a compromise on the new rules for the Darling River below Brewarrina. However, the compromise still retains many of the losses that I have outlined. The Government has not yet measured these losses. I challenge the Government to do so, but it is not game to because an election is looming. The most alarming aspect is that the committee is now being asked to look at high-flow rules so that more cutbacks can be made to meet the Murray-Darling Basin Commission cap on extractions. It is ludicrous that the Government causes damage, refuses to measure it, and then proposes to inflict more.

The State Government has not offered one piece of advice on the socioeconomic impacts of its
Page 6924
decision to cut back water to irrigators on the Darling River. After five meetings in six months the river management committee has not been provided with any State Government advice on the social and economic impacts of its decisions. On the other hand, its environmental information has been so shonky that University of Adelaide Emeritus Professor Bill Williams, the independent scientist on the river management committee, has been moved to declare:

There is a need for much more scientific rigour, rather than rhetoric. We need to know much more before we go fiddling around making management decisions on a river which supports a multimillion dollar industry.

He also said:

Most of the so-called scientific opinion we have been hearing at this committee meeting is not based on proper scientific inquiry, but rather on assumption, assertion and emotion.

Professor Williams also stated:

Not all stress symptoms in the river - for example, carp and algae - have resulted from hydrologic impacts of irrigation. There is a real need for more information.

I remind the House of an answer given by the Attorney General on 30 April to a question without notice I asked him. My question was:

I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations whether he is aware of the outrageous increase in crime statistics in Bourke. Is he aware that a person living in Bourke is at 10 times greater risk of being assaulted than people in the rest of the State? Is he aware also that last year in Bourke there were 8,733 assaults per 100,000, compared with the State average of 847? This shocking statistic shows that each year a person living in Bourke is about 10 times more likely to be assaulted than other people in the State. What steps will the Government now take for greater protection for the people of Bourke?

Of course, the Minister deflected the question and tried to level the blame for the social problems in Bourke on the Federal Government. The Minister said in reply to my question:

When visiting country areas, including Bourke, I have discussed the question of crime with leaders of the community. They have told me that their fundamental problem is unemployment; the kids do not have jobs. There are huge problems with unemployment and socioeconomic deprivation, which is demoralising for the town and is fundamentally related to the Federal economy.

The Minister concluded his answer by saying:

Let us get to the core issues and the basic socioeconomic causes of crime, rather than simply bandy about statistics in a cheap political way.

The Attorney was lecturing the House from his ivory tower about the Federal Government being the root cause of Bourke’s unemployment problems. He not only refuses to accept part of the responsibility for the unemployment problems, he also accuses me of bandying about statistics in a cheap political manner. The only reason the Attorney accuses me of trying to gain political mileage out of the Bourke crime statistics is that they are so bad he knows the merest mention of them is a blight upon the Labor Government, which he represents.

The Attorney and the Labor Party are embarrassed about the situation in Bourke. Bourke has the highest assault rate in New South Wales, as well as sexual assault and break and enter rates that are many times higher than the State average. When I bring these shameful statistics to the House’s attention and ask what action the Government intends to take to ensure the citizens of Bourke are protected, the Government’s rearguard action is, and always has been, to accuse me of playing dirty political games.

It is the Labor Government that is playing political games. It is doing nothing effective to stop the crime problems in Bourke, it is driving jobs and investment out of the area - not the Federal Government, as the Minister would have us believe. The Labor Government wants to impose rules on the irrigation industry in the Bourke region that will result in the loss of $8.8 million to the local economy and the possible loss of 71 full-time jobs and countless part-time or seasonal positions. Those rules are being questioned by independent scientists as not being founded on proper scientific inquiry, but rather on assumption, assertion and emotion.

Here is yet another example of the Labor Government succumbing to the demands of small special interest groups which have no relevance to the people of Bourke or the outback, the people who live in that environment. Here is an example of the Labor Government refusing to listen to the bush communities. The bush has been the big loser during the Carr Government’s term in office, and the Far West of New South Wales has been no exception. While Labor keeps sidestepping the issues of importance to the bush the problems keep escalating. When will the members of the Carr Government pull their heads out of the sand and realise that the people west of Penrith have the same real concerns and problems as the communities located on the east coast? It is about time the Government started listening.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.

Page 6925

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [10.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN [10.00 p.m.]: On Saturday, 13 June, I attended the opening of the Australian Technology Park, which is located in part of the former Eveleigh railway workshops adjacent to Redfern railway station. Every man, woman and child who has ever travelled in a train from Central railway station for the past 100 years or more has passed those workshops. The technology park was inspired by a visionary scholar, Dr Tom Forgan, an engineer. Dr Forgan’s views at the time of the park’s conception were that Australia, not only New South Wales, was in dire need of overcoming certain structural problems that confronted our nation. Those problems included loss of technology to overseas, loss of researchers to overseas, a shortage of students entering science and engineering courses, the shortage of a skilled labour force to convert technologies to product, and the duplication and triplication of research effort.

In 1989 Dr Forgan was offered a consultancy by the University of Sydney to examine the possibility of developing a technology park on land surplus to the State Rail Authority, close to the University of Sydney. Having been supported by the University of Sydney, he sought and secured the assistance of Professor Michael Birt, then Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, and the then Vice-Chancellor of the University of Technology, Sydney, Professor Gus Guthrie. Dr Forgan sought and obtained the support of TAFE and, most significantly, won the support and, indeed, the enthusiasm of the then Premier, Nick Greiner. Premier Greiner, having been brought to the negotiating table, is recorded as having said about the project:

To have one vice-chancellor sitting across from you is an awesome experience. To have three vice-chancellors, you know they mean business.

The clear and even prompt demonstration of unity by the three universities and their commitment to work together to achieve Dr Forgan’s dream was the catalyst that brought the Australian Technology Park into existence. The technology park is built on 13.8 hectares close to the centre of Sydney, at the centre of a triangle formed by the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney and the University of Technology, Sydney. The park brings together researchers, financiers and the market. By clustering firms on site, investment in knowledge and in human, physical, and capital resources can be used as leverage for the benefit of the individual and the whole. Persons are able to obtain the skills and knowledge to create innovations which enable Australian companies to become and continue to be competitive worldwide.

The park offers education and skills-based training through an advanced manufacturing centre, a science and engineering centre, a New South Wales TAFE on-site industry partnership centre, as well as an interactive learning centre called the School of the Future. The following areas of skill are covered: power and energy, information technology, telecommunications, multimedia and Internet, biomedical and biotechnology, food processing, environmental management, transport, and instruments and materials. The park boasts world leading infrastructure, which includes incubators, an abundant power supply through the use of Australia’s first fuel cell, direct access to the Telstra fibre-optic system, exhibition and conference facilities, and a hotel, cafe and bistro. The park has been thoroughly encouraged and supported by every New South Wales government since, and including, the Greiner Government.

The official opening of the park, to which I referred in my opening remarks, took place in the locomotive shed of Eveleigh railway workshops. The building is several hundred yards long and perhaps 25 yards high. It has been carpeted and rejuvenated, and the designers have maintained evidence of the shed’s past - for example, a huge press, and all manner of machinery required in the manufacture of rolling stock and locomotives. Participants lease modules in which they conduct research. It is a museum of nineteenth century industry. The ambience is breathtaking.

The opening ceremony was preceded by an academic procession in which members of the governing bodies of the three participating universities and New South Wales TAFE, in full academic dress where applicable, proceeded to an academic hall - not dissimilar to the Parliamentary Theatrette but much larger - which has been built within that enormous shed. Dr Tom Forgan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Technology Park, whom I salute for his endeavours, has advised me that the Victorian and Queensland governments have recognised the technology park as a model for the future and wish to establish comparable parks in their States. I commend the governments to which I have referred and the stakeholders in the project - the three universities
Page 6926
and New South Wales TAFE - for this great effort. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.05 p.m.]: I should like to bring to the attention of the House some encouraging events concerning Aboriginal reconciliation within our nation. Many negative statements have been made by the One Nation Party - in particular by the two Davids - that sometimes overshadow the positive and helpful reconciliation that is proceeding. Praise Corroboree will hold an event in Parliament House, Canberra, from 1 November to 8 November. The event, which will be organised by Aborigines, will run from 9.00 a.m. to midnight, and in the last five days it will be held in the main hall. On a mobile stage outside Parliament House, Aboriginal groups will present contemporary music using guitars, and traditional music using didgeridoos, and will perform traditional dances.

I attended a similar event last year and was most impressed. Many schoolchildren witnessed the demonstrations of Aboriginal culture through dance and music. At another important event in May, Pastor Peter Walker, President of Praise Corroboree, together with a large cross-cultural delegation, presented Prime Minister Mr Howard with a special reconciliation painting, which I understand will be displayed in Parliament House. The painting depicts Praise Corroboree’s dream for reconciliation through prayer before our heavenly Father. The symbolic features in the painting include the government, the nation, the world, the land, the original people of the nation - Aboriginal people - the recent arrival of ethnic people and the Christian cross, which brings all people together in true reconciliation through one blood. Acts 17:26 reminds us that God made all peoples of one blood. The cross represents the death of Jesus Christ, who shed his blood for the sins of the world.

Pastor Peter Walker also presented a personal gift, a didgeridoo, to the Prime Minister and his wife and family on behalf of the Christian Aboriginal people of Australia. The Jesus march in Canberra was another significant event. That national prayer gathering was attended by tens of thousands of Christians, both white and black, who gathered to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the opening of Parliament House in Canberra in 1988. Pastor Peter Walker gave the Prime Minister a copy of the Praise Corroboree call for a national day of prayer and fasting, to be held on Friday, 6 November.

This call to prayer has been described as Operation Desert Storm and reminds us that Australia is the driest continent on earth. Many would suggest we have brought a curse on the land because of our sin. However, the Christian Democratic Party believes that we need not only natural rain but spiritual rain on our nation. The day of prayer and fasting across Australia will be for both Aborigines and non-Aborigines, focusing on the need for spiritual rain that will come down upon Australia and fulfil the promise contained in 2 Chronicles 7:14, which states:

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

I encourage all honourable members to support the Praise Corroboree, called the National Day of Prayer and Fasting, to be held on 6 November in Canberra, which I hope some members of Parliament might attend.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.10 p.m.]: Today at Parliament House the shadow minister for community services, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, many other members of Parliament and I attended a briefing organised by family support services in New South Wales. At that meeting 150 representatives of the Family Support Services Association of New South Wales and other providers of family support services from across the State presented their message. Most services are funded under the community services grants program, known as the CSGP. The 150 members of the association work hard to provide support to families in trouble, whether they be suffering from the impact of grief and loss, domestic violence, or chronic health problems. They also provide financial counselling, respite care, parent effectiveness training and back-up to single-parent families.

The 150 agencies attend to the needs of some 39,000 families. Every year in New South Wales approximately one family in 130 seeks assistance from family support services. These services aim at preventing child abuse, avoiding family breakdown, and keeping children out of substitute care. The total budget for these services is about $15 million a year. The message which the groups wanted to give today was that they are in serious financial trouble. Many have received no growth funding, yet the demand for their services has increased rapidly. It was great to meet so many people who work hard to provide these services.

Page 6927

I met Ms Wendy Watson from Burnside on the north coast. I also met five workers from the Inner West Family Support Service at Burwood, which has been operating since 1987 but has had no real increase in funding other than a modest supplementation three years ago to cope with compulsory superannuation. Recently its workers were awarded a 50¢ an hour increase in salary, necessitating the service giving consideration to cutting workers’ hours. Of course, the work will not decline but the people who do the work will simply be paid less.

I met a worker from the lower Blue Mountains Family Support Service at Blaxland. It has a budget of only $10,000 a year but provides services to 65 families a year and another 200 families through group work. It is heavily supported by the local Uniting Church. I was told that its services are cost efficient, and that is certainly true. I met Glenys from the Quakers Hill Family Support Service, which operates in the outer western suburbs. She told me that her service has one worker at the moment but needs five, because it caters for an ever-increasing need. The local Department of Community Services office recognises that need. Blacktown courthouse receives one of the highest applications for domestic violence orders, and the highest notifications of child abuse. Blacktown DOCS has applied year after year for funding and been told that there is no money for growth, despite its obvious need.

I also met Mr John Martin from Newcastle, who was once a client of a family support service. He told me that his family would have been lost without the service. He used a word which I cannot use in this House. Jan Pickering and Betty from the Port Stephens Family Support Service told me that they have had no increase in their budget since 1992. They have long waiting lists and are distressed that families will have to wait for up to six months before they can get attention. That may not sound very long but for families in crisis, six months can make all the difference between whether the family stays together or breaks up. It also makes a difference between preventing child abuse or keeping a youngster out of the juvenile justice system.

I heard a moving address from Ms Emma McPherson from the Ryde Family Support Service. She is a single mother of three children and told how her local family support service made a big difference in helping her raise her children. I regret to report that the service at Ryde has been told by accountants that it will be insolvent unless it can obtain more funding. These representatives were seeking our support for an increase in the CSGP budget to a very modest $3 million a year and a planned growth in their budget to $25 million a year over the next three years.

That strikes me as a very reasonable request. If we believe that the family is a basic building block of our society, we should support these people. For every child they keep out of substitute care the taxpayer is saved $65,000 a year, and that is to say nothing of the loss of human potential and the distress involved. There is nothing I would like better than to hear the Minister report to the House at question time that the Government has found money to meet these needs. I assure the Family Support Services Association that it has the full support of everyone in the Liberal and National parties, from the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Collins, down. I urge all those people to keep up the fight, and I hope they win.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [10.15 p.m.]: At present Australia faces a watershed. On a personal level, this is the first time in my experience that immigrants have felt very much unwanted in our democratic multicultural society. As an Australian who has served the people of New South Wales for 10 years, I have been deeply distressed over the growing politics of division that are turning Australian against Australian. While I appreciate the opportunity the Liberal Party has given me to enter Parliament and will always acknowledge the debt, it is a matter of conscience to me that I take a stand on an issue that is intrinsic to my whole being. I have, regrettably, come to the conclusion, after much soul-searching and deliberation with my family, that the difference between the philosophy and the practice of the Liberal Party is getting wider.

I am disenchanted with the Liberal Party paying only lip-service to equality of opportunity to all. I do not feel that the Liberal Party as a whole, and particularly Prime Minister John Howard, has taken a firm enough stand to counter the force of darkness that threatens to descend upon this country - racism. I have therefore taken a personally difficult decision to renounce my membership of the Liberal Party and relinquish my membership of the Liberal Party. We must oppose the racist sentiments that are gaining too much currency in a country that has benefited so much from immigration and social harmony. Except for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, we are all migrants or descendants of migrants.

My nomination for the office of President of this House on Monday, 29 June, and my resignation from the Liberal Party were to send a clear and
Page 6928
strong message that our country is still a country of opportunity to achieve high public office, regardless of one’s background, colour or creed, and to send a message to the Liberal Party that it is losing the confidence, trust and support of the ethnic community, particularly the Asian community - and they are Australians. I therefore ask for the understanding of those of the Liberal Party who have been my friends that this is a decision I have taken not in the interests of personal gain but, rather, to make a statement at this point in the development of Australian history.

I am extremely disappointed that some members of the Liberal Party have chosen to attack my good name and integrity and to continue a campaign to vilify me. If those members think that they can break me, they are wrong. They will only strengthen me and my spirit to fight. I will stand firm on my principle and will never resile from it. I will continue my war against racism. Liberal Party members should take heed that they are losing support.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [10.18 p.m.]: This evening I draw to the attention of the House a letter dated 17 June which I received only today from Penny Webb, president of the school council of the Liverpool public school. The best thing is for me to simply read this letter onto the record of the Parliament, so that all honourable members and the people of New South Wales can be aware of it. The letter reads as follows:

We seek your help in challenging a recent decision which ignored the wishes of Liverpool City Council and the State Government and allowed a brothel to operate in premises opposite Liverpool Public School.

On April 9, 1998, Mr G. T. Brown, Conciliation and Technical Assessor with the Land and Environment Court, approved the operation of a brothel in Railway Street, Liverpool, directly across the road from the school.

This decision was made against the wishes of the school and Liverpool City Council on the basis the locational requirements of brothels were "on par with other commercial land uses".

While we recognise that prostitution is not illegal and that there may be benefits in allowing the operation of brothels, the school is nevertheless anxious for the well-being of its young students.

The State Government and the Liverpool Council have laws and guidelines which recognise there are good reasons to keep brothels away from places frequented by children.

Section 17 subsection 5(a) of The Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995 made the Land and Environment Court responsible for the protection of children who frequent churches, schools or hospitals.

The court was supposed to consider whether the brothel was operating near or within view from the school.

Liverpool City Council’s interim guidelines for the location of brothels require a minimum separation distance of 150 metres from community facilities, schools and residential premises.

Yet children, from infants to 12 year olds, pass by this brothel to get to the crossing near the school’s main entrance. The entrance to the brothel is clearly visible from classrooms.

The parents wanted the Land and Environment Court to protect their children from what the Government, only three years ago, recognised were socially undesirable aspects of prostitution.

Parents have legitimate concerns for the health and safety of their children. They do not think having the brothel so close to the school is the appropriate way for young children to be introduced to this aspect of sexuality.

Twelve months ago the spokesperson for the Minister for Planning, Mr Knowles, said it would be a good result for local communities if councils zoned brothels as illegal around schools. He said if a brothel was inappropriately placed, a council could go and close it down.

But apparently the Liverpool community doesn’t count.

Why is ours the only school in New South Wales with a brothel across the road? We wonder what the chances would be of someone operating a brothel, however "discreet", opposite Vaucluse Public School?

Please help us protect our children and reverse this flagrant disregard for the wishes of the parents of Liverpool and the people of this State.

In my view the author of the letter, the President of Liverpool Public School Council, Penny Webb, is overly kind to the State Government because, as her letter states, it was the State Government that passed the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act of 1995 that has caused this mess. I am appalled at the situation. When this Government legalised brothels in New South Wales the people of our State were assured that the legislation would in no way impact on schools, or prevent communities from protecting areas by appropriate zoning. Clearly that was just another of the many betrayals of the people of our State by the Carr Government. But this case simply beggars the imagination. Prostitution and primary schools do not belong together.

I call on the Carr Government to take the necessary steps to fix this problem, and to do so urgently. It is a problem of the Government’s making; a problem created by the law that it passed in this House; a problem created in spite of the fact that many of us warned the Government about the consequences of the legislation that it brought before the House. Now the Government has to wear those consequences. Primary school children have to walk past a brothel to get to the crossing near the school’s main entrance. Parents have a right to be concerned
Page 6929
for their children and they have a right to protect them from certain influences in society. Certainly, when the children are under the age of 12, I argue that that is a very real right. That right has been betrayed by the legislation of this Government and I call on the Government to fix it.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [10.23 p.m.]: I concur with the Hon. J. F. Ryan’s comments about the Family Support Services Association. I hope this is the last part of my speech on homoeopathy. At the outset I stress that I have not been asked by any person or organisation to speak about this topic. The subject is of personal interest to me and I believe homoeopathy has great potential for the future health of all Australians, including members of this House, some of whom already use it. Homoeopathy is an inexpensive form of medicine, as the medicines are very diluted and administered in small quantities. Prescribed by competent professionals, it is also a very safe form of medicine. The side-effects - iatrogenic disease and deaths from medication which beset orthodox medicine - are rare or non-existent in homoeopathy, despite its long history of successfully treating the most severe, intractable and life-threatening conditions.

Homoeopathy is not merely a science; it is an art. It is very dependent on the skill of the individual prescriber. That is because the medicines are chosen on the basis of their similarity to the patient’s individual expression of his or her disease. The selection of the most similar medicine from the thousand-plus medicines available is a very difficult art, one which requires exceptional skills of observation and evaluation mastered only after years of training and practice. Student homoeopaths in Australia receive training in the medical sciences, including chemistry, anatomy and physiology, plus symptomatology and diagnosis, basic pharmacology and sometimes nutrition.

In addition, they are trained in homoeopathic philosophy, theory and practice, and in later years of training they gain many hours of supervised clinical experience through college clinics. Homoeopathic training is offered in naturopathic colleges and in dedicated homoeopathic colleges, both of which confer an accredited diploma of homoeopathy at the end of the study course, which is usually undertaken over three or four years full-time and includes one or more years of supervised clinical experience. Homoeopathic training is presently being standardised across Australia. National competency standards are in the process of being endorsed by the Commonwealth to ensure that the highest competence level is shown in both the education and practice of the profession.

Homoeopathy is very popular in various diverse parts of the world, notably in Britain and India, which have homoeopathic hospitals and many medically trained homoeopaths. There are five homoeopathic hospitals in Britain - in London, Glasgow, Manchester, Bristol and Tunbridge Wells - which integrate homoeopathy and orthodox medicine. The royal family practises homoeopathy and that raises its profile considerably. An Indian homeopath advises me that all large cities in India have homoeopathic hospitals. The homoeopathic Cancer Hospital operates in Calcutta and is run by one of the most eminent homoeopaths in India.

In India it is necessary to complete full medical training, with the exception of pharmacology, as part of homoeopathic training. The Indian Government accepts homoeopathy as a reliable and effective form of medicine, which is much cheaper than conventional treatment. Many countries, including Australia, have general practitioner homoeopaths. Generally these are GPs who have become disillusioned and dissatisfied with treatment options available within orthodox medicine and have found homoeopathy to offer substantial and effective treatment for disease conditions considered difficult or impossible to treat using conventional methods. Some medical associations endorse the safe use of homoeopathy and other holistic therapies, one being the Australian Integrative Medicine Association, which is affiliated with the Australian Medical Association.

Although there is yet no conclusive evidence in the form required by orthodox medicine, the evidence so far accumulated demonstrates that the efficacy of homoeopathy cannot be attributed to the placebo effect or the patient-physician relationship. The evidence justifies further studies involving well-trained and experienced homoeopathic prescribers. In order to achieve relevant results, further studies must be designed according to the principles of homoeopathy, especially with regard to the individual prescription of remedies. While I have done my best to describe homoeopathy as accurately as possible, I would refer all honourable members interested in homoeopathy to seek further information from the Australian Homoeopathic Association for clarification and definitive information.

Motion agreed to.