Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 3 June 1999, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Petition praying for opposition to the suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Debate resumed from 27 May.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN [11.12 a.m.] (Inaugural speech): I should like to speak to the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr P. Wong to the motion before the House. As amended the motion reads:

That this House:

1. Expresses its grave concern that the Premier and Minister for Citizenship has failed to consult with peak and other ethnic community bodies and leaders prior to the Governments’s announcement on 8 April 1999 in regard to:

(a) the change to the name of the portfolio of Ethnic Affairs to Citizenship, and

(b) the change of the name of the Ethnic Affairs Commission to the Community Relations Commission.

2. Calls on the Carr Government to:

(a) reverse its decision in relation to the changes as a matter of urgency, and

(b) consult with and heed the wishes of the peak and other ethnic communities and leaders on any changes to the name, objects or functions of the Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales.

Madam President, I begin by joining with other members in congratulating you on your election as President of the Legislative Council. As this is my inaugural speech, I ask for any courtesies that you and the House might extend to me for straying outside the strict terms of the amendment to the motion. The Hon. Dr P. Wong moved his amendment during his inaugural speech. He began by thanking the good Lord, and I am compelled to do the same since there can be no other reasonable explanation, except perhaps good luck, for the confluence of circumstances that first placed Reform the Legal System on top of the tablecloth ballot paper, and then allowed our party to wind its way through the twists and turns of the preferential voting system and, finally, to gain a seat in this place.

I am, like the Hon. Dr P. Wong, a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic, although both of us agree that the Catholic Church has not cornered the market on truth and wisdom. Like the Hon. Dr P. Wong, I am also a member of an ethnic community. I can trace my ancestry on both sides of the family to Irish convicts. I am a direct descendant of William Davis, who was transported to Australia for his part in the Irish uprising of 1798 and whose house in Grosvenor Street in The Rocks was the site of the first place of Catholic worship in the colony. St Patricks at Church Hill was built on land donated by William Davis and his wife Catherine.

For the preservation of my faith, I am indebted to my mother, Mary Breen, who prays for everything from justice to rain. She is in the public gallery today. I also acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of two of my five sisters. Unfortunately, my brothers are unable to be here today. The good luck I have enjoyed through my life is directly attributable to my father, the late Bernie Breen, who always said that it was better to be born
Page 861
lucky than rich. I was born at Coonabarabran, in western New South Wales, on Melbourne Cup day 1947. A horse called Hiraji won the cup, firmly backed by my father, who insisted that a kid and a winner in the cup on the same day were good omens. I have no idea what Hiraji means but when I moved to the North Coast 10 years ago to write, my father decided my luck had run out and Hiraji would be a good name for a middle-aged hippie. My luck held, although I went through the mandatory divorce that seems to go hand in hand with moving to the North Coast. I did, however, complete five books in 10 years and I would like to express my thanks to Patrick Gallagher of Allen and Unwin for publishing a book called the Book of Letters and for firmly rejecting two novels that were awful, frankly. As one reviewer said of the two novels, "This writer uses wooden characters, his dialogue is didactic and his plot unbelievable."

My interest in politics began when I was 19. At the time I was working on the docks at Darling Harbour after two years in a seminary. I was approached by John Marsden, the brash son of the local publican, to start a branch of the Young Liberals in Campbelltown. John Marsden also suggested I could do better than a career on the docks and directed me into the law. He is present today in the public gallery, no doubt hanging by his psychological fingernails. I acknowledge that John Marsden gave me a very important break in my life. I began work at Marsden’s law firm in 1969. We were soon joined by John Fahey, who would later become the parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party and the Premier of New South Wales.

As a Young Liberal I made the acquaintance of many people who were to become leading lights in the Liberal Party, including the former Attorney General, the Hon. J. P. Hannaford; Chris Puplick, a former senator and the serving President of the Anti-Discrimination Board; and many others. I take credit, rightly or wrongly, for organising Michael Baume into the Federal seat of Macarthur. It must be said, however, that I remained a working-class kid at heart, and like the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca and others on the Labor side of politics, I was a supporter of the social policies and democratic values espoused by Gough Whitlam. After Remembrance Day in 1975 I drifted away from the Liberal Party and today, with mixed feelings about the major parties and split loyalties, I find myself comfortably at home on the crossbench.

Not only was I born on Melbourne Cup day when Hiraji won the cup but, like everybody else born in Australia before the commencement of the Citizenship Act in 1949, I was once a British subject. It is an odd thing that we remain subjects of the Queen under our Constitution and citizens of Australia under the citizenship legislation. This has important consequences for citizens who belong to ethnic communities, and it is to this that I would like it address the rest of my inaugural speech. In the history of Australia since European settlement citizenship has always been a controversial subject because it has inevitably been linked to legal equality. Inglis Clarke’s 1891 draft of the Australian Constitution provided in clause 110:

A State shall not make or enforce any law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of other States of the Commonwealth, nor shall a State deny to any person, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.

Inglis Clarke linked citizenship and equality for the first time in 1891. At the Melbourne Constitutional Convention of 1898 Sir John Forrest from Western Australia expressed the concern of many delegates during debate when he said that the right to legal equality would cause "difficulty in regard to coloured aliens and coloured persons who have become British subjects".

According to several delegates to the 1898 convention, "coloureds" could not enjoy the same rights in the colony as Europeans. Sir Isaac Isaacs, the Attorney-General for Victoria, said that the provision for equal rights would be in conflict with colonial laws, such as those discriminating against Chinese on the goldfields. Clause 110 was deleted from the draft Constitution in February 1898 and we lost our right to equality and a true definition of Australian citizenship. Delegates then debated a proposed clause in substitution for clause 110 and the debate focused on the distinction between "citizen" and "subject". I shall quote from the convention debates of 3 March 1898. Mr Barton said:

We are subjects in our constitutional relation to the empire, not citizens. "Citizen" is an undefined term and is not known to the Constitution. The word "subject" expresses the relation between citizens of the Empire and the Crown.

Mr Trenwith, who was one of the delegates to the 1898 convention, then said:

It would be extremely wise to reject both amendments. The Attorney-General of Victoria, Mr Isaacs, suggested that there may be here - indeed experience has shown that there will be - as in various countries of the world, races within the nation that remain distinct; that do not blend with our people; that are by their existence and by their rapid increase, inimical to the well-being of the whole community.

Page 862

It was on the basis of that kind of understanding of our relationship with ethnic communities that our Constitution was framed. The problem in 1898 was that the provision prepared by Inglis Clarke in the draft Constitution that recognised Australian citizenship and legal equality of all citizens was a direct challenge to our immigration and factory laws. Legal equality and the notion of citizenship had to be jettisoned to protect the emerging white Australia policy. Our Australian Constitution, even today, remains silent on both citizenship and legal equality. As recently as 1997 the High Court confirmed in the stolen children case that there is no implied right to legal equality in the Australian Constitution and, constitutionally speaking, we remain subjects of the Queen.

So what effects do these shortcomings in our Constitution have on the people of New South Wales in 1999? I shall offer one example. On the last sitting day in December 1993 this Parliament passed the HomeFund Restructuring Act. The legislation received royal assent on 24 December 1993. One provision of the HomeFund Restructuring Act extinguished the rights of some of the State’s poorest citizens to recover the money they had lost in HomeFund. This was a travesty of enormous proportions, given that more than half the people whose rights were extinguished were recent migrants and former public housing tenants, people who believed they enjoyed certain basic entitlements as citizens.

In September 1994, on the day that former Premier Nick Greiner received his Order of Australia award for economic management, I was privileged to file class action proceedings in the Federal Court on behalf of 750 HomeFund borrowers. Some of the people involved in that case are in the public gallery today and I would like to acknowledge their contribution to the Reform the Legal System Party. Although the case is now being conducted by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Government, in my view, is on a hiding to nothing and ought to settle. Earlier this week the Auditor-General, Tony Harris, confirmed that HomeFund has already cost the State $500 million and with about 8,000 outstanding complaints to the HomeFund Commissioner the final bill for the failed mortgage scheme could be astronomical.

No doubt the Government would like to override the HomeFund court case with legislation, as it did last week in the Walsh Bay case. Of course, that is precisely why HomeFund borrowers are suing under Federal law. I must confess to some misgivings when I voted on the Walsh Bay legislation last week. From the point of view of the ordinary person and his or her access to justice, it is my view that our courts are a shambles, and I will generally support the idea of Parliament asserting its authority over the courts. The facts of Walsh Bay, however, are that the developer failed to make out a case as to why it should not be compelled to stick to its original tender. For that reason I opposed the legislation.

I contend that the Executive Government uses the courts to bury bad policy decisions. Outstanding claims in the courts against the Government now exceed, on one authority, $2 billion. HomeFund is but one example. In the lead-up to the budget I do not see any appropriation bills for unpaid debts to citizens. A cynic would be forgiven for observing that judges too are part of the Government. There was a time when judges could be relied on to protect citizens from the Government, but the cost and complexity of justice mean that citizens are placed at the mercy of governments.

Increasingly we find the role of courts being replaced by tribunals and boards of review. This is because the courts are making themselves more and more irrelevant to ordinary citizens. Recently I undertook a survey of 454 judges across Australia on the subject of a bill of rights. One question I asked the judges was whether a bill of rights would improve the delivery of justice in their courts. Of the 112 judges who answered the question, 80 said that a bill of rights would not assist law consumers. In other words, 70 per cent of judges do not support the idea that a bill of rights will allow citizens greater access to the courts.

Again we see the nexus between citizenship and equality rights. At present it is clear that some citizens are more equal than others. Corporate citizens are more equal than mere mortals. If we deny people their right of access to the courts, justice is denied. In the HomeFund case borrowers stood aside for the Super League case and numerous other interests to the point where even the High Court was compelled to comment on the unfair treatment of borrowers. As the judicial arm of government, judges bear a heavy responsibility to stand up for the rights of citizens. This is a fundamental aspect of our system of government.

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it fell to the judges to protect the rights of subjects, particularly in cases in which it was to the political advantage of the monarchs and their Ministers to allow those rights to be eroded. Today we have the odd situation, on one view, that it is Parliament that protects people from the courts.

Page 863

The deficiencies of the court system were recognised by the HomeFund Commissioner, Andrew Rogers, who recommended that the HomeFund Restructuring Act was the way to solve the problem for borrowers and was a way of overriding the breaches of State law perpetrated by the Government and its agents. What the commissioner failed to disclose was his potential conflict of interest as a consultant to law firm Clayton Utz, which stood to gain some $3 million in legal fees from the restructuring proposal as solicitors for the Department of Housing. Countless further millions in legal fees flowed to other members of the legal profession, aided and abetted by the Law Society of New South Wales, which provided guerrilla training at the College of Law in the fight against HomeFund borrowers.

Law consumers in New South Wales get very poor value from the Law Society, particularly when we remember that the Law Society is funded by the interest on solicitors’ trust accounts, money that rightfully belongs to the clients. If someone has a problem with a solicitor in New South Wales and presents the file to the Law Society for an assessment of the problem, chances are that the Law Society will then use the information to defend the claim against the solicitor. And because of the way the Law Society is funded, in effect that person will be paying for the defence of his or her own claim.

If one invests money in a solicitor’s mortgage scheme, the most one can expect to recover if the scheme goes bust is 50¢ in the dollar, based on recent settlements. The Law Society is not good value by any standard. What we need in New South Wales is an independent justice ombudsman, perhaps somebody like the Auditor-General, who can make judges and lawyers accountable.

Perhaps the first task for a justice ombudsman is to put all the law on computer. It requires only simple software. One need only scan in all the Acts and cases, key in a few entries and read a printout of the decision. Mallesons and other law firms are already using computers in this way. If either party wants to argue with the computer’s decision, they can do so at their own expense, but not at the expense of the other party or the State. By capping legal costs in this way after a decision by the computer, most of the court cases would disappear overnight. Already the power to cap legal costs exists under State law, such as section 47 of the Legal Aid Commission Act, and under the rules of the Federal Court. HomeFund borrowers have used both provisions at various stages in their proceedings and I am suggesting that the law on computer and a justice ombudsman would enable these provisions to be extended to all citizens of New South Wales.

By now, of course, the main players in HomeFund have left the political scene: Nick Greiner, John Fahey, Robert Webster, Wendy Machin and others. Such is the reality of Executive Government. Perhaps only Joe Schipp is still trying to work out what went wrong. It was called looking after the big end of town. Not one investor in the HomeFund scheme - banks, insurance companies and superannuation funds - lost one cent. My old mate John Fahey thought he had the answer when he announced that the reason HomeFund borrowers could not afford their mortgage repayments was that they spent too much money on gambling and drinking.

Less than six months later, in March 1995, Premier Fahey faced the New South Wales electors. He lost the election by a few hundred votes in a couple of marginal electorates which were notable for their high concentration of HomeFund borrowers. Here we are in 1999, and it could be said that the Liberal Party has still not recovered from the 1995 election defeat. It is a huge mistake, in a culturally diverse country like Australia, not to listen to our minorities. After Israel, we are the most culturally diverse country in the world. Minorities are the backbone of this country, and we are all part of a minority in one way or another.

The ethnic community is saying it wants to retain "ethnic affairs", or some similar name, to maintain the spirit of multiculturalism and our diverse community and society. I agree with that sentiment. The word "ethnic" recognises and promotes our proud and evolving traditions, while notions of equality, citizenship and community relations are expressions empty of meaning until we give them a solid reality in our Constitution and our legal system.

While canvassing the value to the community of recognising minorities, I point out that this House is the most democratic parliamentary Chamber in Australia, allowing people like me who represent minorities to gain a seat with a comparatively small quota. It is no bad thing, despite the hype in today’s press, and the reform agenda of the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council.

As a taxi driver pointed out to me last night, if the Government was serious about stopping behind-the-scenes preference deals it would simply abolish above-the-line voting. Alternatively, the Government might give serious consideration to a Greens proposal that would allow voters to choose their own preferences above the line.

I agree that the tablecloth ballot paper and the proliferation of front parties with misleading names
Page 864
made a mockery of the electoral process. But the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention last year proved that a large number of candidates, properly managed, preserves our democratic principles.

We need to guard against the inherent dangers of a bipolar political system that leaves the middle ground well covered but leaves people at the margins unrepresented. I conclude by offering a possible solution to all our legal woes about citizenship and legal equality. I refer of course to the idea of a bill of human rights and responsibilities, otherwise known as a citizens charter. I am not talking about constitutional change, but simply an ordinary Act of the New South Wales Parliament that recognises that people in this State have certain basic rights and responsibilities as citizens, equal with one another before the law.

Here is an opportunity for New South Wales to lead from the front, as it has done so often in the past. If the people of New South Wales were to have a benchmark for their rights and responsibilities in relation to the Government, then notions of citizenship and community relations would take on a whole new meaning.

After all, since the United Kingdom passed the Human Rights Act in November last year, Australia is now the only common law country in the world that does not give formal recognition in an Act of Parliament to the basic rights and responsibilities of its people. I commend to the House the amendment of the Hon. Dr P. Wong.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [11.32 a.m.]: This debate on the motion of the Hon. J. M. Samios simply raises two issues. The first is whether the name "ethic affairs" should be changed to "citizenship" in the case of the ministry and "community relations" in the case of the Ethnic Affairs Commission. The second is whether there should be any change at all.

It is important, first of all, to cast aside one of the furphies that has been raised in this debate: that there has been a lack of consultation with the leadership of the ethnic communities. In the lead-up to the election the Premier held a number of meetings and breakfasts, some of which I attended, with ethnic community leaders. Meetings were held with a number of community leaders in locations all around Sydney - Kogarah, Campsie and Burwood - where the ethnic communities were well represented.
These meetings were the first time that a Premier had gone out and consulted with the community in this way about the services that the Government was providing in their areas and to their communities. The Premier was listening to them and obtaining their views and concerns.

At a number of those meetings the concern that was raised was why they should somehow be separately regarded and why they should have a name that somehow distinguishes them from the mainstream Australian community. They said, "We do not want to be called ethnics, we are Australians." Those questions clearly reflect the desire to cast aside the term "ethnic". Of course there are reasons why that should be so.

It is not correct to say that no leaders in ethnic communities have endorsed the change that has come around. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 April 1999 Mr Kerkyasharian, the Chairman of the Ethnic Affairs Commission, said we have an opportunity to rise above the perception of ethnic affairs as divisive and inferring privilege and to say that all Australians are citizens.

That is part of the problem of having a name that somehow distinguishes one group of Australians from another. It implies that one is somehow privileged. There is no privilege in ethnic affairs or multicultural affairs, and that is endorsed in the change that has occurred. Another reason the name "ethnic" should be cast aside arises from events in the Balkans in respect of which the term "ethnic cleansing" was used. We daily hear that term in the media, and its use somehow seems to indicate a denigration.

In reality I believe that this tug of war over the use of the word "ethnic" ought to be ended now. It is appropriate that we move on - not from where immigrants commenced their aspirations in this country but to where they should end. The use of the word "ethnic" is at one end but ultimately the aim of all people from all the different communities should be to aspire towards citizenship. I heard in this debate that somehow this motion indicates that the Government is casting aside its interest in people from different communities. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This Government has a very proud record on ethnic issues. It developed and implemented a comprehensive action plan for cultural diversity to the year 2000; it enshrined the principles of cultural diversity in legislation for the first time; it has taken our State’s commitment to multiculturalism further than any other jurisdiction in Australia; it has required senior public servants to be responsible by law for implementing the principles; it has required
Page 865
all departments to develop an ethnic affairs priority statement, and to report annually on their achievements; and it has required the Ethnic Affairs Commission to monitor compliance with those laws, and to report to Parliament on the progress of the Act.

No other government has provided such a strong framework of legislative obligation, monitoring and reporting. At the local level, the Local Government Act was amended to require local government to observe the principles of cultural diversity in its day-to-day operations. The Government also set up an advisory committee to oversee cultural diversity developments in local councils. In contrast to the Federal Government, the Carr Government funded the Ethnic Affairs Commission to make its interpreter services available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the cost of a local call.

In policing - an area of some controversy - the Government has implemented a number of worthwhile measures. It has developed a strategy on employment to ensure that the Police Service reflected the community it served. The Government encouraged links with local area commands and their communities through ethnic community liaison officers speaking a variety of different languages. It has encouraged the wearing of name badges by bilingual and multilingual police officers to identify languages spoken other than English; introduced a cultural awareness training program into the detective education program and the homicide investigators course; worked, in consultation with communities, to develop ethnic descriptors that are acceptable to operational police and to the general community of New South Wales; and launched the police and community training project, which is designed to train police and the community in the management of cross-cultural policing issues.

We supported communities with various programs. We developed the community partnership scheme as an innovative grants program, using that program to enable the Ethnic Affairs Commission to identify problem policy areas for migrant communities and to assist the commission to fund that program and ensure its objectives were implemented. Such initiatives under the community partnership scheme have included the ethnic youth mentoring project, the family skills project and two rural ethnic Interlink projects.

That is just a snapshot of government initiatives. There are others, of course. One in which I particularly have been involved is reintroducing Carnivale as a separate, stand-alone festival - something that the previous Government integrated with the Festival of Sydney, just about obliterating Carnivale. It was a Labor Government that established Carnivale as a stand-alone festival and funded it, so that every year we could have a celebration of multiculturalism at a level at which the previous Coalition Government was not interested in pursuing. Those matters indicate the Government’s firm commitment to the cause of serving the different communities in our State.

Finally, I would make some comments about remarks made in the debate by the Hon. J. M. Samios. One such matter was the criticism raised by the Chairman of the Ethnic Communities Council, Mr Paul Nicolaou. I have a bit of time for Mr Nicolaou; I think he is quite a decent chap. He is also a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party. I might add that he unsuccessfully sought preselection for the seat of Kogarah. It seems that the only comments made in any of the media by members of the Ethnic Communities Council come from Mr Nicolaou and the Hon. J. M. Samios.

The important question is: What is the broad-based opinion on this particular change? Comment was also made by Professor Jakubowicz of the University of Technology, Sydney, in putting forward an argument accusing the Premier of heading a government worried about the threat of One Nation. This is what the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 April said about that argument:

This argument is nonsense. Moreover, it promotes the very divisiveness the ethniks say that policies are trying to prevent. Their problem is that an obsession with ethnicity has encouraged too many migrants to refuse to ever consider themselves or their children becoming Australians. Mr Carr is trying to remove the social divisiveness that such a focus on the ethnicity of migrants creates by stressing that ultimately the second generation of migrants should see themselves as Australians who have a heritage of another culture.

I endorse those comments. I think the change is worthwhile and innovative. I might add that the dropping of the word "ethnic" is not a matter that only this Government has pioneered; the Federal Government, when elected following the defeat of the Keating Government, also dropped the word and adopted another term.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.44 a.m.]: I would like to start by recognising the Premier’s longstanding commitment to cultural diversity, multiculturalism and the Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales. I recognise also the commitments of the Hon. J. M. Samios, who has strongly supported multiculturalism over a long period. I do not wish to condemn the Premier on his decision to change the names of the Ministry for
Page 866
Ethnic Affairs and the Ethnic Affairs Commission, but I do have reservations about the words that have been chosen to replace the title of the Ethnic Affairs Commission and the manner in which the name change has come about.

The Ministry for Ethnic Affairs already has been changed to the Ministry for Citizenship - whatever that means - and it is proposed that the Ethnic Affairs Commission be known as the Community Relations Commission - whatever that means, but I suggest it means virtually nothing to the average person. While the Ministry for Citizenship is already up and running, it will take an Act of Parliament to formally change the name of the Ethnic Affairs Commission.

The need for formal legislative change, and a lack of consultation with peak bodies in the ethnic community, did not prevent the announcement of the alternative name for the Ethnic Affairs Commission; nor has it prevented the Government from using the new title "Community Relations Commission" in the public arena. It is notable that that has been a hallmark of the Government’s administration over the past four years: time and again it makes decisions without consulting the affected communities. We on the crossbenches have noted that in respect of legislation that has come before this House. Again there has been no community consultation with those who will be affected by the changes.

The words we use in everyday language, including those we use to describe our institutions, say more about what we really think than we would sometimes like to admit. Language is not just a random collection of adjectives or nouns; it has connotation and meaning deeply imbued within it. Words have power and symbolism, and they reflect a precise message. The meaning is often complex, as the meaning of the word "ethnic" clearly is. The title "Ethnic Affairs Commission" has a clear and direct relevance to the objects of the commission, which are set out under section 15 of the Ethnic Affairs Act 1979 as:

To encourage the participation of persons comprising ethnic groups in the community in all aspects of life in New South Wales, such as the social, economic, public and cultural life of the community;

To promote the unity of all ethnic groups in the community as a single society consistent with the recognition of their different cultural identities;

To promote liaison and co-operation between bodies concerned in ethnic affairs; and

To promote the social, cultural and economic benefits of a culturally diverse society.

Each of those functions, except one, includes the expression "ethnic affairs". The word "ethnic" is fundamental to the objects of the Ethnic Affairs Commission and embodies a positive expression of difference and the practical application of the national policy of multiculturalism. The word "ethnic" is specific, it is precise, and it does refer to difference. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word "ethnic" inter alia as:

1. [Of a social group] having a common national or cultural tradition
2. Denotes origin by birth or descent rather than nationality.

A more expansive definition is provided in the comprehensive Oxford Dictionary. Definition "A" has two meanings. The first is:

1. Pertaining to nations not Christian or Jewish; Gentile, heathen, pagan.

That is an archaic definition of the word, going back, as it does, to 1470. That definition has, of course, been superseded. The second meaning is:

2.a. Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics, esp. designating a racial or other group within a larger system

That is the real meaning of the word "ethnic" in this society. It has been put by one or two people, particularly in the country, that the word "ethnic" has been debased and should no longer be used because it denotes something other than the actual meaning in the dictionary. That is completely wrong. That is bowing to another agenda, which is not the Government’s agenda but the agenda of another party and supported by One Nation. It is to remove the differences and try to amalgamate the whole of our society in the one melting pot. It is to de-emphasise the differences in culture and in origins. The Oxford Dictionary further states:

2.b. ethnic minority (group), a group of people differentiated from the rest of the community by racial origins or cultural background, and usu. claiming or enjoying official recognition of their group identity . . .

B.2. Greek Antiq. An epithet denoting nationality, derived from or corresponding to the name of a people or city.

Those definitions in the Oxford Dictionary indicate that "ethnic" is a very specific word that sums up multiculturalism very clearly. Our society is one of the most diverse on earth, possibly even more diverse than that of the United States of America. Initially, a number of people who come here want to
Page 867
maintain their differences, but gradually their children and grandchildren merge into the wider society. People who come here from different countries want to maintain their cultural differences, customs and language, but that sometimes dies out after two or three generations. There is pride and strength in keeping together and being recognised as a distinct community within the larger Australian community.

The very diversity of the countries and cultures that make up the world implies difference; and the policy complement to ethnic diversity, that is multiculturalism, celebrates ethnic and cultural diversity within an acceptance of Anglo-Celtic political and economic institutions. At the same time some people may use the expressions "ethnic affairs" or "ethnic" in a derogatory fashion or as an insult. Those who use the word that way tend to emphasise the differences between Australians as a negative attribute, rather than a positive attribute.

That negativity is generally based on a misdirected idea of cultural or ethnic superiority or, more commonly, an unfounded fear of customs or lifestyles that are not the same as those that are familiar. This was undoubtedly an experience of the migrants who came to Australia in the 1950s. Many people who came from Italy and Greece were discriminated against by Anglo-Celtic and Anglo-Saxon people. In the early 1960s I was told to go back to where I came from. The last time I was told that, about six years ago, was by a National Party Minister in this House.

We have gradually moved on from the times when people from European countries were discriminated against, and there is now discrimination against those from nearer countries. To rename the Ethnic Affairs Commission [EAC] the Community Relations Commission is to acquiesce to negative political forces that have coloured debate in recent times.

The benefits of using precise terminology such as "ethnic" or "cultural diversity" far outweigh any perceived disadvantages. The word "community" is culturally neutral. Its meaning is characterised by its homogenous nature. It can mean all people living in a specific locality as well as a body of people who have something in common. It means virtually nothing in relation to ethnic communities in this State.

Furthermore, the word "community" implies an inclusiveness that does not differentiate between the varying cultural and linguistic needs of those within that community. The word "community" is also inappropriate in that it gives an impression of complete inclusion when the programs and functions of the EAC are clearly targeted towards the integration and full participation of those from ethnic origins in the broader society. The reality is that it is not the similarities but the differences that characterise the work of the EAC, that is, the various countries of origin and languages that people speak.

This is particularly evident in the provision of translation services by the EAC. "Commission for Cultural Diversity" may have been a more appropriate alternative name for the EAC. It symbolises a positive commitment and celebrates the future of multiculturalism and social harmony.

Furthermore, the EAC provided advice which led to the development of the Charter of Principles for a Culturally Diverse Society, which has been adopted by all public sector agencies. After its introduction in New South Wales, similar documents were produced in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. The title "Commission for Cultural Diversity" would have been a far more appropriate name if thought had been given to the change before it was suddenly introduced. Numerous groups in the community are not happy with the proposed name change and, indeed, the head of the Ethnic Affairs Commission, Paul Nicolaou, is opposed to the name change. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 April he said:

We agree that citizenship is important but it’s also a very narrow concept. Citizenship is the end of the road for migrants. This name seems to preclude important factors such as language teaching and interpreters.

Also on 9 April, Andrew Jakubowicz, Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology, Sydney, was reported as having said:

This is just a bit of reverse political correctness designed to cover the flanks of a Government very much worried by One Nation.

I have a copy of a letter sent to the Hon. Dr P. Wong from 46 community groups that are opposed to the name change of the EAC and the Ethnic Affairs Ministry. I will not read out the full list but they include: Arab Information and Cultural Centre, Australian Arab Communities Council Inc., Islamic Council of New South Wales, Lebanese Muslim Association, St George Antiochian Orthodox Youth Organisation, African Communities Council, Asian Pacific Council of New South Wales, Brazilian Community Council of Australia Inc., Fiji Australian Community Council, Greek Orthodox Community of New South Wales Ltd, Hungarian Council of New
Page 868
South Wales, Anglo Indian Association of New South Wales Inc., Iranian Community Organisation, Macedonian Information Centre for Australia, Australian Malaysian Singaporean Association Inc., Portuguese Welfare Centre, Russian Ethnic Community Council, South African Community Council, and others down to the Vietnamese Community in Australia New South Wales Chapter Inc.

All those groups oppose the change and none were consulted by the Government - as usual. This Government rarely consults with the community. Just two people got to the Premier’s ears and asked for the change. The Premier said "Okay, we will do it." As usual, there was no consultation. It is an absolute disgrace. Many people in the community were affected by this change, and they are quite right to be upset. A number of schools are opposed to the change. A letter from the New South Wales Federation of Ethnic Schools Inc. to the Hon. Dr P. Wong states:

I have contacted representatives from a number of schools. All unanimously supported the motion to reverse the change of name and to carry out community consultations prior to any changes to the portfolio for Ethnic Affairs and to the name of the Ethnic Affairs Commission.

The schools are the Canterbury Greek School, St. Alexander Nevsky Russian School, North Cyprus Turkish School, Liverpool Persian School, "Dr Ante Starcevic" Croatian Ethnic School, Saet Byol Korean School, Dundas Chinese School, German Saturday School, Macedonian Ethnic School "Nikola Karev", Al-Faisal Islamic and Arabic School, Taiwan-Australia School of Language Education. I understand that a belated consultation process is being undertaken in the next few months, and there are a number of points for discussion. An important omission from the discussion paper is consideration of the appropriateness of the current name of the EAC. The consultation will centre more around the object and functions of the commission, as well as its structure. I urge the Government to reconsider its choice of name for the EAC and to allow the community to have its say and maintain the name if it so wishes.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [11.57 a.m.]: This motion by the Hon. J. M. Samios is nothing more than mischievous and pre-empts debate. It does nothing but damage a serious issue that many millions of young Australians of non-Anglo-Celtic background want discussed. It is presumptuous that this motion has been moved without the mover being aware of how the Government intends to proceed. In a press release on Thursday 8 April the Premier announced his intention to transform the Ethnic Affairs Commission to a Community Relations Commission. He said:

There would be public input into the transition from the Ethnic Affairs Commission to a Community Relations Commission.

This commitment to public consultation was reinforced by the Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship, the Hon. Morris Iemma, who said in a press release of 20 April 1999:

The Carr Government’s new approach includes consulting with the community on planned changes.

We as a government, Ministers and members of Parliament have had our ears to the ground and we have listened to many people throughout the community. I do not believe that any member of this House genuinely believes that the connection between non-Anglo-Celtic communities is better with the Coalition or the crossbenchers than it is with the Labor Party. Throughout those meetings and consultations one group in particular needs to be considered. I am referring now to young Australians of non-Anglo-Celtic background in the workplace, at universities, at schools and throughout our system. They are the people we have to consider in the whole equation. They are the people who do not want to be tagged with the word "ethnic".

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They are opposed to change.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I do not know how the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has consulted with these people. I do not know how he has consulted with those kids who are not represented through these structural communities.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I advise honourable members that during the absence of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations from the Chamber today I will answer all questions relating to his portfolio.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House the amount of taxpayers’ money that is paid by New South Wales government departments to the Labor Council of New South
Page 869
Wales? Was $50,000 recently allocated by one government department to rewrite a guidebook on enterprise agreements? Are these payments disguised paybacks to the Labor Council for its donations to the Labor Party at the last State election?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of any contributions or funding from the Government to the Labor Council. That is not to say there may not be some under various programs. However, I will refer the honourable member’s question to my colleagues and endeavour to obtain a detailed answer to his question.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer table all correspondence and documents relating to New South Wales Government payments to the Labor Council of New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will obtain whatever information I can and advise the House in due course.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister outline to the House some of the achievements of the community service order scheme run by the Department of Juvenile Justice?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. I. M. Macdonald for his interest in this most important scheme that is run by my department. As I have said previously, it is true that a lot of focus in the juvenile justice system is placed on juvenile detention centres, and the community service order scheme is an important part of the work of the Department of Juvenile Justice. Central to the operation of the scheme is the principle that wherever possible community service order schemes should be seen to contribute to the local community and, ideally, should be organised in conjunction with a local charity, service club, special needs facility or the local council.

In 1997-98 in excess of 1,300 clients were given supervised community service orders, and for the fourth year in a row more than 90 per cent of those clients successfully completed the orders. The type of work performed by these young offenders includes the upkeep and maintenance of local parks in conjunction with Orange City Council, the clearing of unwanted vegetation and rubbish and the planting of native trees in Stuart Park in Wollongong, the refurbishment and painting of the Bega Tourist Information Centre, participation in clean-up days in Parramatta and Blacktown, numerous co-operative ventures in association with local Aboriginal land councils, and the maintenance of gardens and grounds at a number of nursing homes and ex-servicemen’s hostels throughout the State.

Other young people are engaged in assisting with the riding for the disabled program, the building of children’s playgrounds and a ropes course at a local police citizens youth club, and adopt-a-road schemes in a number of regional centres. Honourable members will be aware that during the course of the recent election the Government announced a redirection of this scheme to facilitate increased attention to the removal of the urban blight of graffiti, an issue that is of great concern in the community.

The Department of Juvenile Justice is a member of the graffiti solutions task force, which was convened by the Premier’s Department, and some considerable effort has been made to ensure that existing community partners are not disadvantaged with the introduction of graffiti clean-up teams. I look forward to further updating the House on this important initiative.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: I address my question to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer, representing the Minister for Education and Training. The Coffs Harbour Christian Community School was, until some 18 months ago, surrounded by bushland. Due to a change in neighbouring land ownership it is now bordered on three sides by agricultural pursuits that require the application of pesticides. Is the Minister aware that pesticides can be applied without any notice or warning being given to the school principal? Does the Minister acknowledge that spray and vapour drifting across the school will adversely affect some students’ health and ability to learn? What will the Minister do to prevent the 450 students and staff, some of whom are chemically sensitive, from being exposed to pesticide spray and vapour drift on the days subsequent to spraying?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: This matter does sound serious. However, I am unable to provide an answer to the question as I am not aware of the specific example that he has raised, nor am I briefed on the general issue. I will obtain an answer from the relevant Minister and provide it to the honourable member as quickly as possible.

Page 870

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Further to my question to the Treasurer on Tuesday, now that the Minister has had 48 hours to consider his letter of 20 January to the chair of Integral Energy approving the formation of Integral Energy Appliance Sales Pty Ltd, does he stand by his statement to the House that the customer and appliance centres will close because they are uncompetitive? Did the Minister believe that the centres were uncompetitive when he approved the formation in January, or have the centres closed because of the $80 million that Integral Energy lost trading on the energy market?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As I pointed out on Tuesday, it is anticipated that Integral Energy will make a profit of about $50 million this year. It is true that on 20 January I approved the formation of a subsidiary to Integral Energy, known as Integral Energy Appliance Sales Pty Ltd. The decision about whether Integral Energy is going to sell electrical appliances is a commercial matter for Integral Energy. I approved the formation of a subsidiary to do that, but the honourable member will be aware that in the meantime Integral Energy now has a new chief executive. I understand it was on the advice of the new chief executive that Integral Energy will be withdrawing from that activity.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister please inform the House of the recent advanced manufacturing and engineering forum at Orange?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am pleased to inform the House that more than 30 central west business people recently attended an advanced manufacturing engineering forum at Orange. The Hon. Richard Jones should pay attention to what is happening in the House.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I am not interested in anything you have to say.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Either pay attention or get out. The forum, sponsored by the New South Wales Government, was designed to give local manufacturing, engineering and related companies information on new technologies. The forum was addressed by Mr Chris Smallbone, Executive Director of the Welding Technology Institute of Australia, and Dr Farhad Shafaghi, Director of the Advanced Manufacturing Centre. I am advised that Mr Smallbone detailed the support and advice available to business on the latest welding and joining techniques. Dr Shafaghi discussed the latest manufacturing techniques and how to address special needs, like producing prototypes quickly and finding information on new materials. Both speakers provided practical advice and assistance to businesses on improving the application of existing technology and making use of new technology.

Information was also provided on the Government’s support for industry innovation through initiatives such as the technology diffusion program. I will provide the House with details at a later stage on the technology diffusion program. It is important that regional manufacturers have access to the latest industry developments and innovation. This forum was a practical way to assist manufacturers outside the greater Sydney area, as I am sure the Hon. Richard Jones would agree.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Was the Treasurer's plan to effectively destroy the upper House not referred to Ministers, let alone caucus, and does it break personal promises made by the Premier to crossbench members, including me, that the numbers in the upper House would not be reduced? As the Treasurer is a disgrace to this Chamber and an embarrassment to his own party, will he resign from the Chamber, which he holds in such contempt? If not, why not?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. Richard Jones for his question. The Premier made no such commitment. What the Premier did say was that before any changes were made the Government would certainly consult with the crossbench members. I have done that and I will continue to do that.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Point of order: The Leader of the Government is misleading the House because the Premier did, indeed, make personal promises to individual crossbench members.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It would assist if members quote the relevant standing order when taking a point of order. To which standing order is the honourable member referring?

Page 871

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I am sure the honourable member was referring to the fact that the Leader of the Government was misleading the House.

The PRESIDENT: Which standing order?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is a convention of the House. It is the basis of the Westminster system.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The suggestion by the Hon. Richard Jones that I should consider resigning is an interesting proposition. I hope that at some stage in the future I will get around to considering that, but I doubt that it will be before the expiry of 20 years or so. If anyone should consider resigning from the House it is the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. He was elected to this House as the number one candidate on the Democrat ticket on a vote of 3.21 per cent.

People thought they were voting for a member of the Democrats, but only a few months later he resigned from the Democrats because of a dispute with his former leader, and he now sits here without any votes at all. He said I should consider resigning. If the Hon. Richard Jones was to do the decent thing by the 3.21 per cent of people who voted for the Democrats in the 1995 election he should consider resigning, because not one single person voted for him in his own right.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. In light of the fact that a high proportion of homeless people are problem gamblers, what has his Government done to train counsellors to improve the problem gambling services in New South Wales, given that 10 per cent of State revenue comes from gambling?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Although it could be argued that it broadly impinges on the overall approach of the Government he, like me, would be aware of a number of occasions in the past when the Premier of a former government publicly canvassed some of his anxieties in respect to this matter. I am aware that this matter is bipartisan, or is it tripartisan, by way of concern at least by some of those who might be regarded as latter-day or reformed wowsers. I note that my friend the Leader of the Government is emphatically opposed to those of us who concentrate on some of these areas of concern, but the question is of sufficient importance that it requires a considered answer. If the honourable member places the question on the notice paper I will obtain a considered response to it.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What is the Government doing to stock the State’s waterways with native fish and trout?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: From the outset I congratulate the Department of Fisheries on the wonderful work it is doing in restocking our waterways. This season the Government has released more fish into the waterways of New South Wales than in any previous season. In total, more than 5.5 million fish have been stocked in New South Wales waters. Some 2.5 million native fish and three million trout have been stocked into freshwater impoundments and rivers.

Over two million native fish were stocked by the Narrandera Fisheries Centre alone, an all-time record since the centre began to release fish in 1971. Port Stephens Research Station achieved a record release of 280,000 Australian bass into impoundments around the State. Grafton Research Centre produced 3,000 silver perch for release into impoundments. Rainbow and brown trout have been stocked around the State in New England, the Central and Southern Highlands, the Monaro region and around Orange.

Stocking figures are expected to improve further next year due to the success of the recreational fresh water fishing licence. Projects to be funded from the licence include a dollar-for-dollar stocking scheme. This scheme will match fish stock into public waterways by angling clubs, councils and similar organisations. Revenue from the licence will be also used to provide seed funding for the construction of fishways or, in layman’s terms, fish ladders, which allow fish to move upstream or downstream to points where they are blocked by weirs.

Fishways will be constructed at key barriers to fish migration which have been identified by the Government’s State fishway program. The objectives of this program are to improve natural fish migrations, improve environmental flows, reduce numbers of carp, protect and restore fish habitat, increase compliance with fisheries laws and improve the availability of advisory material.

Page 872

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing. Is it a fact that North Sydney Council has decided to freeze residential development in the North Sydney central business district? Is it true that virtually all the submissions received by North Sydney Council were in favour of residential development continuing in the central business district? Will the Minister overrule the decision of North Sydney Council and permit residential development to continue in the North Sydney central business district?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Regrettably, I cannot provide an answer to the Hon. Elaine Nile, but I will undertake to obtain a response to her question as soon as possible.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. In view of an earlier answer given by the Treasurer to a question asked by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, does the Treasurer believe that it is ethical to stand for election as a member of a registered party and then resign from it and vote as an Independent member of this House? If so, why has the Government appointed the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho to chair the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics in view of her breach of this principle?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have on occasions also supported the Hon. Richard No-Votes Jones being appointed to various committees. However people become members of this place, they remain members until they decide to retire or resign or their term expires.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Minister please update the House on the success of companies in the Hunter region in attracting Olympic-related jobs and investment?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Sydney 2000 Games are already providing an economic bonanza for companies in the Hunter. To date Hunter firms have won $113 million worth of Olympic-related contracts, creating some 350 new jobs. This success has come about in large part thanks to the efforts of the Hunter Olympic business task force. The task force is a combined initiative - and I am sure that the Hon. J. H. Jobling would be aware of this -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I am aware of it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You would not even have a clue where the Hunter is. You cannot even find Crookwell. The task force is a combined initiative of the Department of State and Regional Development, the Hunter Development Corporation and the Hunter Regional Organisation of Councils. It was established in 1998 and works closely with the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and other interested parties to identify and secure Olympic business opportunities for the Hunter.

Hunter businesses have had some very good wins. Great Lakes Coaches has secured a contract worth at least $500,000 to provide bus services in the lead-up to the Games. I am advised that plans are also well advanced for a 1,500-berth cruise ship to dock in Newcastle for 20 days during the Olympics. Newcastle has a great harbour and the Hunter is a wonderful place to have a holiday. As I have previously informed the House, my last holiday was taken in the Hunter.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: In the vineyards?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Not only in the vineyards. I went to Gloucester and travelled extensively around the region. It is expected that each passenger will spend an average five to seven days in Newcastle, and that is likely to mean an injection of $5 million into the local economy. A Hunter mining construction company, Shaft and Tunnel Pty Ltd won the contract to drive a 300-metre tunnel for the new Homebush rail link. The contract, worth more than $3 million, was completed on time and on budget and boosted the company’s work force by 45. The benefits of winning Olympic contracts will go well beyond the year 2000. Already Shaft and Tunnel has won several other contracts as a result of its work on the Olympic site. I congratulate the many New South Wales companies that are taking advantage of the business opportunities generated by what without doubt will be the best Olympics the world has ever seen.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral
Page 873
Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs. Is it a fact that Sydney city retailers are facing months of disruption to their businesses due to the inefficient management of the $100 million street improvement program by Sydney City Council? Is it a fact that this project is now running many weeks, and even months, behind schedule, as the George Street improvements will not be completed until January 2000, the Martin Place improvements will not be completed until November 1999, and many city retailers now face bankruptcy due to a major slowdown in their businesses? What action will the State Government take to resolve this situation so as to protect the public, the city retailers, tourism and the reputation of our State capital?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Undoubtedly all honourable members would be aware of the concern of small business and the effect of the road improvements and footpath improvements. I cannot elaborate more on that issue. I will convey the question to my colleague in another place and seek to obtain an answer.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. I refer to the action plan for the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre which the Minister announced on 27 April and outlined again to the House on Tuesday. The Minister said in April that she had called for an urgent implementation of the plan. Has the Minister visited Kariong to satisfy herself as to the progress of the plan? Can she advise what action has been taken in relation to the plan, and does she have an explanation from her department as to why staff do not as yet have the belt duress alarms which she promised would be introduced?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her interest in the implementation of the Kariong action plan. I have not at this stage visited the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre but have had numerous discussions with the department about the implementation of the Kariong action plan. I advise the House that progress with the action plan is well under way. There are a number of aspects to the action plan and obviously some will take longer than others to implement. Infrastructure issues that were presented as security problems during the recent disturbances have been identified and are being addressed through the centre cyclic maintenance program. An Aboriginal caseworker has been appointed permanently to the centre, as I told the House yesterday.

A centre program working party has been established to improve centre programming and case management. This will involve increased input from the department’s senior psychologist. The department’s harassment prevention policy is being revised in consultation with staff from the centre. Following the disturbances I held a series of meetings, including a meeting with the Senior Children’s Court Magistrate, official visitors, the Ombudsman and a number of representatives of the Aboriginal community and unions. I have been working closely with the department to improve communication and staff accountability.

Regular meetings are now occurring between detainees’ staff, senior management in the centre and the central support office. In relation to staff training, I advise that all staff are being trained in emergency response training, carried out by our expert staff from the Department of Corrective Services. Disciplinary procedures have been taken against certain staff in accordance with the Public Sector Management Act. The honourable member referred to belt duress alarms, an important aspect of the action plan that the department provided in response to the disturbances.

I can report to the House that the WorkCover Authority is working with the Department of Juvenile Justice. It has asked to be involved in the selection of the most appropriate belt duress alarms. I will closely monitor that matter because it is important that we get the most appropriate belt duress alarms and that they are put in place as soon as is practicable.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Public Works and Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship. Is the Minister aware of the life-threatening problem known as backflow? Will the Minister inform the House whether an independent study has been done of public buildings to establish where backflow occurs or which buildings are at risk? Is the Minister aware that Sydney Water is aware of the problem and that already there has been one death in New South Wales as a result of backflow? Will the Minister inform the House of how the Government is addressing this very serious problem? Will the Minister provide the same assurance that his
Page 874
Queensland colleague made that he will resign if there are any more fatalities as a result of backflow?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will convey this very serious and important question to my colleague the Minister for Public Works and Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship and seek a detailed answer.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. Is the Government allowing FreightCorp to announce on 7 June to the staff at the Goulburn terminal that staff levels will be cut from 26 to one? Is the Government aware that the current staff of 26 was established only six months ago under FreightCorp’s job and work redesign initiative, in consultation with unions, staff and management?

How does the Government explain that, in the lead-up to the recent State election, on 1 February a spokesman said, "Rumours that more Goulburn FreightCorp railway staff would shortly lose their jobs were unfounded"? Will the Minister explain why, only six months after this review, and soon after the election, suddenly 25 jobs in this National Party held electorate are to be axed? What does the Minister say about the competence of FreightCorp’s management which could not foresee six months in advance the future planned operational changes that it now claims necessitates the loss of 25 out of these 26 local jobs?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am not aware of the situation that the Hon. D. E. Oldfield is alleging. I will forward his question to my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads for a prompt response.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship. Was the historic building known as Faulconbridge House in the Blue Mountains, the former residence of Sir Henry Parkes, the father of our Federation, sold at the weekend at auction to a private bidder?

Did the former owner of that house, Mr Noel Selway, make numerous representations to the Government offering to sell the house to it so that the historic house could become the property of the people of this State? On Sunday 28 April 1996, at a public meeting during a speech commemorating the one-hundredth anniversary of the death of Sir Henry Parkes, did the Premier make a promise that the Government would purchase the house for the people of New South Wales prior to the centenary of federation? Why was that promise not honoured?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the matter raised by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. I shall raise it with the Premier and seek a response to the honourable member’s question.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. The Mount Jerrabomberra Preservation Society requested a stop work order under the National Parks and Wildlife Act be placed on development in the north terrace, stages three and four, of Jerrabomberra Heights estate. That order was requested from the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] on 30 April to prevent continued clearing, yet there has been no response up until now. Why has it taken so long for the NPWS to reply? How many times has the Minister been asked to enforce a stop work order? Can the number of orders that have been placed on areas over the past seven years be counted on one hand? Why does the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act not apply to environmental laws?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I shall refer that detailed and important question to my colleague the Minister for the Environment and provide an answer as soon as possible.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You never ask me questions any more.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is a waste of time - you are never here. Given that the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council announced the revival of inquiries part-completed by the Standing Committee on State Development and left
Page 875
off the list the matter of deregulation of regional air routes, what can the Minister advise about the state of play in this matter? Further, what are regional communities to make of the Minister’s threatening remarks yesterday that their services could be made to go to Bankstown airport if Sydney’s second international airport does not proceed?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will convey that very important question to my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council a question without notice. Will the Minister indicate whether the highly effective area assistance scheme administered by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, and strongly supported by the community and local government, will suffer any cuts in funding or changes to its administrative arrangements in the 22 June State budget?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: At this time of the year there is all sorts of speculation about what will be in the budget. I do not engage in stimulating or encouraging that speculation. I assure honourable members that the budget, which will be delivered on 22 June, will be another first-class budget. However, honourable members will have to wait for all of the glorious details.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Has the Minister been disposed to review his predecessor’s decision to close inland fisheries to commercial fishermen? If not, what compensation does the Minister propose to provide for those who will suffer the impact of closure on their livelihoods on which they have depended for generations, in some cases?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Some weeks ago representations were made to me by inland fishermen who were concerned about certain aspects of the recommendations. I assure the honourable member that they had a good hearing and that I was sympathetic to them. At the time I made an offer, which I will relay to honourable members. The inland commercial fishery for native fin fish has been in a state of decline. Under a sunset policy no new licences have been issued since 1983, and the area open to commercial fishing has been gradually reduced to 5 per cent of inland waters. The number of licence holders has subsequently fallen from approximately 200 to less than 40.

There is a high level of conflict between commercial and recreational fishers, significant concern about the sustainability of native fin fish, and declines in the distribution and abundance of key fish, such as the Murray cod. In contrast, carp and yabbies are considered an underutilised resource. A review of the inland fishery conducted by my Department of Fisheries in 1998 identified the need for immediate action in this State fishery. Consequently, a closure under section 8 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 was gazetted allowing the phase-out of commercial fin fishing over three years until 1 September 2001.

To assist with the transition, a structural adjustment package was offered to the industry. Three options were provided: first, fishers could continue taking native fin fish until the closure in 2001; second, fishers could stop native fin fishing, in return for a transferable carp and yabby endorsement; or, third, they could voluntarily surrender their licences, in return for an ex gratia payment. Industry was widely consulted. Every commercial fisher was given the opportunity of a face-to-face interview with the Director of Fisheries and the senior manager of the inland fishery during a visit to major regional areas. A detailed paper was circulated to all fishers following those discussions. It must be stressed that while seven fishers have chosen to leave the industry voluntarily, no inland fisher has been forcibly removed.

A new restricted fishery has been established by amendment of the Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 1995 to implement changes outlined in the adjustment package. The inland restricted fishery establishes transferable endorsements authorising the holder to take carp only, carp and yabbies, or native fin fish. All native fin fish endorsements will cease to exist when the closure takes effect on 1 September 2001. At that time, fishers will not be removed from the industry, but they can continue to operate under a carp and yabby endorsement that they will also hold.

The Government is committed to an ongoing commercial fishery provided by the inland restricted fishery. The transition from high-value native fin fish to carp and yabbies will undoubtedly be difficult for some fishers. The carp production incentive scheme, or bounty, will facilitate the establishment of markets for carp, and hence will improve the viability of this fishery before native fin fishing ceases on 1 September 2001. Licence holders
Page 876
will be assisted through this change, and the Government will look at the opportunities for involving commercial fishers in native fish aquaculture.

I want to suggest to the Hon. D. F. Moppett that the expiry of the offer of three options was extended by a month, following representations made to me by the inland fishers. I have great sympathy for those whose lifestyle of fishing has been affected. Though their lifestyle might not have been sustainable, I do not believe they should be forced out of the industry. They will have three options. They can be bought out, have their licences transferred to a fishery that is more sustainable -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What is the quantum of the buy-out offer?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The quantum of the offer is based on a formula that has been agreed to by the management committee. That offer was available to the fishers. I am of the firm belief that some in the industry who were using other fishers to keep themselves in the industry, at the expense of other fishers, talked those other fishers out of taking up an offer that was reasonable and commercially viable. In fact, lawyers were involved in that process. It seems that once the lawyers became involved in the process, they wanted to prolong the argument and the case. I have strong feelings for the elderly fishers, a number of them returned servicemen, who had been fishing for most of their lives. Some of them are probably not earning more than $5,000 or $10,000 from their fishing activities. I was inclined to extend, for them, the opportunity to take up the third option of being bought out. What will happen is yet to be seen.

I am of the opinion that there is an opportunity to convert carp to a viable industry. Only a week and a half ago I was approached by the mayor of Hay regarding an abattoir that wanted to trial a process whereby carp are put through a low-temperature process to determine whether the end product is commercially viable. My opinion is that the operator should have the opportunity to trial that process, which he is doing for free. The honourable member should be more than satisfied, from what I have said, that inland fishers are being looked after.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question without notice to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, concerns an occupational health and safety issue. What measures are in place to protect the health of toll collectors on New South Wales roads and motorways from constant exposure to exhaust fumes and other forms of air pollution? Are toll collectors given regular blood tests to ascertain the level of heavy metals in their blood? If not, why not? Why are toll collectors not required to wear masks over their mouths to prevent the inhalation of toxic fumes?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The honourable member asks an excellent question. I will refer it to my colleague the Attorney General when he returns from his sick bed. I am sure he will be interested in this matter.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council a question without notice. I preface my question by saying that as Minister for Public Works and Services, I took a keen interest in the year 2000 preparedness of State departments and agencies. Could the Minister update the House on the year 2000 preparedness of State-owned corporations?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge the work he did as Minister for Public Works and Services in making sure that New South Wales is well prepared for the potential problems of the millennium bug. The Government is well advanced in its preparations.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Is it all right to fly on 1 January?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Let me put it this way: I will be flying. By the way, I invite members on the Opposition benches to come with me. I did not think so. A clearly defined year 2000 strategy has been endorsed and implemented by the Government. All government agency chief executives have been working since late 1996 to minimise any possible disruption to government services which may be caused by the millennium bug. A report issued on 14 May indicates that the average Y2K readiness across government is now at 85 per cent. There is every indication that critical government systems affected by the millennium bug will be repaired, rectified or replaced by the Government’s deadline of 15 October 1999.

I am sure honourable members will be interested in measures taken in the electricity area. I am informed that testing undertaken to date in the
Page 877
supply of electricity has not identified any components with the potential to cause significant failure due to problems with date compliance. Successful year 2000 simulations have been completed at the Liddell and Bayswater power stations in the Hunter Valley. I am also informed - indeed I have a newspaper clipping to this effect - that Mr Michael Sinclair of the New South Wales Electricity Association publicly stated in March this year that year 2000 related problems would not have an impact on electricity supplies. Mr Sinclair is quoted in the article as saying:

We have found no evidence that any Y2K problems will affect the current levels of electricity supplier reliability.

In relation to water, which I know the Hon. Patricia Forsythe will be interested in for she interjected a little while ago seeking information on water, I am told that the Managing Director of Sydney Water has advised that tests and rectification of critical systems and functions is nearing completion and should be finalised by the middle of the year.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask a question of the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What progress is being made in creating the Byron Bay marine park centred on Julian Rocks? Is it not a fact that Byron Bay is a top tourist destination and a considerable number of jobs are to be gained from the diving industry and from the viewing of marine life around Julian Rocks? Will the Minister ensure that Byron Bay’s tourism potential is further enhanced by the establishment of the marine park, and that much-needed jobs will be created in this area of high unemployment?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for his concern and interest in marine parks, particularly the proposal to declare a marine park at Byron Bay. When the Marine Parks Act was passed by Parliament in June 1997, the Government committed the Marine Parks Authority to undertake an investigation of the waters around Byron Bay, including the Julian Rocks aquatic reserve, to determine the suitability of the area for declaration as a marine park. That investigation has been undertaken. It involved a comprehensive review of all the biophysical data available on the Tweed-Morton bioregion.

A draft report was prepared late in 1998 and should be finalised this month. When completed its assessments will be considered by the Marine Parks Authority, which will then give advice to my colleague the Hon. Bob Debus, the Minister for the Environment, and me on whether the area should be declared a marine park. I am well aware of the interest of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in this issue and I will advise him as soon as possible as to the recommendations from the authority.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that thousands of residents now live in the Richmond-Windsor area, which was once farmland? Is the Minister aware that the Richmond rail service has not been upgraded to cope with the increased number of constituents, many of whom commute daily to the city to work? With the impending rail fare increase and the promise of better rail services, what plans does the Government have to improve the frequency of railway services for the Richmond line?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I am not aware of plans for the Richmond line in particular. I will convey the question to my colleague and seek to give a detailed answer.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister update the House on the achievements of youth justice conferencing?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I hope all honourable members are interested in the answer to this question because youth conferencing is one of the Government’s most significant achievements in the juvenile justice area. Honourable members would be aware that youth justice conferencing is not a soft option, as it is sometimes described. The Young Offenders Act 1997 clearly outlined that a youth justice conference is higher on the hierarchy of responses than a warning or a formal police caution. I advise the House that 16 conference administrators have been appointed in nine rural and seven metropolitan locations.

There are in excess of 350 conference conveners; these are local people who are selected and trained to act as impartial facilitators, and to ensure that all participants are able to air their views and participate in developing an outcome plan for young offenders. With the implementation of the program less than one year ago, I am proud to
Page 878
advise the House that more than 900 young people have participated in more than 700 youth justice conferences. This is an effective, constructive, community-building exercise and is aimed at addressing offending behaviour at the earliest opportunity.

This is National Reconciliation Week and I advise the House of one example of the powerful potential of this significant social justice initiative, for which the Government is rightly proud. A 14-year-old Aboriginal girl in a rural location broke into an elderly woman’s house. The woman confronted the girl during the course of the break-in and the woman fell and injured herself. This matter was referred to a conference and the victim and the young offender jointly decided that the outcome plan should involve regular visits by the young offender to the woman’s house. Throughout this process a strong friendship emerged. When the young offender had completed the terms of the outcome plan both the woman and the girl were quite distraught at the imminent break in contact.

In order to facilitate ongoing contact, the conference convenor independently contacted the local community transport organisation, which offered to provide transport for as long as they both sought to continue the visits and the friendship. I am happy to advise the House that almost six months after the completion of the outcome plan the visits between the woman and the girl are continuing on a regular basis. This is a good outcome of youth justice conferencing and shows that it can have an impact beyond the life of the outcome plan and has an important impact in community building.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts. Is it a fact that Rural Fire Service volunteers are ready to leave the service due to new rules about wearing specific uniforms and requirements to be accredited as firefighters through a training program? Is it a fact that the Shires Association of New South Wales is frustrated with the new requirement of the Rural Fire Service and its management? What action is the Government taking to address the growing frustration within the ranks of Rural Fire Service volunteers and to address the concerns of the shires association?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am aware of some of the issues raised by the Hon. Elaine Nile from media reports this morning. This comprehensive question deserves a detailed response. I will refer it to the appropriate Minister and undertake to get a reply as soon as possible.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What action is the Minister taking against the further impact of red spot disease on the North Coast fish stock?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I have excellent briefings from the Department of Fisheries but I do not have a briefing about red spot disease. I will seek an urgent detailed answer for him.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Treasurer - also the Minister for Emasculation of the upper House - a question without notice. Is it a fact that the "yes" and "no" republic referendum campaign will be launched in July for the Federal referendum on 6 November? Is it a fact that the "yes" and "no" cases with the slogan "Vote No" will confuse the voters of New South Wales if the proposed referendum is held in September with the upper House "yes" and "no" campaign also being held from July to September? Will the Treasurer postpone any proposed upper House referendum until 2003 in conjunction with the New South Wales State election in March of that year?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I did not follow the logic implicit in the honourable member’s question.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: They would be overlapping campaigns.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The people of New South Wales are able to distinguish between a referendum on a republic and a referendum to alter the powers and composition of the Legislative Council. I do not think there will be any confusion. The local government elections are a good opportunity to hold the referendum without inconveniencing people with a requirement to go to the polls on two separate occasions. However, at the end of the day that is a matter for the Parliament. I cannot impose my will upon the people of New South Wales, but I believe that they should be given the opportunity.

Page 879

The Hon. D. J. Gay: If it is any consolation, I think you’ve got it right.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. D. J. Gay for his interjection. I value his judgment - he is a wise and experienced member of this Parliament, as is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said that the Government got it right. I agree.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I address my question to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that, contrary to the commitment to consultation given by the previous Minister for Health to mental health organisations in relation to the planning and use of buildings at the old Gladesville Hospital, no such consultation has taken place in almost two years?

Is the Minister further aware that whilst previously a consultancy group of New South Wales Health, public works and community members considered development and allocation of resources, no mental health organisations are currently represented in any planning or consultation process for the site’s current use or development? Will the Minister give a commitment to mental health organisations that the veil of secrecy on the current use and planning for the future use of the site will be lifted and that from now on mental health organisations will be included in discussions about the use of the site?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member’s question to the appropriate Minister and obtain a response.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am now in a position to provide an answer to a question asked earlier by the Hon. Elaine Nile about North Sydney Council. I am advised that the council has received a number of development applications for residential development in the North Sydney central business district [CBD]. On 20 May council requested the Minister to make a local environmental plan that would prohibit residential development in the core part of the CBD - the area bounded by Arthur, Berry, Miller and Blue streets, which affects 124 properties - and to apply a floor space ratio to all development on the fringe of the North Sydney central business district that will affect 116 properties.

The objective of council is to ensure that residential development does not result in the loss of commercial floor space prior to its consideration of the future mix of residential and commercial controls in the North Sydney CBD. Council has stressed that this is an interim measure only which will restrict the loss of prime commercial floor space within North Sydney’s CBD to unrestricted residential uses. It will allow council time to consider a strategic approach to the future of the North Sydney central business district.

I am advised that the Minister has not made any decisions in respect of this matter. By way of additional information, the draft local environmental plan is in accordance with the strategic outcomes expressed in the North Sydney centre study of 1998. This study investigated the role of the CBD in providing a large component of Sydney’s commercial floor space needs.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Earlier today the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked me a question regarding the Coffs Harbour Christian Community School and pesticides. I am now aware that the question should be more properly directed to the Minister for the Environment, as the Minister for Education and Training in another place has already referred a similar question to that Minister. So obviously I will ask my colleague the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt to refer that question to the relevant Minister.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a response to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones’ question in respect of the Eastlink road planning matter, which I was denied leave to incorporate yesterday.

Leave granted.

The former Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the Hon. Craig Knowles MP, approved a proposal by TransGrid for the Queensland-New South Wales Interconnection Transmission Line, known as QNI, in November 1998. QNI essentially follows the same alignment as the Eastlink proposal. The Minister’s decision to approve the proposal was made after consideration of an independent assessment of the project by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. Key issues that were considered in the department’s assessment included impacts on flora and fauna including a number of threatened species, indigenous heritage impacts and visual impacts. The

Page 880
Minister’s decision was subject to 69 stringent conditions of approval.

The Minister gave TransGrid approval for construction of QNI within a corridor which was defined in the environmental impact statement. The final alignment of the transmission line within the corridor is currently being determined by TransGrid in accordance with a range of protocols. These have been developed to ensure that sites of indigenous heritage significance and areas of flora and fauna conservation significance are avoided where possible, and appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. TransGrid is also required to undertake ongoing consultation with landowners and other stakeholders in finalising the route alignment to determine if any minor changes to the alignment are necessary to minimise the impacts of the route.

Under Section 115BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, TransGrid can request modification of the Minister’s approval. A modification would be required if TransGrid proposed to move the alignment outside the approved corridor. If a modification is required, my approval would be needed. Other than the above, I have no statutory role to negotiate deviations to the alignment with property owners. My future role in this project involves ensuring TransGrid complies with the conditions of approval, including finalisation of the route alignment to avoid areas of significance and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yesterday the Hon. D. F. Moppett asked me a question concerning share managed lobster fishery. I have now been supplied with the following response:

I wish to advise the House that the rock lobster and abalone fisheries are currently in the limited access stage of share management. For the record, it is important to note there are two fisheries proceeding down the path of share management. I have recently received delegations from fishers with regard to the share management provisions of the Fisheries Management Act. However, rock lobster shareholders were not represented at these meetings.

An independent consultant has been retained to advise on the appropriate level of contribution for these fisheries, and the principles to be adopted in relation to this charge. This process ensures that all factors with regard to the community contribution are taken into consideration, and that all shareholders have the ability to contribute to the process. This community contribution charge is in addition to general management charges.

To clarify a comment by the Hon. D. Moppett, management plans have not yet been implemented for these fisheries and therefore no level of community contribution is payable at this time. In regard to research into the rock lobster fishery, the work of my department has shown that there appears to be considerable recruitment into the rock lobster fishery.

The Independent Catch Setting and Review Committee has demonstrated their confidence in management undertaken by my department into the rock lobster fishery by increasing the commercial quantity of lobster that may be landed in 1998-99 by 8 per cent to 125 tonnes. I am currently awaiting the Committee’s recommendation for the 1999-2000 season which is expected to include an increase in allowable catch. I would be happy to provide any other information the honourable member requests.

[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [2.30 p.m.]: The motion proposing that the word "ethnic" be retained is nothing but mischievous. It would damage not only the professional ethnics but all young Australians of non Anglo-Celtic origin. This is a serious debate, and I caution members on the crossbenches to examine the motion carefully. Regardless of what the dictionary suggests is the meaning of the word "ethnic", to the mainstream community it refers to people of non Anglo-Celtic origin. The term should not be a label attached to those who need the services of the commission. I support those who need the services and those who provide them.

This motion will put a tag on people forever; it would not be temporary. It does not mean that a new Australian becomes an old Australian once he or she understands the language and the ways of the country. The word "ethnic" puts a permanent tag on people. We must act now, and not simply in the interests of the lobby groups that want the tag simply to enable them to carry on business. This is about future generations, the kids in the universities, in the workplace, climbing the ladder in the corporate sector. They are suffering - ask me, I am one of them. Throughout my life I have experienced this attitude simply because I come from a different cultural background. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "That this House", and inserting instead:

"requests the Premier to consult with and consider the views of the community on proposed changes to the name, objects and functions of the Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales."

Pursuant to sessional orders proceedings interrupted.

Page 881

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [2.33 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr P. Wong, which I accept. That amendment seeks to omit "Condemns" from paragraph 1 and to insert instead "Expresses its grave concern that". The amendment would also omit paragraph 2 and insert instead:

2. Calls on the Carr Government to:

(a) reverse its decision in relation to the changes as a matter of urgency, and

(b) consult with and heed the wishes of the peak and other ethnic communities and leaders on any changes to the name, objects or functions of the Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales.

In this debate Government members have reflected an unfortunate confusion as to the significance of ethnicity and ethnics. The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries used the words "regardless of what the dictionary says". The dictionary is an effective discipline on language. Those who are careless in their use of language scorn the dictionary. There is a clear difference between ethnicity and nationality. We are all Australians; that is our citizenship. Each and every one of us, from the Celts to the Europeans, Pacific Islanders and Asians, has an ethnicity.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald may have a different ethnicity to that of the Hon. Dr P. Wong. However, both the Hon. I. M. Macdonald and the Hon. Dr P. Wong are Australians. We should all be proud of our ethnicity. If there had not been a mass migration policy for the Sydney Basin, had community leaders not followed that policy which led to the arrival of migrants, and had they not taken up the cudgels to lobby for recognition of the importance of cultural and linguistic backgrounds, this State and nation would be the poorer. As Prince Charles said, Australia is a unique experiment that takes pride in the contributions of Australians from all ethnic backgrounds to the social and cultural development of the nation.

Honourable members should not confuse ethnicity with nationality. Some sections of the media have tended to refer to ethnicity as a term relevant only to people of non-English speaking background. One honourable member referred to the partisan approach of community leaders. In reality those community leaders who support this motion come from a broad strand of political dimension. They include many Labor Party members. I have referred to the contribution of Bill Jegorow, who could hardly be called a Liberal. He was an alderman in the Labor Party for 26 years and the foundation Chairman of the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales. Those people have contributed much to the Labor Party.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: The honourable member is living in the past and has not got his ear to the ground.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: The Minister has his ear so close to the ground he cannot hear anything; he cannot see the herd of elephants coming at him. The reality is that we talk of what the community feels.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Who represents the community?

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: If it is not the peak groups, the church groups or the ethnic media, who is it? What about the people at large? I have a petition that states:

We, representatives of organisations and individuals of the Lebanese speaking community, wish to express our concern for the proposed change of the name of the "Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales" to the "Community Relations Commission".

We feel such a change does not reflect the New South Wales Government’s support for and the understanding of the special needs of the ethnic community.

We therefore urge the Premier, The Hon. Bob Carr, to reconsider this decision.

There they are. There are the signatures.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Who are they? Name them.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: They are on the list.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: What are the organisations?

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: People like Badaom El-Hage, Antonios Ayoub, Hawait, Fay Shalak, et cetera. There is also a petition from the Vietnamese community saying the same thing. These people have made a great contribution. The Chinese community also has expressed concern. Across the board, community leaders, including the President of the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales and the foundation chairman and other chairmen of the ECC, and Co As It, the President of the Federation of Ethnic Schools, the President of
Page 882
the Australian Chinese Community Association, the President of the Indo-China Chinese Association and so on, are represented in this contribution to our cause on this issue.

The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries asks that we accept him as the oracle, as it were, speaking for the community at large. It is a very confused picture that is being presented to honourable members. What is at issue here is our social cohesion. If the Minister is right about one thing, it is the importance of this debate. It is a very important debate. The question of whether one achieves social cohesion -

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Let everyone see the organisations you are talking about.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I told you who they are. I will show them to you later. The Minister is concerned because he maintains that he is the oracle, when in fact he is not. The Hon. Neville Wran, who may be known to the Minister, made an important contribution to the establishment of the Ethnic Affairs Commission. Where was the Minister when Neville Wran set up the Ethnic Affairs Commission?

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Why did you not have ethnicity or multiculturalism in your cultural diversity policy? Not a word was said about that.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Only recently the Minister led the charge against John Howard on the question of multiculturalism, and now he wants to walk away from multiculturalism and ethnicity. He wants to return to a policy of assimilation as opposed to a policy of integration, which is so necessary for the establishment of our social cohesion. What we are about is a social cohesion that will benefit all Australians and the maintenance of services to people of non-English speaking backgrounds who have suffered because of linguistic and cultural differences.

That was the basis on which Neville Wran set up the Ethnic Affairs Commission, and the Minister knows it. I have here what Neville Wran said in Hansard about the establishment of the Ethnic Affairs Commission. The Labor Party has contributed on a bipartisan basis with distinction to the policies of multiculturalism, ethnicity and integration, and now the Minister is wanting to move away from this. [Time expired.]

Question - That the amendment of the Hon. Dr P. Wong be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Mr Lynn
Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Tingle
Mr Gay Dr Wong
Mr Hannaford
Mr Harwin Tellers,
Mr M. Jones Mr Jobling
Mr R. Jones Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mr Della Bosca Mr Oldfield
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tsang
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kelly Mr Manson
Mr Macdonald Mr Primrose

Dr Pezzutti Mr Shaw

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of the Hon. Dr P. Wong agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The amendment of the Hon. E. M. Obeid is now inconsistent with the determination of the House and I rule it out of order.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Debate resumed from 27 May.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [2.54 p.m.]: I will continue my speech by reminding the House that the motion is:

That this House:

1. Affirms that Aboriginal reconciliation is a priority of this State.

2. Understands that the reconciliation process will only occur when social justice is achieved for all Australians.

3. Recognises the need for the legislative and other powers of the State to be used to address the profound economic and social disadvantage continuing to be suffered by

Page 883
indigenous Australians, with specific emphasis on and practical measures to address health, housing, education, environment, law and employment.

Today, 3 June, is the last day of Reconciliation Week. I thank the House for allowing me to move the motion last week and to continue speaking to it now. I told honourable members that this morning was the first time I have missed a sitting of Parliament and I did so to attend a very important event - the Aboriginal reconciliation council launch of the draft document for reconciliation. The launch was held at Parliament House and was attended by the council chairperson, Evelyn Scott, who was joined by the Governor-General, Sir William Deane; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Chairman, Gatjil Djerrkura; a representative of Torres Strait Islanders, Pastor Alan Mosby; the 1998 Young Australian of the Year, Tan Le; Ray Martin; and me, as a council member.

Also present was the Chairman of the New South Wales State Reconciliation Committee and a former member, Linda Burney. Mrs Ali Golfing, endearingly called Aunty Ali, an elder of the Bairiki nation, welcomed guests because the Eora people are the traditional custodians of the land in Sydney. A series of speeches were given at this well-run, solemn and significant occasion. The Governor-General, Sir William Deane, made a very touching, short speech. I seek leave to table that speech because it seeks to encourage people to participate in the draft document for reconciliation.

Leave granted.

The other important document is the draft declaration for reconciliation. I would like to place that on the record and express my wholehearted support for it. It has involved considerable work within the community and councils. The document states:

Speaking with one voice, we the people of Australia, of many origins as we are, make a commitment to go on together recognising the gift of one another’s presence.

We value the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original owners and custodians of traditional lands and waters.

We respect and recognise continuing customary laws, beliefs and traditions.

And through the land and its first peoples, we may taste this spirituality and rejoice in its grandeur.

We acknowledge this land was colonised without the consent of the original inhabitants.

Our nation must have the courage to own the truth, to heal the wounds of its past so that we can move on together at peace with ourselves.

And so we take this step: as one part of the nation expresses its sorrow and profoundly regrets the injustices of the past, so the other part accepts the apology and forgives.

Our new journey then begins. We must learn our shared history, walk together and grow together to enrich our understanding.

We desire a future where all Australians enjoy equal rights and share opportunities and responsibilities according to their aspirations.

And so, we pledge ourselves to stop injustice, address advantage and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to determine their own destinies.

Therefore, we stand proud as a united Australia that respects this land of ours, values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, and provides justice and equity for all.

That important document will be going to this nation in the next six months and it will then be presented to the Federal Parliament to be accepted. The legislation requires that the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation must consult and determine whether a document is necessary. We are presently going through this consultation period. There are some other principles and strategies in the document about which I will elaborate later.

When I last spoke to this motion I quoted the description of social justice given by the former Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Mick Dodson, with which I agree. There is a need to address all kinds of disadvantage. I believe there can be no true reconciliation while such chronic disadvantage continues. Reconciliation will be successful only when social justice is achieved for all Australians. The ongoing cycle of dispossession, disadvantage, and the political and social subordination of indigenous people sets up a significant barrier to reconciliation.

The barrier can be broken down only by rejecting the paternalistic approaches and outlook of old. We must turn our minds to the real causes of social justice. Simply throwing more money at the problem is not a cure. We must change our collective mind-set that is still focused on the welfare-state mentality. A true acknowledgment and legitimacy of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is needed as a first step in allowing them to help themselves and determine their own destiny. The submission some years ago of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation to the Commonwealth Government on social justice entitled "Going Forward" states:

. . . measures of social justice can be assessed by the preparedness of the wider Australian community to shift from the historically based regime of a welfare-based relationship with them to one based on an acknowledgment of the rights of

Page 884
the indigenous peoples of Australia and ensuring that they not only have access to their rights but are empowered to enforce them.

That is to say, indigenous people, empowered by economic, political and social independence, will find their sense of dignity and self-worth naturally promoted. I would like this Parliament to take an active role in changing that mind-set. It is only in that way that we will be able to build a true vision of reconciliation for our nation.

The vision of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is a nation at peace with itself because it has the courage to own the truth of its past, to heal the wounds of its past; a nation which acknowledges indigenous peoples as its first inhabitants of this continent and respects their cultures and their rights, including the right to control and take responsibility for their own destinies; a nation one part of which sincerely apologises for the wrongs of the past, the other part of which accepts that apology and forgives; and a nation which commits itself to address the disadvantages which afflict indigenous citizens and which shares responsibility with indigenous peoples for making progress.

To develop that vision of reconciliation we need to build a nation that lives out the values it proclaims. We must affirm reconciliation not only as a concept but as an operative factor conducive to real change in our society. We must commit ourselves to put in place national strategies with benchmarks by which the progress of those strategies can be measured. Those strategies will come about by an ongoing national commitment from governments at all levels to address Aboriginal disadvantage and aspirations progressively in relation to land, housing, law and justice, cultural heritage, education, employment, health, infrastructure and economic development.

The strategies should be implemented through consultation by governments at all levels with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and local and regional indigenous communities. The national strategies to advance reconciliation to which I referred earlier have been developed by members of the council. Two weeks ago I attended a council meeting at Thursday Island at which the council concentrated on refining the strategies because it believed they are crucial to the reconciliation process.

The council believes that by supporting the strategies, governments, businesses, organisations and individuals can make practical commitments to reconciliation and change. The strategies were released today in conjunction with the launch of the draft declaration at the Opera House. The strategies form the basis of the national action plans for implementing the principles. The first strategy of key importance is the national strategy for economic independence. That strategy will facilitate greater economic independence and self-reliance in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

That strategy seeks to empower indigenous peoples and promote their human dignity. The strategy recognises economic empowerment, and therefore lasting solutions will not occur through welfare programs. The strategy will achieve its greatest successes when it is built on partnership between all sectors. The strategy will include better access to capital, business planning, advice and assistance; increased networking and mentoring opportunities; better access to training and development opportunities; promotion and encouragement of indigenous small business; greater strategic and integrated regional development plans; fostering partnerships with the business community; and reform of current government economic and funding programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Much has been said about the second strategy to address indigenous disadvantage. The council has said that it aims for better outcomes for indigenous peoples in health, education, employment, housing, law and justice. Its objective is to achieve social and economic conditions for indigenous peoples which are the same as those enjoyed by other Australians. That strategy seeks a commitment from governments, service organisations and indigenous communities to a set of principles and actions for improving the delivery of services to indigenous communities and how governments are measured on that delivery.

That is the whole purpose of my motion, because it is through the State Government that key services are delivered. Honourable members have to be mindful of that strategy. The principles will include guidelines for the establishment and support of partnerships between indigenous organisations, government and other service providers. It proposes the wider adoption of benchmarks against performance which can be measured, and it includes processes for the regular reporting and reviewing of progress in that area.

This is very important because, unless one can monitor and measure the delivery of services delivered to the community, and be assured that the community is satisfied with those services, we have failed. Parliament can assist in the process by
Page 885
utilising its resources to identify targets and address indigenous needs that are formed by cultural and geographic realities. Perhaps by using a parliamentary committee Parliament also can promote examples of best practice to achieve targets for service delivery to indigenous Australians. After all, the organs of State Government are the key service providers to indigenous Australians.

A good example of co-ordinated planning is the Victorian Government’s five-year strategic plan, "Improving Human Services for Victorian Kooris", released in 1998. That plan, still in its early stages of implementation, was developed in a partnership of indigenous peoples, the Victorian Government and service delivery agencies. The plan builds on the 1992 commitment of the Council of Australian Governments. This is the kind of action that I urge the New South Wales Government to take. Only by working in partnership with others can the greatest benefits be realised. The New South Wales Government must work in partnership, and it must realise that it alone cannot dictate how services are to be delivered. Indigenous communities must be involved in the development, delivery and evaluation of government policies, programs and services.

I urge Ministers of the New South Wales Government responsible for health, education, employment, housing and justice to develop the Government’s own broad action plans and to ensure that they are updated regularly. Within those action plans should be identified appropriate performance indicators against which the success of the plans can be identified or measured. The indicators should be subject to ongoing, independent and expert monitoring and reporting.

The third strategy is a national strategy to promote the people’s movement for reconciliation. This strategy will provide the basis for action to sustain and build on the existing people’s movement for reconciliation, which I have mentioned many times in this Parliament. Such a strategy should concentrate on developing partnerships to make reconciliation a reality in our local communities, schools and workplaces. These partnerships could be informal, or they could be manifested through local or regional agreements such as I have described. The national strategy includes a proposal to establish an independent reconciliation foundation through which people, organisations and institutions can demonstrate their support for reconciliation.

That foundation would promote economic and social justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, promote community education about reconciliation, establish and maintain links with other relevant national and international bodies, and monitor and report on the implementation of national action plans. Of course, the establishment of the foundation is only in its embryonic stage. The council has no idea yet how it will finally be established. The council is seeking the help of the community. I welcome anyone in the community with expertise in this area to have input to the establishment of the foundation. Hopefully the foundation will be launched in May next year, at the Opera House again. I will inform honourable members about that event.

The last, but certainly not the least, strategy is to promote recognition of indigenous rights. This strategy will be based on the principles that all Australian citizens are born free and equal in dignity and should be equally entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits as citizens. It recognises that all Australians should be able to participate, as they choose, in all levels of decision-making on matters that affect them and their communities. In this strategy the original ownership of Australia by indigenous peoples could be acknowledged. Apart from protecting land and sea native title rights, such an acknowledgment would encourage a commitment to recognition of their unique status, giving them a sense of responsibility and pride in themselves.

A strategy that focuses on human rights would give attention to the rights of indigenous people to self-determination within the overall framework and laws of the nation, and recognise and protect cultural heritage, languages and customary laws. Within the strategy it is important to recognise the importance of the environment and of indigenous people’s rights and attachment to the environment. It will recognise the importance of traditional indigenous land management knowledge in sustaining the natural environment. I am sure my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen would agree that the environment is vitally important to the Aboriginal people. Partnerships will be promoted between indigenous, government, industry and community groups where systems incorporating both traditional and contemporary land management practices can be developed which will better protect and sustain the land for future generations.

Guidelines will be included for developing government and indigenous community partnerships in regional land, vegetation and water resource management planning and programs. As I stated earlier, concurrent with the above strategies an overarching document stating our commitment to reconciliation will be launched. These strategies will find greater legitimacy and will also give greater effect to the declaration of reconciliation. [Time expired.]

Page 886

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [3.15 p.m.]: I am very happy to speak in support of this motion on Aboriginal reconciliation and to mark, in doing so, that we are now at the end of National Reconciliation Week, which began last Thursday, when this debate started. The motion moved by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asks the House to affirm that Aboriginal reconciliation is a priority of this State; to understand that the reconciliation process will occur only when social justice is achieved for all Australians; and recognise the need for the legislative and other powers of the State to be used to address the profound economic and social disadvantage continuing to be suffered by indigenous Australians, with specific emphasis on, and practical measures to address, health, housing, education, environment, law and employment.

It can be seen that the motion focuses on the need not to say the right words about reconciliation with the Aboriginal people but to give practical effect to those words by calling on the State Government in particular to take action in respect of all areas in which Aboriginal people are disadvantaged. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has just told us about the launch today by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation of the discussion document. I am pleased to mark that that has happened. I have not had a chance to see the document, but I look forward to doing so. It is appropriate that that document be released today, at the end of National Reconciliation Week, for that week commemorates two very important dates in the history of our relationships with indigenous people.

The first commemoration is that 27 May was the anniversary of the 1967 referendum that, finally, gave power to the Commonwealth to legislate on behalf of Aboriginal people and enable us to count Aboriginal people as full citizens. The second commemoration - the date that we particularly mark today - is the anniversary of the 1992 Mabo judgment of the High Court which finally recognised that native title exists, that indeed it always has existed, within our common law system. So this week has marked two very important events.

I have said that the motion focuses on the need for the State to take action. I accept that. In fact, I want to point out some very good things that the New South Wales Government has done, particularly over the past four years. But I would also like to say that, given the needs of Aboriginal people, given that those needs are Australia-wide, and given just how much financial and other resources need to be devoted to meeting those needs, we must pay attention in this debate to the abysmal record of the Federal Government, particularly since 1996, in withdrawing funding for Aboriginal projects, in cutting back on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and other Aboriginal representative bodies, and generally in turning back the clock a long way. That is not even to talk about the backward steps on the matter of native title. Yes, the New South Wales Government has a large responsibility in this area, but it would be inappropriate not to recognise the appalling record of the Federal Government over the past few years.

I agree with the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho about grassroots involvement in the work for reconciliation and the way the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has encouraged this. In my local area I am a member of the active group, Bennelong and Surrounds Citizens for Reconciliation, which over the past couple of years has organised a number of events. It liaises closely with the local schools. The teachers and parents involved with the primary schools in my area deserve an enormous amount of credit for what they have been doing to encourage a spirit of reconciliation. I am confident that the programs run in primary schools bode well for the tolerance of students. I certainly did not get that kind of education when I went to school, and I doubt whether any member of this House would have either. Primary schools deserve praise for their programs on Aboriginal reconciliation and ethnic issues.

The Bennelong and Surrounds Citizens for Reconciliation organised a picnic in the park last week. Almost two years ago it held its most notable event; more than 1,000 people turned up at the Hunters Hill Town Hall. It did not escape anyone’s attention that Bennelong is the electorate of the Prime Minister and the statements made that night at the town hall were critical of him and his Government. The overwhelming majority of people who turned up that night live in his electorate. I am sure in that respect Bennelong is typical of other electorates across Australia.

The movement for reconciliation draws its strength from a commitment of ordinary people, people at the grassroots, such as Judy MacGregor-Smith, the convener of the Bennelong group. The movement has involved adults and children at a range of levels in a range of activities, and I pay tribute to them. They had nothing to gain except a deep feeling of commitment to the achievement of social justice for Aboriginal people.

There is no need to belabour the extent to which Aboriginal people are the most disadvantaged in our State. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho spelt that out in her speech last week. Aboriginal people have a
Page 887
life expectancy 20 years lower than other Australians. They have huge health problems involving high rates of hospitalisation and poor health on a day-to-day basis. The unemployment rate amongst Aboriginal people is 38 per cent compared to 8 per cent for other Australians, and is even higher among the younger Aboriginal people.

Housing, imprisonment, appearances before the courts, and abuse of alcohol and other drugs are further areas of concern. I mentioned those concerns to draw attention to the fact that in all areas Aboriginal people are doing worse than other Australians. It is a vicious cycle. The figures in relation to the abuse of alcohol or the rates of imprisonment reflect the despair and hopelessness which arises from health, housing and unemployment problems. Of course, that springs from other problems, because it is hard to get a job if one’s levels of education, health and housing are as appalling as they are for most Aboriginal people.

I turn now to what the Carr Government has achieved. Firstly, I mention the symbolic areas. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Carr Government began a process of paying back some of our debt to the stolen children by being the first Australian Parliament to give a formal apology for the separation of Aboriginal children from their families. The Premier was the first Australian Government leader to respond to the Governor-General’s call for all parliaments to restate their commitments to reconciliation.

Similarly, the New South Wales Government was the first to acknowledge the existence of native title on the mainland, when it recognised the Dunghutti claim at Crescent Head and the handing back of Mutawintji National Park as the first in what I hope will be a series of handing back areas to traditional owners. That important step occurred last year and I was pleased to be present at the ceremony for the handing back of Mutawintji National Park. The management and control of that park by the Aboriginal people generates a practical step towards the sharing of its enjoyment. They will also share in the employment it generates.

We should not underplay the importance of the symbolic step in apologising for what happened in the past and to taking further steps towards reconciliation. In 1997 the Carr Government launched a statement of commitment to Aboriginal people which contained a blueprint for reform and change. That has been backed with a $200 million program over seven years to raise the living and health standards of communities. Many changes involve the most basic level of services and already urgent water and sewerage works and environment health care programs have been commenced in 14 communities. If people do not have clean water and sewerage services there is not much point considering the other high-flown services. The basic services must be provided first, and certainly they are among the programs which have already started.

Following the 1999 election the Carr Government continued to build on its early achievements with initiatives including $400,000 to increase the number of Aboriginal nursing staff employed in rural and remote Aboriginal communities; the employment of up to 30 Aboriginal teachers each year under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment program; the establishment of an advisory group made up of key Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal business people to advise on strategies to increase Aboriginal employment; the expansion of post-release programs to prevent offenders from reoffending with specific emphasis in rural and isolated areas; and undertaking five projects so that Aboriginal communities can revive and maintain their community languages. The first project is to record and document the language of the Bundjalung people on the far North Coast of New South Wales.

An elders visitors program will be established to provide support, assistance and role models to Aboriginal people in gaol. This program will recognise the status and influence of Aboriginal elders. Obviously it will encourage Aboriginal elders to use the respect in which they are held to help young people, especially those in gaol. The Carr Government will continue the program of returning cultural heritage and skeletal remains to Aboriginal communities and owners. Many more things are happening but those examples are an indication that the Carr Government’s commitment stands in stark contrast to the neglect, hostility and cutbacks displayed over the past three years by the Federal Coalition Government. I am proud of what we have done so far. It lays a solid foundation for making the kinds of changes I was talking about.

I refer also to some of the experiences that I and other members of the House have had, particularly the members of the Standing Committee on Social Issues that inquired into enhancing Aboriginal political representation in New South Wales. Honourable members are probably aware that New South Wales has never had a person of Aboriginal background as a member of either the upper or lower House. However, I am pleased to note that in only a few weeks Aden Ridgeway will take his place in the Senate as the first person of Aboriginal background from New South Wales to be
Page 888
elected to the Senate. The Democrats are to be congratulated on ensuring that that happened.

Members of the social issues committee found our tours of numerous country centres to talk to Aboriginal communities as part of our inquiry very revealing. The committee had an opportunity to listen to Aboriginal people in centres such as Lismore, Armidale, Moree, Wagga Wagga, Coffs Harbour and Dubbo. It is true to say that political representation was not the main thing on their minds.

The level of political representation of Aborigines cannot be justified, even on population grounds, but the poor level of representation in local government is something that is easier to address in the first instance. I hope that happens in the local government elections in September. Whenever one talks to people in Aboriginal communities about issues such as political representation the discussion always comes back to the fundamental problems I have been talking about: housing, health, employment, and that whole cycle of despair and hopelessness. I look forward to improvements in the future.

I look forward to reading the report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation that was released today. The council is to be congratulated on working against often quite overwhelming odds. The importance of the mission it has before it cannot be exaggerated. As a nation we need to embark on the process of reconciliation, not only for the sake of Aboriginal people but for the sake of ourselves and the whole community.

As a nation we cannot afford to leave our indigenous people the most disadvantaged section of our community. The situation will get worse unless we step in. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has played an enormously important role in changing attitudes, but I agree with this motion that it is part of our responsibility not only to help change attitudes but also to help make sure the State Government puts in place the programs and provides resources for the programs that can make a real difference to Aboriginal people.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [3.33 p.m.]: I am glad to have this opportunity to place on record my support for Aboriginal reconciliation. The motion seeks to affirm that Aboriginal reconciliation is a priority in this State. It is an important priority as far as I am concerned. In addressing it as a priority, opportunities such as this debate serve to remind us that it is a continuing imperative. It has to be said that as a nation we had a poor start. Australia’s original Constitution contained a provision that blatantly discriminated against Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Section 127 provided that Aborigines should not be counted in the population of the nation. Section 51 (xxvi) gave the Commonwealth power to make laws in respect of the people of any race other than the Aboriginal race in any State for whom it was deemed necessary to make special laws.

In a referendum in 1967, 84 per cent of the population supported the removal of those discriminatory and racist provisions, the largest result recorded for any referendum to alter our Constitution. That referendum proposal started life as a private member's bill proposed by the Liberal member for Mackellar, Billy Wentworth. It was subsequently adopted as government legislation by the Gorton Government and also received the support of the Opposition. As a new member of Parliament I was interested to read the contributions made in the Aboriginal reconciliation debate in the other place in November 1996 and which has been published as a booklet. In his introduction to that booklet Mr Speaker said:

During almost three hours of debate speakers frankly acknowledged that the disposition of Aboriginal people had begun in Sydney in 1788; that the New South Wales Parliament had in the past enacted laws which led to the systematic annihilation of Aboriginal communities; and that Aboriginal people are, even today, among the most underprivileged in Australian society.

The speakers reaffirmed their commitment and the commitment of the political parties which they represented to the ongoing process of Aboriginal reconciliation as a fair, decent and just process - a process that, if stalled by ignorance and prejudice, would be to the nation’s abiding shame.

To these sentiments I certainly add my support. We need the reconciliation process to keep moving because as Sir William Deane said:

Where there is no room for national pride or national shame about the past, there can be no national soul.

We have to acknowledge frankly that a proud and self-sufficient indigenous society that existed before 1788 has suffered enormous disadvantage after being dispossessed and dispersed from their traditional lands by European settlers. We cannot reconcile as a nation merely through a contract or a piece of paper. We need to recognise that because of the Aborigines’ indigenous disadvantage we have a national responsibility to get things right. To achieve this we have to embrace reconciliation as a nation.

The second part of the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho’s motion makes an interesting point. It says that the
Page 889
reconciliation process will occur only when social justice is achieved for all Australians. A fortnight ago, in my inaugural speech, I made some comments about how a Liberal views social justice. The motion seems to be conceding that indigenous disadvantage is, in part, tied up with disadvantage in the community generally. I think that is right.

I do not for a moment think that because of this linkage there is not room for programs to deal with the specific and unique disadvantages faced by indigenous Australians. On the contrary, I support them. But I think it is clear that many of the disadvantages that indigenous Australians suffer are shared with other Australians and need to be addressed in that context. In working to alleviate disadvantage generally there is no doubt that broader social justice can be achieved only through a prosperous economy based on vigorous free enterprise.

The third part of the motion identifies some areas of profound economic and social disadvantage suffered by indigenous Australians. There is no doubt that we need to address the continuing high levels of indigenous disadvantage which I think are an impediment to reconciliation. Making progress on health, education, housing and employment for Aboriginal Australians is critical. Employment is an important priority for overcoming indigenous disadvantage. The unemployment rate for indigenous Australians is three times the rate of other Australians. The opportunity to work so that an individual can support himself and his family is crucial to one’s dignity.

There has been a recent debate in the newspapers about the problem of welfare dependency in society. Part of that debate has been comments made by Noel Pearson, a well-known advocate for indigenous Australians, who is at present working with the Cape York Land Council. Noel Pearson sometimes has an unfortunate tendency to overplay his hand with colourful language. He said:

The welfare economy is turning Aboriginal people into "drunken parasites".

He said that welfare is "laced with this poison and that poison is the ‘money-for-nothing principle’". He went on to say:

As long as we continue to get resources laced with this poison the body of Aboriginal society is inevitably going to break down. That is exactly what we are seeing now.

Unfortunately, that is the extent of the reporting of many of Mr Pearson’s comments. In his paper "Our right to take responsibility" he said also:

Government transfers are a valuable and necessary resource, but the welfare nature of these transfers has got to be changed in order to make it a useful and productive resource.

It is essential to seek programs that uphold and not diminish the independence and sense of worth of indigenous people. An important part of this process must be funding of new initiatives that will help to facilitate an environment in which industry, government and the indigenous community can work together to identify employment and training opportunities in the private sector, so that a start can be made on reducing welfare dependency. I congratulate the Federal Government on its recent budget initiative, the indigenous employment policy. That initiative places an emphasis on indigenous participation and provides a substantial increase in funding for indigenous specific workplace programs. It will start to address the unacceptably wide gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous employment rates, unemployment rates and participation rates. It is one aspect of what must be a multifaceted strategy.

The Federal Government’s indigenous employment policy has three elements: an indigenous employment program, an indigenous small business fund, and changes to the job network. The indigenous employment program will replace the Training for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Program [TAP] and effectively double the funding available for indigenous specific programs from $25 million to $50 million. The program includes six important new initiatives in the areas of wage assistance, incentives under the community development employment projects scheme, and a new project called the chief executive officers for indigenous employment program. It will also continue the best features of the TAP scheme by bringing in new structured training and employment programs.

The TAP establishes the Voluntary Service Indigenous Communities Foundation, which aims to utilise skilled volunteers with the co-operation, expertise and advice of key Australian volunteer organisations. Its sixth element is a new national indigenous cadetship program which will provide opportunities for indigenous undergraduates to gain the professional qualifications necessary for a range of jobs in the public and private sectors. The second element of the Federal Government’s new policy is the Indigenous Small Business Fund. This new fund will provide support for the development and expansion of indigenous businesses and enterprises. An amount of $6 million over three years will be set aside from the regional assistance program.

The Office of Small Business of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will call for proposals that
Page 890
enhance business prospects by supporting skills development programs, mentoring, networking, advisory services and market development. The final element of the changes announced in the new policy relate to the Jobs Network. The next Jobs Network request for tender will include changes targeted at benefiting indigenous job seekers by improving coverage, creating small Jobs Network catchment areas, encouraging the establishment of indigenous employment specialists, and requiring more providers to include indigenous services strategies in their documentation.

This important policy initiative is part of the $2.2 billion worth of expenditure on indigenous-specific programs undertaken by the Commonwealth and announced in its recent budget. It is a significant amount, but it is appropriate expenditure to assist in overcoming the profound economic and social disadvantage that the motion speaks about.

The Federal Government concedes that more can be done and has announced that shortly it will release details of a new indigenous housing initiative to follow its initiative on employment. There is a tendency in the media and elsewhere to overlook some of the excellent work being done by the Federal Government to address indigenous disadvantage which this motion highlights as being central to progressing reconciliation in Australia. That tendency is reinforced by the disappointing remarks of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods about the Federal Government which deliberately overlooked much of the good work being done federally.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: I am pleased the honourable member mentioned that. I applaud all of those initiatives.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: Indeed. Last year I had the opportunity to write a short booklet in tribute to that great Liberal Peter Baume. Whilst still in the Senate that former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs told the House:

Those of us who have spent part of our lives working with and on behalf of Aborigines have become deeply and permanently affected by that experience. I suppose we could say we have become marked by what we have learned of the evidence of deprivation and disadvantage. We have become committed to overcoming that deprivation and disadvantage.

I acknowledge the contribution Peter Baume made in his time as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to overcome indigenous disadvantage. He recalls that much of his time as Minister was spent wrangling over funds so that he could back the programs that he believed would lead to an improvement in conditions for indigenous Australians. When the 1981-82 Federal budget was released - and he had some input to it - his tenacity had paid off and there was a 15.3 per cent increase in expenditure for his portfolio. I hope that in my time in this Parliament, like Peter Baume, I will become deeply and permanently affected by my experiences working with and for indigenous Australians.

I support the motion moved by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. Reconciliation is important. We need to work constantly to overcome the barriers in the community to achieving that important national priority, particularly as we approach the centenary of the Federation of our Australian nation. I will finish with a beautiful poem, written by Aboriginal poet Oodgeroo Noonuccal, called "Son of Mine", which I believe invokes much of the spirit of reconciliation and how all Australians should approach the process:

I could tell you of heartbreak, hatred blind,
I could tell of crimes that shame mankind,
Of brutal wrong and deeds malign,
Of rape and murder, son of mine.

But I’ll tell instead of bravery fine,
When lives of black and white entwine,
And men in brotherhood combine -
This would I tell you, son of mine.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [3.49 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. This important motion relates to the need for reconciliation and is part and parcel of the social justice in which Australians believe and in which we all take great pride. We have spoken at length in this Chamber about issues of multiculturalism and the contribution to Australia in modern times of people of non-English speaking background, and we have spoken of Australia being a nation of migrants. But this motion relates to the heart and soul of Australia, an indigenous community that experts believe migrated to this country more than 60,000 years ago. That is certainly a long time by any reckoning. Sadly, the arrival in more recent times of migrants from other countries has not always been seen to have been in the best interests of many members of the indigenous community.

As we are about to enter the new millennium, it is appropriate that we do so with a total commitment to reconciliation. The philosophy of reconciliation, if I can call it that, has attracted the support of distinguished Australians like the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, and others who are playing an important role in the healing process. But that is not sufficient. We need the commitment of each and every Australian to this healing process. We can be proud that we in the
Page 891
upper House have taken a number of initiatives to acknowledge the need for positive steps to reconciliation. People like Helen Sham-Ho - who I believe was the only person of non-English speaking background on the reconciliation committee - have played that important role.

It is appropriate that we take stock of the progress in more recent years that Australians have achieved in improving the lot of indigenous Australians. I note with some satisfaction that there is now a mobility and a far stronger representation of indigenous people within the professions, be they law, medicine or nursing, and in business. More recently, initiatives have been taken in the political arena. The recent election of the Democrat indigenous member is also to be applauded.

Essentially this commitment underpins our social cohesion as a nation and as Australians. We cannot travel forward into the new century as a nation divided by its social commitments. The philosophy of the indigenous community is very much an integral part of Australian society. Not only has it been here the longest, it has also underpinned our philosophic attitudes to a number of very basic issues. For example, the love of the land and the soil is probably nowhere more highly reflected or epitomised than in the commitment of indigenous people.

Whilst the State and Federal parliaments have undertaken a number of important initiatives, still further initiatives are necessary with regard to many basic services such as medicine, education and employment. It was pleasing to hear the recent bipartisan approach by the Federal Labor shadow minister, Daryl Melham, when he gave strong support to Minister Reith for his support for the financing of employment positions for a number of indigenous people, a form of very necessary affirmative action which meant paying a figure of about $4,000 to each employer who engages an indigenous person.

People sometimes frown on what they believe is affirmative action because it is seen to provide in their eyes an inequality. But as has been said, the issue is not really equality of opportunity but equality of outcome. If one is to ensure that that outcome is shared by all Australians, we must accept that, for whatever reason, some Australians have a greater need. It is appropriate that I congratulate the mover of the motion on this initiative in support of reconciliation. I hope that as we enter the new millennium, all Australians will be able to point to a more equitable society in which the process of healing is evident and every Australian can enjoy the democracy, freedom and equality that is so essential to the nature of man.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.58 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, the Hon. D. T. Harwin and the Hon. J. M. Samios for their contributions to this debate. They each have an insight into the importance of reconciliation. I thank the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and the Hon. D. T. Harwin for their contribution to the work done for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders by the State and Federal governments. I do not think many people in the community understand or are aware of what the Government can do, so I have moved this motion to influence the Government, as a service provider, to prioritise this matter. I am not seeking to criticise what other governments may have done; I am merely seeking to raise the consciousness of this Parliament.

I would like to refer briefly to the draft document for reconciliation. It is important to reiterate that it is only part of the whole movement of reconciliation and that all four strategies I mentioned are important. To enshrine this document in the Constitution, or at the very least in the legislation of all parliaments in Australia, would be to show that those who govern our country acknowledge the importance of reconciliation, something that ordinary Australians have recognised for some time. It would be wonderful if the Parliament of New South Wales were the first to take this step and demonstrate that the leaders and people of New South Wales are truly committed to reconciliation.

On another level such an official and legally sanctioned document would provide a framework to settle land disputes and other issues in question. Regional and sectoral agreements based on an overarching document of reconciliation could themselves be seen as documents of reconciliation. Agreements between parties at the local level and sectoral level should be promoted as one of the most effective responses to the High Court’s Mabo judgment and as a key strand in the reconciliation process. There is much potential for indigenous and industry bodies and others to reach negotiated agreements rather than seek solutions through the courts. I think governments at all levels should facilitate such agreement.

I believe we should harness the discussion of constitutional reform that is now taking place in the lead-up to the centenary of Federation to highlight the need for a national document for reconciliation. Within this strategy there could be a focus on the need to acknowledge the history and rights of
Page 892
indigenous people in any new preamble to the Constitution. All the strategies I have mentioned have as their main purpose the achievement of real reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

As I have stated repeatedly, the fundamental determinant in achieving reconciliation is creating equity and social justice for all Australians, as agreed by all honourable members. We are a long way from achieving this and the purpose of my motion is to urge all levels of government, but particularly the New South Wales Government, to elevate the priority given to addressing the social and economic disadvantage faced by indigenous Australians.

I call on the State Government to support the national strategies I have just described and to play a larger role in implementing them. If we are determined to see these national strategies implemented, we will go a long way to achieving social justice and therefore to progressing the reconciliation process. Before I conclude I wish to acknowledge that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would have liked to have given his support for the motion.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Strong support.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: His strong support. Unfortunately I took the call and he missed the opportunity to speak. I am sure that on another occasion the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will say something more about reconciliation. Governor-General Sir William Deane, for whom I have enormous respect, was reported in the media to have said he will weep for our country if reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous people is not achieved. I think we can all weep for our country if reconciliation does not become a reality, because, as Sir William Deane has said, Australia would then be a diminished country,

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [4.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this House notes the discussion paper issued by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission entitled "Age matters?".

I would like to think that this matter will be controversial. It is certainly worth debating issues that will ultimately affect all members of this House. When I refer to age matters, I am not only talking about the obvious discrimination against those who are old but about discrimination against all ages, young people included. My interest stems not only from my time as a social worker dealing with aged people in western Sydney - and particularly working with aged people from various ethnic groups - but because after the last election there was debate between the Coalition and the Government as to who had the youngest Cabinet. After every election political parties of all persuasions vie to have the youngest Cabinet, which seems to be regarded as preferable to having people who, by definition, have more experience because of their age.

When I saw the discussion paper of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission entitled "Age matters?" dated April 1999, I was of the view that this matter was worthy of debate in this House. The discussion paper examined a range of issues dealing with age discrimination in all States and Territories of Australia and I commend it to all honourable members. I have multiple copies if honourable members would like a copy, and it is also available on the Internet. I hope there is extensive debate on this motion because the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner has asked for public comments by August and I propose to make this debate available to him.

The discussion paper covers age discrimination across all jurisdictions in Australia and begins by stating that age discrimination is unlawful. However, in relation to that unlawfulness, there seems to be very little consistency among the various laws that prohibit age discrimination in our country. A person’s right to be free from age discrimination as a consequence can depend on where he or she lives and for whom he or she works.

Federal anti-discrimination legislation provides only limited protection against age discrimination. The Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, for example, covers age discrimination in the area of employment. However, unlike State and Territory anti-discrimination laws, the Act does not make age discrimination unlawful and it does not provide enforceable remedies.

The discussion paper from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission does four things. First, it identifies and describes some of the gaps in discrimination legislation. Second, it invites the public to provide information about their experience of age discrimination. Third, it invites the public to suggest ways of dealing with age discrimination. Last, it canvasses the need for a federal age discrimination act. The Human Rights Commissioner, Chris Sidoti, made a couple of very interesting points in his preface. He said:

Page 893

It is particularly timely that we now examine the issue of age discrimination more broadly. 1999 has been declared the International Year of Older Persons by the United Nations. By highlighting older people we can also point to the need for respect and understanding for people of all ages, whether young or old.

Mr Sidoti then quoted the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who said:

A society for all ages is multigenerational. It is not fragmented, with youths, adults and older persons going their separate ways. Rather it is age-inclusive, with different generations recognising - and acting upon - their commonality of interest.

As a consequence, Mr Sidoti noted:

Because we all age over time, age discrimination is perhaps the only form of discrimination that can affect everyone. Some age distinctions are justified such as where they aim to protect certain age groups which may be vulnerable to exploitation or abuse or to extend concessions to an age group which is particularly disadvantaged in some way. Distinctions of these kinds may be lawful and acceptable to the community as fair and reasonable.

Other distinctions are based on unjustified assumptions about the qualities and skills of people in particular age groups.

Page 6 of the report has a table of Australian age discrimination laws. It shows how age discrimination is made unlawful by statutes across each State and Territory. The table notes that under Commonwealth jurisdiction there are two Acts in particular that are relevant. First, it cites the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and sets out the extent of age discrimination covered in that Act with regard to employment, including recruitment, wages, promotion, retirement, vocational training, superannuation - but age discrimination is not unlawful and the commission’s recommendations are not enforceable.

The second relevant Act is the Workplace Relations Act 1996. One object of that Act is the prevention and elimination of age discrimination. It makes termination of employment because of age unlawful. Compulsory retirement is dealt with separately and may not be unlawful. Junior rates of pay are also exempt. The report compares the various Acts across other jurisdictions.

For instance, in New South Wales the relevant Act is the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. That Act deals with age discrimination with regard to employment, access to public places and vehicles, education, goods and services, accommodation and registered clubs. Compulsory retirement is prohibited. The table is valuable to compare not only similarities but also the wide disparities across the various jurisdictions. As Mr Sidoti noted in the introduction, protection from age discrimination is really a matter of where one lives and by whom one is employed. Further, the report notes:

Australia is an aging society. Declining fatality rates, decreasing death rates and decreasing levels of immigration are contributing factors.

It is predicted [by the Department of Health and Aged Care] that 16 per cent of the Australian population will be aged 65 and over by 2016.

An increasing proportion of these people will be women. In 1996 there were 77 men for every 100 women in the 65+ age group and only 43 men for every 100 women in the 85+ age group.

Australian males have a life expectancy of 75.2 years and females 81 years. These are among the highest life expectancies in the world.

When I was engaged in social work I undertook research studies into employment and the effect of retirement on various groups within our community. My research, which is backed up by the literature, indicated that women are far more affected psychologically and socially by retirement than men. Part of the rationale and the argument for that in the literature is that women tend to form closer relationships as part of their work groups whereas men tend to only form associations. The research is definite on that point.

Certainly as more and more women are expected to move into that age group, and particularly with more women in the work force, that reiterates the importance of this report not only to the community but also to this Parliament and this deliberation specifically. The report notes that social and economic changes have affected certain population groups differently. The report notes three points in that regard:

•With much lower life expectancies, only 2.6 per cent of the Indigenous people are aged 65 years and over (the national total is 12 per cent) and as many as 40 per cent of Indigenous people are under 15 (the national total is 21 per cent).

•Partly because women live longer than men, women aged 80 and over are twice as likely as men to be living alone. They are also likely to be poorer than men in old age.

•By 2001 nearly one in four older people will be from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Some rural areas of Australia are aging more rapidly than others as younger people leave for education and work. In 1996 over 66 per cent of 15 to 24-year-olds were in major urban centres with populations of 100,000 and over whereas only 12 per cent were in either a rural locality or other rural area. Indigenous young people are more evenly dispersed, with 27 per cent living in small communities or rural areas.

Page 894

An aging society means that greater numbers of older people may want and even need to remain in the work force for longer periods. Yet unemployment especially affects both older and young people looking for work . . .

Social expectations of younger and older people have not always adapted to these [many expectations and] changes. Although expected to be responsible for their employment and income, young and old people often encounter barriers to full participation in society.

This is most marked [and the report outlines in great detail] with respect to employment. It is also reflected in the provision of goods and services. For example, educational institutions rarely depict older students in their advertisements. Younger people may be denied accommodation because it is presumed that they cannot pay the rent and are irresponsible. Value judgments of what is "best" for younger people or "too difficult" for an older person may not reflect the reality of Australian society today and in the future.

The discussion paper then examines a whole raft of issues relating to older people in the work force. It deals with discrimination against older people, but against younger people as well, in matters such as recruitment, promotion, training, workers compensation, trade union membership, retrenchment and redundancy, compulsory retirement, and superannuation. British novelist Anthony Powell stated:

Growing old is like being increasingly penalised for a crime you haven’t committed.

In regard to retrenchment and redundancy the discussion paper, using statistics of the Australian Bureau of Statistics report dated July 1997, notes:

Retrenchment and redundancy have a particularly serious impact on mature and older workers as they find it more difficult to obtain employment once they have lost their jobs. Just over two-thirds of retrenched workers are men - explained in part by retrenchments affecting traditionally male-oriented industries such as manufacturing and construction.

Older workers are frequently targeted for redundancy, based on the unsupported assumption that they are less productive and more out-of-date in their work practices than are younger workers. On that point I would simply reflect on my initial comments about the assumption that older cabinet members are seen as less productive than younger members, and possibly not having the same work practices. At page 24 the discussion paper notes:

Older people have also complained of discrimination when they are not offered targeted redundancy packages, especially when they are close to retirement age. It may be considered cheaper to have a worker retire early or wait out the few remaining years rather than pay a redundancy package. On the other hand, offering redundancy packages only to older workers may discriminate against younger workers who would like the opportunity to accept such a package.

In relation to the value of packages that are offered, the discussion paper notes:

Older people have complained of discrimination in the monetary value of their redundancy packages. Some redundancy packages seem to have been calculated on the basis that older workers are not expected to remain in the workforce and that they have less to lose than younger workers who are made redundant.

Many redundancy packages are calculated on the basis of length of service. This can benefit older workers who have been in the workplace for a long time. For instance, the Commonwealth Public Service Award sets a minimum redundancy entitlement of four weeks’ salary and a maximum of 48 weeks. Within those limits the individual payment calculations are based on length of service, with two weeks’ salary paid for every year of service up to the maximum.

In some States and Territories employers are permitted to take age into account when offering voluntary redundancy packages. This can benefit older workers.

The discussion paper further notes:

In NSW it is lawful to offer participation in a voluntary phased-in retirement scheme, voluntary retirement scheme, retirement incentives scheme, voluntary severance scheme or a similar scheme based on length of service. This can mean that older workers are given the opportunity to participate but younger workers are not.

In Victoria employers can offer incentives to retire or resign and it is lawful to take into account the employee’s age and eligibility for superannuation benefits when choosing which employees to make the offer to.

In Western Australia it is not unlawful to offer participation in a voluntary severance scheme on the basis of age.

After a significant and lengthy discussion of issues to do with employment, the paper goes on to deal with other forms of discrimination. I will touch briefly on the points made in the discussion paper. Section 8, for instance, deals with discrimination in accommodation, health care, financial services, insurance and drivers’ licences and notes:

A significant number of age discrimination complaints are made about goods and services, accommodation, education, clubs and sports. In Queensland, for example, roughly 36 per cent of age complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Commission in 1997-98 were in areas other than employment.

In respect of accommodation it notes:

Both young people and older people suffer discrimination in rental accommodation based on stereotypical assumptions of whether they are able to pay the rent or care for the property. Younger people in particular have been denied accommodation because of their age.

Even when young people have secured accommodation, they may experience further problems accessing related services such as electricity. Some power providers require a large bond or guarantee from clients under 18. Generally speaking, these

Page 895
conditions do not apply to adult consumers or are more easily met by adult consumers.

Regarding financial services, the discussion paper deals with electronic banking. It states that changes to ways of delivering financial services have adversely affected some older people. Recent innovations such as EFTPOS, automatic teller machines [ATMs], computer banking and paying bills by touch phone are just some examples. It notes that older customers prefer face-to-face contact with a person rather than a machine. Electronic systems assume familiarity with new technology. Many ATM processes are visually obscure and difficult to read and manage.

Automatic teller machines require memorisation of a pin number. Many banks and credit unions impose charges on ATM transactions. It has been raised in this House on a number of occasions and in other debates that older people, but not only older people, fear being mugged at ATMs. Often automatic teller machines are not as convenient as they are claimed to be, especially in rural areas where there are few banks, and soon there will be even fewer. If there is a problem with an automatic teller machine, there may be no-one in attendance to fix or explain the problem, and such machines may be inaccessible to people using wheelchairs - as may ticketing machines on railway stations, another obvious example of difficulties with automatic machines.

Loans and credit are other subjects of discrimination. A loan or credit application is typically assessed on ability to repay. Various assumptions are made about whether young people and retired people can do this. Like insurance companies and superannuation funds, financial institutions rely on statistical generalisations which can disadvantage retired people, especially those on the pension. The discussion paper recounts a whole range of personal experiences. These highlight the fact that we are talking not only about policies and laws but about real people and how they are affected. I read this story from the discussion paper:

A World War Two veteran on a service pension was refused a loan by a credit union. He complained to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board that his age and pension status had been used to discriminate against him. He eventually obtained a loan elsewhere and withdrew his complaint.

I instance one of the many examples of discrimination cited in the discussion paper. It relates to young persons under 18 years of age:

A general principle of the common law is that a minor’s contract cannot be enforced against the child unless it is a contract for necessities. This can discourage service providers from entering into contracts with minors.

NSW legislation reverses the common law position provided the young person knowingly signs the contract and it is for his or her benefit. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission has argued that all other States and Territories should introduce similar legislation.

That is a reference to legislation operating in New South Wales. I now turn to the matter of discrimination in regard to driving. The discussion paper gives many examples and considerable discussion on this issue. New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] figures show that the percentage of drivers aged over 80 years involved in accidents is second only to the number of drivers aged 17 to 25 years involved in accidents.

Public opinion seems to support the testing of older drivers, based on the assumption that their eyesight and reaction times deteriorate, but testing is not contemplated for young people. The Motorists Action Group of New South Wales points to figures that show high accident rates for younger drivers, and it argues that the RTA requires older people to pass a driving test each year but not those who are really responsible for the carnage on our roads. The discussion paper contains a considerable number of items on driving discrimination, then asks obvious questions. The relevant questions are:

Is there sufficient statistical evidence that elderly drivers should be treated differently from other drivers? If so, is the risk proportionate to the differential treatment in testing?

What alternatives exist for ensuring safe driving for older and younger drivers?

The report refers to age discrimination related to benefit or protection, concessions, medical treatment, voting, marriage, litigation and a range of other attitudes. I urge members of this House, even those who do not wish to participate in this debate, to read this report. The report carefully lists a range of matters that are worthy of discussion on a bipartisan basis. The report contains issues that have been well highlighted.

I congratulate the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Human Rights Commissioner, my colleague from my days with the Department of Youth and Community Services, Chris Sidoti, on putting this information together. The report needs to be considered seriously, not politically. The autumn 1999 paper entitled "Family Matters", published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, concentrates on ageing and families. It covers a diverse range of issues such as home ownership, social policy, et cetera, and I urge honourable members to obtain a copy of it. I commend the report to the House.

Page 896

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.31 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. P. T. Primrose on raising this important issue. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission discussion paper on age discrimination entitled "Age matters?" focuses on aspects other than older persons. It is important that we focus on discrimination in the Year of the Older Person, because while the paper gives some good examples of young people being affected by discrimination, such as applying for rental accommodation, junior wage rates, employment and experience, it is older people who are affected by discrimination.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose said that he would like to hear a robust debate on this issue: he will not get that at 4.30 p.m. on a Thursday. I also suspect that there is broad agreement in this Chamber about the importance of analysing this issue. Even if the House took the three hours allocated for a topic such as this over a few Thursday afternoons, we would not be able to examine in depth some issues alluded to in the paper.

The paper poses a series of discussion points which the Standing Committee on Social Issues may wish to consider. Page 4 of the paper defines direct discrimination as something that occurs when a person is treated less favourably because of age, race, sex or disability. The paper highlights issues which the community should address. As this is the International Year of Older Persons it is appropriate that we focus on this issue, probably in more detail than a debate in this House today would allow. With that in mind I was delighted that the Federal Government, as part of its budget announcement in May, provided an additional $5 million over and above the $6 million that it had already committed to the International Year of Older Persons. In a press release on 11 May the Minister, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, stated:

A further $5 million has been allocated to begin the important process of cultural change, with campaigns to combat negative stereotypes of older people and recognise their wisdom and the importance of their experience.

When I read that and the discussion paper, it struck me that because of our perceptions of age and our experiences as a community we have to get over some negative perceptions or use positive perceptions to spread messages throughout the community. My four grandparents lived until their late eighties or early nineties and my parents are both aged 85. They have all lived healthy lives, and my grandparents certainly had all their faculties and were mentally alert until the end. My parents are still able to make a contribution in their community. They are interested in the world around them and they have views about public affairs. My perception of ageing would be different to that of other people in the community. I do not have a negative perception of older people, because I have seen older people in my family live full lives.

It is part of my responsibility to talk about these perceptions within the community, because, as stated in the discussion paper, we make distinctions based on assumptions about the qualities and skills of people in particular age groups. The discussion papers state that people make distinctions based on perceptions and assumptions. One of the most important things we can do as decision makers is to try to shift some of the perceptions held by the community, certainly with regard to older Australians. That is the benefit of this paper, because while young people may suffer from time to time from discrimination in seeking accommodation or employment, the reality is that as they develop skills they are better able to fight back than are a lot of older people. Many old people give in and feel that the task is just too great.

The paper also states that we have a strong responsibility to look at the Australian legislation and determine whether we are doing enough to break down discrimination and community perceptions. The charts in the discussion paper stated that only 9 per cent of the Australian population was aged over 65 years in 1976; by 1997 it was 12 per cent. We know that by 2016 it will be 16 per cent. We cannot afford not to use people aged over 65 to the maximum. When the Coalition was in government I was delighted with our legislation to eliminate compulsory retirement ages affecting people employed under various New South Wales awards.

I look forward to the Federal Government moving in that direction. In March this year I was delighted that in a joint media statement the Federal Attorney-General and the Federal Minister for Aged Care announced that as part of their acknowledgment of the International Year of Older Persons the Federal Government would move to abolish compulsory age retirement limits for statutory office holders, with some exceptions. In part that includes Commonwealth judges, because of constitutional limitations. That is a step in the right direction.

The notion that people aged 60 or 65 must retire is one we have to put to bed forever. The community cannot afford not to have those resources available to it. Between 1976 and 1997 the age dependency ratio for the nought to 24 years age group dropped from 44 per cent to 26 per cent of
Page 897
the population. In 20 years, when these people will be the predominant taxpayers of Australia, their percentage of the population will have declined further while the number of people aged over 65 will have increased. So the number of people paying taxes to support people no longer in the work force will have declined. That is an issue to which the community has not clearly turned its mind.

In the year 2020 and beyond, those of us who are baby boomers - to use that quaint expression - will be relying on the predominant taxpayers, now in the nought to 24 age group, to make decisions in our interest and to provide for our health care needs. With that in mind, this paper on aged matters makes a very valid point and one that we need to remind ourselves of quite frequently. There is often the assumption that older people are all frail aged. The reality is that for most people that occurs only in the last two years of their lives. Older people have the capacity to make a strong contribution to our community and we have to do all we can to break down the barriers. This paper is about breaking down the barriers. It poses questions for the community to consider as to the nature of those barriers and what we can do about them.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose in his contribution did well to highlight some of the anecdotal points made throughout the paper. He gave some examples of people of different ages who have experienced discrimination based on age. He gave an example of a pilot aged 60 who was forced to retire, and of the case he took through the courts. Do airline passengers want to know that the pilot is a certain age? If so, what assumption do we make about the skills of someone older? That case ultimately failed because some countries simply have an age limit, and if Qantas could not adequately roster the person, there would be some grounds upon which age could be used as the basis for no longer employing that person.

This paper is worthy of discussion by the House and could be the basis for a brief paper by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. I do not believe we will do justice today to the many issues raised in it. We need to focus, for example, on the demographics of ageing. A significant point that is dealt with in the paper relates to demographics in regard to older women in the community. Beyond 2016 an increasing proportion of those aged over 65 will be women. The paper makes the point that in 1996 there were 77 men for every 100 women in the age group 65 and over, and only 43 men for every 100 women in the age group 85 and over. Partly because women live longer than men, women aged over 80 are twice as likely as men to be living alone.

Those statistics make us, as decision-makers determining legislation and policy, stop and think. It is all well and good to introduce a policy to de-staff railway stations. It is all very well to say one solves the problem of security by putting security officers on trains. However, older women have raised with me the fact that they do not wish to venture onto unstaffed railway stations. It is not only a matter of being secure on the station; often they need support with ticketing - automatic machines are fine if one knows how to use them - and older women dread being alone on a railway station. We need to be reminded of the demographics of older people.

That extends to other areas as well. With older women living alone, urban design and urban lighting must be considered. We have to consider whether better alarm systems are needed. Many older people - men and women - have the potential of being frail aged, but it is the older women who have drawn to my attention their concerns about the impact of government policy. The staffing of railway stations is an example of where government policy so often fails older people, and in particular older women who live alone and who travel alone.

I also draw attention to the fact, as did the Hon. P. T. Primrose, that by 2001 almost one in four older people will be from non-English speaking backgrounds. That has significant consequences on the policies we put in place, and we need to focus on them. The combination of coming from a non-English speaking background, perhaps not having good family support and, indeed, just being older, suggests that in our policies we cannot typecast all the community and the community’s needs by the average. Many of these people have very particular needs.

The most important issues highlighted in this paper concern the work force and the place of older people in the community. It is those issues that we need particularly to address. We can do most by addressing the issue of stereotyping, by determining whether simply because people are getting older they are declining in their skills, or whether, on the other hand, we can benefit from their maturity, their knowledge of work history, their practice over time, and often their reliability and loyalty. We have to balance that against the fact that technology is changing. We have to make sure that people can work with new technology and they do not become resistant to change. This paper highlights those sorts of balancing issues.

I conclude by congratulating the honourable member on raising these issues. Discrimination is an important issue for debate. It is one of those things we must always keep in mind lest people get away
Page 898
with practices under our noses without us realising it. If nothing else comes out of the International Year of Older Persons than a proper debate about the place of people of all ages in our community, then the year will have done us all a great service. I believe the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should be congratulated on raising the issues in the discussion paper. Their true worth will be in the outcomes after the commission has had the opportunity to consider submissions and we see its recommendations.

I am conscious that the Federal Government has given a commitment to eliminate many forms of discrimination. It did so in its initial policies in 1996 and has been moving in that direction since then. With the Year of Older Persons and other budget allocations it has shown that it is living up to that commitment.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.49 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats congratulate the Hon. P. T. Primrose on drawing to the attention of the House the excellent discussion paper on age discrimination "Age matters?" by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released in April. The paper deals comprehensively with age discrimination. As my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe pointed out, people are most conscious of age discrimination in older people, but the young are also discriminated against. In fact, age discrimination can occur at any age. The Australian Democrats have done their best in regard to youth wages, which is one of the worst examples of age-based discrimination and also one of the most difficult to eradicate.

The Australian Democrats oppose age discrimination and have led the way in lobbying for the Industrial Relations Act to phase out age-based discrimination in all its forms. We successfully resisted attempts to reintroduce age-based discrimination in the Workplace Relations Act. Many workers on junior rates, particularly in the retail industry where 70 per cent of junior workers are employed, could find themselves unemployed if age-based wage rates were abolished, particularly when one considers that 80 per cent of new jobs for young people tend to be casual or part time. This is certainly a firmly held view of employer groups.

Similar arguments about minimum wage increases preventing employment growth were raised during the 1970s campaign to raise the wages of women to the level of those of men, and, in other countries, to raise the minimum wage level. Empirical evidence suggests that these concerns are ill-founded.

Negative employer attitudes to young workers are deeply entrenched. We need to turn those attitudes around by testing all of the arguments for and against. A fairer wages system that takes proper account of the different skill needs of younger and older workers also needs to be developed. In negotiations over the Workplace Relations Act the Democrats forced the Coalition Government to agree to a major review by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [AIRC] of junior rates, looking at whether it is desirable to replace junior rates with a non-discriminatory alternative; the consequence for youth unemployment of abolishing the junior rates; the suitability of junior rates for different types of employment or different industries; and the school-to-work transition. The report must be completed shortly. The AIRC has up to one year to implement the decision before the current junior rates clause is repealed.

The Democrats believe this approach will deliver a better outcome than the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions alternative of re-labelling existing junior wage rates as training rates based on the number of years since leaving school rather on than age. We regard this alternative as continuing to perpetuate the current rates without a proper analysis of the underlying work value and skills issues. The Democrats have a proud record of defending younger workers, including opposing work-for-the-dole schemes, which passed only with Labor support, forcing young people into menial, low-skilled and often dead-end work rather than real jobs and a future career; and opposing the youth allowance, which resulted in younger adults losing the right to income support if their parental income was higher than $23,400.

The Democrats defence of young workers also includes requiring the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and employment advocates to take into account the interests of younger workers in deciding whether enterprise agreements will be approved; requiring the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business to report regularly on the impact of enterprise bargaining on younger workers; opposing cuts to employer incentives to take on young people as apprentices; supporting increased funding for labour market programs that have a good record of getting younger people into meaningful jobs, such as the traineeship system, SkillShare and the new enterprise incentive scheme; opposing increases in the higher education contribution scheme [HECS]; and reducing the income threshold at which HECS becomes payable from $28,000 to $20,701 which has cost young workers earning $500 a week an extra $20 a week in tax. We are trying to help, particularly at the
Page 899
bottom end of the discrimination scale with youth policies.

Some of the policies relating to parental income, which then become hurdles for people seeking youth support wages or benefits as they are trying to study, effectively condemn young adults to a perpetual childhood, as they are financially dependent on their parents, which is discriminatory. When young people are physiologically and emotionally finding their own fate the world should help them, rather than enforce their dependency on their parents. The other area of discrimination, and one that usually gets more publicity, is age discrimination. I note that the concept of compulsory retirement has gone from most jurisdictions. However, if older people do not retire, the jobs that would otherwise become available for young people - in local councils, for example - are not available. Those who continue in jobs, when they are financially secure and do not need them, effectively deprive young people of employment.

I was involved to a considerable extent in working on fitness programs that judged whether people were fit to continue work, and I found that fitness did not relate very much to age. Some people had neglected their fitness, although they were quite young. Others had maintained their fitness, although they were quite old. If we are to have a serious work output ethic and excellence in job distribution, fitness should be the criteria. It is well known by those who study physiology that two-thirds of deconditioning with age does not relate to the ageing process, but rather to a lack of exercise and an associated increase in weight.

As one gets older one declines somewhat, but the observed decline in most people is three times as great in those who do not maintain their fitness. A study of the health and physical fitness of the average population measured against former athletes who maintain themselves at a very fit level revealed that the health and physical fitness of the average population declines three times as fast as that of former athletes. We really need a new health and ageing ethos.

The aged also are discriminated against in health care rationing. When I was in Britain I remember a little old lady, dare I say, aged 65, who came to see me looking like death warmed up. She had had appalling abdominal pain the previous day. It had been extremely bad for five or six hours, gradually eased, but was again pretty bad. I told her I thought she had ruptured an ulcer. It was remarkable that she had survived 24 hours. The British would not believe that she had a ruptured ulcer because the history was so long. The treatment involved oversewing the ulcer and then I suggested intravenous feeding. Her gut would not work because she had had a ruptured ulcer for so long.

At that time the British were a bit behind our health care system and were not accustomed to drip-feeding people. They were shocked that such radical technology would be used on a 65-year-old. That had not occurred to me, given that she had an entirely curable condition, was only 65, and had obviously been pretty healthy - given the fact that she was still alive in the circumstances. One of the interesting aspects of health care rationing, which was far more prevalent in Britain than it was in Australia at that time for comparable age groups, is that it was a radical step for the British to agree to intravenously feed this woman. Health care rationing came in at a very low age in Britain, and I think that same principle applies here, although probably not at such an early age. This aspect of age discrimination has to be considered, and each case has to be considered on its realistic merits.

There is also a problem in middle age: people are made redundant with downsizing. Clerical jobs, which may be replaced by technology, are overstocked with people. Downsizing, which is a euphemism for sacking people, gets rid of those who are in their prime and who, until management decided they were useless, considered that they were doing quite a worthwhile job. It is a difficult situation. The question is whether they should be looked after in preference to young people.

It has been said that student children and wives suffer very badly when a middle-aged breadwinner loses his job. I have worked with a rather callous manager who was lacking in sensitivity, but who was far more sensitive about the middle-aged people he was sacking than the young ones he was sacking or not taking on - presumably because he was middle-aged. Even people in their forties are discriminated against because they are considered too old to start new careers and their skills are no longer considered marketable in an age when employers do not want to train employees; they simply want to employ someone.

Even among the very young there are people who are considered to be too old compared to their level of experience. I knew well a journalist who had studied to complete a master of literature degree and tried to get a job in journalism. She was told that only cadets would be employed and that she was too old to be a cadet. Despite the fact that she had a masters degree, she was told that they did not need people with that qualification, that she would
Page 900
have to be paid an adult wage and did not have enough experience to justify that payment. She was 21 at the time.

That woman applied for two jobs a week over a year and could not obtain one. Eventually she went to Africa and travelled for a year. She returned to Australia and was fortunate to get a job writing for a low-prestige magazine. Whilst she held that position she learned that the Australian Financial Review wanted to cover a specific topic and was seeking a journalist who was writing well on the subject. Within less than 12 months of her return she was an A-grade journalist with that newspaper and then was headhunted by an advertising agency and employed on a salary of $100,000 a year, which 10 years ago was a huge amount of money. That woman was considered to be too old for her experience at the age of 21.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

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

Madam President

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution^___

That a Joint Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon road safety in New South Wales with the following Terms of Reference:

(1) As an ongoing task, the committee is to -

(a) monitor, investigate and report on the road safety situation in New South Wales; and

(b) review and report on countermeasures aimed at reducing deaths, injuries, and the social and economic costs to the community arising from road accidents.

Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the following are to be given urgent consideration-

(i) countermeasures aimed at traffic accidents associated with alcohol and other drugs;

(ii) traffic law enforcement measures and their effectiveness;

(iii) a review of human factors affecting traffic accidents, especially those relating to driver and rider licensing requirements and standards;

(iv) the social and economic impact of death and serious and debilitating injuries resulting from traffic accidents; and

(v) heavy vehicle safety.

(2) That such committee consist of six members of the Legislative Assembly and three members of the Legislative Council and that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any five members shall constitute a quorum provided that the committee shall meet as a joint committee at all times.

(3) That Mr Black, Mr Campbell, Mr Greene, Mr McBride, Mr R. H. L. Smith and Mr Stoner be appointed to serve on such committee as the members of the Legislative Assembly.

(4) That the committee have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of either or both Houses; to adjourn from place to place; to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales, other States and Territories of Australia, and overseas.

(5) That should either House stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the Houses resume sitting -

(a) the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of the House;

(b) the documents shall be printed and published and the Clerk shall forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the House; and

(c) the documents shall be laid upon the table of the House at its next sitting.

The Legislative Assembly requests that the Legislative Council appoint three of its members to serve with the members of the Legislative Assembly upon such Joint Standing Committee and to fix a time and place for the first meeting.

Legislative Assembly John Murray
3 June 1999 Speaker

Consideration of message deferred.

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

Page 901

Madam President

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution -

That in accordance with section 67 (1) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be and are hereby appointed to serve on the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission -

Ms Andrews
Mr Hunter
Mr W.D. Smith
Mr Webb

Legislative Assembly John Murray
3 June 1999 Speaker

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

Madam President

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution^___

That in accordance with section 65 (1) (b) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be and are hereby appointed to serve on the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption -

Mr Brown Mr Martin
Mr Fraser Ms Megarrity
Mr Hickey Mr Price
Dr Kernohan Mr Richardson

Legislative Assembly John Murray
3 June 1999 Speaker

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

Madam President

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution^___

That in accordance with section 31 C (1) (b) of the Ombudsman Act 1974, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be and are hereby appointed to serve on the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission -

Mrs Grusovin
Mr Kerr
Mr Lynch
Mr W. D. Smith

Legislative Assembly John Murray
3 June 1999 Speaker

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

Madam President

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution^___

That in accordance with section 5 (1) (b) of the Regulation Review Act 1987, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be and are hereby appointed to serve on the Regulation Review Committee--

Ms Burton

Dr Kernohan
Mr Nagle
Ms Saliba
Mr R. W. Turner

Legislative Assembly John Murray
3 June 1999 Speaker

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.06 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Motor Accidents Compensation Bill. The bill implements the government’s promise to deliver cheaper green slip prices to the families of New South Wales. Just as importantly, this is achieved by a range of new measures to improve the position of people injured in motor accidents, promote a more competitive market for green slips and encourage safer driving. As honourable members are well aware, there can be no doubt that the cost of green slips for motor vehicle owners in New South Wales is too high.

Premium prices form a major component of complaints to members of Parliament, and detailed market research undertaken by the Motor Accidents Authority confirms the level of community concern. This research shows that people are worried not only about the price of green slips, but also about the process that an injured person must go through to obtain compensation. They are concerned about the length of time it takes an injured person to reach a settlement with an insurance company; that the system provides an expensive legal process; and about the number and cost of medical examinations
Page 902
that an injured person must undergo.

People with minor injuries, or those who know someone who has been through the process with serious injuries, have often reported that it left the claimant or claimants feeling that the whole thing had not been worth the effort, especially given the delays and frustrations in the process. This Government has accepted the challenge to introduce cheaper green slip prices. It has chosen to do so in a way which also addresses the other concerns the public has about the compensation process and in a way that causes the least impact upon compensation paid to people injured in motor vehicles, particularly those who suffer serious and catastrophic injuries.

The problems in the current scheme were built into the system introduced by the Greiner government in 1988. Over time, both the reliance upon court determined common law and the supposed benefits from competition by private insurers have failed to deliver the suggested benefits. In framing the fundamental reforms introduced in this package I have consulted with, medical, insurance and legal representatives.

All other proponents of the scheme, as worthy as their interests and their attitudes may be, are service providers within the scheme. It is important to maintain a focus on that point as this legislation is discussed. The Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] and even we, the legislators, are but a part of the system. We are not a genuine part of the stakeholding arrangement. This legislation is designed to benefit those two fundamental stakeholders, the motorists and injured people by, first, reducing green slip premiums for motorists; second, by improving the processes by which injured people obtain compensation; and, third, by insuring that people receive treatment for their injuries sooner and in a more timely manner.

The new scheme was developed following extensive examination of options for reducing the cost of green slips by a working party established by a Canadian expert on motor vehicle personal injury insurance, Ms Shelley Miller, QC. Ms Miller was brought out to Australia by the Motor Accidents Authority. She established a working party of experts involved in motor accident compensation. The working party examined ways of reducing green slip prices and developed a set of recommendations that this government has accepted. These now form the basis of legislation that is before the Parliament. I wish to thank all those involved in this working party for their considerable time, effort and expertise.

I will now outline some of the major provisions of the bill. Chapter 2 of the bill carries over provisions from the Motor Accidents Act 1988 relating to third party policies, insurance premiums and claims arising from actions caused by unidentified or uninsured vehicles. Insurers will continue to file a set of premiums that they intend to charge with the Motor Accidents Authority and the authority can reject these if they are excessive or if they do not fully fund the insurer’s future liability. The Motor Accidents Amendment Act 1988 introduced wider powers for the Motor Accidents Authority to collect information which it can take into account in determining whether to reject a premium. It also provided that disputes between the Motor Accidents Authority and insurers over premiums be resolved by the Independent Pricing Regulatory Tribunal. These procedures are also included in the new bill.

The Motor Accidents Authority will be amending its Premium Determination Guidelines to create a more competitive market for green slips. The current motor accident scheme involves community rating so that good risks subsidise the higher risks who are generally the younger drivers. One of the current problems is that any reduction in premiums by one insurer can mean that that insurer will attract more than its market share of high-risk drivers.

This form of rating will be retained so that younger drivers are not faced with unaffordable premiums, but the premium guidelines will be changed to create a system in which there is greater competition for good risks. This will contribute to driving premiums down. Moreover, the factors that can be taken into account when determining premiums will be expanded upon. This will lead to insurers being more innovative in premium setting as the new system will include factors such as the age, gender and driving record of the owner, and the type, age, engine size and the safety features of the vehicle to be taken into account.

Earlier in the week I announced this package of reforms and indicated that it would achieve a $100 reduction in the average price of green slips. This $100 is measured off the current average premium for metropolitan sedans, which is $430. The reforms of this bill will reduce this benchmark price to approximately $330. A range of prices for passenger vehicles is at present between a lowest price of $402 and a highest price of $560.

Under the new pricing regime, to achieve an average $100 reduction means that not everybody will receive a full $100 reduction in price, and some
Page 903
will receive more than a $100 reduction. A fundamental aim of the reform package is to increase competition among insurers by allowing individual insurance companies to price green slips with fewer constraints. Insurers will have greater flexibility in setting premiums so that better risks are rewarded with lower green slips.

I must emphasise that all New South Wales motorists will receive a reduction green slip price. The actual amount of the reduction will vary, depending on how insurers assess the potential risks of motorists. The biggest savings will occur for those motorists with safer driving records and safer vehicles. The Motor Accidents Authority will cap the maximum price for high risk motorists. This cap will ensure that these high-risk groups are provided with both more affordable and accessible green slips. This cap is likely to be in the vicinity of $30 off the current high rate. The reduction for better risks will be $330 and lower for those with a good risk profile.

In addition, the Motor Accidents Authority, in conjunction with compulsory third party insurers, is examining options to establish an assigned risk pool for young motorists, particularly those aged between 17 and 23 who, if subject to a real risk premium, would be paying between $2,500 and $4,500 per policy. This is clearly not an insurance problem but a community concern. The fact is that young people are the cause of a highly disproportionate share of accidents and the sad reality is that they are disproportionately among the primary victims of accidents.

In regard to this high risk group, I have had discussions with my colleague the Hon. Carl Scully, Minister for Transport, about further road safety initiatives. As a result, the Roads and Traffic Authority will consult with the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] and other groups to develop strategies to bring down the risks. Taking into account a wide range of factors in setting premiums clearly accords with community expectations that good risks will be rewarded by lower prices. Further, the profit levels of insurance companies will need to be adjusted in response to these reforms. At present, the profit component of the green slip premium is between 8 per cent and 10 per cent per premium.

The insurers point out that a profit level at such a high rate is required to service the high level of capital required to underwrite a motor accidents scheme. Allocation of capital depends on assessment of risk which can be difficult in a long tail business where premiums are collected today to pay out claims over many years to come. The risks of underwriting the current scheme are compounded by the current instability in the scheme. The introduction of reforms to control costs will lead to greater scheme stability, thus lessening the capital required to underwrite the scheme. This means that the appropriate level of profit for insurers will be far less or significantly less than it is currently.

Chapter 3 of the bill contains a number of more important elements of the new scheme. There is a clear need to refocus the scheme away from simply paying compensation for injuries and towards providing better earlier treatment to support injured people’s early recovery. The Motor Accidents Council will be able to issue guidelines on the appropriate treatment of injured people. These will ensure that treatment focuses upon a person’s rehabilitation and recovery. The treatment guidelines will be prepared in conjunction with the health professionals.

The bill introduces a system of early notification of injury, triggered by the person first seeking treatment. The notification forms will be available from general practitioners and, in this respect, the form is similar to workers’ compensation. Notification forms provide information on a person’s injury and proposed treatment in light of the circumstances of the accident. Injured people will only be able to use the early notification if they have reported the accident to the police and if they were not primarily at fault in the accident. The notification form will be sent to the relevant insurer and to assist in this the green slip insurers will establish a call centre to assist people to complete the form and identify the correct insurer. A call centre may also give a preliminary indication as to whether early medical costs will be paid.

Insurers will advise injured people whether they accept provisional liability within 10 days of notification. This is in contrast to current arrangements where it may take six months or longer for liability to be determined. Provisional liability will be deemed for passengers and pedestrians. As soon as provisional liability is accepted, the insurer will pay for the injured person’s treatment in accordance with the treatment guidelines, or up to $500. These changes will ensure that more injured people have early and immediate access to treatment which will maximise their recovery. Some people will recover completely after this treatment and there may be no need for them to lodge a formal claim with an insurer. In other cases, such as when an injured person requires more than $500 worth of treatment or when the injured person
Page 904
is entitled to other compensation, they will make a formal claim on the insurer as they currently do.

Insurers will also be under an obligation to advise people of their right to make a claim. Part 3.3 continues to permit insurers and public hospitals to enter into bulk-billing arrangements which have been in place since the current scheme commenced. They save both insurers and hospitals time and money as well as benefiting injured people. Part 3.3 also continues to permit the Minister for Health to fix appropriate hospital rates should there not be a bulk-billing arrangement. However, a new power is included to make regulations fixing the maximum amount an insurer must pay for other medical or like services.

Consultation has already begun with the Australian Medical Association and others about this reform, which is designed to ensure that the scheme is not paying for excessive medical fees. Consultation has already begun with the Australian Medical Association and others about this reform which is designed to ensure that the scheme is not paying for excessive medical fees. At present disputes about treatment and rehabilitation are often not resolved by the claimant and insurer until settlement of a case or decision by the court. This puts the focus upon providing monetary compensation to the claimant rather than ensuring appropriate treatment along the way.

Part 3.4 provides an accessible means of getting early, quick and independent decisions on treatment, rehabilitation and care outside of the court system. All disputes over the treatment, rehabilitation and care an injured person requires, the degree of permanent impairment an injured person has or whether an injury has stabilised will be referred to the MAA, which will refer the disputes to a relevant medical expert from a list maintained by the MAA. Further medical assessments will be allowed if a person’s condition deteriorates, and there is provision for review of an assessment by three medical experts.

Medical assessment decisions on the treatment, rehabilitation and care of injured persons pending the finalisation of their claim, and decisions on degree of permanent impairment and whether an injury has stabilised, are binding. These reforms permit early, quick, objective decisions on medical issues to be made outside of the court system. The majority of motor accident matters do not involve difficult legal issues and are essentially a determination of an amount of compensation. While very few matters end up being decided in a court, over half of all motor accident claims involve claimants commencing court proceedings. Claims are prepared on an adversarial basis with attendant high level of legal costs.

Chapter 4 of the bill provides a means of resolving these claims early, outside the court system and in a non-adversarial manner. As at present, a claim will need to be made within six months of an accident. Once the insurer has admitted liability, it will be subject to a range of existing duties, including the duty to pay the injured person’s medical and related expenses pending the settlement of the claim. Insurers will make a decision on liability within two months of receiving a claim. Once the injured person’s condition has stabilised and he has provided the insurer with details about the claim the insurer will make an offer. If the matter cannot be settled then either party may take the claim to the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service - another inventive acronym, CARS - for an assessment. No case will be able to proceed to court until it has been through CARS.

There will, however, be cases that involve difficult legal issues or complex matters of fact and the bill provides that CARS may issue a certificate which allows the parties to proceed directly to court without an assessment. Decisions by CARS about liability will not be binding. However, assessments by CARS of the amount of compensation will be binding on the insurer but binding on injured people only if they accept the assessment within 21 days. An injured person who does not accept the assessment by CARS may take his claim to court, but will risk not having his further legal costs paid and even having to pay the insurer’s further legal costs if he does not get a better result at court.

The procedure for matters being assessed by CARS will be flexible, with an emphasis on dealing with matters on the papers or with a conference rather than with formal hearings. There is a right for parties to be legally represented, although the system will be designed to ensure that legal representation is not necessary, particularly for smaller claims. An advisory service will be established by the MAA to operate in conjunction with CARS and to assist claimants with a claim and advise on procedures. The advisory service will not provide advice on the amount of compensation an injured person should receive and may recommend that an injured person seek legal advice.

Chapter 5 deals with awards of damages. While a significant proportion of the savings in green slip premiums will be achieved through changes to the system of claims handling and a reduction in legal expenses and insurers’ profits, it
Page 905
has also been necessary to restore balance in relation to compensation payments. The bill keeps the changes to the benefits structure to a minimum and retains a very strong emphasis upon ensuring that compensation is directed primarily to those who have suffered permanent and severe injuries. Compensation for the first five days loss of earnings is excluded. Together with the early payment of medical expenses, this will discourage those with minor injuries from proceeding with a claim. In addition, a cap on the maximum amount of compensation that can be awarded for loss of earnings of $1,200 net a week is introduced. This represents a very high level of gross income, approximately $102,000 per year.

The main change to damages is to introduce an objective assessment of impairment as a gateway for non-economic loss. Non-economic loss is essentially compensation for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life and is additional to compensation for actual monetary loss or costs. Non-economic loss represents a significant component of total compensation payments. The Motor Accidents Act 1988 currently has a number of gateways to obtaining non-economic loss damages but these have been eroded over time.

Under the provisions of the bill no damages will be paid for non-economic loss unless the person is assessed as having more than 10 per cent permanent impairment. An objective method for determining the degree of permanent impairment will be used, such as the American Medical Association’s Guides to Permanent Impairment. These guidelines are currently used under the Victorian scheme, although I would point out that under the more severe benefit restrictions which apply in Victoria access to common law damages for pain and suffering requires that the person be 30 per cent or more impaired.

Disputes over whether the 10 per cent permanent impairment gateway is reached will be resolved using the medical assessment process outlined in part 3.4. I am aware that there is some criticism of the American Medical Association [AMA] guidelines and instances of potential unfairness arising from their application have been brought to my attention. For this reason the AMA guidelines only apply in the absence of guidelines developed by the Motor Accidents Council. This will be a priority matter for the council upon commencement of the legislation. The impairment guidelines are intended to achieve a result whereby those who are permanently and seriously impaired will continue to receive compensation for non-economic loss.

The council will be under a duty to develop guidelines that cover the spectrum of motor accident injuries and which provide a fair result within the necessary constraint of ensuring that non-economic loss is limited to those claimants who have permanent and serious injuries. The number of people in this category is not large. At present the number of people suffering catastrophic injury - that is, serious spinal injury or brain injury - is about 170 people per year, representing less than 0.1 per cent. Approximately 1,770 people per year suffer other serious but not catastrophic injuries, representing approximately 10 per cent of all claimants. These injuries include serious fractures, brain injury, lumbar vertebra dislocations, and internal injuries, plus a number of associated injuries.

I turn now to the issue of legal costs. The increase in legal costs in motor accident claims has contributed to increases in premiums. While other reforms will reduce these costs, chapter 6 of the bill allows this issue to be addressed directly by permitting maximum lawyers fees and medico-legal fees in motor accidents matters to be fixed by regulation. There will be a regulation-making power that that will allow restrictions to be placed on legal advertising.

The current type of advertising in relation to personal injury claims is a cause of concern and the proposal to impose some restrictions was raised by the Law Society and other practitioners in the field. In addition, use of the name "green slip" is to be restricted so that it can be
used only for commercial purposes by approval of the MAA. This will overcome concerns about current information services that are charging fees for providing a price service and in some cases making considerable errors in the information provided to consumers.

Chapter 7 carries over provisions from the Motor Accidents Act 1988 relating to the licensing of insurers. The ability of the MAA to make the early resolution of claims a condition of an insurer’s licence, which was contained in the Motor Accidents Amendment Act 1998, is included. Powers for the MAA to investigate and report on insurers are also carried forward from the 1998 amendments. In addition, the MAA will be able to impose a civil penalty of up to $50,000 for breach of a condition of a licence, a guideline or a regulation. Insurers will have a right of appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The MAA will also be able to issue insurers with guidelines on the issuing of green slip policies.


Page 906
Chapter 8 deals with the Motor Accidents Authority and provides that the board of directors of the authority will consist of the five part-time members. A new body, the Motor Accidents Council, is established to oversee the new medical assessment and claims assessment processes.

The council has various functions that will give effect to the changes introduced in this legislation. It is important in framing those guidelines and other instruments that regard is had to the intention of this legislative package and the need to ensure that green slips remain affordable and stable. I am therefore considering introducing an additional provision requiring the council to consider the cost impact of any guidelines that it develops.

I expect that the cost impact of guidelines introduced by the council will be within a range that enables the achievement of the Government’s objective of a $100 reduction in the average cost of green slips. These changes provide a fair, effective and reasonable reform package that will lead to a substantial reduction in green slip premiums. This reform package is well balanced. It will improve the process for obtaining compensation, it will ensure that people injured in motor accidents will receive early treatment, and it will deliver cheaper green slip premiums. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.31 p.m.]: I move:

That this House agrees to the request of the Legislative Assembly in its message dated 2 June 1999 for the Hon. M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council to attend at the table of the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 22 June 1999 for the purpose only of giving a speech in relation to the New South Wales Budget 1999-2000.

I understand that members of the Opposition have been consulted by my colleague the Treasurer on this matter and that there will be a slight variation in procedure. Because of the new ministerial arrangements in this House, while the Treasurer is delivering his speech in the Legislative Assembly, I will contemporaneously deliver the budget to this House, subject to the consent of all honourable members.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [5.32 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the motion. It is eminently sensible for the Treasurer to deliver the budget in the other place and to not have to return to this House at 5 o’clock and repeat the performance. The Opposition is happy for the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer to deliver the budget in this House simultaneously with the Treasurer delivering it in the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

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

Motion by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald agreed to:

That government business orders of the day Nos 2 to 4 be postponed.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The objects of the bill are very similar to those contained in the original bill, which was withdrawn in the other place. The objects of the bill are:

(a) to decrease by 4 the number of members of the Legislative Assembly on the following Joint Parliamentary Committees:

•the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission,

•the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission, and

(b) to decrease by 2 the number of members of the Legislative Assembly on the Regulation Review Committee, and to increase by one the number of members of the Legislative Council on that Committee, and

(c) to increase by one the number of members of the Legislative Assembly on the Public Accounts Committee,

Page 907
and

(d) to make consequential amendments relating to the quorum requirements for those committees.

As a result of the proposed amendments, the membership of each of the committees referred to in paragraph (a) will decrease from 11 to seven members, and the membership of the Regulation Review Committee will decrease from nine to eight members. The membership of the Public Accounts Committee will increase from five to six members. Of the committees referred to in paragraph (a), four members will be from the Legislative Assembly and three members will be from the Legislative Council. The Regulation Review Committee will have five members from the Legislative Assembly and three members from the Legislative Council. The Public Accounts Committee will continue to comprise only members from the Legislative Assembly. The quorum for each of the committees will be four members. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [5.35 p.m.]: Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition supports the bill. It merely formalises the reduction in the number of the Legislative Assembly members and confirms the number of Legislative Council members on some committees, and that is sensible.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald agreed to:

That sessional orders be suspended to allow questions to be called on at 3.00 p.m. on Tuesday 22 June 1999.

Motion by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 22 June 1999 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.37 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [5.37 p.m.]: I wish to speak about St Spyridon College Primary School in Kingsford, which was the first Greek Orthodox day school established in New South Wales, in February 1983. When the hailstorm hit the Eastern Suburbs on 14 April it did not make any exceptions. A number of homes, cars, churches, schools and hospitals suffered extensive damage. The damage to St Spyridon College primary school was so extensive that one class had to be evacuated and on a number of instances lessons were conducted in the playground, staffroom or corridors for fear of electrocution or other accidents.

The school considered closing completely until it could function in more acceptable accommodation. However, the view was taken, on the urging of parents and other people involved with the board of governors, that because a similar tragedy had struck students’ homes, it would be preferable for the children to continue to attend their lessons because this would allow them to get away, even for a brief time, from the pressures the hailstorm had brought to their family lives. On 24 April I, together with a number of other officials, representative parliamentarians and veterans, attended the St Spyridon Greek Orthodox Church at Kingsford on the occasion of the annual Anzac Day service.

On that occasion I noted the condition of the school and the concerns that the parents and staff had with regard to securing the safety of the students by moving the school’s primary years 3 to 6 to the high school campus located at Maroubra. I spoke to the parish priest, Father Steven Scoutas, and also to the primary principal, Mrs Mary Hame. I also had the opportunity to see some of the tremendous damage caused by the hailstorm. I was particularly impressed by the spirit of the parents, the staff and the parish generally, notwithstanding the tragedy that had struck the school.

I am pleased to report to the House that, thanks to all those responsible, on 26 May the school was able to relocate to a temporary site at the Maroubra High School campus, in new surroundings in demountable classrooms. Moving an entire school and library is a mammoth task, and sincere congratulations are extended to all those responsible, particularly Mrs Hame, the principal; Mr Costas Gikas, the deputy principal; Mr Nickolas Kyreakos, the headmaster of the high school, for his co-operation; the parish priest, Father Steven Scoutas; Mr Socrates Socratous, OAM, the parish stalwart and former president of the parish; Ms Christina Tsaconas, the parish executive officer; Dr Thomas Savoulis, the parish president; and Mrs Coucouvinis, the chairman of the St Spyridon College Board of Governors.


Page 908
Thanks should be extended also to the Randwick City Council, and particularly its mayor, Dominic Sullivan, who showed compassion in the circumstances and took all steps to secure the relocation of the school. I know that all those involved with the school are looking forward to the rebuilding of the primary school campus and the repair of the buildings where possible, and that they are hopeful that 2000 will see the school relocate to its original campus in a new two-storey building adjacent to the church.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.42 p.m.]: The Greens support the motion moved by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho earlier today, which, unfortunately, I missed the opportunity to speak to. Aboriginal reconciliation has been severely hindered over the past couple of years because of the actions of the Federal Government, and therefore the New South Wales Government should make Aboriginal reconciliation a top priority.

According to the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS], there are approximately 80,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in New South Wales, representing 1.2 per cent of the population. However, this could well be an underestimation, as it is likely that some indigenous people do not fill in official census forms. Aboriginal people are the most disadvantaged people in New South Wales. They are entitled to such better health facilities and appropriate housing, training and education as they themselves determine.

Essential to all policy and policy implementation is the indigenous peoples' control over decisions that affect their wellbeing. Control and implementation can only be achieved with adequate funding. The Greens are committed to redressing discrimination and inequality faced by Aboriginal people.

On almost every measure of health status, the health of Aboriginal people is significantly worse than that of the community as a whole. For example, perinatal mortality rates among indigenous mothers are almost twice those of other New South Wales mothers. Rates of premature birth are, on average, 64 per cent higher than for non-indigenous babies. In areas with indigenous populations of 5 per cent or more, the premature death rate is 1.4 times that for New South Wales as a whole. Indigenous life expectancy is 20 years less than that of all other Australians, and those who live to 40 or 50 die at 10 times the rate of the national average. Indigenous people are 50 per cent more likely to commit suicide.

Aboriginal people are extremely overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Despite diversion from incarceration being the key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, over the past 10 years the number of Aboriginal inmates in New South Wales gaols has skyrocketed. New South Wales Department of Corrective Services figures show that the average number of Aborigines serving full time in the State’s prisons rose from 354, which was 8.5 per cent of the gaol population in 1987, to 979 as at 30 June 1998, which was 15 per cent of the entire full-time prison population. Yet Aborigines comprise less than 2 per cent of the general population.

According to the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, indigenous people are 26 times more likely than non-indigenous people to be taken into police custody. They face the fear of being harassed, if not bashed, in the cells and are 10 times more likely to get a longer and harsher sentence for the same crime.

With regard to Aboriginal juveniles in the criminal justice system, as at 30 June 1998, 33.7 per cent of juveniles detained in detention centres were Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, yet they made up only 2.3 per cent of young people in New South Wales. The 1998 report of the Judicial Commission into Sentencing Disparity and Ethnicity of Juvenile Offenders found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were given statistically significant harsher penalties than their non-Aboriginal counterparts.

The Greens recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as the original occupants and custodians, have a specific and unique cultural relationship with this country which must be respected by all Australians. The Greens reject the Native Title Amendment Act 1998. We support and recognise inalienable indigenous native title to empower a people who have been denied their country and to enable them to preserve and determine their traditional lifestyle and culture.

The Greens believe strongly that this Act is most detrimental to any process of Aboriginal reconciliation. Since 1788 indigenous people have been systematically dispossessed of their lands. The Mabo and Wik judgments gave back to indigenous people some of the rights they had before white invasion in 1788. The Coalition Government quickly removed many of those rights in the Wik legislation. Aboriginal leader, Noel Pearson, said in November 1997 that the legislation was legal apartheid. He said:


Page 909

We are on the verge, no less, of legal apartheid. And what I mean by that is that we will have a national law that says there’s two rights, two titles sitting alongside each other, and the Aboriginal title can be extinguished and the other one remain in place.

In March this year the United Nations race discrimination committee found that the Wik law is in breach of Australia’s international pledges not to discriminate racially. According to the United Nations it appears to create legal certainty for governments and third parties at the expense of indigenous title, breaching the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination signed by the Liberal Government in 1966. In 1997 the World Council of Churches described the Wik legislation as racist, discriminatory and morally questionable.

Another block to reconciliation is the Federal Government’s refusal to say sorry to indigenous people since the handing down of the stolen generation report. At least 10,000 children were forcibly removed from their families in New South Wales alone during a 100-year period. Our State Parliament said sorry to Aboriginal Australians, which was supported by the Greens, and we hope that we can look forward to better future relations. The Greens congratulate this Government on organising this motion and the Federal Government should do the same. The Greens will be working to support that.

Indigenous people still suffer from racial discrimination in our society. Young Aborigines in particular suffer racism at the hands of police. This was documented in the Kids in Justice report published by the Law Foundation and youth justice coalition in 1990. The Greens support any move to mitigate the circumstances against Aboriginal people.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [5.47 p.m.]: I raise a matter that is of general concern to me in my capacity as a representative on the council of the University of Western Sydney, that is, the Federal Government’s legislation in relation to voluntary student unionism. I am sure other honourable members have received a letter from Amanda Tattersall, President, National Union of Students in New South Wales. I will read some extracts from her letter to me. She said:

On the 11th March Dr David Kemp, the Minister for Education and Training and Youth Affairs introduced Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) Legislation into Federal Parliament. This legislation is a destructive imposition upon the conditions by which student organisations obtain membership and financial resources. By making student organisation membership voluntary, student organisations will be disabled from performing their current role, that being providing essential services, welfare, advocacy and support for students on campus.

Student organisations are essential to the existence of a community on campus. By ensuring day to day support for students, as well as responding to the needs of students through democratic processes, student organisations enable a fair, open and responsive university environment. Most particularly they aim to give support to students who are already disadvantaged in the broader community.

I think the experience of all honourable members who have attended university would be of the opinion that the role of student organisations is most important to one’s experience of university. The University of Western Sydney has a particular mission to encourage the enrolment of students who are already disadvantaged and in that context the role of a student union is particularly important. The letter continues:

VSU has already been introduced in Western Australia, and as a consequence essential services can no longer be provided to all students by student organisations. Services no longer provided to students include: childcare, welfare counselling and advice, advocacy and representation for students, funding for clubs and societies, subsidised food outlets, student newspapers and publications, and academic support.

The Government contends that VSU is about allowing choice for students. However, this is a misleading argument. Student organisations exist as a consequence of students paying a small fee which is distributed through democratic mechanisms for the benefit of the student community. For this reason they have been viewed as akin to local government (as by the Victorian Supreme Court in Clark v Melbourne University).

In Clark v Melbourne University the Supreme Court stated the effective existence of student organisations can only be ensured by everyone’s contribution, and by noting the community purpose of student organisations, held that a financial contribution to such an organisation is equivalent to paying rates. The Council of Civil Liberties has also endorsed this sentiment.

The letter concludes by asking those of us who oppose this legislation to notify the National Union of Students to that effect. The letter points out:

Many organisations and individuals have already the sentiments in the letter. They range from University Councils, to ex-Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Justice Brennan and the entire Tasmanian Parliament.

We could emulate the progressive use of the entire Tasmanian Parliament and express our support for the National Union of Students in this campaign.

Page 910

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: [5.51 p.m.]: Honourable members would be aware that this has been National Aboriginal Reconciliation Week. The major events that were organised last week by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation are completely supported by the Australian Democrats, who regard Aboriginal reconciliation as vital for the future of Australia. We must be able to hold up our heads amongst the community of nations. The final public events to be staged last week were the culmination of nine years of work for the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The council will launch its proposals for a national document of reconciliation to bring together the many threads of reconciliation. The council hopes that the vast majority of Australians, representative bodies and voluntary organisations will support that declaration of reconciliation.

The council believes that successful events and a national commitment of this kind will help to establish a positive climate as the eyes of the world turn towards Australia for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The dates for these events are significant as they occur on the thirty-third anniversary of the 1967 referendum, which gave the Commonwealth Government the power to make laws for Aboriginal people; the third anniversary of the Australian reconciliation convention; and the commencement of the fifth national reconciliation week.

The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation comprises 25 community leaders drawn from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, industries which have the most impact on Aboriginal people, and business and other sectors. The council called on fellow Australians across this land to demonstrate their commitment to reconciliation through a people’s movement. Through this action the council is trying to establish a lasting foundation for reconciliation, which will ensure that Australians can proudly celebrate the centenary of our nation and continue working together to achieve the council’s vision of a united Australia with respect to our land - a vision which values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and provides justice and equity for all. The council’s goals are:

Goal 1: Documents of Reconciliation -

the draft of which was launched today -

Goal 2: Partnerships in Reconciliation

Gain the commitment of governments, business, peak organisations and community groups to form partnerships which will achieve social and economic equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Goal 3: The People’s Movement for Reconciliation

Encourage and support the people’s movement for reconciliation to achieve justice and equity for all Australians, to embrace the unique place of indigenous peoples in the life of the nation and to ensure that the work of this reconciliation continues beyond the life of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, in its first three-year term, promoted public awareness and understanding of the reconciliation process. This focus shifted in the council’s second term towards encouraging Australians from all walks of life to help make reconciliation a reality. The Aboriginal reconciliation convention, held in Melbourne in mid-1997, was an important milestone during council’s second term, and resulted in an overwhelming response from the Australian public. In its third and final term, which will run from 1998 to 2000, the focus of the council will be on supporting and maintaining the people’s movement for reconciliation to ensure that the work of reconciliation continues beyond the life of the council.

The final year of the council’s term coincides with the Sydney 2000 Olympics. During this time Australia will be the subject of intense global interest. Attention will be paid to the progress of relationships between indigenous people and the wider community. Some aspects of those relationships are to be found on the web site of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, which I should note for the benefit of honourable members. It is www.austlii.edu.au/au/orgs/car. The ceremonies this week are extremely important in marking progress towards Aboriginal reconciliation, which will be absolutely critical at the Games when considering the question of whether we are regarded as a country discriminating, by neglect, against our people or whether we are not. We are running extremely close to the deadline. The Australian Democrats demand more action on Aboriginal reconciliation. We ask that on this day of particular significance.

Motion agreed to.