Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 14 September 1999, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

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

That the resolution establishing the General Purpose Standing Committees be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1 (a):

Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer.

Petition praying that within one year of the presentation of the petition there be a ban on animal exploitation such as battery cages for hens, single stalls and farrowing crates for sows, feedlots for cattle and intensive housing for broilers, wildlife and other animals, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

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

Petition praying that legislation be introduced to prohibit the use of impounded animals for experimentation, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.42 p.m.]: I move:

1. That the statements made by Mr Gallacher and Mr Hannaford in the Legislative Council on 8 September 1999 concerning the Lord Mayor of Sydney, Mr Frank Sartor, be referred to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for inquiry and report.

2. That the committee investigate and report on:

(a) whether the conduct of Mr Gallacher and Mr Hannaford in relation to this matter constitutes an abuse of privilege; and

(b) what, if any, sanctions should be enforced in relation to their conduct in this matter.

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

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD [2.43 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this motion; it will support it. However, I foreshadow that I will move certain amendments to the motion. It is important to note that the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council did not speak to the motion, but I wish to take the opportunity to do so. The referral of a matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics should not be taken lightly.

To my recollection this will be the third occasion on which the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics has been asked to report on a matter by the House. The first occasion was a reference to investigate a special report as to whether there was a contempt of the House ostensibly by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in regard to a report of a committee of the House. The second matter, with which honourable members would be familiar, related to the Hon. Franca Arena, and this is the third occasion. It is a serious matter when the Government proposes to the House that a member be referred to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics in relation to whether the privileges of this House have been breached.

When the Government moves such a motion, I believe the proposal cannot be taken lightly. It is for that reason that the Opposition supports this reference. However, it is appropriate that some matters should be brought to the attention of the House. On a number of occasions I have spoken about the privileges of this House, which all honourable members know I hold in very high
Page 354
regard. I therefore believe that those comments which were not made lightly previously should be drawn to the attention of the House. On 14 November 1996 in a debate in this House on a referral to the privileges committee I said:

As recently as 29 October the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics tabled in this Parliament a report on the issue of a code of conduct for members of Parliament. To that report the committee attached a draft code of conduct. Item 12.1 of that draft code of conduct, on the issue of freedom of speech within the Parliament, states:

Members should be mindful of the privileges conferred when speaking in the House and should seek to avoid causing undeserved harm to any individual who does not enjoy the same privileges.

That was an important tenet of that report, as honourable members will recall. That quotation traversed the issue of privileges of members conferred by the Bill of Rights. The observation of that committee was not embraced by either House of Parliament and did not subsequently form part of the code of conduct of the Parliament. In fact, the code of conduct makes no particular reference to the right of members to exercise that freedom conferred by the Bill of Rights. In that same speech on 14 November 1996 I also said:

An allegation of abuse of privilege is not something that should be lightly made. Whether or not there is an abuse of privilege is a matter for the House to determine and where there has been an allegation of abuse of privilege, that allegation should be examined and reported upon to the House.

I stand by that comment now. When the Government makes an allegation of abuse of privilege it should not be taken lightly and it should be examined. In that speech I urged the House to support the motion and I did so for two reasons. I said:

The Parliament has an obligation to ensure that the integrity of the royal commission is sustained . . .

The second issue is whether the forms of the House have been used to avoid criminal liability by a member having released into the public arena the identity of a person whose name has been suppressed by the royal commission.

I urge honourable members to look closely at that speech because it embodies the reasons why the Opposition urged a reference to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. Members of the House should also be referred to a speech that I made in support of the Attorney General on 1 July 1998. In that speech I commented on the freedom conferred on members of Parliament by the Bill of Rights. I said:

The Bill of Rights is the foundation stone upon which the concept of freedom of speech in Parliament is founded. It is the anchor that stabilises the power of the Parliament, the rights of members, and the protection afforded to the community through members exercising their freedom of speech. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights is fundamental to the operation of the Westminster system of Parliament, and therefore it is fundamental to the operation of this Parliament. No-one seeks to impugn the operation of that article. Under Article 9 members who come into this Parliament as elected representatives of the community are able to protect the community and use the Parliament to raise matters of concern.

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

But the rules of the Parliament also recognise that certain protections are to be afforded to the institution of Parliament - I use the term "Parliament" in its generic sense.

One of those protections is that if members wish to attack the Crown, other members of Parliament, or members of the judiciary, they must do so by way of substantive motion, which is debated. That framework has been laid down so that if a member proves an allegation against another member or a judicial officer, the only way the Parliament can act against that member or judicial officer is by a motion whose ultimate impact may be the removal of the member from Parliament or the judicial officer from office.

I then made the following comments:

This Parliament is unlike the United Kingdom Parliament, which can exercise disciplinary powers against members. This Parliament cannot punish a member of the Parliament, no matter what that member may have done. The only thing it can do is seek to protect its reputation by taking appropriate action, which is not punitive, against the member.

I then said:

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

The structure of the Bill of Rights produces a dichotomy in the method of dealing with the nature of the allegations and the members of the community against whom those allegations are raised. The Bill of Rights does not provide an ordinary citizen access to the Parliament to seek correction of an allegation made against that citizen.

I emphasise that point because this House subsequently, on 13 November 1997, gave a
Page 355
member of the community the right to place before the community a response to any allegation that may have been made within the House. Honourable members may recall that on 13 November 1997 we said that any person who has been referred to in the House by name or in such a way as to be readily identified may make a submission in writing to the President on any one or more of the following grounds: firstly, that he or she has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others; secondly, that he or she has been injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit; or, thirdly, that his or her privacy has been unreasonably invaded and requesting that he or she should be able to include an appropriate response in the parliamentary record.

I undertake this analysis because, to my recollection, this is the first time the House has referred a member of the House to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Ethics because that member made an allegation against a person in the community. Debates on a previous occasion indicate that we acted by referring matters to the privileges and ethics committee because they traduced a member of the judiciary and a member of Parliament in another place. We sought to protect the integrity of the Parliament and the institutions of the Legislature.

Members of this House may have wanted to debate the important issue of the Bill of Rights and whether members of Parliament who sought to exercise their right as a members of Parliament - in the way I have outlined in previous speeches and which I sustain here today - should in fact be referred to the privileges and ethics committee because they raised a matter in the Parliament that they believed to be in the public interest.

Because of the decision taken by the Government - and it is the Government that is making the allegation of an abuse of privilege - that is a matter that should in the circumstances be referred to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Ethics. However, I raise the issue of the Bill of Rights and the protection that members of Parliament have. I assume that the decision taken by the Leader of the House to refer this matter to the privileges and ethics committee was not taken lightly. I assume that the matter was considered by the Government, by Cabinet, and that a deliberate decision was made to make the reference. That having been done, the House should not lightly refuse that request by the Government.

Therefore, I am of the view - and I have urged my view upon my colleagues - that, consistent with that analysis, this reference should be made. The reference should be made because it involves the current Leader of the Opposition in the upper House and myself, a former leader, a person who held a position of responsibility in this House. I indicate that referring a member of the House to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Ethics in this way will establish a precedent. It is potentially an intimidatory approach taken by a government in relation to any matter that might be raised by any member at any time in the future.

I have undertaken this analysis for the reason that at some future time if a government, an opposition or any other member seeks to refer a member to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Ethics committee because he or she has raised a matter in the House, it may have to be looked at much more closely than I would urge on this occasion. As I said, on 13 November 1997 this House, on a motion moved by the former Minister, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, introduced a system under which members of the community are able to respond to issues raised in the Parliament. To the best of my knowledge no-one has sought to avail himself or herself of that particular right - except the Government, by sending the messenger to be judged.

The person the subject of this motion had a right, and still has the right, to respond in the Parliament, but has not exercised that right. As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones interjected, the Hon. Bob Walker exercised that right, as did the Hon. Terry Sheahan, with our support. It has happened before but it has not happened on this occasion. The committee may want to address one issue, namely, if the person concerned is a member of the public, and we are not seeking to protect the reputation of the Parliament as occurred in relation to the Franca Arena issue, what is the appropriate procedure that should be observed by the House? Only the Government can explain - I cannot explain it - why it has moved this motion at this time when the forms of the House have not been availed of by the person who may consider that he has been traduced. The Opposition supports the motion, but I move:

That the question be amended by inserting after paragraph 3 the following:

4 (a) That the committee be directed that if any witness summoned by or seeking to give evidence to the committee, other than a member of the Parliament, requests that their identity be protected or their evidence be given in camera, then the committee will agree to that request.

(b) The committee may publish evidence given by any witness who has requested that their name be suppressed provided that all information which might identify that witness has been removed.

Page 356

5. The House notes that it would be a contempt of Parliament to intimidate, harass or seek to deter a person from giving evidence and that it would be a contempt of Parliament to reveal the identity of the witness where a suppression order made under paragraph 4 has been made.

On proposed new paragraph 4, members of the House will understand that people who have been harassed or intimidated in the workplace are most reluctant to come forward and be identified as victims of harassment. Anybody who has had dealings with this issue at the Anti-Discrimination Board will know the trauma and difficulties that people have in coming forward. Some women, particularly married women, may not want their families to be aware that they have been through such an incident. People are concerned about their employment, either in their current workplace or any new workplace.

This presents a major difficulty for any woman who has been the victim of harassment. It is on the record that when allegations of harassment were made against Minister Terry Griffiths one woman came forward, but other women came forward when they heard that she was prepared to make the allegation and that others would be supported if they came forward. In this inquiry the House should send a message to people who have been victims that we are prepared to protect them because we understand the traumas and difficulties that such victims experience. The House should send a clear message about support in that environment.

The second paragraph relates to publishing evidence. The House knows that when committees report they normally report all the evidence that has been received except evidence taken in camera. Evidence taken in camera is held by the Clerk and is never published. Paragraph 4(a) deals with two categories: people who are prepared to give evidence in open hearing but want their identities suppressed; and people who wish to give evidence in camera. There is no difficulty with evidence given in camera; it is retained by the Clerk.

But evidence given in an open inquiry but where it is ordered that the identity of the witness be suppressed is normally tabled in the House. My paragraph 4 (b) proposes that the committee may publish that evidence. It would give to the committee the discretion which should be afforded to it as to whether it should publish. That matter should remain with the committee having regard to the information that it has gleaned. Without paragraph 4 (b) the normal rules of the House would require that all evidence in an open hearing, even though subject to a suppression order, should be tabled. In these matters the committee should have that discretion.

Paragraph 5 relates to the contempt of Parliament. It may be that members of the House will take the view that we are restating the obvious. But this is a sensitive matter. It is precedent setting. Therefore the House, by way of paragraph 5, should note that the Parliament jealously guards its privileges and particularly the protection of witnesses. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, Twenty-second Edition states, at pages 126 and 127:

Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.

It is also a contempt to molest any person attending either House as witnesses, during their attendance in such House or committee.

It goes on to state:

On the same principle, molestation of or threats against those who have previously given evidence before either House or a committee shall be treated by the House concerned as a contempt.

Further it says:

A resolution setting out that to tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either House or any committee of either House or to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege . . .

Such a motion has been agreed to by the House of Commons at the beginning of every session since 1900. I emphasise that because it was done previously by resolution. In the past there have been numerous incidences of punishment for such offences. To avoid any confusion in relation to our powers -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: There is no confusion.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I believe that there is no confusion but I think that we should restate it clearly. It is a practice in dealing with these matters and witnesses that needs to be restated. The House may recall that this issue has been raised twice in the last four years. It arose first in regard to the Director of Public Prosecutions being called to give evidence in an inquiry into the mandatory life sentences legislation. It was also raised in relation to an allegation of intimidation of a witness before a committee by the Hon. Dr Refshauge, who was subsequently cleared of the allegation.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: There was also a finding of not guilty in relation to the first example.

Page 357

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That is correct. I raise the issue because some people may say that nobody would intimidate witnesses. It is farcical. We know that it can happen. It certainly has occurred in the United Kingdom. As I have said to the House before, I am very jealous of the powers and privileges of this House. Our position should be clear in relation to them and we should be prepared to reassert them on all occasions. The motion should be supported, and I urge the House to support each paragraph of my amendment.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.06 p.m.]: The Government is not minded to support the amendment the Hon. J. P. Hannaford has moved.

[Interruption]

Madam President, I would like to be heard in reasonable silence. I know that the Opposition has its problems but I would like to express my critique of the amendment as clearly and simply as I can. In relation to proposed paragraph 4 (a), that amounts to an absolute direction to the committee on a procedural matter. I do not know of any precedent for that. The House would be dictating to the committee in relation to procedure and, in effect, requiring the committee to hear evidence in camera or protect an identity whenever a request were made.

My submission would be that that should be left to the committee to decide on a case-by-case basis. I concede that there may be a request properly made and circumstances in which the committee is minded to grant the request to protect the identity of the witness or to hear the evidence in camera. But similarly and by parity of argument one can contemplate that there might be a request that the committee does not find persuasive and is not attracted to. In other words, these matters have to be determined and ought to be determined by the committee in the exercise of its discretion based upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, based upon the grounds on which the request is advanced to the committee.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You can always go back to the House and ask again.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: That is a completely unsatisfactory proposition. The idea of the committee returning to the House ad hoc is absurd. The ordinary processes of these committees ought to be preserved. In my submission there is no ground to intervene by way of a mandatory direction to the committee in this case. It ought to be left to the good sense of the committee to determine these matters depending upon the nature of the request and the grounds put forward in support of that request. I understand the difficulties that witnesses sometimes have appearing in a court or before a parliamentary committee. Those difficulties can be taken into account by the tribunal, and regularly are in our courts.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You just want to scare them off.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: That is an absolutely ridiculous and untoward suggestion and I resent it. In so far as it is intended to reflect upon my motives it is absolute nonsense. My advice from the Clerks is that paragraph 4 (b) is unnecessary; that the committee has the discretion to publish evidence given by a witness but to decline to identify the particular witness. I do not believe that is necessary. The provision may tend to confuse the committee and may be seen as some kind of indicator or direction, rather than something that is necessary. If we were to set out every procedural issue that already exists in the discretion and jurisdiction of the committee, we would have an extremely voluminous document.

I agree that paragraph 5 accurately states the legal position in relation to contempt of Parliament. However, I do not believe it is necessary to set it out. The paragraph, in its drafting and content, reflects a proper exposition of the principle, but it is otiose in the context of this matter. For what it is worth, I have put on the record - as has the Hon. J. P. Hannaford and perhaps others in the debate - my view that that represents the position. I do not particularly see the utility of it being part of a resolution.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.11 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford, which I understand simply restates the procedures of committees. Although a committee must follow procedures, a direction of the House would give it weight. I disagree with the Attorney General that the House is interfering with committee practices. In this case, if the House issued a direction to the committee, the committee would have no choice; it would not have the discretion to decide what it can and cannot do. In this case, because of the subject matter, it is only fair that witnesses should be reassured that they will be protected.

Many people who are not members of Parliament, and therefore not familiar with committee procedures, would not understand that
Page 358
they will be protected if the committee so desires - but the committee has the discretion to make that decision. As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics I would have done that. However, I am not sure that others would. I support the Government’s motion. I disqualify myself as Chair of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics until the conclusion of this inquiry. Standing Order 238 reads:

No Member shall sit on a Select Committee who shall be pecuniarily interested in the inquiry before such Committee.

However, the standing order provides that a member may not sit on a committee where the member has a financial interest in the subject of the inquiry before the committee. The standing orders do not make any provision in relation to non-financial conflicts of interest. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, Twenty-second Edition states, at page 631:

In the nomination of Members to serve on select committees neither the House, nor . . . the Committee of Selection, is bound to consider whether Members are personally interested in the matter . . . referred to the committee. But it is not the practice for a member of a select committee to take part in any inquiry while the affairs of any body in which he has a direct personal interest are under investigation.

Senate Standing Order 27(5) provides that a senator shall not sit on a committee if the senator has a conflict of interest in relation to the inquiry of the committee. However, there is no precedent of the Senate enforcing this rule by removing a chairman or member of a committee or disagreeing with an appointment. On the other hand, at times it has been suggested that a senator should not serve on a committee because of a perceived bias. Because my husband, Robert Ho, has just been elected to Sydney City Council, and to avoid the suggestion of bias, I asked the Leader of the House to replace me on the committee during this inquiry so that the propriety of the committee is preserved and there is complete impartiality. I believe that the House should agree to conduct this inquiry, and I wish to stand aside so that the inquiry can proceed.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.15 p.m.]: I support the motion and also the amendments moved by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford. I say from the outset that I am extremely disappointed in the attitude of the Attorney General and the Government towards open and accountable Parliament. Once again they are setting their course towards ensuring that people do not have an opportunity to put all the facts before the Parliament. I speak confidently in support of the motion. If the Government prevents the passage of these amendments it will destroy any opportunity that the Hon. J. P. Hannaford and I have to defend ourselves.

The Attorney General wants us to appear before the committee, but he and the Government will put as many obstacles in the way as they possibly can to ensure that we cannot bring witnesses who will give evidence confident that their lives and positions will not be destroyed as a result. The Government is committed to one thing - destroying the Hon. J. P. Hannaford and me. And in doing so it will throw the right to justice out the window. As the Hon. J. P. Hannaford said today, the Government has set an ugly precedent that could affect each and every one of us in the future.

Integrity is paramount. It is something that I have maintained, and I believe quite confidently, for my entire adult life. But just as integrity is important, so is the right to stand up for what I believe to be true and correct, no matter how unsavoury or controversial my position or my views may be. As long as I maintain my integrity and principles, and as long as I do so in the public interest, I know I can do no wrong. In this case I believe that I have done no wrong, because I believe sincerely that what I have done and what I have said is, and will be revealed in the course of this inquiry to be, completely true.

I look forward to giving evidence to this parliamentary inquiry, and I will do so without fear or concern. It will give me an opportunity to clear my name. As the old saying goes, innocent people have nothing to hide. The evidence I give will show that I have absolutely nothing to hide. The amendments moved by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford would protect individuals who are currently considering whether they will be destroyed if they give evidence.

I note the presence in the gallery of members of the media. I have been told in the past 48 hours or more that they themselves have received telephone calls from individuals who equally are concerned about what has been raised in this Parliament. They equally are concerned that their views about what has happened to them, or what they believe has happened to them, may or may not be heard in the course of this inquiry as it currently stands. The amendment put forward by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford, the Opposition firmly believes, will provide protection for those individuals who wish to come forward.

In 1994-95 I worked as an investigator with the Equal Employment Opportunities branch of the New South Wales Police Service. One of my jobs there was the investigation of sex-based harassment
Page 359
allegations. I am proud to say that, as a result of the investigations that I conducted, through my involvement with the police Internal Affairs Branch, I recommended that a number of police officers be charged with sex-based harassment matters. I saw the effect that this issue had in the workplace. Unfortunately, often these issues are seen as some sort of joke by many people in the community.

The effect on individuals, in particular women - who are, by virtue of their lack of power, stripped of any opportunity to stand up against their harassers, against the perpetrators - basically is that they are condemned to absolute and abject misery whilst in the particular occupation. I have seen it first-hand. I know the effect that it has on women who are the subject of such harassment, and I despise those who conduct themselves in that way. The Attorney General said that the protections I speak of are already provided for and that the amendment put forward by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford is not necessary. Neither I am nor members of the public are convinced of that.

This House must give an assurance that this procedure is not simply a case of the Government using whatever mechanism is available to it to stymie once and for all any member of this Chamber or indeed another place who would come forward with serious allegations that they believe to be true. We cannot allow that to happen. The reporting of the debate that is taking place on this matter is extremely important. It is extremely important that community members know from this debate that those who want the protection of the Parliament can come forward, irrespective of their position in the community, with complete and utter confidence.

I am concerned that defeat of the amendment moved by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford could quite easily be regarded as a barrier to intimidate women who are currently considering their options. Those who have spoken to members of the Opposition - anonymously at this stage - and, as I alluded to earlier, to members of the media, know that this amendment will protect them. It will give them the confidence to come forward. As I said at the outset, I believe this will be the vehicle that will put to rest any doubt about this matter. It will enable honourable members to have confidence that what I and indeed the Hon. J. P. Hannaford have said in this House is completely and totally true.

This amendment is purely to protect witnesses. I believe the Government is being quite underhanded in saying that those protections already exist. If they are already there, as the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said earlier, the amendment will simply put the protection measures in concrete regarding the committee’s powers, responsibilities and rights. More importantly, the amendment puts in concrete the rights of, and protective measures for, those who wish to come forward. I ask crossbench members to consider the amendment of the Hon. J. P. Hannaford.

The amendment, if properly implemented by the committee, will ensure that it is not a kangaroo court. It will assure the community that the Parliament is serious about hearing from the Opposition, and in particular from the Hon. J. P. Hannaford and me about our position in relation to this matter. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said that she would stand down from the committee. The Hon. J. P. Hannaford, who also is a member of that committee, will no doubt inform the House in the course of this debate that he, too, will stand down from the committee.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.25 p.m.]: I must protest about the honourable member’s statement that the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics could possibly be a kangaroo court. In the many years that I served on the committee it was never a kangaroo court, even though it was made up of diverse members of this House. Very often its reports were unanimous. Members of the committee worked very well together. There is no way it would be a kangaroo court anyway.

The amendment of the Hon. J. P. Hannaford to the motion before the House does not really add that much. It merely restates the already existing position. The committee undoubtedly would not publish the names of people if it felt that to do so would damage the people who give evidence. Nothing in the amendment will change the existing position. Therefore the amendment, though not harmful, does not add anything to the reference. I believe witnesses already have the required protection.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.26 p.m.]: I oppose the amendment moved by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford. The amendment seeks, in effect, to take from the committee the power to determine when, and what, in camera evidence should be taken and places that power in the hands of the witness. The amendment also proposes that the committee will be in contempt of Parliament if it intimidates, harasses or seeks to deter a person from giving evidence. I strongly oppose the amendment proposals because they go beyond the normal framework of a parliamentary committee, particularly committees that this House has established.

Page 360

Central to the framework of the committee system is the power of the committee to conduct its own business. It is the right of the witness, as I will detail, to seek certain things. But it is the committee that has the power to determine what procedure should be followed. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, twenty-second edition, at page 651, on the question of in camera evidence or taking evidence without the public being present, states:

However, a witness who is unwilling to answer a question, after stating why he desires to be excused from answering, may appeal to the chair whether in the circumstances, or for the reason stated by him, he ought to answer. Where evidence is taken in private, a witness may also request that the whole or part of his evidence should not be published.

At page 657 Erskine May states:

Where a witness considers that the publication of his evidence given in private to a select committee or part of it would be prejudicial to the public interest or injurious to character, or would disclose matters of commercial confidentiality, or would be undesirable on similar grounds, he may request that the evidence in question should not be published; and the committee at its discretion may refrain from reporting that evidence to the House or may report such summary of the evidence as appears necessary in order to present the grounds of its conclusions to the House.

Therefore the committee makes the determination as to whether evidence should be published. The procedural briefing note on committees taking evidence in camera as opposed to taking evidence in private states:

However, there may be occasions when a committee decides to close the hearing to the public.

Further, the briefing note states:

The power to exclude the public is found in Standing Order 250 which states that "when a Select Committee is examining Witnesses or deliberating, Strangers may be excluded at the request of any Member, or at the discretion of the Chairman".

Also, it states:

At its discretion, the committee may refrain from reporting that evidence to the House or may report such summary of the evidence as appears necessary in order to present the grounds of its conclusion to the House.

The procedural briefing note later states:

The House would still have the power to order that the evidence be laid before it.

Under both Federal and State procedures it is the role of the committee to determine the conduct of its business, not the role of witnesses. Further, the House may overturn the committee’s decision. Although the committee may make a decision to take evidence in camera and not publish or report the evidence to the House, the House can decide that the evidence be published.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford seeks to overturn 100 years of practice in this Chamber and in every other parliament in Australia. He seeks to implement a subtle change by transferring from the committee to the witness the right to decide whether evidence is heard in camera. That fundamentally flawed process should not be followed in this or in any other case. We should not set a scenario whereby if witnesses in any matter request that their evidence be heard in camera, their request must be agreed to by the committee.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It normally is.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: It has been the practice of committees to make that decision. The decision is at the discretion of the committee or its chair, not at the discretion of the witness. The Hon. J. P. Hannaford is trying to change the rules of the game by setting a precedent. His amendment seeks that the committee must agree to a request from witnesses that their evidence not be heard in public. Paragraph 4 (a) states:

. . . requests that their identity be protected or their evidence be given in camera, then the committee will agree to that request.

That is the hub of the matter. During the years that I have sat on many committees of this House I cannot think of one occasion when a committee did not agree to a request for evidence to be heard in camera. Committees generally agree to such a request. However, in some circumstances a committee may not want to agree.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Give us an example.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: Someone might come to the committee and say nasty things about the National Party.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Stop saying silly things.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I am not saying silly things. The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely outrageous. He was outrageous last week, and now he will be brought to account. This amendment seeks to take away the power of the committee to determine the conduct of its proceedings and place it in the hands of witnesses. That is contrary to the precedents and procedures of the Federal Parliament, both Houses of this Parliament and our joint committees.

Page 361

The fact that committees generally agree to a request to hear evidence in camera is irrelevant. The power has to remain with the committee to make that determination. Otherwise, any framework of questioning could be set. The committee should continue to have the power to make that decision based on the standing orders. It is clear from Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice and our procedural briefing note on the evidence of witnesses that the committee, and the Parliament in its overarching power - not witnesses - should determine whether evidence is heard in camera. Under our procedures witnesses make a request and the committee, in its wisdom, determines whether the protection of in camera evidence is granted. That procedure, which has been in practice for many years, should be adhered to.

Paragraph 5 of the amendment is a non sequitur, because the law already states that severe penalties apply in respect of harassing a witness. Therefore, paragraph 5 is unnecessary. The Opposition is trying to hide the fact that its Leader in the other House has made a terrible mistake, as the former Leader of the Opposition has said, and is backtracking. The Opposition should not backtrack by trying to change the time-honoured practice that has applied to committees, of giving them the power to determine whether evidence is given in camera. The decision to make such a determination is a committee’s right and responsibility, and that is the way it should stay.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.37 p.m.]: While this amendment deserves support, I seek clarification of the ramifications of paragraph 4 (b). My understanding of what the Hon. J. P. Hannaford said when he moved the amendment is that paragraph 4 (b) may be in conflict with the principles laid down in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice at page 126 about deterring or hindering witnesses from giving evidence. It is my belief that if it were made public knowledge that evidence could be published, unskilled witnesses, ordinary people, might feel that despite attempts to delete from their evidence all reference to their identity it might still be possible to identify them. That might deter them from coming forward and giving evidence.

Beyond that, I seek clarification of an even more important matter. The motion seeks to refer this matter to the privilege and ethics committee, which would mean that the committee has to decide whether the Opposition had justification for its statements on Wednesday 9 September. The Leader of the Opposition in this House said that there may be women who are considering whether they will come forward. If they had not come forward by last Wednesday, would whatever evidence they are now able to produce to the committee substantiate the Opposition’s position? The Opposition clearly could not have had that evidence in place at the time it made its statements. I would like to know if the reference to the committee is narrow enough to exclude later witnesses and whether paragraph 4 (b) could be seen as deterring witnesses from coming forward. Subject to that clarification of paragraph 4 (b), the amendment should be supported.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.40 p.m.]: I support the amendment. Recently the Opposition has been criticised, but I hope that the media reports on today’s parliamentary proceedings will say that the Government has lost touch with reality. I will not talk in legalese, as the Attorney General did, or about precedents, as the Hon. I. M. Macdonald did, to justify the Government’s position in this matter, but I will talk about the reality of the people concerned, as referred to by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho.

The women who will appear as witnesses will tell stories about sexual harassment. For most people, and particularly people who have experienced it, sexual harassment is distasteful. Victims often feel ashamed and guilty and will always be troubled by sexual harassment. In recent days we have heard about women talking to my colleagues on the telephone. We have heard women speak of other women who have tried to forget about something in the past that arose in the course of their employment

The Opposition asks that women who find it difficult to tell their stories and who are scared about their current job and their future employment come forward as witnesses. It is difficult for these women to tell their stories, and that is why for so long issues of sexual harassment and domestic violence have been swept under the carpet. Unless it is quite clearly stated by this Parliament today that women can come forward with complete anonymity and give their evidence in camera before the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, women who want to appear as witnesses will feel intimidated and not confident to speak up - and once again significant sexual harassment issues will be swept aside.

It takes courage to speak about those issues. It will take courage for witnesses to come forward, but all women will be done a grave disservice if this House does not clearly endorse the amendment of the Hon. J. P. Hannaford. We should be able to say to potential witnesses that they can come forward with confidence and have the protection of giving
Page 362
their evidence in camera. This is not, as the Attorney General said, something the committee should consider on a case-by-case analysis.

We want women to know in advance and to feel confident that they can come forward. The Coalition has had telephone conversations on many occasions with some of these women. The Opposition knows that the women have been scared to talk about this issue but that, if given the protection of the committee, they will come forward. Today the Coalition wants the media to convey the message that the Government has lost touch with reality, that it is not interested in protecting women but is clearly interested in protecting someone else. The Opposition wants women to know that this House considers it is vitally important that they have an opportunity to come forward with the certain knowledge that their identity will be protected. I urge the House to support the amendment.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [3.44 p.m.]: I definitely support the amendment. I am not an academic, a solicitor or a barrister, but I am a woman. I believe that any woman who has been sexually harassed - and I know of some - will not come forward, let alone enter the portals of this honoured place to give evidence, because from the moment they are asked to give evidence they will turn into a blob of jelly. Men do not understand how women feel. I guarantee that there will be a majority of men on the committee, and that they will not have a clue about the feelings of the woman who is being asked question after question.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald does not know anything about women’s feelings. He said that women do not need to have the protection the amendment would provide when they come before the committee and that it will be up to the committee to give them the protection. Women will come forward if they know that they will be protected and that their evidence will be anonymous. The amendment will not do any harm; on the contrary, it will result in women coming forward.

The Opposition said that the women have families and children, they are in the workplace, and they know that if they come forward to give evidence they will be ridiculed and could well lose their jobs. As a man, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald knows absolutely nothing about women. Male members should know a lot of things about women but they do not. They should read a book about women and their emotions. I recall that a male member of this Chamber was attacked and brutalised.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Who?

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: The Hon. I. M. Macdonald knows him, and should not pretend that he does not. That man was deeply affected by the attack. When a woman receives an unwelcome touch by a man, that really sends a feeling of revulsion through her whole being. It affects her relationships with every other male because she is not sure whether she will be harassed. As a human being, let alone as a male, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald should give women the protection of this amendment. Sometimes some men lose feelings of understanding, and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald ought to read a book about women. I will definitely support the amendment.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [3.47 p.m.]: I support the amendment of the Hon. J. P. Hannaford. As the Hon. Elaine Nile said, it would give the committee the power to allow women to speak up. As a general practitioner, as somebody who has been a counsellor doctor and a community worker, I know it is difficult for witnesses, particularly women, to come forward. As a general practitioner and community worker I also know it is difficult for women who are victims of domestic violence to come forward. It is difficult enough for those women as it is, but even more so if their names are published. This House has to ensure in every way that the truth comes out. I fully agree with the Hon. Elaine Nile that the Hon. I. M. Macdonald does not understand the issue at all.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.48 p.m.]: I urge the Government to support the amendment moved by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford. If the amendment is defeated the Opposition could then claim that that is why witnesses will not appear or give evidence before the committee, and that that prevents a full and open inquiry into the allegations made by the Opposition.

Therefore the Government should support the amendment. All the members of the Government who have opposed the amendment said they want to follow the normal committee procedures. They said that there is nothing unique in the straightforward amendment. I do not see it as a precedent for other committees to change the rules. The privileges committee has to deal with the sensitive issue of sexual harassment, and it is important that potential witnesses know in advance that they will have full protection and that their requests for anonymity will not be refused. We do not anticipate the request being refused, but a witness may be fearful that his or her request could be refused, and therefore not appear, or be reluctant to speak openly to the committee.

Page 363

Witnesses want to ensure they have the confidentiality of being heard in camera and having their name suppressed if the committee agrees to publish the evidence. Witnesses may not particularly want their evidence to be published, but confidentiality will give them further confidence to give evidence and to be frank and truthful before the committee. In the past I have been involved in debates on these issues and I have been involved with the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics in establishing the procedure to be followed by a member of the public who has been falsely or wrongly accused of something by a member of this House.

A right of reply procedure is now in place and it has worked. I would prefer that that procedure be followed in this case. The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Mr Sartor, could avail himself of the right of reply and prepare a statement which, judging by his published statements, would completely refute what has been alleged in this House. That statement would be published in Hansard and neutralise whatever damage has been done by the allegations about his activities if they were not valid, and the media would have access to his statement and publish it under parliamentary privilege.

The new procedure was introduced for cases such as the one we are now debating. However, we have obviously gone past that point. Judging by the statements made by Opposition members, they feel honour bound to support the motion to set up an inquiry. However, in so doing, they rightly believe that some rules should be established in advance for the inquiry because it is unusual to have the Leader of the Opposition and a former Leader of the Opposition brought before the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. They have a right to move an amendment to the Government’s motion, which they have done, to lay down some ground rules before the committee starts its hearing.

Although all members of the committee will seek to be fair and open, we know that the Government has a majority on the committee, and Government members of the committee may vote that a witness will not be heard in camera and/or that the name of a witness can be published. I do not know anyone involved in this case, and I do not know whether the allegations are false or true. We have only heard the statements in this House. It is obvious to persons observing this debate that witnesses who may come forward may still be employed by Sydney City Council and could be in sensitive positions. That is unusual in matters of privilege.

Therefore, it is essential that the ground rules of the inquiry be laid down by the House, as intended by the Opposition with its amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, it is in the Government’s best interests to support the amendment so that the hearing can proceed and so that Opposition members cannot say at some point, "Our witnesses will not appear because you didn’t give them protection." If the witnesses are given protection, Opposition members must produce the evidence to support their questions in the House last week.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.53 p.m.], in reply: The argument just advanced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is very compelling. I would hate to give Opposition members any grounds for saying that somehow or other they were put at a disadvantage because the amendment was defeated. Of course, the arguments put to the House earlier by the Attorney General and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald are valid, but notwithstanding their validity I do not intend to give the Opposition one inch on this matter. When the amendment is put, I suspect that the House will carry it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Debate resumed from 8 September.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [3.55 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I congratulate and thank the Governor and Mrs Samuels for their participation in the opening of State Parliament. The Opposition will be doing its best to fulfil its responsibilities in considering the program of legislation the Governor outlined in his Speech. It is probably an appropriate time to reflect on an important milestone in the history of this House, which was reached during the break in parliamentary sittings. The date 25 August 1999 marked the 175th anniversary of the first meeting of the New South Wales Legislative Council, making this House one of the oldest parliamentary institutions in the world.

The Legislative Council was established in 1823 by the Judiciary Act of the British Parliament. The Act created a seven-member body of appointed colonial officials to advise the Governor in making laws for the peace, welfare and good government of
Page 364
the colony. Although established by law in 1823, the first meeting of the Legislative Council did not take place until it was convened by Governor Sir Thomas Brisbane in the first Government House at Bridge Street on 25 August 1824 - 175 years ago. The Legislative Council usually met in Government House or at the home of the chief justice, in Bent Street.

The arrangements for the Legislative Council still gave the Governor enormous power. The Governor could choose which matters were discussed in the Legislative Council, its proceedings were secret, and its powers were only advisory. I suspect that from time to time the Government would like this House to have a similar role today. At that time legislation still had to be certified by the British Parliament as acceptable to British law. The same Act of Parliament also initiated an important curb on the powers of the Governor. Local laws could be disallowed by the chief justice if they were deemed to be incompatible with British law.

I am sure it will interest honourable members that only two years later those very powers were used to thwart an attempt by Governor Ralph Darling to curb the freedom of the colony’s then very critical press. At that time the chief justice disallowed a proposed scheme for newspapers, which included a heavy tax of four pence per copy. The existence of the Legislative Council for 175 years is a wonderful achievement. It is a pity that the event was not celebrated with a little more festivity. However the tabloid press might betray our democratic institutions, they are a substantial achievement in which we can all take pride.

I suspect that events overseas have taught us time and time again how valuable, precious and fragile our parliamentary democracy is. No doubt our parliamentary democracy is an essential ingredient in how the very shaky convict colony of New South Wales enjoyed such peace and stability throughout its history, allowing it to become the powerhouse of economic prosperity it is today.

It will have come to the notice of honourable members and the community generally that my party is finally getting out of an expected phase of introspection after the outcome of the State election. We have taken notice of the fairly strong medicine that was delivered to us at the March State election. We have acknowledged the magnitude of the defeat, we have studied its causes and we are in the process of initiating our recovery.

We have finished dusting ourselves off and we are coming out fighting. Over the break and over the parliamentary session the parliamentary Liberal Party - I suspect it was true of the National Party also - met a number of times to consider its future directions and policies on current issues. We intend to be a vigorous opposition over the next four years and will examine closely the program of legislation which the Government is putting before us and which was announced by the Governor in his Speech to the House at the opening of Parliament. I assure members opposite that members on this side are finished with the business of examining ourselves. We are now about to get on with the business of examining them and making sure that good government is delivered for the people of New South Wales.

We believe that we will be in a position in the next four years to win government at our next chance. We are addressing the issues which caused us to lose the last election and have no doubt that we will stand together vigorously and united. We will make sure that we have policies that excite the people of New South Wales and convince them to regard us as better governors of this State than the members opposite. I notice that the Carr Government congratulated itself during the Governor’s Speech on the current level of economic prosperity in this State.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question is to the Treasurer, and Leader of the Government. Why was a representative of Anthony’s Furniture Repair Shop of 112 Ashford Avenue, Milperra, instructed by a member of staff "not to allow access to the chairs under any circumstances", the same chairs as those broken during a function hosted by the President? Why has your Government continued to deny any knowledge of the chairs? Why was a statement made that no chairs had been damaged since the Hon. Meredith Burgmann became President when at this very moment antique parliamentary chairs are in Anthony’s Furniture Repair Shop at Milperra awaiting repair?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have absolutely no knowledge of the matter which the Leader of the Opposition referred to. I have never heard of Anthony’s furniture whatever. I have never been there. I do not know any of the staff. I have no idea what the honourable member is talking about.

Page 365

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: My question is to the Attorney General. What kinds of projects has the Safer Communities Development Fund supported?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Safer Communities Development Fund is administered by the crime prevention division of the Attorney General’s Department. It provides a number of different grants that I am sure honourable members will be interested in. One can obtain grants to support the implementation of local crime prevention plans and associated initiatives; to establish an operational area under the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997; or for innovative projects in crime prevention.

A range of exciting crime prevention programs and resources has been established as a result of the fund’s allocation of innovative grants. They include a three-year pilot project on mentoring for young people who have had a brush with the law. Young people aged between 12 and 17 who have received a caution or been referred to participate in a youth justice conference under the terms of the Young Offenders Act may be eligible to receive mentoring support through this pilot program.

Evidence is emerging from the United States and Britain that mentoring can have a significant impact on improving the skills and social circumstances of young people who lack good adult role models in their lives. In the United States of America studies have indicated that a mentoring relationship can help the young person to do better at school, can reduce the likelihood that young people will experiment with drugs or become involved in violence, and can improve young people’s relationships with their families and peers.

The One2One project is being trialled in the Parramatta and Coffs Harbour areas. Funds of nearly $300,000 are being provided by the crime prevention division of the Attorney General’s Department and the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Young Women’s Christian Association, which has considerable experience in running mentoring programs, will be conducting the projects, working closely with the Police Service, the Youth Justice Conferencing Directorate and local non-government organisations and service agencies. The project is also being independently evaluated to determine its usefulness as a crime prevention program in New South Wales and whether it should be expanded to other parts of the State. When I launched the project at Parramatta in recent weeks there was considerable local enthusiasm for it and its potential benefits.

The division has also funded a project to provide mentoring support to young unemployed people at Waterloo. Unemployment and poverty are clear risk factors for continuing involvement in crime. The project aims to assist young people about to leave school to establish and maintain links with further education and employment opportunities in a community in which such links are not often strongly established. Ashfield council’s Deterring Youth Crime Through Policy Development project developed a manual for local government which provided information and advice about the use of local government policy and services to reduce and prevent youth crime. The manual was distributed to every council in New South Wales.

The Byron Bay Community Safety Committee’s Safe Celebrations video highlighted a range of strategies employed in Byron Bay to effectively reduce the harm that may be experienced by young people at special events and celebrations. A youth anti-violence project in the Bega Valley aims to reduce young people’s involvement in violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence, as both victims and perpetrators, by fostering dialogue between young people and the range of services in the community. The consultation program will lead to the integration and co-ordination of services to prevent youth involvement in violence.

There has been a study of alcohol related and drug related youth crime in Orange. The study will allow for the development of specific strategies and projects to target those factors which lead young people into alcohol and other drug misuse and then into criminal behaviour linked to that misuse. Other examples exist in south-western Sydney, Coonamble and south Sydney. There is the Samaritan Foundation’s Help Increase the Peace project in the Newcastle area. Four Aboriginal night patrol projects are being funded in Kempsey, Forster, Narrandera and Dareton to assist Aboriginal communities to ensure the safety of their young people in public places late at night. The patrols transport vulnerable young people back to their homes or to another safe place.

These are positive and innovative programs. I am pleased that the crime prevention division adopts a creative and positive approach to the reduction of crime. Punishment is necessary but it is not the be-all and end-all. Crime prevention strategies can assist and can work. Sensible members of the House will support those kinds of innovations.

Page 366

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: In view of the Attorney General’s answer to the previous question, is he aware of the massive increase in HIV transmission reported from Vancouver, where needle and syringe distribution was restricted in the early to mid-1990s? Can the Attorney inform the House whether those sections of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1995 dealing with self-administration have the effect of discouraging people from using the needle and syringe exchange program for fear of detention by police and of their eventual incarceration by the courts? In view of the situation in Canada, can the Attorney General also inform the House whether repealing those sections of the Act would lessen the potential for having a similar outbreak of HIV among drug users in New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I regret that I am not aware of data from Canada about increases in the extent of HIV transmission. If the honourable member provides me with any such information I will read it with interest. I would appreciate knowing about that. I gather from the honourable member’s question that it is suggested that in Vancouver a deliberate policy was taken of restricting the needle exchange program. I do not believe that there is any equivalent policy operating in New South Wales. The needle exchange program has now been in place for some considerable time. My understanding is that a regulation has been made under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act - indeed, I think it was made during the time of the previous Coalition Government - which, as a matter of law, facilitates that needle exchange program.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: It tends to be needle distribution, rather than needle exchange.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Hon. J. M. Samios points out that the term is "needle distribution", rather than "needle exchange". Be that as it may, this is a program of long standing - established I think, under the Coalition Government, although I stand to be corrected on that point.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is needle exchange then?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Yes, it is a needle exchange program. I understand the program is facilitated by a regulation made under the drug misuse and trafficking legislation. My immediate response to the honourable member is that I do not think the same policy restrictions or changes are evident here in New South Wales as apparently occurred in Vancouver. So that the data from Vancouver, whilst interesting, would not be determinative of the position or effectiveness of the program in New South Wales. Nonetheless, I would be happy to look at any material the honourable member wishes to provide in that respect.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Attorney aware that the go-slows at the Department of Gaming and Racing are jeopardising the operation of bars at country shows and fundraising events? Is he aware also that industry associations are being burdened with inquiries seeking advice that is actually in the province of the department? As Minister for Industrial Relations, when is he going to resolve this dispute?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: In relation to public sector disputation, the Department of Industrial Relations provides, as it has over many years, an advisory role when and if it is asked. If I am asked to take an active role in the resolution of that dispute, I will do my utmost to resolve it. However, to the best of my knowledge at present, I have not been involved in the particular industrial dispute to which the honourable member refers.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister advise the House of the Carr Government’s fantastic action in protecting jobs at Bellambi West Colliery near Wollongong - unlike the Federal Government, who is prepared to throw workers to the wolves?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Allied Meridian, the owners of Bellambi West Colliery near Wollongong, were placed into voluntary administration on 28 July this year. The company owed this Government $880,000 in royalties from the last month’s production before administration, 140 jobs were at stake and exports were at stake - not to mention the effect on families, the local economy and the community generally.

Although it was proposed that a new company be established to operate the mine, this Government was initially offered only 1.32˘ in the dollar on outstanding royalties. That was an insult! For a debt
Page 367
of $880,000 the administrator offered approximately $12,000. In addition, $220,000 worth of workers’ entitlements were not up to date. In the face of this unacceptable situation, the Government seriously considered cancelling the lease, unless the company could give assurances. At the same time, I received strong representations from Bruce Watson, of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and my colleague the honourable member for Keira. They sought a way to preserve Illawarra jobs and protect throughput at the Port Kembla coal loader.

I am pleased to announce today that after a tough stand by the Carr Government we have saved the 140 jobs at Bellambi West Colliery. We now look forward initially to nine months production of export thermal and coking coal at a rate of 800,000 tonnes a year to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan through the Port Kembla port. This may possibly be extended to three years if the company can agree to access to a further two years worth of reserves which are presently being negotiated.

The Government has secured an agreement to pay $220,000 in outstanding workers’ entitlements. This will be paid into a trust account in two quarterly instalments. We have secured an agreement to put workers’ future entitlements into a trust fund. We have secured 43˘ in the dollar on outstanding royalty payments to the Government, which amounts to $387,000 - instead of the paltry 1.32˘ initially offered, which amounted to about $12,000.

Last night we received a cheque for $200,000. We will receive the remainder, that is $187,000, when existing coal stocks are sold. In addition, this Government will have priority over funds from the sale of coal to protect future royalties. Today’s announcement sends a clear message that the Carr Government will not roll over quietly when it comes to protecting royalties and workers’ entitlements. It is an excellent result all round for both the workers and the community.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister or his department received a report entitled "Quality Management for Methadone Maintenance Treatment", by Dr Lionel Wilson? If he has received the report, does the Minister intend to release it or make it available to all members of Parliament? If so, when will the report be released? If not, why not?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Unfortunately, I am not conversant with the details that the Hon. J. S. Tingle seeks, but I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain a reply.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. I refer to an article in the "Title Deeds" segment of the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 July which advised that "Ahlan", a property at Hunters Hill, which was said to be owned by the Minister and his wife, was listed for tender. As the Minister’s pecuniary interest declaration to Parliament makes no mention of his ownership of any real property, particularly in Lebanon, which is correct - the Minister’s pecuniary interest declaration or the "Title Deeds" segment of the Sydney Morning Herald?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe has not done her research. All she had to do was to look at the title. If she is so keen to know about my affairs, I suggest that she look at the title. The property has been in my wife’s name since 1984.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer update the House on the progress of the Australian Technology Showcase?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As the House is aware, the Australian Technology Showcase was set up a little over 18 months ago to promote the best of locally developed technology to the rest of the world in the lead-up to the 2000 Games. Last week I had the pleasure of welcoming the latest 32 companies into the showcase. We now have 126 companies, 39 from regional New South Wales, with 137 of the world’s best technologies being promoted to the world through the Australian Technology Showcase.

As reluctant as I am to single out any of the new companies, it is the best way for the House to get a sense of the type of innovation that is happening across the State. Let me mention just three. Syd Howard Fireworks International is the company responsible for the magnificent New Year pyrotechnic displays that have lit up Sydney
Page 368
Harbour over the past few years. I am told that the company is the first to use a computer to link fireworks to other audiovisual elements. This has taken pyrotechnic displays to new levels of sophistication.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Why don’t you have fireworks in Crookwell on New Year’s Eve?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will buy some for you. We will have crackers in Crookwell. I will have a little bag full of double bungers and lots of other things that will keep the Hon. D. J. Gay entertained on New Year’s Eve. The south Lismore company Permo-Drive Research and Development has developed a unique truck engine that converts and stores the energy wasted while braking, so that it can be used to drive the engine when speeding up. Netlink Australia, of Rosebery, has produced an eCommerce terminal to be installed in hotel rooms, giving visitors access to email and the Internet at minimal cost. These and the other technologies in the showcase demonstrate to the world that Australia is a clever country, with clever people working in technology and innovation.

Many ATS technologies have won design and innovation awards and received international recognition. Last month Axolotl Metal Finishes, of Redfern, was awarded the top innovation prize from Australian Business, the country’s leading business magazine. Axolotl has developed a range of spray-on metal finishes that can be applied to almost any surface, giving the appearance of solid metal at a fraction of the cost of the real thing. I am told the finishes have been used to great effect in the Star City Casino, the Sega Megacentre at Darling Harbour, the Bank of America and James Hardie Industries. The company has licensing agreements across Australia and New Zealand and it is in licensing negotiations with the United States, Europe, and Asian companies.

The Australian Technology Showcase has achieved tremendous results. In financial terms, ATS companies have generated some $45 million in local contracts, exports, licensing arrangements and investments just in the past year. It has had great success in promoting innovative Australian companies, increasing investment and creating new jobs. I wish all of the new ATS companies all the best, and I look forward to sharing the achievements of other ATS companies with the House in the near future.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I ask a question without notice of the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship. In respect of the recent local government elections, has the New South Wales State Electoral Office taken all necessary advertising and educational measures to ensure that all voters are fully aware of their democratic rights and obligations in respect of elections? How has the State Electoral Office included non-English speaking background communities in its advertising campaigns on equal and equitable basis? Accordingly, in what ethnic media has the State Electoral Office placed advertisements about the local government elections? Is it a fact that the community media in Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese and Arabic languages were not included in this advertising campaign? Is this a taste of how the proposed Community Relations Commission will work?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I must admit I have only recently become aware that the New South Wales State Electoral Office in fact has responsibility for the conduct of local government elections.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Surely you would have seen the bill when it went through Cabinet.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have got to admit that I do not recall every detail of every item that goes through Cabinet. I will refer the honourable member’s question to my colleague the Premier for a response. I might say, however, that the results in the local government elections on Saturday were very encouraging for the Australian Labor Party. The Opposition obviously does not want to hear about the local government elections on Saturday. I can understand that. I was trying to point out that in my old stamping ground of Sutherland shire the Liberal Party suffered a huge defeat.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: How well did the Labor Party do?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We got more seats in the Sutherland shire than the Liberal Party. It will not be long before every State seat in the Sutherland shire is held by the Australian Labor Party, including my old seat of Cronulla. It is only another 3˝ years before Cronulla, the jewel in the crown, returns to the Labor fold.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: The Minister has given the House the benefit of his knowledge of his old stamping ground. Is he prepared to give us information about where he now works, in the City of Sydney?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We can be certain that the Opposition never gets its facts right, because
Page 369
I have never lived in the City of Sydney. I regret that on Saturday I was one of those citizens who did not get the opportunity to cast a vote in the election of the Sydney City Council. I understand I will have an opportunity in about 12 months time to cast my vote, probably in an election for an amalgamated council of South Sydney, Botany and Randwick. I am looking forward to that. But, once again, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has his facts wrong. I am not a resident of the City of Sydney and, unfortunately, did not have the opportunity to vote against Katherine Greiner on Saturday.

The local government elections on Saturday were not the only events of interest. There was on the Central Coast a very unfortunate event. The under-12 Umina Eagles, otherwise known as the Bravehearts, were defeated in the soccer semifinals. I, and I am sure every other member of the House, would commiserate with my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Government in this place, and would wish the under-12 Bravehearts better success next year.

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

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask a question of the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer, as one of the shareholding Ministers, aware that power retailer NorthPower is now charging an $8 service access fee to read meters? Is the Treasurer aware also that in cases where there is more than one meter on a property, this fee is charged for each meter? Is the Treasurer aware that Integral Energy is also now charging a late fee for non-payment of accounts, even if the payment is just one day late? Are those practices endorsed by the Government, or were they the Treasurer’s personal idea?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of any service access fee arrangement. I will obtain details on that. In relation to the charging of late payment fees, I suggest anyone who has any complaints about that should take them to the Energy Ombudsman. I certainly do not think late payment fees are inappropriate. Many organisations charge a late payment fee. Indeed, members of this Parliament who are late in payment of their House accounts are penalised. I think that is fair to customers who pay on time, because it is customers who pay on time that are paying for those of us who sometimes are late in making our payments. I have to admit that every now and again I find myself in that position, because I have been busy with other things. I certainly think it would be appropriate for me to be charged a late fee if I am late in paying a bill that I owe; otherwise, the rest of the customers of whatever organisation is involved pay for me, and that is unfair.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Given the Treasurer’s reply, would he also agree that if the service provider does not provide 100 per cent service and severe blackouts occur, a refund should be made as an access fee applies to that charge?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Consumer rights in these matters are well established. I am not familiar with the arrangements that apply to a particular electricity retailer or distributor. I will endeavour to obtain a response.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I address my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House whether on-the-spot fines result in improvements to occupational health and safety?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: A survey conducted for the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission [NOHSC] has found that the majority of employers believe that on-the-spot fines, or penalty notices, result in improvements in occupational health and safety practices. The results of the survey, which were published earlier this year, found that employers believed this was because the fines deliver a strong message, damage a firm’s public reputation, and act as a financial deterrent to small businesses engaging in inappropriate occupational health and safety policies. The fines also have a ripple effect in immediately causing the warning to spread by word of mouth around other firms in the same sector.

The NOHSC survey also found that many small construction firms support the fines system because of their effect on maverick operators in the industry. New South Wales is one of only two Australian occupational health and safety jurisdictions to include on-the-spot fines as part of its compliance measures. The other jurisdiction is the Northern Territory. The 1997 panel of review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in New South Wales, chaired by Professor Ron McCallum, supported the use of fines and concluded that they are a cost-effective prevention measure and provide a quick response method of addressing immediate occupational health and safety problems.

Page 370

The construction industry in New South Wales continues to attract a greater proportion of on-the-spot fines for breaches of occupational health and safety legislation than any other industry. Approximately 80 per cent of all on-the-spot fines issued by WorkCover in the past two financial years were issued to employers in the construction industry.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Does the Government have a strategy to take to the next meeting of State and Federal health Ministers to force food producers into clearly labelling genetically modified foods so that consumers can choose for themselves if they want to be exposed to this new technology? If the Minister has no strategies, will he formulate any before the next meeting of the health Ministers? If the Minister has formulated strategies, will he indicate what they are? When is the next meeting of State and Federal health Ministers to consider labelling of genetically modified foods?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health. The Hon. P. J. Breen probably watched the television program that I watched last night. I do not know much more about the issue than the information I gained from that program.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You were watching television?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Did you read the paper this morning?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. Did you?

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

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It would have made sad reading for the Liberals this morning. It is a wonder that they read the papers when they are held in such disrepute.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: How do you know? You did not read the papers this morning.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I hear about these things. When I arrived this morning I was told that it was another bad morning for the Opposition. I said, "I have more important things to do than worry about the problems of the Opposition." I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain a response.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Given that the company Humble Pies has announced it will relocate its operations and 21 jobs from Billinudgel on the North Coast across the border to Queensland - where, as all honourable members would know, payroll tax and workers compensation insurance premiums are cheaper - will the Treasurer now eat humble pie and apologise for failing to cut payroll tax to match Queensland’s payroll tax by this year?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The standard of the questions from the Opposition gets no better. I was going to say that it has had a bad few days. However, on reflection, it has had a bad few months and years. I am not aware of any move by Humble Pies across the border. Businesses change their location from time to time. Businesses in New South Wales go elsewhere, and businesses elsewhere come to New South Wales. I am pleased that New South Wales, together with Western Australia, has the lowest unemployment rate trend. I am also pleased that in the last quarter of the last financial year - the most recent period for which figures are available - the increase in economic growth in New South Wales hit 2.1 per cent. If that quarterly growth were to be annualised, that would mean a rate of growth of almost 9 per cent per year. That is phenomenal and, I must concede, unsustainable. However, it means that the growth in the State final demand figures during the year was the highest of all of the States, of which we can be very proud.

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: As I am wearing a Paralympic badge my question without notice is obviously addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. Will the Minister inform the House about the support being offered by the Motor Accidents Authority for the Sydney 2000 Paralympic torch relay?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It gives me great pleasure to inform the House that the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] is the presenting partner of the MAA Sydney 2000 Paralympic torch relay. The MAA sponsorship of the torch relay adds to an important partnership that began more than two years ago. Since the commencement of the July 1997 MAA Paralympian program, 20 elite athletes have delivered the MAA road safety message: "You
Page 371
only get one body. Drive Safely." For the next 18 months the MAA Paralympian program will continue its metropolitan and regional road safety program. The MAA sponsorship of the torch relay will be an integral part of that program.

The torch relay will travel through Australia’s capital cities and on a 750 kilometre road journey through Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle. On 25 August I launched a competition to choose 300 torch bearers for the MAA Sydney 2000 Paralympic torch relay. This competition gives every resident in New South Wales over the age of 12 the chance to become one of 300 torch bearers. To be eligible to enter the competition entrants have to ring the MAA competition hotline, enter their postcode, name and phone number, and repeat the MAA campaign slogan: "You only get one body. Drive Safety."

The first lucky competition winners will carry the torch across the arch of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The competition hotline number is 1900 929 200 with a call cost maximum of 50˘. People can also visit the MAA web site at www.maa.nsw.gov.au. All green slip renewals will carry details of the competition. This is a wonderful opportunity for all Australians to join in the event. More importantly, it is an opportunity to remind people of the terrible cost of road crashes.

During the launch of the competition I had the opportunity to meet Paralympian Leisl Tesch. Leisl is a member of the MAA Paralympian program and is also a Central Coast resident. She was kind enough to give her time to attend the launch, and climbed to the top of the arch of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. As an incomplete paraplegic this would appear to be no easy feat. However, as a medal-winning basketball player, an active member of the surf life saving movement and a bodyboarder, Leisl completed it with ease. I look forward to informing the House further on the contribution of individual members and the wonderful work being done by the 19 elite athletes who are currently part of the Paralympian program. I encourage all members of the House to get involved in spreading information on the MAA Sydney 2000 Paralympic torch relay competition.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware of a decision in the Compensation Court of New South Wales in the matter of Maddison v Royal North Shore Hospital in which His Honour Judge Burke ruled that the applicant worker could not take a support person with her to a medical examination? Does the Minister agree that that is against usual practice in workers compensation matters? If the Minister agrees, what will he do to address the matter?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The judgment to which the honourable member has referred has not come to my attention.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You should keep up your reading up if you want to go back to the bar.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am trying to keep up with my reading. I will undertake to obtain that judgment urgently and consider its policy implications. Judge Burke is a judge of the Compensation Court who customarily produces learned and reasoned judgments. I am sure his judgment in this matter will make interesting reading. I am happy to informally liaise with the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans about the practice of having a support person present in such circumstances.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship a question without notice. Is the Treasurer aware that in the last edition of the Ethnic Communities Council magazine Infocus Professor Andrew Jakubowicz, Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology, Sydney, wrote, in regard to the Premier’s move to replace the Ethnic Affairs Commission with the Community Relations Commission:

Only the Premier’s long-serving Ethnic Affairs Chair, Stepan Kerkyasharian, newly-promoted Ministers Eddie Obeid and Morris Iemma, and David Oldfield of One Nation came out in support. One would have been happier if one ethnic leader of substance could be found outside the government to back the move.

Why has the Premier chosen to ignore the sentiments of prominent academics such as Professor Jakubowicz and other ethnic community leaders by persisting with his plan to change the name of the Ethnic Affairs Commission to the Community Relations Commission?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the matter referred to by the Hon. J. M. Samios in the first part of his question. However, I am aware of Professor Andrew Jakubowicz: I went to university with him. I was going to say that he is a
Page 372
very nice young man, but he is probably no longer a young man. He has probably aged at exactly the same rate as I have, and he is probably about my age. I have not seen him for a long time.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Apparently we all age at about the same rate.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The difference is that the Hon. J. F. Ryan will never grow up. I do not know whether Mr Jakubowicz has a particular view on some aspect of public policy in New South Wales. When I knew him he held a number of strong views. No doubt he still has, and I would agree with some and not with others. The fact that someone somewhere in the community - even someone as eminent as Professor Jakubowicz - does not agree with the Government is not a question for Parliament.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What is happening with the planning process for marine parks?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is a good question. The real questions are coming from Government members. What has happened to the Opposition? The Hon. D. F. Moppett is the only one who asks decent questions. I am sure the House would like to know the Government’s plans for marine parks. The Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks were declared in January 1998 under the Marine Parks Act 1997. Those areas were selected because of their significant marine biodiversity values and relatively unspoilt environment.

At the time of the declaration the Carr Government announced that an extensive and comprehensive planning process would follow, including the formation of local advisory committees. I am happy to report that the Government is delivering on its commitments. In fact, the planning process that has been developed by the Marine Parks Authority is based on world’s best practice and we now lead the way internationally in the planning of marine parks.

The Government has established a Marine Parks Advisory Council for the State, and has established marine park advisory committees for both marine parks. The committees are represented by key stakeholders and players. The feedback that I get from members of the committees is that the committee process is 1,000 times better than anything in the past. In December 1998 Jervis Bay Marine Park distributed 32,000 planning survey questionnaires in local newspapers to identify issues that needed to be addressed in developing plans for the marine park.

Likewise, Solitary Island Marine Park distributed thousands of questionnaires in March 1999. The return rate for the surveys was as high as 7.6 per cent, which indicates the significant interest of the community in marine parks. In March 1999 the Government also delivered on new marine park regulations. Significant and extensive community involvement led to the preparation of those regulations, which in turn are critical for the planning process, and detail the type of zones that can be used in marine parks.

Marine parks are for everyone, and the Government is committed to multiple-use parks while at the same time protecting marine biodiversity. The regulations are decisive and help to achieve that goal. Prior to the development of draft plans for the marine parks the Government decided to include an additional step in the planning process. The Marine Parks Authority has released an issues and options paper for Jervis Bay Marine Park. That document identifies the range of feasible options available to marine park managers to address the issues identified by the public and key stakeholders.

Most importantly, the paper is designed to collect information on the social and economic impacts of management options. That critical step is a new initiative and will better assist the Marine Parks Authority to develop preferred planning options in the draft zoning plans and operational plans. The issues and options paper will be prepared for all marine parks and will be placed on public exhibition for six weeks. Public information meetings will also be held. Finally, the Government plans to release draft zoning and operation plans for public comment by the end of this year.

Under the Marine Parks Act those plans will be available for public comment for three months, and again will be supported by information meetings to facilitate informed comment and debate. As the Carr Government promised in January 1998, it has embarked on one of the most extensive planning processes of its kind. By the time marine park plans are implemented they will have been subject to more than two years of planning and countless hours of communicating, with members of the public and stakeholders being involved every step of the way.

Page 373

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of the water contamination in the Cascade Dam in the Blue Mountains earlier this year? Is the Minister aware that Cascade Dam supplies water for a substantial number of residents in the Blue Mountains? Can the Minister advise where and when the contamination occurred? Can he inform the House of the type of contamination that occurred? Can the Minister assure the people of the Blue Mountains that their water quality is guaranteed, and that the contamination has been rectified?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am unable to provide a specific answer to that question. I undertake to obtain an answer from my colleague as soon as practicable and advise the House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. On 11 June the Sydney Morning Herald reported that as a result of a specialist gastroenterologist having reported the incorrect injection of dye into patients, the Minister said, "I expect any and all individuals associated with this incident to be held fully and totally accountable for it." What is the result of the inquiries by the Department of Health and the Health Care Complaints Commission three months on? What action has been taken as a result of those inquiries? Will the Minister hold the chief executive officer of Canterbury Hospital, Dr Diana Horvath, responsible for the severe systems failure evident in this matter?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not familiar with the matters raised by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Treasurer provide the House with details of the latest information technology company to establish its operations in Sydney?

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Another one!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Another one. I am delighted that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones shares my enthusiasm and joy. Last week one of Israel’s leading software companies, Magic Software Enterprises, announced that it would set up its Asia-Pacific regional headquarters in Sydney. Magic Software Enterprises specialises in developing customised e-commerce software for the manufacturing, call centre and retail industries. The company has more than 300 staff in 11 countries and turned over $US55 million last year. Existing clients include Chase Manhattan Bank, Sony, Club Med, Nestlé, Rolls Royce and the Financial Times of London.

Magic Software Enterprises will serve its customers in Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia and New Zealand from Bondi Junction. Like the New South Wales economy, Israel’s economy, especially its export economy, is becoming increasingly knowledge based. In the span of just a few decades Israel has transformed itself from an exporter of citrus fruits to a major player in the high-tech arena. As honourable members are aware, high-tech industries require highly skilled people. It is interesting to note that Israel has the world’s highest proportion of engineers and scientists, many of whom I am told hail from the former Soviet Union.

Israel, like Sydney, has attracted significant investment by major multinational information technology companies, many having set up their research and development and manufacturing centres in Israel. Together with the growing venture capital industry, this has provided a huge stimulus to local industries, to the point where there are now some 2,500 start-up companies in Israel. I am also told that this is the second highest number of start-up companies in the world after the United States of America.

Australia has the second largest domestic market for information technology and telecommunications products and services in the Asia-Pacific region, and New South Wales has the world’s seventeenth largest information technology and telecommunications industry. The New South Wales industry is bigger than those of Taiwan and Hong Kong, and is twice the size of the industry in Singapore. In New South Wales the industry generates more than $21 billion a year and employs more than 165,000 people.

Of the 177 multinational information technology and telecommunications companies with
Page 374
regional headquarters in Australia, 119 are in New South Wales, including Motorola, IBM, Fuji, Novell, Xerox, Nortel, Vodafone and American Express. It is little wonder that many of Israel’s leading information technology and telecommunications companies are now looking to expand into the Asia-Pacific region from a stable base in New South Wales. I congratulate Magic Software Enterprises on its decision to set up in Sydney and wish it well for the future.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. A recently published report prepared for the Australian Institute entitled "Quality of Life in Australia" was referred to in the press on 2 September. One interesting finding in the report was that 36 per cent of the people sampled thought that their lifestyle was getting worse and the pursuit of economic growth had led to more job insecurity, more overwork, more stress and more pressure on families. How does the Government balance the often competing needs of economic growth with its social obligation to ensure as much as possible that citizens have a life that gives them a sense of purpose, that is, quality of life that can be measured by indicators other than economic ones?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The honourable member has asked a good question. A strong economy and a strong community go hand in hand. We cannot have a strong community with a good quality of life in all aspects without a strong economy. One need only visit the impoverished parts of the world to understand that. Indeed, I remember visiting Eastern Europe in 1989, when the Berlin Wall was collapsing. It became apparent to me that the lifestyle of the people in Eastern Europe was not what we regard as satisfactory because, frankly, the people were poverty stricken.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Were they happy?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, they were not happy. I distinctly remember getting off the plane at Budapest, walking out of the terminal and having to almost separate the air with my hands because it was so filthy. A strong economy is helped by having a strong community.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That was when they had in power a government that was friendly to the Labor Party, wasn’t it? The communists were still there.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What a silly comment to make. One reason for our current economic strength is that we have a first-class community in Australia. The quality of our education, our work force and other aspects of our lifestyles, such as the relative safety in our communities, and the quality of our social and economic infrastructure all go into making a strong community and help to build a stronger economy in the medium term and long term. I hope that the Hon. A. G. Corbett is not suggesting somehow that we should forsake the goal of a strong and growing economy.

The Hon. A. G. Corbett: I didn’t mention that. I referred to often competing needs.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not sure that they are competing needs; I think they go hand in hand. One great improvement in my lifetime in Sydney has been the improvement in air quality. In the mid 1970s if one looked from a central business district office block to the east on almost any day of the week in summer Sydney was almost permanently afflicted with photochemical smog. There was always a thick orange-brown haze hanging over Sydney. I am pleased that more recently we see that problem on only a relative handful of occasions during summer.

When we see that haze there is always the inclination to say that the world is coming to an end and conditions are deteriorating. We should keep in mind that only 20 years ago it was a regular occurrence, and that it has improved over the years. Likewise, the water quality in New South Wales rivers and streams is generally much better than it was 20 years ago. Certainly there are some pressures in society which we did not have 20 or 30 years ago. These days I do not think that people can assume that the job they are in now will be the job they are in for life. That is inevitable because of the rapid change in technology. Once upon a time if you started out life as a boilermaker you would expect to finish life as a boilermaker. I remember as a kid going past the railway station on the way home from school and at least every second afternoon I would walk past the blacksmith. There are not many blacksmiths in the city any more. Technology has changed.

Likewise, the jobs of many people today simply will not exist in a decade’s time. Technology will make their work redundant. We have to make sure - through our schools, technical colleges and universities - that we give young people the skills that will enable them to adapt throughout their life,
Page 375
to make sure that they are employable in the jobs that will become available. The increased pace of technological change puts much greater stress on the community now than when I was at school. We have to make sure that we have the right response. There certainly should not be in anyone’s mind the notion that somehow or another the quality of the community and the quality of the economy are trade-offs; they go hand in hand.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Are you aware that the former Chief Executive Officer of the Far West Area Health Service, Mr Greg Rochford, retired recently to take up the position of Executive Officer of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales? Will you inform the House of the steps that have been taken to recruit a new chief executive officer for that important service? Can you inform the House of the status of the current appointee - whether his employment is permanent or temporary - and whether he has the appropriate qualifications to carry out that job and the support necessary to execute his duties?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The only response I can give to the Hon. D. F. Moppett is to wish Greg Rochford all the best of success in his new employment. I am not aware of any of the details which the honourable member is seeking but I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Earlier in question time the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about chairs. I said that I did not even know what he was talking about. I have since received a letter from the Deputy Clerk, Ms Lynn Lovelock, which I have not yet had the opportunity to read. In the interests of providing members with information I will read it to the House. It states:

•The chairs in the President’s Dining Room are a mixture of antique and replica ‘Balloon Back’ chairs valued at approximate $600 each.

•These particular chairs have a history of a design fault requiring ongoing repairs since they have been in the Legislative Council’s possession. Being antiques, they obviously require additional care and respect for their design when used.

•The repairs (as opposed to damaged/wrecked) always revolve around the same ‘relaxing’ of the join at the base of the back where it meets the seat.

•The same balloon back chairs in the Level 8 Cabinet Office suffer the same design problem, and also require repairs because of their continual use. These repairs are paid for from the Building Services budget.

•The following repairs have been carried out to maintain the antique chairs in the President’s Dining Room in accordance with Occupational Health and Safety standards:

9 December 1993 Various Furniture including
President’s dining chairs $1300
7 May 1996 3 Chairs $1260
1 October 1996 1 Chair $560 (estimated)
29 April 1997 3 Chairs $319 (estimated)
18 June 1997 4 Chairs $720 (estimated)
23 February 1999 4 Chairs $2000 (estimated)
3 June 1999 1 Chair $500 (estimated)

No unusual or out of the ordinary damage to chairs in the President’s Dining Room has been identified. The three chairs currently being repaired are part of the ongoing programme to ensure the chairs are maintained appropriately and do not threaten the safety of anyone using them.

If members have further questions they may like to place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.06 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [5.06 p.m.]: Tonight I raise a subject that I have spoken about in this House before, the University of Western Sydney [UWS]. Unfortunately, rather than paying tribute to the various works of the university and in particular its commitment to the region, to equity and to disadvantaged students, I wish to place on record the threat posed by recent actions by the Federal Government to the work not only of the University of Western Sydney but also of other universities across New South Wales and Australia. I refer particularly to the Federal Government’s research green paper which was issued on 30 June 1999 and is currently being debated in universities. The Federal Government presumably is close to making a decision on the issues it contains.

On the face of it the document contains objectives and rhetoric that probably do not sound too bad, but the proposals are a great threat to many universities. They have the fundamental purpose of
Page 376
returning us essentially to a two-tier system of universities, the old days of universities and colleges of advanced education, which so much of the work in universities in the 1980s was designed to get over. The analysis that the University of Western Sydney has made of the green paper suggests that the impact of the proposed formula for distributing research dollars will be, in the immediate term, a reduction in funding for post-graduate research students at UWS and, in the long term, not only a smaller operating grant but a cumulative downward spiral which will mean fewer dollars for infrastructure, services and initiatives.

The University of Western Sydney is only 10 years old. It started out as two colleges of advanced education and an institute of higher education - with no formal research funds. In the past 10 years the university has done extremely well in obtaining research grants, getting employment for its graduates in the whole area of research management, and fostering post-graduate research. Of the post-1987 universities, UWS has done fairly well in attracting external research funds. But part of the problem is that the eight universities commonly known as the sandstone universities attract very much more in research funds and have investments and so on. It seems clear that the purpose of the green paper is to further institutionalise the division between those universities and the newer ones.

At the moment, the University of Western Sydney has some 700 research post-graduate students, an increase from fewer than 100 at its beginning. It seems that the impact of the Government’s proposals will be that block funding will probably stay roughly the same, at around $2.7 million, and that funding for individual projects may well stay the same, at about $8.2 million. The very serious projected decreases occur in research training, where the projection is an immediate drop from $7.5 million to $5.5 million, and in special post-graduate scholarships, where the projected immediate drop is from the current $1.3 million to $0.9 million. Of course, the outcome is fewer government-funded post-graduate students, fewer scholarships, and a consequential cut to the operating grant.

Not only is the projected $2.3 million loss in the year 2000 bad enough; the downward spiral starts immediately. That loss will compound as student numbers drop and the income from student fees decreases, with a consequential reduction in services. A threat of less growth, less region building and less diversification particularly applies to the University of Western Sydney, and other New South Wales universities will suffer similarly. But I believe that the threat to the University of Western Sydney - with the special mission it has had to bring higher education to people throughout that region - is much more serious. At present 54 per cent of western Sydney’s students reside in greater western Sydney, and it is on those students that the impact of these proposals will hit hardest. Indications for the future also suggest that the work on building up industry links will suffer. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.11 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a significant response I received from Ms Merrilyn Walton, the Commissioner of the Health Care Complaints Commission. In her letter, received by my office last Friday, Ms Walton said:

I refer to your representations to the Health Care Complaints Commission about your concerns with the services provided by HealthQuest. The Commission undertook a review of the complaints made to it and as a result decided to investigate complaints in relation to HealthQuest pursuant to Part 3 of the Health Care Complaints Act, 1993. As you are aware section 60 of the Act requires the Commission to notify the Director General of the Department of Health and request a report in the first instance. It is hoped that the Department’s report will obviate the need for the Commission to institute its own investigation.

The decision to investigate arose from a review of 11 complaints concerning HealthQuest received between 1998 and 1999.

The review of the Commission files found a pattern of concerns relating to HealthQuest and the Medical Appeals Panel (MAP) which may be summarised as follows:

•inadequate information provided to people directed to attend assessment in relation to the powers processes of HealthQuest and MAP, the nature of the assessment, the basis of the referral to HealthQuest, their rights and review processes.

•reliance on "unsafe" information provided by employers with particular reference to whistleblowers.

•inadequate assessment (both medical and of abilities required to perform certain duties) and documentation and unsound use of psychiatric diagnoses.

•lack of transparency and fairness in processes used by HealthQuest and MAP.

The commission has in the past referred a number of complaints to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and I understand that commission has also communicated with the Department about these complaints. I am also advised the Department of Health has been conducting a review to determine the relationship between the Department and HealthQuest and into the role and function of MAP to ensure

Page 377

that the principles of accountability, transparency and natural justice are upheld.

The Deputy Ombudsman has advised the Commission that the Ombudsman also has a number of complaints concerning HealthQuest. Both organisations have appraised the other of issues arising from complaints they hold.

Having given due regard to actions being taken by other agencies, I considered the most effective approach to address the systemic concerns is the establishment of a Department of Health working party to report to the Commission within 4 months. The Department has already advised the Commission that it is willing to undertake such a review of Health Quest and it will advise the Commission if the given time frame is not considered realistic. If it wished, the Department could use such a working party to deal with any separate issues raised by the Ombudsman. This will reduce any duplication between the role of the Ombudsman and this Commission.

Please advise me if I can be of any further assistance . . .

The letter was sent to me as a result of letters that I have been sending for more than a year to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], the Ombudsman, the Department of Health, and the Health Care Complaints Commission. Serious matters of concern were raised by at least five individuals who contacted me. This matter was reported in the Sun Herald. It is not a matter of no public note; it is a very important matter.

HealthQuest is a corporation that is owned by the Health Department. It is a corporatised body established under the Greiner Government, and it is the amalgamation of a whole series of agencies who had their own medical services, such as Transport House and others. Those agencies were amalgamated as a corporation wholly owned by the department. As a result, matters that had to be adjudicated regarding fitness to serve in various agencies, such as the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Transport, were referred to HealthQuest for its report.

I share the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of the Health Care Complaints Commission about transparency, honesty, and so on. I referred those concerns to ICAC, and I know that ICAC took notice of them and investigated them. But because of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, no-one can find out what HealthQuest is up to. Having referred the concerns to ICAC, as a good member of Parliament I then sat back and waited for ICAC to take action. I did not publicise the fact that I had referred the concerns to ICAC; I simply referred them to ICAC and expected a result. I received no result, so I eventually wrote again to Ms Walton and also raised the matter with her at a committee hearing. She has now taken the appropriate action to bring all the agencies together.

How amazing it is to find ICAC and the Ombudsman acting on the working party of the Health Department! They all consider this to be a very serious matter. I await with considerable interest - as many people in New South Wales do, whistleblowers in particular - to see the result and what actions the Government will take now that it is aware of the problems. [Time expired.]

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.16 p.m.]: The Greens wish to draw honourable members’ attention to the attack on the public education system that is occurring under the Carr Government. It is a sorry day when Labor members of this Parliament do not stand up for the right of youth in New South Wales to access top-quality education. But, thankfully, there are those who do stand up for public education in this State: teachers, librarians and other staff employed at education institutions. The Greens congratulate all those who, in the past weeks, have taken strike action to safeguard vocational education and support an increase in teachers’ salaries in this State. Thankfully we have progressive unions such as the Teachers Federation, the Public Service Association, and the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union. All these unions are fighting to stop the privatisation of TAFE.

Labor’s most recent attack on TAFE is part of a seemingly endless restructuring process which is sapping TAFE of its staff’s goodwill. The Labor Government has failed to provide the consistency of policy setting that could have assisted TAFE teachers to achieve excellence. Cuts of $67 million in real terms and 630 full-time positions from TAFE, combined with the opening up of vocational education to private providers, adds up to privatisation.

Labor people are studiously avoiding the use of the "p" word after the debacle of the electricity privatisation push. But that is the agenda here: privatisation of parts of TAFE. Only a TAFE system that is publicly owned and well funded can deliver quality vocational education to all students, regardless of income levels and socioeconomic background, and respond to the special vocational education needs of disadvantaged regions such as western Sydney and rural New South Wales. TAFE makes a special contribution to our society, and in particular to working class families. It is this desertion of working class families that makes it so surprising for many people when they look at Labor policies on this issue.

Page 378

Labor’s plans for TAFE have been surrounded by excessive secrecy - always an indication that it is about to violate its own policy platform, which, incidentally, calls for no funding cuts to TAFE. The Australian Labor Party’s secret education agenda is becoming increasingly clear: to increase casualisation of the work force and to push vocational education into schools. This program, if it proceeds, will lead to the destruction of TAFE as a separate undertaking - clearly, privatisation by another name. TAFE workers and many parents and students are angry; they know they are being sold out. Across New South Wales, TAFE workers are campaigning in pursuit of a series of demands. For the record, those demands are to:

Protect TAFE funding at 1997 levels, in real terms;

Restore the 630 positions cut from TAFE;

Re-establish the class size committee, with Teachers Federation representation. This class size committee centrally determines legally binding maximum sizes for each class type, taking full account of maintaining educational outcomes and occupational health and safety considerations; and

Establish a timetable to restore the percentage of permanent full-time teaching hours to 70% by 2009.

As can be seen, those demands are in no way excessive. They attempt to protect a most important institution, an institution that really is part of our democratic process in providing education across a whole range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Quality public education is the foundation of a healthy democracy. The Greens are beginning to wonder whether that is why the New South Wales Labor Government is doing so much to undermine public education in this State.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.21 p.m.]: Last Saturday the Sydney Morning Herald carried an article headed "School behaviour disorders ignored". The opening paragraph of that article stated:

Children with severe behavioural problems are going undiagnosed for "many months, sometimes years" because the system is plagued by delays and limited resources, a department of Education Review has found.

That is a Department of Education report acknowledging that many children with learning and behavioural difficulties are not having their problems diagnosed because of delays and limited resources. I mention this because two weeks ago I met with parents of children attending the Cromehurst Learning Difficulties Centre at Lindfield. That centre has been established for about 25 years and it is held in high regard by all parents whose children attend it. It conducts an intensive support program. Often, children attend the centre because they have failed in mainstream classes, or have fallen behind in their learning, or have reached a point of low self-esteem that requires specialist support.

The Cromehurst Learning Difficulties Centre, as I have said, has a 25-year history, and it works. Time and again parents have said to me that it works because their children are able to learn in a suitable environment. At the moment the centre has two classes, one of six children and one of nine children. The children remain part of their own school; they can wear the uniforms of their existing schools. But, while they attend the Cromehurst centre - which, on average, will be for about 12 months, although some students with severe learning difficulties may be there for up to two years - normally they are assimilated back into their existing classes.

Parents have told me that the stories about this centre are stories of success, of children growing in self-esteem, being able to read and write and overcoming their learning difficulties. I say that because, under this Government, the Cromehurst learning difficulties program is under threat. The district superintendent at Ryde has said that the centre will be reduced to one class next year. I would like to quote from one of the letters that have been sent to me.

One parent said that, due to recent changes to the size of education administrative areas, Cromehurst has been taken out of the Metropolitan North region, which included Hornsby district, Ryde district and the northern beaches district, and placed within the Ryde district. The result has been that the number of enrolment applications has dropped significantly. Despite this, there would obviously be enough children within the Ryde area alone requiring these services, but the Ryde office is not promoting the centre. Parents have told me that teachers in the Ryde area do not even know about the centre, and do not know of its good works, so demand is not there. That is because the Government is not promoting the centre, because it is part of the Government’s policy that ultimately the centre will be closed down.

I appeal to the Government. Indeed I have already written to the Minister on this issue on behalf of the parents. The parents are saying that the centre is a success and they want it to continue. One mother, incidentally from the Ryde area, told me that at the beginning of last term she sought to enrol
Page 379
one of her children at the centre. However, due to bureaucratic bungling and delays, she was ultimately told it was too late to apply. She persisted, and got her child admitted. I read in the newspaper of a Department of Education report about the system being "plagued by delays and limited resources" and of children not having their problems diagnosed for years. I urge the Government to review its allocation of existing resources. In conclusion, I quote an excerpt from a letter from Hornsby parents who wrote to me this week. One of those parents said:

I am a parent of four children. Two of my children have coped with the mainstream schooling quite well but I have two boys who have struggled in the mainstream while I watched their self esteem be crushed . . .

We have tried other alternative programs like the reading recovery program provided at Hornsby North school but my two boys were not successful applicants because it was felt that they were too far behind and this program was a short term program. We had worked on reading programs with our local school but this was still not enough. We had our boys tutored outside of school . . .

But, once again, that was not enough. The boys were then sent to Cromehurst. The parent continued in that letter to say:

By the time one of my boys made it to Cromehurst he would no longer pick up a pencil to even attempt to do any work, for his fear of failing was so great. It took Mrs Andrews a term of constant encouragement (which he would not have gained in a large class environment) to build confidence and by the end of the second term he was not only working independently but was getting most of his work correct.

The parent then refers to her other son, who was four years behind his friends when he went to Cromehurst, but after two years work there had almost caught up to them. He went back to his existing school. This mother said:

This year he has shined in many areas, just to mention a few:

•He was elected by his peers as the Captain of his sports team
•He is moving ahead in his maths
•His computer skills are beyond many of his peers.

I ask the Government to rethink this issue. We know from statistics gathered from across the world and in this country that 90 per cent of children who end up in the juvenile justice system have learning difficulties. Let us consider prevention programs, rather than trying to pick up the pieces afterwards. Let us not see the good work of Cromehurst destroyed by budget cuts.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.26 p.m.]: I wish to speak about an issue raised with me in a communication from Dick Copeman, through Bob Phelps, of the "genethics" network. It concerns food irradiation. The communication states:

The Health Ministers Council meeting on 3rd August approved a standard for irradiation of food. This standard has now been gazetted as Standard A17.

Radiation will be allowed for the purposes of:-

a..extending the shelf life of food;
b..destroying bacteriological contamination; or
c..disinfecting food contaminated by pests.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: When was this?

The Hon. I. COHEN: On 3 August.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Great!

The Hon. I. COHEN: I hope the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti listens carefully to the rest of what I have to say. The communication continues:

Some foods will be able to be irradiated twice.

Individual foods that are proposed to be irradiated will need to be approved on a case-by-case basis. Each application will be put out for public consultation before being decided on by the Ministers. All irradiated foods on sale will have to be labelled but current requirements for the label print size to be at least 3mm on packaged food and 9mm for unpackaged food will no longer apply. Labels will merely have to be "legible".

There is no mention in the new standard of a previous requirement that there should be effective detection methods to enable authorities in Australia to establish that a food has been irradiated. This is a critical omission because there are significant public health risks associated with the use of irradiation for the purpose of "destruction of bacterial contamination" on food, particularly if it is not known that the food has been irradiated.

Irradiation does not completely destroy all pathogenic bacteria at the permitted doses. It can only reduce, not eliminate, contamination by bacteria such as Salmonella, Staphylococcus, and Listeria, the common causes of food poisoning. It is most effective in reducing the bacteria and moulds that warn consumers, through visual changes and smell, that food is going "off". Remaining pathogenic bacteria will continue to multiply more rapidly in the absence of the other competing bacteria and moulds. Re-growth rates for some bacteria such as Clostridium can be 50 times that prior to irradiation.

Public health agencies will not be able to detect the presence of harmful bacteria using the normal plate count testing regime, which is used as a screening test for the presence of possibly pathogenic bacteria and as the primary indicator of wholesomeness and application of good manufacturing practice. Thus irradiation of food (to reduce bacterial contamination) will render obsolete the public health safeguards currently in place to prevent bacterial food poisoning.

Irradiation will not remove chemical toxins created by some bacteria such as Staphylococcus in the earlier stages of

Page 380

contamination prior to irradiation. These toxins are, however, much harder to detect in the absence of the bacteria that produced them. Irradiation is also virtually ineffective in removing contamination by viruses such as Hepatitis, which can be a problem in seafood harvested from sewage contaminated water.

The first foods for which permission to irradiate is likely to be sought will be spices (to remove bacterial contamination) and tropical fruits for export (to kill fruit fly). Steretech is the company that apparently wishes to move into food irradiation. They have irradiation plants at Dandenong near Melbourne and at Wetherill Park in Sydney, and propose to build a plant at Caboolture near Brisbane.

I ask the Government to carefully consider the issues before allowing these types of processes to go ahead, and to look at the overall impact of them, particularly when the process does not achieve complete destruction of the bacteria that could be harmful to human health. In fact, the process may accelerate some of these bacteria that otherwise would be under the control or at least influence of other bacteria.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They might glow in the dark.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti exhibits a very superficial reaction by saying, "They might glow in the dark." I am astounded that a medical practitioner would take such a flippant attitude to an irradiation process under which bacteria, and particularly viruses, may not be contained. In fact, the process may worsen the problem. I implore the honourable member to consider this issue with an open mind.

Motion agreed to.