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

The President offered the Prayers.


Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Rural Lands Protection (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill
HomeFund Commissioner Bill
Charitable Trusts Bill
Noxious Weeds Bill
Strata Titles (Staged Development) Amendment Bill
Strata Titles (Leasehold Staged Development) Amendment Bill
Traffic (Tow Truck Penalty Notices) Amendment Bill
Home Purchase Assistance Authority Bill
Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Amendment Bill

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

Entertainment Industry (Interim Council) Amendment Bill
Motor Vehicles (Third Party) Insurance Amendment Bill
Trustee (Amendment) Bill

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

That, pursuant to Standing Order 201, the Bill be restored to the Business Paper and that the second reading of the Bill stand an Order of the Day for the next sitting day.

Formal stages and first readings agreed to.


Bill received and read a first time.


Bill received.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.38]: I move:

That this bill be now read a first time.

Question put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald
Mr Bull Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Moppett
Ms Burnswoods Mr Mutch
Mrs Chadwick Mr Obeid
Mr Egan Mr O'Grady
Mr Enderbury Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Evans Mr Pickering
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Shaw
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan
Mr Jobling Mrs Walker
Mr Jones Mr Webster
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Dyer
Mrs Kite Mr Samios

Tellers,
Mrs Nile
Revd F. J. Nile

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.


The President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Mr President -

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

That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing or Sessional Orders of either House a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the following terms of reference with regard to the Sydney Water Board:

(1)(a) the operation and effectiveness of the clean waterways program with regard to its objectives;

(b) the credible and independent regulation of water quality and quantity with particular regard for environmental factors;

(c) the recommendations of the Government Pricing Tribunal inquiry into water pricing;

(d) improvements to accountability and efficiency to the Water Board through changes to

Page 2126
institutional arrangements within the Board;

(e) the Water Board's longer term strategies for catchment management and demand management and the impact of the proposed water quality treatment plants;

(f) the current and projected environmental standards for discharge to receiving waters in terms of whether they reflect community needs and with regard to their affordability;

(g) long term strategic planning of Sydney's waste water treatment including urban drainage decentralisation and beneficial re-use;

(h) the existing capital structure and the future capital needs having regard to the impact of the payment of $200 million in dividend payments to consolidated revenue on the Board's capacity to fund capital works and environmental improvements, including the impact of borrowing by the board in or outside Loan Council guidelines to fund capital works;

(i) an account of expenditure upon the special environmental service charge; and

(j) the use of consultants, professional services and contractors by the Board as defined by the Office of Public Management;

(k) any matters relating to or arising out of the above terms of reference.

(2) That the committee shall consist of 10 members of the joint Houses, being:

five from the Government, (3 Legislative Assembly members and 2 Legislative Council members);

three from the Opposition (2 Legislative Assembly members and 1 Legislative Council member);

one from the Australian Democrats;

who shall be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by relevant Party Leaders; and

Dr Macdonald.

(3) That the Chairman of the committee be Dr Macdonald who shall have both a deliberative and casting vote.

(4) That at any meeting of the committee, the Chairman and any other five members shall constitute a quorum provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.

(5) That such committee shall have leave to meet during any sittings or adjournment of both Houses, to adjourn from place to place, to make visits of inspection within New South Wales and other States of the Commonwealth of Australia, and have power to take evidence and send for persons and papers and to report from time to time.

(6) That should either or both Houses stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the Houses resume sitting:

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

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

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

(7) The committee be given adequate resources to conduct the inquiry including the resources for such consulting or advisory services as it may determine to be required.

(8) That the committee report to both Houses by Thursday, 14 October 1993.

and requests that the Legislative Council will appoint four of its members to serve with the members of the Legislative Assembly upon such Joint Select Committee and to name the time and place for the first meeting.

Legislative Assembly K. R. Rozzoli
13 May 1993 Speaker

The Hon. D. J. Gay, as Chairman, brought up the Second Report from the Joint Select Committee upon Police Administration.

Ordered to be printed.


The Hon. D. J. GAY [2.47]: On behalf of the parliamentary Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption I bring up and lay upon the table of the House the following documents: minutes of evidence from a review of the ICAC Act; correspondence on the primary facts issue from the review of the ICAC Act; and minutes of evidence and correspondence relating to matter raised by the honourable member for Eastwood, Mr Andrew Tink.

Ordered to be printed.


The Hon. S. B. Mutch, on behalf of the Chairman, brought up the nineteenth report of the Regulation Review Committee, drawing special attention to the Building Services Corporation Act 1989 - Regulation, relating to exemptions to the doing of specialist work, the recording of complaints and application fees, published in the Government Gazette of 26th February, 1993, at page 734 and recommending that clause 2(d) of the regulation relating to the recording of complaints be disallowed.

Ordered to be printed.


Petitions praying that laws relating to road accident fatality or injury be re-evaluated, received from the Hon. Beryl Evans and the Hon. Judith Walker.

Petition praying that the House reject all homosexual vilification legislation, received from
Page 2127
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that the Forestry Commission of New South Wales be reformed in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and that the House urge the Government to act immediately for the good of our environmental heritage and the health of the plantation timber industry, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition praying that the House support the introduction and passage of the Protection of Children from Indecent Material Bill, received from the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith.

Petition praying that the Government will not take steps to legalise brothels but will close all existing brothels by enforcing the Disorderly Houses Act, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.

Petition praying that because of the detrimental effect of throw-away packaging on the environment, legislation be introduced imposing a mandatory deposit on all containers sold in New South Wales, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition praying that the Parliament prohibit any future homosexual and lesbian mardi gras parades through the public streets of Sydney or elsewhere in New South Wales because the practice is totally opposed to Australian traditions and the Judaeo-Christian ethic, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that the House legislate to ban totally the manufacture, sale and use of steel-jawed leg hold traps in all areas of the State as they cause great suffering to all animals and birds, both target and non-target, caught in them, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [2.57]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation, which represents a further positive enhancement for the well-being of people with disabilities, their families and carers. The Disability Services and Guardianship Act was passed in 1987 with the support of all major parties and with wide community support. The Act was proclaimed and came into effect in August 1989. It was seen then, and still is seen, as progressive, innovative legislation to protect the rights of people with disabilities. Among other things, the Act established an adult guardianship system for people with disabilities in New South Wales, and introduced a scheme for consents to medical and dental treatment on behalf of adults who are incapable of consenting for themselves. It is this scheme that is the subject of the present bill.

The scheme has now been in place for some three and a half years and is considered to have been highly successful. I am told that it is being held up as a model for other jurisdictions in Australia and has attracted great interest overseas. As with all new legislation, however, particularly legislation dealing with complex human issues and vulnerable people, opportunities have become apparent for improvement and fine-tuning on the basis of practical experience and implementation. The Guardianship Board, charged with the oversight of this scheme, has proposed a package of changes, contained in this bill, designed to make the legislation work more smoothly and effectively for people with disabilities and those who care for them. These amendments are introduced following extensive community consultations.

In November 1991 the Guardianship Board issued a consultative paper on its proposals for amendments to the medical and dental consent provisions, to more than 150 organisations and individuals. These include representative medical bodies, hospitals, government departments and officials, members of the judiciary and the legal profession, disability workers and community representatives. More than 60 written submissions were received at the board and, in addition, community consultation meetings were held. The responses received were overwhelmingly supportive of the board's proposals, with some making suggestions for further improvement or clarification. The bill is the result of that process. The amendments put forward by the Government do not change the underlying philosophy or approach of the medical consents scheme. They will make the processes for gaining consent simpler and less bureaucratic, while retaining and enhancing the safeguards for patients.

Consent will be easier to obtain for uncontroversial treatments whereas controversial treatments will require greater justification and the consent of the Guardianship Board. The amended system will allow greater involvement by family members and close friends in consenting to uncontroversial treatments for their relatives or friends who cannot consent for themselves. This system should significantly reduce the number of applications for medical consent being made to the Public Guardian, and to the board. The amount of paperwork required in obtaining consents will be reduced, with resultant benefits to medical practitioners and other health professionals. At the same time, patients will continue to receive the protections that the current system provides. In fact, with the higher levels of compliance that can be expected with the improved system, protection of patients will be significantly enhanced.

I should like to outline the proposals in more detail. First, I should briefly explain the current scheme. Part 5 of the Disability Services and Guardianship Act 1987 deals with consents to medical and dental treatment for people who lack the capacity to consent to their own treatment, that is, those who cannot understand the nature and effect of the treatment proposed for them, because of a disability or some other reason. It also reflects a number of principles. The first principle is that people should not be deprived of necessary treatment merely because they lack the capacity to consent to that treatment.

The second principle is that medical or dental treatment administered to such people should be administered only for the purpose of promoting and maintaining their health and well-being. Part 5 also provides protection to medical and dental practitioners who deliver medical and dental treatment in accordance with the Act, provided they are not negligent when administering that treatment. The Act establishes a hierarchy of substitute decision-makers, called persons responsible, who can give valid substitute consents for people who are unable to give their own consents. The hierarchy of persons responsible is: the

Page 2128
patient's guardian, if there is one; or spouse or de facto spouse, if there is one; or direct unpaid carer, if there is one. If there is no person responsible, then either the Guardianship Board or the Public Guardian is the substitute decision-maker.

Part 5 also provides for five categories of treatment. The first is treatment that is urgently necessary to save a person's life or to prevent serious damage to their health. In these circumstances a doctor or a dentist may administer the treatment without first obtaining consent from a substitute decision-maker. The second is special medical treatment, to which only the Guardianship Board can consent. The third is major medical treatment. Persons responsible and the Guardianship Board are the substitute decision-makers for that treatment. The fourth and fifth categories are minor medical treatment and dental treatment. Persons responsible and the Public Guardian are the substitute decision-makers for these treatments. If a patient objects to non-urgent treatment, then only the Guardianship Board may consent to the treatment.

The two most significant amendments to part 5 are, first, to the definition of person responsible and, second, to the consent provisions concerning minor medical treatment. Another category, close friend or relative, is added to the categories of persons responsible. This will allow family members and significant others to be substitute decision-makers without having to apply to the Guardianship Board to be appointed guardians. At present, family members must be spouses or direct carers before they can take on this role automatically. This amendment would, for instance, allow the parent of a previously healthy young man who has sustained a severe brain injury to be the person responsible without the need for an application to the board to be appointed guardian for medical purposes. Similarly, the amendment would enable an adult son or daughter to act as person responsible for a parent who has previously managed independently but who has now become incapacitated as the result of a stroke.

It is very apparent that the amendment is a strong acknowledgment of the role played by family members, including parents, siblings and other involved persons. Further, the redefinition of carer to include people who provide or arrange services and support for persons with disabilities, other than on a paid basis, will also further acknowledge the role of carers. Again, it will have the important effect of minimising bureaucracy and ensuring that family members and others who are well positioned to be involved in decision-making for people who cannot consent for themselves have every opportunity to do so. I add for the benefit of those who may express concerns regarding the authority vested in these substitute decision-makers that the Guardianship Board is able to review the actions of a guardian or person responsible if they are called into question. As well, there are certain circumstances, as previously outlined, where only the Guardianship Board can consent to treatment.

With minor treatments it is proposed that, in circumstances where there is no person responsible - a less likely scenario now in view of the expanded definition of person responsible - or where the person responsible cannot be found or is unwilling to act, and the patient does not object to the proposed treatment, then the doctor or dentist may proceed to treat. The doctor or dentist must be satisfied that the patient is incapable of giving consent and that the treatment is both necessary and the most appropriate in the circumstances. As I have already said, this consent can be given only in relation to minor medical and dental treatments. At present the Public Guardian is empowered to give a consent in these circumstances. This has been found to be a time-consuming, excessively bureaucratic process that has been a cause of widespread non-compliance and generally of little patient benefit.

Again, I would point out that compliance under this legislation does not relieve medical practitioners from their duty of care or any other liability they may normally face. The amendment has also the very positive effect of placing the doctor, or dentist, under a statutory duty to certify in writing in the patient's clinical record that the treatment is necessary and is the form of treatment that will most successfully promote the patient's health and well-being. I am informed that this provision has the endorsement of both the Public Guardian and the medical profession and, because it is expected to increase compliance levels, of consumer groups also. There are a number of other amendments to part 5 designed to clarify and streamline the legislation and to minimise excessive bureaucracy in non-controversial areas.

The definition of medical treatment is recast to exclude non-intrusive examinations, as well as trivial and first-aid treatments and over-the-counter medications. Dental treatment is now divided into major and minor treatments. Previously all dental treatment had been dealt with in the same way as minor treatment. The amendment will ensure that the different types of dental treatment receive appropriate levels of response. In relation to urgent treatment, treatments which in the circumstances can be given without consent, the amendment makes it clear that this includes cases that are urgently necessary to prevent significant pain and distress.

The amendments also clarify that treatment carried out under the supervision of a medical practitioner, but not administered by that practitioner, is treatment within the scheme of the Act. A most common example is where nurses and carers administer medication prescribed by and under the direction of a treating doctor. The definition of special medical treatment is extended to cover any kind of medical or dental treatment, the use of which has not yet gained the support of a substantial number of doctors or dentists specialising in the area of practice concerned. This amendment has the effect of extending the board's scrutiny to all treatments of this kind and not, as is presently the case, only to those which are outside the guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Guardianship Board will be able to give consent to such treatments only where the treatment is manifestly in the best interests of the patient and represents the most appropriate alternative form of treatment.

An amendment in relation to objections to treatment will clarify that objections do not include involuntary resistance, that is, a reflex response, or where the patient clearly has no comprehension of what is proposed and will not be unduly distressed if treatment proceeds. This does not obviate the need for consent, but means that such situations do not need to come before the board. The amendment also provides that the board, having scrutinised and approved treatment in the face of an incompetent patient's objection in a particular case, could authorise a guardian to consent to ongoing administration of the treatment for that patient, but only where the ongoing treatment was manifestly necessary in the patient's interests.

Finally, the amendments will allow the board when giving consent to special medical treatment of an ongoing nature to empower the guardian to consent to the continuation of the treatment or to the carrying out of treatment of a similar nature, but subject to any conditions or directions the board may impose. The final amendment is in relation to the powers of the Guardianship Board to deal with applications for financial management under the Protected Estates Act 1983. At present the Protected Estates Act empowers the Guardianship Board to consider the making of a financial management order only where the board is considering a guardianship application or has made a guardianship order in relation to that person. As I have already said, an effect of the foregoing amendments will be to remove the need for many guardianship applications.

An unintended consequence of this is that the board would have no power to make management orders in relation to these people, because of the jurisdictional barriers in the Protected Estates Act. The amendment to the Protected Estates Act will remove these barriers and permit the Guardianship Board to consider applications for financial management whether or not a guardianship order has been made or an application is being considered. This will not increase the board's powers, but will make the same powers exercisable in more cases.

The financial management jurisdiction is one that the Guardianship Board has exercised since its inception, and it provides an efficient and economical resource to persons of limited funds. At the same time, the board will have a new power to refer any such proceedings to the Supreme Court, if the board considers it appropriate and the Supreme Court

Page 2129
accepts the referral. In conclusion, the essence of the amendments proposed in this bill is fine-tuning of the Guardianship Act and the Protected Estates Act arising from experience of the Guardianship Board, the Public Guardian and others operating under that legislation during the past three and a half years.

The amendments, however, are important as they will make the legislation work better in the interests of people with disabilities and those responsible for their health care. The Minister for Community Services and Assistant Minister for Health shall be asking the Guardianship Board to monitor these changes and also, after community consultation, to report to me on any amendments to the legislation generally that could improve the way it works for the benefit of people with disabilities in this State. Following the passage of the bill, there will be a need to prepare regulations before proclamation, and the Government is anxious for this to happen as quickly as possible.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [2.57]: The Opposition supports the Guardianship (Amendment) Bill, which is an excellent piece of legislation. The Guardianship (Amendment) Bill will amend the principal Act, namely, the Disability Services and Guardianship Act 1987 which is now known simply as the Guardianship Act following the passage through this House a few short weeks ago of the Disability Services Act 1993. Obviously it would have been inconvenient to have two statutes with similar names so the piece of legislation now being amended is known simply as the Guardianship Act 1987. This piece of legislation is a proud achievement of the former Labor Government. The legislation was enacted in 1987 and, to be fair, was at that time supported by the then Opposition after substantial community consultation with the Government and, no doubt, by the Opposition.

The Guardianship Act and the board set up under it have been followed through by the present Government. I should like to pay tribute to the board for the work it has performed during its three and half years of existence. In particular, I should like to congratulate the president of the board, Mr Roger West, and the deputy president of the board, Mr Nick O'Neill, on their sterling efforts on behalf of people who need to access the services of the board. I should like to quote a small passage from the first page of the most recent annual report of the Guardianship Board. This passage, which indicates in a nutshell the functions and activities of the board, states:

The Guardianship Board is a legal tribunal with the power to appoint guardians and financial managers for adults who are unable to make decisions for themselves because of a disability.

The Board also has powers for the provision of medical and dental consent for people who are incapable of giving consent for themselves.

The aim of the Board is to support the right of adults with disabilities to make their own life decisions wherever possible.

In its most recent annual report the board indicated in a pie chart the types of applications considered by it in 1991-92, the third year of its operation. Leaving aside minor types of activity, so far as applications are concerned, the board's activities rested in four main areas: guardianship applications accounted for 35.7 per cent; financial management, 24.5 per cent; medical consent, 19.7 per cent; and review matters, 19.2 per cent. I suppose it follows that as the board becomes older, review matters will occupy a greater portion of its time and activity than would have been the case when it was first established. Leaving that aspect aside, in approximate terms it can be said that the substantial activities of the board are guardianship, financial management and the giving of medical consent.

Another interesting background indication is given by a further pie chart in the board's annual report showing the types of new clients the board dealt with during 1991-92. The largest category of clients were those suffering from dementia; they accounted for 46.4 per cent of all new clients. Honourable members know that the population of the State and, indeed, Australia, is ageing, so dementia will be a continuing major activity of the Guardianship Board. Other major profiles of new clients are accounted for by intellectual disability, 23.1 per cent; brain injury, 16.5 per cent; psychiatric disability, 9.3 per cent; physical disability, 3 per cent; psychological disability, 1.5 per cent; and the smallest category, human immunodeficiency virus dementia, 0.2 per cent. That represents the type of clientele that the board is required to deal with and does deal with very capably. I wish to quote a potted example of the type of difficult matter the board is required to deal with. The briefest case study set out in the annual report appears at page 34 under the heading "A Life Saved":

Mrs C lives in a nursing home. She has mild dementia. For some years, she also had diabetes for which, eventually, she needed regular dialysis in hospital.

Mrs C's sister and a doctor decided that this treatment was "too traumatic" for Mrs C and she was discharged back to the nursing home with the clear expectation that she would die within the next week or so. No attempt was made to discuss this decision with her.

Staff at both the hospital and nursing home became distressed by this decision and an application for guardianship was made to the Board.

As a result of the application, Mrs C was able to express her own view, which was to continue the dialysis. The Board was able to ensure that Mrs C's wish was carried out.

The House will appreciate from that short statement of facts that the problems dealt with by the Guardianship Board have a substantial human dimension and are not always easy matters to deal with - they can deal with very emotive circumstances. A heavy responsibility is cast on the board to act properly, in the interests not only of the applicant but of society in regard to the difficult matters brought before it. The bill substantially deals with proposed amendments to what might be termed the medical consent provisions of what is now the Guardianship Act 1987, hitherto the Disability Services and Guardianship Act 1987. However, the bill also contains some incidental amendments to the Protected Estates Act 1983, to which I shall refer briefly.

Medical and dental consent, the main thrust of this bill, are dealt with in considerable detail in part
Page 2130
5 of the principal Act. That part of the legislation applies when people over 16 years of age are unable to consent to their own medical or dental treatment because of some form of pre-existing disability or for some other reason. What then happens is that the legislation lays down a hierarchy, one might say, of substitute decision-makers who can give consent to medical or dental treatment on behalf of persons who are not able to give that consent. The 1991-92 annual report of the Guardianship Board notes that part 5 of the legislation is correct in principle and that in most situations it works well in practice. However, the view has been formed that many of the mechanisms can be improved and made to work more conveniently both for the patients themselves and for the medical practitioners and dentists who treat them.

The board issued in November 1991 a consultative paper identifying those provisions within part 5 that, in the board's view, could be improved, and new procedures were suggested and circulated for consideration and response by the community, in particular by relevant professional and other bodies. As part of that consultative process the Guardianship Board held meetings with bodies such as the Public Guardian, the Protective Commissioner, the Medical Services Committee and I believe also the Australian Medical Association and probably the Australian Dental Association. That consultative process was entirely proper. It resulted in the board receiving approximately 60 responses. Those responses supported the improvement suggested and in some cases put forward other suggestions for consideration and possible change to part 5 of the Act.

Following that consultation process, which continued for approximately 12 months, recommendations were made to the Minister, and those recommendations have matured into the legislation now before the House. Before proceeding further, I express my gratitude to the Minister for Community Services and Assistant Minister for Health, the Hon. Jim Longley, for the briefing I was able to have with Mr Nick O'Neill, the Deputy President of the Guardianship Board. It has assisted in my understanding this important legislation. Without unduly delaying the House, having regard to the importance of the legislation, I should like to identify some of its more important provisions.

I have stated already that part 5 establishes a hierarchy of substitute decision-makers who are termed in the legislation persons responsible and are able to give substitute consent for people who cannot give valid consent themselves for medical or dental treatment. At the moment that hierarchy comprises the patient's guardian, if there is one, a spouse or de facto spouse, if one exists, or a direct unpaid carer, if there is one. If no such person is available who falls within the statutory definitions of a person responsible, either the Guardianship Board or the Public Guardian becomes the substitute decision-maker.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That was hopeless, was it not?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It proved to be somewhat inflexible in practice because it could well be that an elderly person living alone might not have a spouse still living, a de facto spouse, or a direct unpaid carer. On the other hand, that person might have a next door neighbour.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Or six sons or daughters.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, or six sons or daughters or other people with whom they come into daily or weekly contact who are able to have some relationship with them and could justifiably and sensibly be appointed for the purpose of giving such consent. To the extent that this amendment is being made to the legislation, much of the inconvenience can be avoided and the making of unnecessary applications to the Guardianship Board can also be obviated. Another important feature of the bill is that it deals with various aspects relating to medical and dental treatments. At the moment five categories of treatment are provided for under the legislation, the first being medical or dental treatment that is urgently necessary, for example, to save a person's life or to prevent serious damage to that person's health. In that case the doctor or dentist is entitled to administer the treatment without first obtaining consent from a substitute decision-maker. The second category is special medical treatment in which only the Guardianship Board is entitled to give consent. I understand that the main form of medical treatment in this category would be sterilisation, which clearly is no small matter.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Which was the point of the bill in the first place.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: That may well be one of the motivating causes, although by no means the only one. The third category is major medical treatment, and I understand that that relates to operations where a general anaesthetic is administered or where medical treatment requiring the use of tranquillisers is involved. In this category persons responsible and the Guardianship Board are the substitute decision-makers. The fourth and fifth categories, being the remaining categories, relate to minor medical treatments and minor dental treatments. The person responsible or the Public Guardian are the substitute decision-makers for those treatments. The amendments permit treating doctors to administer minor medical treatment without consent when they believe the treatment to be necessary and there is either no person responsible or that person cannot be readily located. At present treatment in those circumstances must be delayed while consent is obtained from the Public Guardian. The Opposition believes that is an unduly cumbersome provision, and no doubt the Government agrees with that view.

Medical treatment has been redefined to exclude non-intrusive examinations, trivial matters or first-aid treatment and over-the-counter medications. I understand that examinations where a medical practitioner looks into the mouth, eyes or ears are
Page 2131
now excluded from the definition of medical treatment. However, a more serious and intrusive examination, such as a rectal examination, would still require consent. There is now to be a division into major and minor dental treatment to ensure that different types of medical treatment receive levels of response appropriate to that particular type of treatment. Apparently all dental treatment at the moment is dealt with as minor. However, some dental treatment is not minor. I was advised during my briefing that, for example, a full evacuation of the mouth is not unknown, particularly with people with developmental disabilities. Although I am a layman, I would not have thought that could be regarded as minor dental treatment.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It almost certainly requires a general anaesthetic.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: That would be another matter that would add to the seriousness of the procedure. The bill contains also a redefinition of the term experimental treatment to ensure that such treatments, which might help people with disabilities, can be given a proper trial. That is clearly a fairly sensitive and important area and is not a matter that should be embarked upon lightly. Only the Guardianship Board could give appropriate approval for treatments of that type and character. The form of trial or experiment would no doubt need to be fully and comprehensively justified to the Guardianship Board. Just because a matter is experimental does not mean it ought to be excluded ipso facto, otherwise medical science may not progress properly and appropriately. Many medical discoveries and procedures have been developed, with appropriate safeguards, by experimental treatment. Subject to full justification to the Guardianship Board, there is nothing wrong with what the bill provides in regard to experimental treatment.

The bill contains also clarification of urgent treatments in order to ensure that urgent and necessary treatment can be given to prevent significant pain and distress. The existing form of words contained in the legislation in regard to urgent treatments requires that the treatment must be for the purpose of saving life or preventing serious damage to health. The Government and the Guardianship Board have formed the view that that is a somewhat rigid formulation and that someone could well be in considerable pain and distress and in need of urgent treatment in the ordinary sense of that expression without the actual condition or painful episode being life threatening. The Opposition also supports that provision.

The other matter to which I should like to refer briefly and to which I adverted to earlier in my remarks is that the legislation also enables the Guardianship Board to deal with applications for financial management orders without first having to deal with a guardianship application. In that regard the bill makes certain amendments to the Protected Estates Act 1983. The purpose of these amendments is to enable the Guardianship Board to deal with applications for financial management orders without having first to embark on a guardianship application. Under the provisions contained in the bill, I am sure it is quite apparent to honourable members that far fewer applications will be made to the Guardianship Board to appoint medical guardians. That flows from what I have been saying about the various categories of medical treatment and the sifting out of the more minor procedures not requiring consent from the more major procedures that do require consent.

A consequential problem flowing from the changes to the medical and dental consent procedures set out in the bill could be that many families who need financial management orders to manage the financial affairs of an elderly demented parent, for example, would not have the access to the board they have had until now. The Opposition supports the changes because it is in the interests of people who are suffering from dementia, to take one example, to have their representatives approach the Guardianship Board for the making of a financial management order to govern their financial and other affairs more effectively. The bill overcomes this consequential problem, though I note that the Guardianship Board will still be able to refer matters of some complexity to the Supreme Court. However, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court about the making of a financial management order. Were it not for this amendment, families of elderly people or people with disabilities would have the difficulty and expense of having to approach the Supreme Court for the making of a financial management order.

That is a brief summary of the more important provisions of the legislation. The Opposition believes, having had the benefit of the briefing to which I referred and having considered the legislation, that it is sensible and worth while and will facilitate the better working of the Guardianship Board. I reiterate my satisfaction with the work of the Guardianship Board, which is most pleasing to the Opposition. I wish the board every success in its future activities dealing with the undoubtedly difficult matters it is required to consider.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [3.23]: In supporting this bill I acknowledge the generous remarks made by the shadow minister for community services. His speech did not contain a single criticism of the legislation, nor the operation of the Guardianship Board. It is rare that there is full agreement on both sides of the House on the operation of a Government instrumentality and on legislation. It is commendable. I congratulate the Opposition on its generous comments and join in commending the work of the Guardianship Board.

The New South Wales Guardianship Board was established in 1989. It carries out a number of very important functions on behalf of the people of New South Wales. It assists in decision-making about accommodation options, medical consents and financial arrangements for people in our community who lack the ability to make those decisions for themselves, usually because they have an intellectual
Page 2132
disability, a physical disability such as a psychiatric disability, a brain injury or dementia. The bill seeks to make changes to the way the Guardianship Board carries out its functions in relation to medical consents, dental treatment and financial arrangements. Last year the full-time staff of the board and its two full-time and 70 part-time members dealt with 4,317 applications for guardianship, representing a 28 per cent increase in its work over the previous year. There is little doubt that the board anticipates an increase in its activities in the future.

Included in its decisions were 851 medical consents and 1,059 applications for orders regarding financial management. Approximately two-thirds of clients monitored by the Guardianship Board have an inability to give consent on their own behalf about medical matters. The board's annual report reveals that in the past year the board conducted 6,000 hearings over 808 sitting days. The House should be aware that although there are only 365 days in a year, the board, on many occasions, had three panels sitting at once. Of the 6,000 hearings, one-quarter of the hearings were in regional or country areas. It may also interest the House to know that 4 per cent of those hearings were conducted after hours. The board has to be commended for the manner in which it makes itself available throughout the State and around the clock.

Not only did the board meet in its city-based premises, which were originally located in Glebe but are now located in Balmain, but it also met in a number of hospitals and institutions where its clients need to make these applications. Hearings were held at Newcastle, Wollongong, Gosford and Katoomba as well as in 22 other rural locations in New South Wales. Members of the Guardianship Board are available on a 24-hour basis and, as I understand it, some of its part-time members and the two full-time members, such as Mr Roger West and Mr Nicholas O'Neill, have access to paging systems and can be contacted almost any hour of the day, any day of the week.

Since the Guardianship Board began operations in 1989, it has been remarkably successful in gaining community support and the support of its clients. The staff, its president and deputy president are to be commended for the openness, accessibility and responsiveness of the service. It is fair to say that the board has demonstrated a great deal of ingenuity in devising various arrangements that have been made compassionately and properly on behalf of clients. The board has also been vigorous in educating people and professionals about its role and about some of the special issues relating to its clients. In that regard it has conducted a number of special issues seminars- - for example, dementia, the Mental Health Act and behaviour management of people with intellectual disabilities - and issued a number of useful publications to assist professionals.

The work of the board has been extremely comprehensive in advocating and making arrangements for these people, and educating the community about their needs. It is to be commended for the way it has taken the Act, which established the Guardianship Board, and attempted to respond completely to every aspect of it. The bill relates mainly to changes to part 5 of the Act which currently provides consent for five categories of medical treatment: first, treatment urgent and necessary to save a person's life or to prevent serious damage to a person's health, where a doctor or dentist may administer the treatment without first obtaining consent from a substitute decision-maker; second, special medical treatment to which only the Guardianship Board can consent; third, major medical treatment where persons responsible on the Guardianship Board are substitute decision-makers for that treatment; fourth and fifth, minor medical treatment and dental treatment where persons responsible and the Public Guardian are substitute decision-makers. If a person objects to non-urgent treatment, only the Guardianship Board may override that decision and give consent.

That has already been done but I would like to pursue it a little further to illustrate the ways in which the Guardianship Board carries out its task to assist the medical profession in performing a number of treatments and advocating upon the decision-making ability of clients - in many cases preventing the medical profession from riding roughshod over clients' express wishes. I will illustrate that point further by reading from a case history presented in the 1990 annual report of the Guardianship Board. The report refers to someone called Mr Z - a 25-year-old man suffering from schizophrenia. The report states:

He generally recognised the benefits of his medication and consented to its administration. However from time to time, during a psychotic episode, he would refuse to take his medication.

This is a fairly classic case in which the Guardianship Board is able to help. The report continues:

Before the guardianship legislation came into force it was not possible to give Mr Z his medication until his condition deteriorated to a point where he became a serious physical danger to himself or to others. At that stage he could be _scheduled' involuntarily under the Mental Health Act and then medication could be administered by force.

If honourable members have regard to the role of the Guardianship Board they will realise that that is unsatisfactory. The Guardianship Board conducted hearings with Mr Z, at which Mr Z gave his views and consented to treatment on his behalf at an early stage. Despite Mr Z having previously objected to treatment and notwithstanding that he might subsequently resist it, at the time of the hearing, when he was in a better frame of mind, he expressed the desire to have treatment administered early to protect himself. The Guardianship Board is able to provide a number of benefits for a patient such as Mr Z. I draw to the attention of the House another case that illustrates how the Guardianship Board advocates upon the decision-making ability of clients under guardianship - sometimes over and above the requirements of the medical profession. The report to which I have mentioned refers also to a person known as Ms Y, and states:


Page 2133

Ms Y was a young woman with a mild to moderate developmental disability who lived in a group home. She needed some routine and essential dental treatment. Her service providers explained the proposed treatment in simple terms and felt confident that Ms Y understood what it was and the effect it would have. However the dentist was concerned about Ms Y's capacity to consent and he made an application to the Board.

He made this application to determine whether he could carry out this treatment on Ms Y's behalf. So if some other family member objected to Ms Y's wishes, he could rely on the fact that he had previously negotiated with her to obtain her consent and that consent had been validated by the Guardianship Board. The role of the Guardianship Board is not necessarily to carry out medical treatment over and above the wishes of its clients; in many cases it establishes what its clients want and ensures that they receive treatment at the appropriate time, regardless of the wishes of other family members. This has been particularly useful in eugenic abortions as it has been possible to establish what a person wants and to ensure that that is able to be achieved. All honourable members would regard that as a reasonable and compassionate approach to a difficult problem.

The amendments to the Act have already been outlined by the Minister in his second reading speech, and by the Hon. R. D. Dyer. However, I would like to draw attention to a few amendments to establish how they will have a beneficial effect. I have already said that the Guardianship Board's workload has increased substantially over the past two years. Many of the decisions it is making are necessary. Other people can be delegated as trustees to act in accordance with the wishes and in the best interests of the clients of the Guardianship Board. The board has asked - this has been confirmed by extensive public consultation - for certain areas of the law to be relaxed to enable greater discretion by carers and substitute decision-makers.

In a few instances the Guardianship Board has asked for the scope of the law to be tightened so that there is more supervision in critical areas. As a result of this overall package it is hoped that some of the decisions in which the Guardianship Board becomes involved will be reduced, so that the board will be able to expand its services into other areas. One important area for which there is enormous demand is financial management. Under the bill, people who would like the board to assist with financial management - and there are many such people - need not apply to the board for a guardianship application or for an application for medical consent. That appears to be common sense, an excellent use of the limited resources available to the Guardianship Board.

In my view the Guardianship Board is to be commended for having suggested a number of areas from which it might rightly withdraw. In this day and age it is relatively rare for public servants to reduce the size of their empire, so the Guardianship Board is to be commended for exercising what I believe to be excellent discretion. It has said, "This is an area in which we have been operating. There is no longer a need for us to operate in this area. We want to draw back because there are other areas of greater concern to the community". Let me give a few examples of the areas from which the Guardianship Board wishes to withdraw. In some instances doctors have commenced treatment and it has been necessary to delegate that responsibility to some other care giver. Once these amendments have been agreed to, doctors will be able to delegate authority to nurses or other care givers to continue that treatment. That is good. Currently, doctors have to make many decisions about urgent treatment, and under the Act urgent treatment is limited to treatment that is life-saving or treatment that, if not carried out, might cause serious damage to health.

The Guardianship Board has asked for a slight relaxation of the strictures of the law to allow doctors to exercise this discretion in cases where it might be necessary to prevent a patient suffering or continuing to suffer significant pain or distress. The bill provides not only for relief of life-threatening conditions; it provides that it is reasonable for doctors to make decisions that, for example, relieve pain. That is good. It not only allows the Guardianship Board to focus on other areas, it provides for speedy decisions in the interests of clients. The quicker that patients can receive attention, the quicker they will get relief.

With a minor qualification the bill will allow for further expansion of the discretion of medical practitioners to enable them to carry out minor medical and dental treatment on a patient if no responsible person can be found, or if the responsible person is unwilling to act. Where members of the medical profession are able to indicate that minor, non-intrusive treatment should be carried out, they will be able to do that. One area in which the law could be described as having been tightened relates to the definition of special treatment. What areas are covered in the special treatment category? They include procedures such as hysterectomies, which are sometimes performed to relieve menstrual problems or severe bleeding, or other disabilities from which a person might be suffering.

Another category is dental treatment. Honourable members need to be aware that the management of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities may require a greater level of anaesthesia in the carrying out of these procedures - more than would normally be required for an ordinary person consulting a dentist. Because of the general anaesthetic requirement dental treatment fits into the category of "special treatment".

Serious and often difficult decisions have to be made by the Guardianship Board, but it has suggested a tightening up of the categories of special treatment to extend them to any new kind of treatment that has not yet gained the full support of medical practitioners or dentists specialising in the relevant area of practice. One example would be experimental treatment for people suffering from HIV infection. These people may suffer from dementia and may be unable to make decisions about the use of experimental drug therapy,
Page 2134
which their relatives may consider to be relevant and worth trying. Able-bodied people who are able to make their own decisions may be happy to be treated with drugs that have not been formally processed through the normal approval channels.

Families of, or people caring for, a person who is suffering from an HIV infection and is at the latter stages of treatment may wish to try experimental drug therapy. It is important that this therapy be included as special treatment because these are sensitive decisions; it is not simply a matter of intrusive surgery. It is important to extend the definition of special treatment to enable the Guardianship Board to permit experimental treatment that it considers to be in the best interests of the patients for whom it is responsible. The Guardianship Board seeks to amend the Act with regard to financial management, and some useful case studies of this matter have been carried out. The board has powers under the Act to appoint financial managers, provided two conditions are met. First, there must be evidence that the person is incapable of managing his or her affairs. Second, management must be needed because the person is at risk of financial disadvantage or exploitation by others, or of losing or dissipating money.

In a number of instances the Guardianship Board has been able to intervene and organise financial arrangements to ensure that a person's limited financial resources, which sometimes have been given for medical treatment, are not dissipated, particularly, as frequently happens, by family members who seek to exploit that person. The annual report of the Guardianship Board refers to the case of an old lady, Mrs T, and some bikies. The report states:

Mrs T was in her late-70s. She was brought to her local hospital by a group of bikies. The bikies said they were worried about the _old lady' because her son was taking all her pension and dragging her around with him to various flats.

Hospital staff arranged for her to stay in a local hostel, but her son continually turned up at the hostel and took his mother away. He also took her pension money. Mrs T was quite forgetful and she did not seem to understand that if she gave him all her money, she could not pay her board and she would end up back on the street. A social worker applied to the Board on her behalf for a guardian and a financial manager.

The Public Guardian was appointed and was able to stop the son taking his mother away from the hostel. Initial informal arrangements to protect her pension broke down, so the Board appointed the Protective Commissioner to look after her money.

This has worked very well. Mrs T and her son are now planning to live together, but the Protective Commissioner will ensure that she only contributes a fair portion of the rent and the son will not be able to take her money.

That indicates how the board provides financial management, and how it is able to work for the benefit of its clients. The amendments to the Act are intended not to increase the power of the Guardianship Board but to increase the number of people to whom its services can be made available. The legislation is an extension of an Act that is providing compassion and producing forward thinking, and which has been a model upon which other States have developed similar arrangements. The bill outlines a number of realistic changes to the law which will be genuinely beneficial to people with disabilities, and I commend it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.45]: The Australian Democrats support the Guardianship (Amendment) Bill, which makes a number of amendments to the Guardianship Act 1987 in relation to the provision of medical and dental treatment to people with disabilities who are unable to make their own decisions about treatment. The amendments refer in the main to the definitions of persons responsible under the Act. The current law establishes a hierarchy of substitute decision-makers, called persons responsible, who can give substitute consent for people who are unable to do so themselves. This list currently includes such people as the guardian, spouse, de facto, or direct unpaid carer. However, the bill will make amendments to ensure that "spouse" cannot include an estranged spouse, and that "carers" include people who provide or arrange services and support on a non-contractual basis. It will also create the additional category of "other appropriate persons" - a person with a close personal relationship with the patient.

One of the important amendments is that persons responsible may consent to major medical treatment and minor medical and dental treatment. Yesterday I was informed about a neighbour whose wife is unfortunately suffering from Alzheimer's disease and is permanently in hospital. She was sick about a week ago and the husband was asked to consent to a tracheotomy being performed. He did not feel that he was able to give this consent, with his limited medical knowledge. He preferred that that consent be given by responsible medical people in charge of her treatment because of his admitted inadequate knowledge of what the treatment would entail. It is very important that persons responsible may only consent; that they are not given the full responsibility of making such a complicated decision.

The amendments basically acknowledge the role of families in caring for the disabled, and the Guardianship Board in future will be able to review the actions of a guardian or person responsible, but only if those actions are called into question. The second important amendment in the bill is that treating doctors will be allowed to administer minor medical treatment without the consent of the public guardian. As the Hon. J. F. Ryan recently explained to the House, this is also a very important provision, because there are many minor procedures, and obtaining the consent of the public guardian involves the person concerned in the treatment in a lengthy and possibly protracted bureaucratic process.

However, the ability of doctors to administer minor medical treatment without consent will occur only when there is no person responsible and when the patient does not object, and when the doctor will certify that the patient is incapable of giving consent and that the treatment is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. I am convinced that these provisions will contribute to procedural efficiency. They are also supported by the Public Guardian. Obviously, normal standards regarding liability will
Page 2135
still apply.

The third major amendment will allow the Guardianship Board to deal with applications for financial management orders without having first to deal with a guardianship application. At present under the Protected Estates Act 1983 the Guardianship Board may consider making a financial management order only where the board is considering a guardianship application or has made a guardianship order. The amendments contained in the bill are designed to reduce the need for guardianship applications. As a consequence the ability of the Guardianship Board to make management orders may be constrained. But I do not think that any honourable member would believe that to be a bad thing. The Act is to be amended to allow the board to consider applications for financial management even without a guardianship order being considered. Furthermore, the board will be able to refer complex matters such as this to the Supreme Court. In turn this will eliminate the need for families of elderly people or people with disabilities to go to the Supreme Court for financial management orders. Obviously that will result in a substantial cost saving to those carers.

Other amendments include the redefinition of experimental treatment, as was mentioned by the Hon. J. F. Ryan, to ensure that such treatments that may help people with disabilities can be given a trial. These terms would need to be approved by the Guardianship Board. The final amendment, and one of the most important - and one that is most likely to be used - refers to dental treatment. The division of dental treatments into major and minor categories will be put in place. At the moment treatment is described as minor and, especially when one is dealing with many dental treatments that might be received that were not previously available, this is an important matter. The amendments to the guardianship provisions will bring about improvements. It gives me pleasure to support the bill.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.53]: I support the bill. As the Hon. R. D. Dyer acknowledged, this is important legislation. The amendments in the Guardianship (Amendment) Bill 1993 appropriately address issues that have become evident since the implementation of the Disability Services and Guardianship Act 1987. The bill is an example of how the Government puts into action the mission statement from the Department of Community Services which promises "to assist in the empowerment of families, individuals and disadvantaged communities under stress who require assistance, guidance or protection to enable them to participate in the community".

From my years of experience as a social worker I know that the bill will foster better conditions for the individual with disabilities, especially by widening the range of persons responsible to give medical consent on their behalf. The category of persons responsible is narrowly confined to a selection of only three people. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby described this matter fairly fully. If there is an appointed guardian, he or she is the person responsible. If no guardian is appointed, the spouse or de facto spouse is the person responsible. If there is no spouse, a person who is a direct but unpaid carer is the person responsible. If no person fits one of those three specific descriptions, at present the Guardianship Board or the Public Guardian becomes the substitute decision-maker.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer mentioned that a large number of people will be affected by the legislation. More than 150,000 people in New South Wales have an intellectual disability. Some of them have suffered their disability from birth, and others have acquired the disability through illness or accident during their lives. I am sure that many honourable members will relate to the latter situation, for example, a person who has acquired a form of dementia and is no longer capable of making informed decisions, particularly about such things as medical consent to treatment. In situations of that type - and many others - a number of caring people may be involved who share the task of assisting the person affected with the disability.

Frequently these caring people cannot be described as a legal guardian, a spouse, or a direct unpaid carer. I ask: Should we add to their tasks by insisting that they arrange for Guardianship Board intervention just because they do not fit the narrow description of a person responsible, as provided for in the Act? I believe that people in our community who are willing to provide assistance and care for less able relatives or friends should be applauded. By widening the term person responsible to include other family members and a significant number of other people who take on some from of caring role, the legislation recognises their value and acknowledges it in a practical way. I commend the Minister for acknowledging the significant role of carers to those who have an intellectual disability.

Following the philosophy underlying the original legislation, the Guardianship Board and the Public Guardian should become involved only when it is absolutely necessary to protect the rights of people with disabilities. The proposed amendments guard against overintervention, and thereby will achieve gains for service users as well as service providers. First, they will benefit persons with disabilities and those who care for them, by creating a more direct system of medical consent provision. Second, the medical service providers and the Guardianship Board will be relieved of unnecessary paperwork, thereby promoting greater efficiency. The medical consent provisions of the bill will ensure smoother functioning and greater opportunity for patients to receive promptly the medical and dental treatment that they require. A doctor will now be allowed to proceed with minor treatments without the need to obtain formal consent when there is no person responsible, provided that the patient does not object. The doctor must also certify in the patient's records the incapacity to give informed consent and that the treatment is both necessary and the most appropriate in the circumstances.

Page 2136

I should like to highlight the importance of this amendment and how it will add support to some of the principles of the Government's recent legislation on disability services. The principles refer to the promotion of a quality of life for persons with disabilities that resembles as closely as possible that which the general community experiences and enjoys. A similar principle has been expressed by the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability which stated that people with an intellectual disability are, first and foremost, individuals who have exactly the same needs as all other community members. At those times when special additional care or services are required, they are best achieved when "based on the principle of normalisation". If minor medical and dental treatment can be arranged at a personal level - rather than through bureaucratic procedures - wherever possible the above principle is supported.

Additionally, the redefinition of dental treatment by dividing it into major and minor forms of treatment will allow for more appropriate levels of response. The term medical treatment has been clarified to exclude trivial or first-aid treatment as well as over-the-counter medications. The Minister's second reading speech noted that the paperwork for these bureaucratic procedures is not only time-consuming but has been identified as a cause of widespread non-compliance. I am sure all honourable members are concerned about protection of the individual, rather than neglect that may result from the obstacles posed by excessive paperwork. The individual with disabilities will remain protected as before in the circumstances which are described as special treatments. Those special treatments will require consent from the Guardianship Board.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan elaborated in his contribution on the aspect of special treatments. As before, the doctor or dentist may provide treatment without prior consent in situations where it is "urgently necessary to save a person's life or to prevent serious damage to their health". A welcome extension is the inclusion of treatments urgently needed to prevent significant pain and distress; also, such treatments are to be allowed without prior consent. The Government is to be commended for its thorough planning for this legislation by allowing wide consultation with the Guardianship Board and a variety of professional and community groups and individuals. The overwhelming support for the proposed amendments speaks for itself.

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the Protected Estates Act 1983 to remove restrictions as to the circumstances in which the Guardianship Board can exercise its power to order the estate of a person to be subject to management under that Act. It will allow the Guardianship Board to deal with applications for financial management orders without having first to deal with a guardianship application. This will mean that fewer medical guardians will need to be appointed, and many families will no longer face the difficulties and expense of having to go to the Supreme Court for financial management orders. To conclude, I believe this amending bill will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery to elderly people and those with disabilities. The system will be more flexible and will meet the needs of the target group. I support the bill.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.59]: I register my pleasure at the changes made to the guardianship legislation. At the time the then Minister, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, determined she was going to promulgate and implement this legislation it was obvious that there would be some problems. However, the judgment of the Minister of the new Government is that it is better to introduce this legislation than to waste considerably more time developing new legislation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted for the taking of questions.



The Hon. M. R. EGAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Housing. Is the Government still considering various proposals by FANMAC bondholders or underwriters for the restructuring of HomeFund loans? Has the Government any other proposal for restructuring the bonds and loans to ensure across-the-board interest rate relief for HomeFund borrowers who are currently paying up to 16 per cent per annum? When will a decision be made on these matters?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The answer to the first question of the honourable member is, yes, we are considering proposals that have been put and if the Leader of the Opposition had been present in the Chamber during the debate on the bill that introduced the Home Purchase Assistance Authority he would know that the specific purpose of that authority, for which his party voted and for which he probably voted, is to consider all matters, including how home purchase assistance might be given in the future and a review of what has been done in the past. I remind the honourable member, who cannot help finding a sting in the tail of all his questions, that it was his party which set up FANMAC and conceived the idea of having fixed interest loans to HomeFund borrowers. If anyone seeks to criticise fixed interest loans for HomeFund borrowers, Frank Walker should be the subject of that criticism because it was the former Labor Government which set it up.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: You stuffed it up.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Mucked up.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The first honourable member who interjected used intemperate language which I shall not repeat because it does not cast much credit upon her. It is not a question of whether it has been mucked up, or stuffed up, as the honourable member said.

Page 2137

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: I said mucked up.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: You said mucked up but she said something else. Basically, the authority is concerned about assisting those people who are genuinely in trouble. That is what I have been on about ever since I have been Minister for Housing.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Do you have a proposal?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The honourable member did not listen to my answer. Those proposals are continuing to be considered by Treasury.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They are the bondholders' proposals.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The honourable member is so thick headed. Sometimes he should just listen.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Has the Government any proposals?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Yes, the Government will have various proposals.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition can ask a supplementary question. I entreat him to listen to the answer and then consider whether he wants to ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Of course those proposals are being considered, as will any future proposal. The role of the Home Purchase Assistance Authority - as the honourable member should know because it was set up with agreement of both Houses and all parties in this Parliament - is to consider future options such as those, I suppose, to which the honourable member was referring. Yesterday I received notice from the Governor's secretary that assent has been given. The authority will be set up post haste with a board and the brief it is given by the Act. I assure the honourable member that we are considering all options for refinance. So far, all the options I have seen have involved considerable cost. The Government will have to be careful before it makes any decisions to change the status quo. I remind the honourable member again that it was the Labor Party that set up HomeFund and FANMAC and the system of fixed interest loans. Any criticism he sought to make in his question should be directed where it belongs.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training. Will the Minister inform the House how many overseas students are currently studying at TAFE in New South Wales? What is the benefit of allowing these students to study through our TAFE system? Do they take places from Australian students?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the honourable member for his question, which displays yet again his interest in TAFE and vocational education and training in New South Wales. The growth of TAFE's involvement in the international student market is a sign of TAFE's increasing maturity and diversity and the respect for which the organisation is held in Australia and overseas. At present 682 overseas students are studying at New South Wales TAFE. This is a huge increase over the figures of a few years ago. The provision of education facilities to overseas students is a rapidly developing area of activity within TAFE and in other vocational education systems around Australia. The students most certainly do not take places from any local Australian student. In fact, they complement in two ways: first, they fill surplus places in existing classes and, second, they can, if sufficient interest is shown overseas, create a viable course which would not otherwise have been running. They make up class sizes and provide choices that might otherwise not be available. Also, overseas students provide additional revenue for TAFE and boost the international reputation of education facilities in New South Wales in general but of TAFE in particular.

Overseas students studying in TAFE colleges in 1993 come from 30 countries and attend more than 30 campuses across New South Wales. About a week ago I was pleasantly surprised to find that in the New England area four students from Vanuatu are studying for certificates to become health and meat inspectors. That was a source of great pleasure and great interest at the local country college. The overseas students are primarily from the Asia Pacific countries. Almost half of the students are from Hong Kong, with Indonesia and Korea well represented. The international students undertake a range of courses, including business and office studies, engineering, maritime studies, computer studies and so on. This year we anticipate generating $4 million from overseas students who, on average, pay between $5,000 and $10,000 each in annual fees. This is a significant and growing important market for TAFE because that $4 million will be ploughed straight back into the New South Wales TAFE system.

As well as that win-win situation for TAFE, I would also like to think that students who have had the opportunity to mix with Australian students in TAFE and who have had positive and beneficial experience in our education system in TAFE will take back to their home countries a positive and warm view of Australia and Australians. In that way this program brings intangible benefits of lasting worth to New South Wales and Australia, as well as the practical and welcome $4 million to be earned this year.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Sydney
Page 2138
City Council has presented to the Government a 50-page financial strategy plan which describes in detail how the Sydney City Council plans to rectify its accumulated budget deficit of $22.5 million and the expensive cross-servicing with the South Sydney City Council? What is the Government's response to this financial strategy plan? Will the Government give support to the present Lord Mayor, Mr Sartor, and Sydney City Council aldermen and staff, who are finding it difficult to increase financial income, sell assets, et cetera, in an atmosphere of uncertainty because of the axe hanging over the council's head?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I thank Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for his question. I will seek a detailed answer from my colleague the Minister for Local Government. However, may I say that the Minister for Local Government has bent over backwards to assist the Sydney City Council in restructuring its finances; he has met council members many times and has tried to guide them, using the local government department and its resources to get the council's budget in order. I am sure my colleague will continue to offer his assistance, however, I will seek a more detailed answer for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing a question without notice. I preface my question by referring the Minister to the document "Implementing the Mant Report" dated April 1993, which puts forward options A and B for varying the boundaries of Department of Housing regions. Will the Minister confirm that option A is the proposal favoured by the Government? If so, why is the Government of this view when option A represents a departure from the recommendation in the Mant report where 10 regional housing offices were proposed? If option A is adopted by the Government, will substantial expenditure be involved in the construction and expansion of regional Department of Housing offices? If so, how will the Government justify that expenditure?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The last part of the Hon. R. D. Dyer's question about additional expenditure on Department of Housing regional offices is easy to answer. There will be no additional expenditure of any magnitude, if at all, on any proposed regional office of the Department of Housing. One of the things I have been at pains to do in implementing the Mant report is to ensure that there is genuine devolution of responsibility from the central office of the Department of Housing to the regions. I have found in my travels around the State, not only in the regional offices but also in the district offices, that a very high level of dedication and competence exists among Department of Housing personnel. Therefore, I am pleased with the recommendations from the Mant report implementation task force into housing towards genuinely regionalising many of those functions which have traditionally remained within the central office of the Department of Housing. Here I am referring to asset management, capital works programs and many other matters which should quite clearly, and will, be managed at a reasonable level.

One matter I was keen to follow up as a result of the Mant report was to ensure that all housing regions were financially viable. This has involved the Government in considering the present regional structure in the regional metropolitan, Illawarra and other areas and, indeed, the country. Whatever proposals are finally adopted, the honourable member can be assured that those housing regions will be financially viable units. Another point I wish to make clear is that I have absolutely no intention of closing any housing office in any town in New South Wales. Local offices and regional offices may move from place to place depending on implementation, but there will be no closure of offices in the country and, irrespective of where the regional offices may finish up, they will be located in the most appropriate place.

I am sure the honourable member's questions are driven by the wild speculation that was fuelled by some of his less responsible colleagues in another place, particularly in the Hunter, where I noted various local members were prepared to participate in a march of protest to my office to prevent me from moving the regional office in Wollongong to another destination on the coast. That decision has not been made, but irrespective of whether it is or not and irrespective of whether it pleases all members of both Houses - an almost impossible task - I assure the honourable member that there will remain a large presence of the Department of Housing in those areas where it has a large holding of public housing units. The structure recommended by the Mant report I would have thought would be supported by both sides of the House in that it does genuinely propose a proper system of regionalisation in the Department of Housing.

In conclusion, I say to the honourable member that one of the things Gabrielle Kibble has done - and all members are aware she is a fine public servant - is to have full consultation with the staff of the Department of Housing from the beginning of the implementation of the Mant report through to the end. I compliment her and all officers of the Department of Housing on the way they have conducted themselves during the implementation of the Mant report. I am sure that spirit of co-operation will continue until the implementation is finalised. Irrespective of where the country regional offices might be situated, the honourable member can be assured that there will be no closure of Department of Housing offices in New South Wales.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for
Page 2139
Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training. What response has there been to the Department of School Education's call for tenders to establish private child care facilities on New South Wales government school sites? How soon will these tenders be processed?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: As the honourable member will be aware, because of her important work on the ministerial advisory committee, the department did call for expressions of interest in this matter. In January the department advertised for tenders from any groups interested in establishing child care facilities on New South Wales government school sites. The response has been quite overwhelming for such a novel idea - 108 expressions of interest have been received in four months. The tenders proposed have been of varying degrees. Some tenders were for specific sites, others for schools in certain areas, some covered before and after school care, others covered vacation care or long day care, some tenders were from private enterprise, others from parents and citizens associations, and others from the school community itself. Tenders are still being received.

The proposals will now be forwarded to the regional offices of the Department of School Education and will then be discussed with individual schools. There is no pressure, of course, on any school to accept any of the tenders. Schools will have the final say on whether they wish to set up a child care facility on any surplus land or in spare classrooms. It is envisaged that successful providers will either be leased or licensed for the vacant accommodation for up to 10 years. Any improvements made to the school facilities during that time will automatically revert to the school at the end of the lease or licence.

Any facilities which are established will be subject to licensing by the Department of Community Services. The department will also be involved in sifting through the tenders. Commercial child care centres will allow schools to utilise their resources, and parents to re-enter the work force or attend re-training courses while their children are being cared for by professionals in a safe environment. This is a very exciting initiative aimed at further encouraging schools to become the absolute focal point and centre of their local community. I commend the department for the work it has done to date on this innovative proposal.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I address my question to the Attorney General. Is he aware that there are 147 female barristers practising in New South Wales? Is he aware also that 74 have been practising at the bar for more than five years and that three of the 74 women are Q.C.s and, therefore, eligible for the highest office even under current rules? In view of these facts will the Attorney General assure the House that women will be appointed to the bench as a matter of urgency and at the highest level? If not, why not?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I thank the honourable member for her timely question, having regard to recent comment in the media. I assure the honourable member that I do not differentiate between males and females in judicial appointment; such appointment is one of merit. Some women who have been approached by me for appointment to the bench have declined. I find that regrettable. I emphasise that the only criterion used by the Government in making appointments to the bench is that of merit. I do not differentiate between capable barristers and capable solicitors when considering appointments. I note that the question related only to barristers, but so far as I am concerned barristers and solicitors have equal status for appointment to the bench.

I can provide the House with the following additional information. There are 984 barristers with more than seven years' experience at the bar. The present rules for appointment require five years as a barrister and seven years as a solicitor. Because I believe there should be no differentiation, I will be introducing legislation which proposes there be no distinction and, therefore, an appointee will have seven years as a barrister or solicitor to be eligible for appointment. Using the seven years as a criterion, I point out that there are 72 female and 912 male barristers who have more than seven years' experience and who therefore would be eligible for consideration for appointment. For those with longer experience, 764 barristers have more than 10 years' experience, 45 of them female and 719 male.

Of this State's solicitors, 6,840 were admitted more than seven years ago. Of that number, 1,095 are female and 5,745 are male. In addition, 5,381 solicitors were admitted more than 10 years ago but only 644 of them are female, with 4,737 being male. This clearly indicates that of those with lengthy experience, to whom one would look for appointment on merit, there are not as many female solicitors in the field as one would want. I am pleased to note that the situation is changing quite remarkably. I am told that this year at the Sydney Law School more than 50 per cent of the students are female.

Of the 44 Supreme Court judges in New South Wales, one is female; of the nine Industrial Court judges - and I am referring only to judges and not to commissioners - only one is female; there are 15 Land and Environment Court judges and one is female; there are 57 District Court judges and one is female; and there are 12 Compensation Court judges and one is female. There are 129 magistrates in this State, eight of whom are female. I can indicate to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby that this is one issue I consider with judicial appointments.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I ask the Attorney General a supplementary question. In view of the answer he has just given, and the vast disparity
Page 2140
quoted between the number of males and females either on the bench or suitable for appointment to the bench, will the Attorney assure the House that he will endeavour, as a matter of urgency, to at least reach a situation where 35 per cent of those on the bench are female?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: It is unfortunate that the honourable member seeks to refer to particular figures, particularly in the current debate which is about the capability of judicial officers and ensuring that appointments are made on merit. All honourable members would want me to make the assertive point that I will look at this issue and that appointments will be assessed on the basis of capability, but I will make certain that I recognise the abilities of female appointees. I will seek at all times to take strong account of the abilities of female appointees.


The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. Is the Minister aware that in the recent round of job cuts at the Water Board the proportion of women in the senior executive service and other senior positions at the Water Board plummeted drastically? Is he aware there were only seven women out of 80 in SES positions and two of those have been forced out and another senior woman has also been retrenched? Have men in SES and similar positions been culled in similar proportions and were the women sacked for want of merit?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: This must be ladies' day in the Legislative Council.

[Interruption]

It is very easy to provoke people in this Parliament. I would have thought that my record on appointing women to senior positions was pretty good. I do not need to justify anything to this Chamber or to anyone.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: On merit?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The honourable member asks "On merit"? I would not appoint them for any other reason; of course they are appointed on merit. I have not used a blackboard and a piece of chalk to count whether women have come or gone from the Water Board in the past few weeks. There have been some changes at the top of the Water Board, as one would expect following the ascendancy of a new chief executive in any organisation. I have not counted them. There are many capable women in the Water Board who I am sure will rise to the top, if I can use that expression, if they are good enough. So far as I am concerned, I have never discriminated on the basis of sex, nor would I discriminate on that basis. I take some offence at the intonation in the honourable member's question. Obviously, any new positions within the Water Board or, indeed, any of the other departments under my administration, will be allocated on the basis of merit. My record on the appointment of women to senior positions in this Government is fairly high.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Of the many excellent programs highlighted during Law Week, were any specifically addressed to the Aboriginal community?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Honourable members know that, as a member for the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, the honourable member has an interest in this area and, more particularly, an interest in matters arising out of Law Week because she was a practising solicitor. I am pleased to be able to address these issues because I know that honourable members have taken an interest from time to time in Law Week and I also know that they have an interest in the welfare and advancement of Aborigines, particularly in this important year. Law Week was a great success with the spotlight focused on a number of important community projects. The projects helped to demystify the law and provide necessary information to consumers of legal services so that they were aware of services available to them. The projects are designed to inform all members of the community but, during the past Law Week, some projects - one of which I had the pleasure of launching was the Koori legal cadet project - specifically provided opportunities to the Aboriginal community. The program is aimed at fostering greater participation by Aboriginal people in the legal profession.

The lack of Aboriginal representation in the legal profession limits the positive role Aborigines are able to play in the legal system and the advancement of members of the Aboriginal community. Innovative and positive projects, such as the Koori legal cadet program, specifically address that concern. It will begin with a pilot program involving the Attorney General's Department, the Department of Courts Administration, Phillips Fox, solicitors, and the major sponsors of Law Week, the Commonwealth Bank, whose example as a major corporate organisation specifically addressing the needs of Aborigines might provide leadership for other members of the corporate community.

The project involves each of the employers taking an Aboriginal law student as a cadet and offers both financial assistance while studying and valuable work experience that will benefit them throughout their future careers. The first three cadets appointed under the scheme during Law Week were Terri Janke, Loretta Kelly and Murray Lui. The cadetships provide an opportunity for lawyers to make a positive contribution to a fairer society. The private profession can make a contribution in many ways through the development of this scheme in the next few months, perhaps by individual firms setting aside a place for an Aboriginal student in its summer
Page 2141
clerkship program, or a group of country firms, or even suburban firms, sharing responsibility for assisting an Aboriginal student from their area through law school. I hope that will be a particular focus, because there is little doubt that a number of Aboriginal students who want legal training cannot afford it.

During the next few months, the Law Week development committee will be designing a full-scale program that can be applied across the State. The committee is examining ways of approaching practitioners with a practical and workable scheme in which they can become involved. I am pleased that my department can be among the first legal employers to participate in the program, and I congratulate the Law Week development committee upon its initiative in creating the project. During that week I also launched a project identifying a role for Aboriginal people to be the subject of focusing attention on legal issues and announced the establishment of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee, to be chaired by an eminent barrister, of whom honourable members opposite would be aware, Bob Bellear, a public defender.

The committee will advise me on law and justice issues that affect Aboriginal people in their contact with the justice system. It is the first Aboriginal justice advisory committee established in Australia. One of the key recommendations in the national report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was the establishment in each State of such a committee. Honourable members opposite will recall that when I was Minister for Health an all-Aboriginal committee prepared a report for the last report on Aboriginal health and, I believe, members of the Aboriginal community should determine a direction for Aboriginal justice in New South Wales. I expect that this committee will be foremost in developing a comprehensive Aboriginal justice program for this State - it is not simply a matter of it being the International Year for the World's Indigenous People. I should also be receiving advice as to where we go in the Aboriginal justice area as we move towards the next century.

So that all members of the House are aware, because they know some of these people, the members of the committee include Lloyd McDermott, who is a prominent Aboriginal lawyer and, I believe, was the first Aboriginal representative in any international football team, Daniel Chapman, Steve Gordon, Boe Rambaldini, Howard Hunt, Julie Ann Perkins, Mary Ann Housia, and Jim Wright. Those people represent wide-ranging views and widespread geographical areas. Another Law Week initiative was the establishment of a project called "Are you a Koori kid and need legal help?" This legal information resource is designed to inform young Aboriginal people about their rights and how to better assert those rights. It recognises that the juvenile justice system can be especially alienating and confusing to all young people and particularly to young people from disadvantaged groups, such as the Aboriginal community.

The project was developed by the Legal Aid Commission and involves the preparation of a brochure of legal information written and designed by Aboriginal students at Glebe High School in Sydney. I am pleased that the Department of School Education was able to be so actively involved. The work was a collaborative effort with an Aboriginal solicitor. Many members may be aware of the recent announcement of Larissa Behrendt as the first Lionel Murphy grantee to go to Harvard. She is an employee of the Legal Aid Commission and was instrumental in the development of the project, together with the students' Aboriginal teaching assistant at Glebe and an Aboriginal photographer and graphic artist. There have been a number of projects. That particular brochure will be part of a legal survival kit for young people. Law Week was tremendously successful in providing a focus on the needs of Aborigines in the community, and I was pleased as chairman of the Law Week committee to be associated with it.


The Hon. DELCIA KITE: I ask the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Emergency Services, a question without notice. Has the Minister instructed his department to prepare a submission to the committee of review, set up by the Federal Government to receive submissions on the proposal to establish a third nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights? Will the Minister make available to this House the current status of the Aptcare plan to cope with an emergency from an incident at the nuclear establishment that has the potential for off-site consequences?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am not familiar with the issues raised by the honourable member. I do have some recollection of seeing papers in connection with the matter. I will take the question on notice and obtain advice from my ministerial colleague as soon as possible.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is it a fact that the Federal Attorney-General has expressed concern over the importation and sale of new children's video games that contain images depicting the violent torture of women and other anti-social themes, such as bolts being driven through the heads of women? What action is the New South Wales Government taking to support a national policy that would prohibit the importation and the local production and sale of such violent video games for children and teenagers?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I have expressed concern about the important question raised by the Hon. Elaine Nile. I have already asked my department to do work in connection with this matter,
Page 2142
and I have certain proposals in relation to it. This matter is likely to be taken up at the meeting of censorship Ministers to be held in Darwin at the end of June. There is a need to address some of the violent images encapsulated in a number of video games. I do not know whether honourable members have had an opportunity to look at some of the video games in the market-place, but some violent games are graphic in their violence and some are sexually explicit. If they came within the terms of present legislation, they could be subject to censorship classification. At the moment New South Wales and Federal legislation does not allow for the classification of this electronic medium - a matter that requires attention. The matter is receiving my attention, and I expect it will also receive the attention of all censorship Ministers at their next meeting.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing. Why has a commission of inquiry into planning for the Sydney city area been announced? What will the commissioner be investigating?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I thank the Hon. R. T. M. Bull for his question and for his continuing support as chairman of my ministerial advisory committee. Honourable members will be aware that, last Friday, I announced that Commissioner William Simpson will conduct an inquiry into the strategic planning and development consent arrangements within the greater central Sydney area. The need for this inquiry has become increasingly obvious over time. There are at least six consent authorities in the central Sydney area, including Sydney and South Sydney councils, the Darling Harbour Authority, the Sydney Cove Authority, the Department of Planning, through the director and the Minister for Planning.

Honourable members can well imagine that this plethora of authorities creates some uncertainty in the planning process for the area. Members of the Central Sydney Planning Committee, including the Lord Mayor, Alderman Frank Sartor, have requested changes to the functions and responsibilities of that committee. Some of the main areas of concern are: the difficulties of resolving conflict between State and local interests; the lack of independent reporting and advisory procedures; inadequacy of resources; and the overlap of powers and responsibilities between different organisations. I decided that a commission of inquiry was the most effective way of dealing with these issues.

The inquiry will also examine the extent and description of the greater central Sydney area. Certain areas outside the traditional city centre are becoming interrelated with regional and State planning and redevelopment issues. I refer to places like City West, Kings Cross, the western side of the city out to Sydney University, and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Major developments beyond the traditional central business district boundaries may benefit from a broader, co-ordinated approach to their determination. If Sydney is to be a vibrant city of the future the boundaries of its past may have to change. I must emphasise that I am not referring to local government boundaries but to planning boundaries. The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows:

1. For the purposes of strategic planning and development control, investigate and make recommendations as to the need for and, if necessary, the extent and description of the area which should be designated as the greater central Sydney planning area.

2. Evaluate the administration of strategic planning and development control arrangements as existing in the greater central Sydney planning area.

3. Make recommendations to the Minister for Planning on options available to streamline such existing arrangements taking into account:

(i) the role of the greater central Sydney planning area in the State economy.

(ii) the need and options available to ensure a co-ordinated and flexible strategic planning approach and develop control process for the greater central Sydney planning area.

(iii) the need and method within the greater central Sydney planning area to co-ordinate infrastructure and implementation programs between relevant State agencies and local government.

(iv) the need and method to expeditiously determine developments of major importance to the economy.

4. Make recommendations to the Minister for Planning on the role, structure and resources of the present Central Sydney Planning Committee in any revised planning arrangements for the greater central Sydney planning area.

Despite predictably negative comments made late on Friday afternoon by the Lord Mayor and the Opposition spokesperson on planning, I am sure most people associated in any way with the planning of Sydney will welcome the inquiry and await its findings with keen interest.


The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training. Were more than 3,000 acts of violence reported in a survey of just over 500 New South Wales public schools? Will the Minister admit that there is a huge, unreported problem of violence in schools? Will she support the Opposition's bill to ensure that all incidents of violence at school are reported to the Department of School Education?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Hon. P. F. O'Grady for the interest he has shown in the welfare and discipline of schoolchildren. No matter how many acts of disturbance or violence there may be in our schools, any instance of violence is to be deplored. It is something that should be thought about at school level. We should learn from these incidents and try to ensure that they are not repeated. For that reason we have a vast array of year advisers, school counsellors, regional counsellors and advisers,
Page 2143
career officers, and support teachers for those who have conduct disorders, learning difficulties and the like. Because we take all these incidents seriously, we have this network of support services. New South Wales schools also have their own welfare policy.

In the past week or so there has been considerable public interest in this matter. That, too, is right and proper because it is an important issue. Others have suggested that these incidents are rapidly escalating, or that they have reached crisis proportions. I do not believe so. I suggest to the Hon. P. F. O'Grady, whom I believe to be a fair and reasonable fellow, that if he looks at the report of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, from which I suspect he has drawn his figures, he will find that Don Weatherburn has said that those figures are levelling off.

No one should be relaxed about these incidents. Any incident of violence in our schools is an incident too many. I was concerned that some principals were unclear about their existing powers and responsibilities and the support offered by the department, and ultimately by me, in handling significant discipline problems where short-term or long-term suspension is necessary or expulsion is recommended. Following a meeting with primary and secondary principals a week or so ago, I have no doubt that principals are now clear about their rights, responsibilities, obligations and the level of support they will get from the department and me in regard to their actions. To ensure that this matter is beyond any doubt, the forthcoming edition of School Education News, which will go to every teacher, will devote some space to this matter.

It has been suggested that a register be kept of incidents occurring in schools. Since my appointment as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training, I have instigated a method whereby significant incidents in schools are brought to my attention. I am not trying to make a cheap point about this, but that did not happen before. However, I like to have a day-to-day understanding of significant matters that occur in schools. It could be a bough falling off a tree, scaring people in a playground; it could be flooding in a playground; it could be scuffles; it could be violence; and from time to time people die in staff rooms or in car accidents on the way to school. A variety of incidents are reported to me and, given that there appears to be an interest in this matter, I have agreed to the collation of incident reports relating to welfare and discipline matters.

I feel hesitant about the Opposition's proposal that the register be published and tabled in Parliament. I do not feel hesitant about it because of any personal worry or fear about the nature or number of those incidents. I am worried that schools, teachers and individual students will be branded. If that awful invasion of personal privacy and school reputation can be explained and justified -

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: If someone has done something wrong, should the police not be involved?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It is a different matter. I will come to the matter of police. If members opposite think that any good can come from a voyeuristic examination of the personal behaviour or tragedy of children of eight, nine, 10 and 12 years of age, I need some personal convincing.
The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: That is a cop-out. That is not what it is about; it is about dealing with initial violence.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I have advised the department to keep a formal register of such incidents. I am happy for that to be accessible, but I need persuading about it being tabled in Parliament so that the world can sit in judgment of particular schools, teachers or students, because that information would be recorded in incident reports. To complete the answer to the honourable member's satisfaction, when an alleged illegal act is committed the police are called. The department tries to make schools havens of peace, but they are not legal sanctuaries.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing whether the draft State environmental planning policy on sewage management bypasses the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to allow outfalls to be constructed on land not zoned for that purpose. Does it also entirely bypass input from local communities? Is it intended to allow the construction of outfalls at Look At Me Now Headland and anywhere else along the New South Wales coastline, regardless of community opinion?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones should know that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act allows the making of State policies. I do not quite understand what his question was driving at. He seemed to imply that State policies were some sort of separate animal to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which specifically provides for State policies.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Has the Minister read the Act?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Of course I have read the Act. I do not know whether the honourable member has read the Act.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Has the Minister read the new draft policy?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: State policies have been made by the ministers for planning ever since the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act came into being. The Leader of the Opposition was very good at making them, and I am not bad at making them myself; I am notching up a few on the blackboard. They are designed to solve problems - quite often problems created by some of the friends of
Page 2144
the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, who seem to be against anything that could remotely be construed as progress. The State policy on outfalls has a long way to go before it is gazetted, including a great deal of consultation. I am sure that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and his friends will ensure that they have adequate input into that policy before it becomes law, but I remind him that no State policy can be made without the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. How he thinks they are made in exclusion of the Act I do not know. The Government provides water and sewerage services for communities across New South Wales. I do not think the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would be too happy at the prospect of sewage running down the streets of Coffs Harbour, or the streets of any other town in New South Wales. That is what the Government is trying to prevent.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister actually read the draft policy? If so, will he inform the House specifically whether it will allow outfalls to be constructed on land not zoned for that purpose?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The answer is yes, I have read the plan.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Is the Minister aware of recent calls by the Opposition for automatic expulsion of pupils found carrying weapons such as knives at school? Did this call cause the Minister concern, in that it might provide an incentive for students who do not wish to attend school to carry weapons in order to achieve their goal?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am aware of calls by the Opposition for the immediate expulsion of students who carry weapons. I have discussed the matter at some length with the Principals Council. I have no doubt, as should any principal in New South Wales, that any student who attended school with what would be regarded as a weapon - a large knife, a knuckle-duster, a gun, or something of that nature - would be suspended and recommended for expulsion from the school.

The difficulty with the Opposition's call is that almost anything can be defined as a weapon. I do not wish through my examples to give any encouragement to students in our school system, but some of the more disturbing matters in schools have involved fruit knives, scissors, broken off chair legs and the like. The definition of what is meant by a weapon poses a difficulty. In the general sense of the word, no student or parent should be in any doubt that it is absolutely inappropriate, regardless of one's religion, cultural background or place of ethnic origin, to carry a weapon of an obvious nature in our schools.

In discussing this issue with other honourable members who have taken an interest in it I was sensitive to the issue of racial and cultural differences. Consequently the Director-General of Education and officers of my department have discussed with the Ethnic Affairs Commission the cultural sensitivities that might be involved. At this stage general agreement has been reached that irrespective of one's background or cultural habits and beliefs, it is inappropriate and threatening for any student to have weapons in schools. In regard to students who do not wish to attend school, I should say that we have a duty of care to children up to the age of 14 years and nine months, or recently 15 years. That is the age up until which it is compulsory for students to attend school. Hence, we have a particular duty to ensure that we provide support, education and the necessary structures to assist them in their education experience.

I am very much of the view that once young people reach the age of 15, schooling is not compulsory and therefore it is a matter of choice. It is a right in a democratic and free society to have access to free education; but it is a choice for the student or the family of the student whether he or she attends school. The duty of care that is placed on teachers and principals for such students is less than it is for students under the age of 15, who are compelled to attend school. I make it clear that in respect of any student over the age of 15 years who does not wish to attend school, does not wish to comply with the school rules or does not wish to be educated in a peaceful environment, no teacher or principal in a public school has an obligation to put up with him.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.3]: As I said earlier, the bill was introduced by the former Government and has been put in place by the present Government. The funding for the process was made available by the Greiner Government under the direction of the Minister for Family and Community Services at that time, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick. Almost straight away it became obvious that major changes to the bill were necessary. I approached the Minister about making those changes, after having a discussion with Mr Roger West. It was considered necessary to have full community consultation at some time. That full consultation took a long time to complete and in the meantime a lot of problems occurred. I should put on record an example of the sort of problem that occurred, which caused a great deal of distress and difficulty, timewasting and paperwork and affected many people in important situations.


Page 2145
The example I give is of a patient in a hospital in the city who, because of complications from previous surgery, developed an empyema, which is an infection of the gall-bladder. This led to an infection under the liver and caused considerable problems. Prior to the patient's becoming so very sick and septic, the patient had been able to give consent for an operation. But because of the degree of confusion associated with the fever and the sepsis, the patient was no longer able to give consent and was no longer judged by his medical attendants as being able to give that consent. He had no spouse and had no carer. When it became obvious that this patient needed to be returned to the theatre for what could have become life saving surgery, it became apparent that the matter should be discussed with the Guardianship Board.

The board required that a form be filled out. A form was faxed to the hospital at about 10.30 a.m. but was found to be the wrong form. A new form was faxed at 11.30, but was not made available until 12.15 p.m. As the operation was being performed at a public hospital which did not have many fax machines in those days, it took some time before the fax got through. No reply had been received from the board after a period of almost two hours. Honourable members will understand that at a large hospital it is necessary to schedule this type of operation. It was thought that by communicating with the Guardianship Board on a fairly routine matter at 10 o'clock in the morning, the problem could have been sorted out by at least 1.30 p.m. Nothing could have been further from the reality. This occurred back in July of 1990.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: They might have had a few other things to do.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The board receives 4,000 applications a year but there are a large number of people in that organisation. The answer to the honourable member's interjection is that it did not have a lot of other things to do. Contact was made with the board and the advice was that a return call would be made, after pointing out the stage that the application had reached in the bureaucracy. At 3.30 p.m. the board replied and a conversation occurred over the loudspeaker system in the operating theatre. The board's representative went through all of the procedures leading up to the need for the operation and then wanted to know the actual site of the bleeding. At the end of the day the surgeon was asked whether he thought that the consent was necessary from the Guardianship Board, because it was almost an emergency situation.

The surgeon said "If you wait much longer, it will become an emergency". The person from the Guardianship Board said, "Why do you not deal with it under that procedure and we will send the paper work and the consent to you later?". That was the sort of thing that was happening at that time. More importantly, every time a 20-year old got a bump on the head and a broken leg, a parent could not give consent, nor could a relative, unless the young person was married. A call had to be made to the Guardianship Board because the broken leg was not life-threatening; the treatment of the head injury might be, but the broken leg was not. This whole business had to be gone through every time. Obviously that was ridiculous. It was leading to a great deal of paperwork.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Why could the parents not give consent?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Because the patient was over the age of 18. I invite the attention of honourable members to the reason this procedure had to take place. There has been an inordinate delay in bringing this legislation before the House. When the bill was first introduced by the former Labor Government, in 1987, it was done with haste. The haste was to overcome a political and real difficulty in regard to young women who were intellectually incapacitated being trotted up to give consent to hysterectomies being performed, either for contraceptive reasons or because of the difficulty in handling the physiological events. It was determined that some of these procedures were being carried out in a frivolous manner and that someone other than the parents should look after the best interests of those young people. That was the essential reason for the bill's being rushed in, but also because it would have the further benefit of clarifying a situation when one could not get the consent of an individual. That presented great difficulties, which I believe the bill will resolve.

However, I refer briefly to the reason for the 1987 bill and why it is flawed. In May last year newspapers reported that in some jurisdictions the consent for sterilisation of an intellectually handicapped child in certain circumstances must be obtained from a court, in spite of the guardianship regulations. That has not been tested in New South Wales, because of the guardianship rules, but it could be tested and found that the guardianship rules are not adequate to deal with that particular issue, and people may still need to go to court. The 1987 bill was grossly flawed. The new bill corrects almost all its problems by giving back the responsibility previously given to those who can give consent in the best interests of the person concerned.

The new bill removes the need for consent for trivial things such as putting a bandaid on a cut, simple first-aid treatment, or cursory examination of an unconscious person. The wide consultative process put in place by the Guardianship Board, the green paper-white paper arrangement, the decision by Cabinet, and the laying of the bill on the table has resulted in improved legislation. I commend the Government for these amendments. They will dramatically reduce the size of the Guardianship Board and its costs. They will allow the board to perform its duties rather than deal with 4,000 unintentional, consequential applications to it. For all the wonderful words spoken by the Opposition, it fails to realise the true impact of this bill.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Perhaps you should not have been so generous.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: You should have been so generous. This Government has
Page 2146
done a marvellous job of correcting the Act, and I totally support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.12]: On behalf of the Call to Australia group I place on record our support of the Guardianship (Amendment) Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Guardianship Act 1987, the principal Act; to reform the provisions of that Act relating to consent to medical and dental treatment for persons with disabilities who are unable to make their own decisions as to that treatment, and the procedures for obtaining those consents; to prescribe further circumstances in which medical or dental treatment may be carried out on such persons without consent; to extend the categories of persons who can make decisions for persons with disabilities; and to make other minor changes.

The bill has been placed before a number of individuals and organisations in New South Wales to acquaint them with the proposals. In 1991 the Guardianship Board issued a consultative paper to more than 150 organisations and individuals, including medical bodies, hospitals, government departments, officials, members of the judiciary, the legal profession, disability workers, and community representatives. The board received more than 60 written submissions, and community consultative meetings were held to test the response of the community to these changes. The need has been apparent, because although the 1987 bill received a good response initially, it needed clarification in some areas. The bill spells out the hierarchy of persons responsible for the patient, that is the guardian, the spouse or de facto spouse, or a direct unpaid carer. It also spells out the five categories of treatment and how that treatment should be provided.

The first is treatment that is urgently necessary to save a person's life or to prevent serious damage to health. The second is special medical treatment to which only the Guardianship Board can consent. The third is major medical treatment, for which the persons responsible and the Guardianship Board are the substitute decision-makers. The fourth and fifth categories are minor medical treatment, and dental treatment, for which the persons responsible and the Public Guardian are the substitute decision-makers. We support the legislation and believe it will be to the benefit of those affected.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [5.15], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate and for the detailed work that clearly all members have undertaken on this amending legislation. Unfortunately it is an all too rare occasion when there is commonality of thought and purpose between the Government, the Opposition and the crossbenchers. Under these circumstances it is a pleasure to be the Minister responsible for the legislation, and I fervently hope there is commonality of thought and purpose in other areas of deliberations. That is particularly important on human issues, which I believe are the touchstones of a civilised society. I am proud that with this bill we have put aside partisanship and different ideologies, and have adopted a commonality of purpose in the service and support of people with disabilities, and their families and carers. I thank all honourable members for their thoughtful contributions and I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [5.16]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The purpose of the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers (Amendment) Bill is to ratify amendments to a 1946 interstate agreement. Primarily it extends the role of the Dumaresq-Barwon Border Rivers Commission to co-ordination of the use of groundwater in the border rivers areas. The parties to the 1946 agreement were the New South Wales and Queensland Governments. The agreement currently governs the sharing of river water between the States in the Dumaresq, Macintyre and upper Barwon rivers, the primary source of supply being the jointly funded Glenlyon Dam in Queensland.

The original agreement set up the Dumaresq-Barwon Border Rivers Commission, known as the Border Rivers Commission, to monitor the river flows and co-ordinate the water sharing. The Border Rivers Commission has three members, one from each State, and a chairman appointed for a fixed term on a rotation basis. It is jointly funded on an annual basis by the States and is staffed by members of the Queensland Water Resources Commission and the New South Wales Department of Water Resources. It provides an excellent example of what can be achieved by co-operation between States.

I now turn to the background of the main proposal to extend the role of the Border Rivers Commission to co-ordination of groundwater use. In recent years groundwater reserves have been located in the valleys of the border rivers, and the respective State departments have been carrying out studies regarding the location, extent and quality of the reserves. These studies have been given momentum by the fact that river supplies to both States from the border rivers have been fully committed. Irrigators are now looking to groundwater either as a source of supplementary supply or of primary supply. By arrangement, in 1987 the departments set an interim limit of 15,000 megalitres for each State. They have not allowed groundwater allocations to individual users to exceed that total amount until the extent of the reserves has been fully explored. Assessment of groundwater reserves is complex because they vary from locality to locality, and their rate of replenishment varies according to geological conditions, river flows, rainfall and flooding.

Further, the effects of excessive usage on nearby users and even nearby rivers can be significant. The relevance of the rivers is that in some locations there is significant leakage from the rivers into the groundwater aquifers which increases as the groundwater level drops. Although the Border Rivers Commission has been acting as co-ordinator on an informal basis, it is necessary that the arrangements be formalised. With this in mind the bill will enable the Border Rivers Commission to co-ordinate future studies, monitor future groundwater use

Page 2147
and from time to time recommend to each State the total volume of water each State should allow its groundwater users to take. The recommendations may cover the whole of the border rivers area or selected zones in that area. It will then be the responsibility of each State to use the powers in its own legislation to implement the recommendations with appropriate sharing among its individual groundwater users.

In summary, the benefit of the main proposal to New South Wales is that it will provide a firmer guarantee that the Queensland Government will limit the extraction of groundwater within its territory to agreed volumes in those areas where extraction could affect groundwater reserves across the border in New South Wales. The main proposal also includes powers for the Border Rivers Commission to monitor the quality of the groundwater. The quality can be affected by local geological conditions or by pollution from the surface. The sharing arrangements could be affected by the groundwater quality, which therefore needs to be addressed as part of the monitoring program.

The minor amendments in the bill to the original agreement clarify the Border Rivers Commission's role in respect of co-ordinating stream clearing on the border rivers, alter the "water year" from the year commencing 1st July to the year commencing 1st October, with the capability to alter this by administrative decision, and alter the time frame for periodic preparation of budgets by the Border Rivers Commission. The forward thinking of the Department of Water Resources in promoting the inclusion of groundwater sharing in the role of the Border Rivers Commission is to be commended. It took the initiative before problems could arise. The border rivers area is a high income earner for the State, particularly from irrigated cotton, making it particularly important that security of supply should be safeguarded. This is a clear demonstration of the importance of the role of the department in managing the water resources of the State.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [5.19]: The Opposition is happy to support the bill as part of a co-operative continuation of a series of agreements which began in 1946. For those who think that only those of the baby boomers generation have good ideas, it is interesting to reflect that in 1946, immediately after the second world war, the New South Wales and Queensland governments made an agreement about the co-operative use of water from various rivers on or near the border of the States of New South Wales and Queensland, namely, the Severn, Dumaresq, Macintyre and Barwon rivers.

A history of the development of that agreement shows there have been a number of variations from time to time. This bill gives effect to a recent amendment that deals with the use of groundwater resources. The Opposition has considered the bill and thinks it is eminently sensible - apart from the fact, of course, that it preserves the continuity of the agreement. The officers of the Department of Water Resources are to be commended for the work they have done in giving effect to the agreement and providing support for the Government in executing the agreement. There seems to be some dissension in the Government ranks about the value of the Department of Water Resources, but the Opposition believes that the department plays a constructive role. This bill is a manifestation of that constructive role. I simply indicate the Opposition's agreement to and support for this limited measure.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.20]: The purpose of this legislation is to amend the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers Act 1947 to ratify the amendment of the 1946 interstate agreement in order to extend the role of the Dumaresq-Barwon Border Rivers Commission to co-ordination of the use of groundwater in the border river area. All honourable members are aware that the far west and northeast of New South Wales and the southwest corner of Queensland have been suffering some of the worst drought conditions in living memory, with an appalling toll on both livestock and wildlife. It is anticipated that the severe drought conditions may continue until the end of this year, with a possible renewed El Nino effect. We have been as profligate with our water as we have been with our other natural resources. We really have not valued water as highly as it should have been. This applies to both country and city.

Fresh clean water is becoming one of the scarcest commodities on earth. In reality it should be valued at approximately the same price as oil, and not wasted in huge quantities. I hope that we are extremely careful with the use of groundwater and not just mine this water, as has happened too often in the past. The cotton industry is a large user of water and is also one of our very few profitable primary industries at the present time. Nevertheless, we cannot allow the disastrous situation to arise where we use up our groundwater supplies at an unsustainable rate and leave the industry stranded. Conservation is the name of the game. The Australian Democrats support the New South Wales-Queensland Border Rivers (Amendment) Bill, with the caution that we should be ultra-conservative in our use of a precious resource.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [5.22], in reply: I appreciated the contributions and support from the Opposition, and the timely reminder from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones of the precious resource that our water represents and of our need to conserve its quantity and preserve its quality. In a sense, that is a warning that is unnecessary in this Chamber because in my time in this Chamber I have never heard anyone advocate other than the proper and timely use and conservation of water. However, the warning is most appropriate. I thank the Opposition for its support and for its sensible addition to this longstanding agreement between the two States. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister
Page 2148
for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [5.24]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

The aim of the bills is to introduce significant new controls to ensure the continuing integrity and security of the liquor and gaming industries in this State. They contain measures which have been developed over a long period of time and have involved extensive consultation with the liquor and gaming industries. The bills aim to improve the integrity and security of machine gaming by introducing stricter controls on the manufacture, supply, keeping, use, operation and servicing of poker machines operated by clubs, and approved amusement devices operated by hotels. The bills introduce prohibitions and controls on secondary and post-separation employment in the liquor and machine gaming industries of "key officials" employed by the Chief Secretary's Department and the Police Service, and introduce controls in relation to key officials being club directors.

The Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill will prohibit the offer or acceptance of benefits linked to the purchase of poker machines and other goods and services in clubs. The bill also clarifies the requirements relating to temporary and honorary membership of clubs, and guests of members. The Liquor (Amendment) Bill makes further provision in relation to objections to applications for extensions of trading hours of licensed premises and, if an extension has been refused or revoked, to preclude for six months the making of a further application in respect of the same, or a longer, extension. Finally, the bills seek to tighten the controls over under-age drinking, increase the maximum penalties for certain offences, and provide for statute law revision and other matters. There are some significant matters which I will specifically comment on. For example, the bills contain new provisions which will subject licensed gaming machine personnel to an annual review process.

The bills also contain stricter controls over the identification of gaming devices, the movement or consignment of devices, and the disposal of devices. They also contain new or modified provisions in relation to defective devices; protection of sensitive components of devices, and unlawful interference with a device. The seriousness of these matters to the security of gaming is indicated by the range of penalties for the gaming device offences in the bills. The next important aspect of the bills is the control of the interaction between regulatory officials and the liquor and gaming industries. The key officials provisions are an important part of the integrity measures in the bills. They complete the package because they will introduce prohibitions and controls that protect the integrity of public officials involved in enforcement and regulation of the industry.

In another place, amendments to the bills have added a requirement that a register, available for public scrutiny, is to be kept where former key officials are given permission to work in the liquor and gaming industries. That register is to be kept by the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of the Chief Secretary's Department. I turn now to the provisions relating to the integrity of applicants for liquor and gaming licences. Honourable members may be aware that the Government had proposed that the Director of Liquor and Gaming be able to require applicants for liquor and gaming licences and applicants for the office of club secretary to consent to providing fingerprints, palm prints and photographs. The bills before the House do not contain any provisions that would allow fingerprints, palm prints and photographs to be obtained. The withdrawal of this proposal by the Government will allow further discussion between all interested parties.

A proposal overturned in another place would also have allowed the Director of Liquor and Gaming to obtain information about associates of applicants. In the bills before the House the director's powers to investigate do not extend to associates of applicants. The Government had also proposed that the board could determine training, experience and other qualifications that should be held by applicants. Amendments moved in another place have removed these provisions from the bills. I refer next to the provisions which deal with the issue of benefits to members of clubs. The Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill amends the existing provisions to clarify that only a club and its members may be entitled to receive any profit, benefit or advantage arising from the club's registration, unless any such profit, benefit or advantage is derived from dealings reasonably carried out or contracts reasonably made with the club in the ordinary course of its lawful business.

The bill includes two specific additions to the present exceptions from the requirement that any benefit must be offered equally to every full member. The two new permissible exceptions include: an advantage which consists only of hospitality in the nature of reasonable food and beverages provided by a poker machine dealer, seller or adviser in certain circumstances; and the payment of authorised and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in club duties. Those exceptions are based on particular circumstances that have arisen and the opportunity has been taken to ensure those situations are clarified in the law.

The next significant issue relates to the eligibility of persons for membership of clubs. The review of club admission requirements has come about as a result of uncertainty with the existing laws. Those laws have been subject to various interpretations by the courts and police, and the club industry has not had a clear interpretation to apply across the industry. The provisions have been developed in consultation with the club industry and they have the industry's support. These bills contain the most extensive changes to the liquor and gaming laws in this State for many years. They reflect the substantial input provided by the liquor and gaming industries throughout a long and productive consultation period. The proposals in the bills will provide the framework
Page 2149
for the integrity of these industries in the years ahead. I commend the bills.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.31]: I speak to the Liquor (Amendment) Bill and the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill and I am able to advise the House that the alternative Government supports the legislation. However, I must say that we have two reservations which we do not intend to press. The first is to be found in schedule 2, part 6, of the Liquor (Amendment) Bill relating to proposed section 105A of the Liquor Act, and to schedule 2, part 7A, relating to proposed section 59A of the Registered Clubs Act, in that those proposed sections would prevent a member of the police force from serving as a director on the board of a club. In effect this prevents hundreds of police officers - citizens who have put many hours of their leisure time into various club activities - from contributing to the further development of the clubs to which they belong. The proposed amendment is a subtle and real form of discrimination based on occupation. It is reminiscent of the days when one was denied access to certain occupations on the basis of one's religious beliefs.

The second reservation the Opposition has is to be found in schedule 5, item (8), of the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill which seeks to amend section 17AA of the Registered Clubs Act in relation to noise pollution of clubs. The proposed amendment adds to the penalty of club expenditure in rectifying the fault by also imposing a restriction on trading hours for six months. That is a very heavy penalty. The Opposition objects to this. It would appear to be unnecessary. The club would have had to meet the cost of rectifying the fault in the first place. The club would have the financial burden for rectification and also the further cost imposition, the restriction in trading. That additional sanction seems to be out of proportion to the offence. Bearing in mind and emphasising those two reservations, the Opposition supports the legislation.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [5.34]: The main object of the package is to increase the security and integrity of the liquor and machine gaming industries. In October 1991 Cabinet gave in principle approval to the package and in May 1992 two draft amendment bills and a summary paper were released by the Chief Secretary to industry and related agencies for comments. Between May and October 1992 all the peak liquor, club, and gaming machine industry associations, including the Club Industry Advisory Council and the Liquor Industry Ministerial Advisory Council, were given the opportunity to make submissions on the proposals contained in the bills. Meetings were also held with peak bodies to discuss the proposals. Those industries support the overall objectives of the bills. The consultation process resulted in many practical suggestions which were adopted in the bills.

There are almost 10,000 licensed premises and clubs in New South Wales. These have a combined annual turnover of liquor in excess of $2 billion. About 67,000 gaming devices are operated throughout the State with turnover in excess of $12 billion each year. Government revenue from these industries brings considerable benefit to the entire New South Wales community. The $569 million that was paid to the State Government last financial year by the liquor and gaming device industries formed a substantial proportion of the State's revenue base. Licensed premises, and clubs in particular, contribute to their local communities by providing facilities as well as donations to worthwhile social and welfare causes. Sporting clubs are of particular benefit for young people. Many junior teams, especially rugby league teams, are dependent on club support for finance.

The principal objects of the bills are: to improve the integrity and security of machine gaming by introducing stricter controls on the manufacture, supply, keeping, use, operation, and servicing of poker machines operated by clubs and approved amusement devices operated by hotels; to impose prohibitions and controls on secondary and post-separation employment in the liquor and machine gaming industries of key officials employed by the Chief Secretary's Department or the Police Service, and to introduce controls in relation to key officials being club directors; to make further provisions in relation to the investigation of applicants for licences, and of applicants for positions of club secretaries, and in relation to investigations of licensees, club secretaries and club directors; to prohibit the offer or acceptance of benefits linked to the purchase of poker machines and other goods and services in clubs; to clarify requirements relating to temporary and honorary membership of clubs and guests of members; to remove certain restrictions on the kind of applications made by clubs to which local councils may object; to make further provisions in relation to applications for extensions of trading hours of licensed premises and, if an extension has been refused or revoked, to preclude for at least six months the making of a further application in respect of the same, or a longer extension; to further tighten controls over under-age drinking; to increase the maximum penalties for certain offences; and to provide for statute law revision and other matters.

The bills contain stricter controls over approved amusement devices and poker machines. The Liquor (Amendment) Bill transfers all the approved amusement device provisions, including new provisions, to a new part 11 of the Act. It clarifies the expression in the provisions and amends the provisions to achieve consistency and uniformity with similar provisions in the Registered Clubs Act. Similarly, the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill adopts appropriate expressions used in corresponding provisions of the Liquor Act to achieve consistency and uniformity between the Acts. In respect of applications for licences the Director of Liquor and Gaming, in investigating applications for, or transfer of, any licence under either Act, may require the consent of the applicant to the taking of photographs, fingerprints and palm prints. The court may refuse to
Page 2150
consider an application until a person complies with a request to give consent. The photographs, fingerprints and palm prints obtained by the director are required to be destroyed as soon as the director has no further use for them.

There has been quite a deal of controversy in respect of the question of fingerprinting. The Labor Party originally stated that it would seek to amend this provision by requiring retrospectivity to those who have been involved with the liquor and gaming legislation for some time. However, the Labor Party has changed its mind and now says there is no requirement at all for fingerprinting. I cannot understand the reason for its reversal of form. Indeed, fingerprinting is carried out in many areas, not the least of which was the recent fingerprinting of our premier jockey who went to the United States last week and was successful in his first ride at Hollywood Park. In seeking to obtain his licence to ride in the United States it was necessary for him to be fingerprinted. Nobody seemed to appeal against that. On the other hand, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald headed "Who's next for fingerprinting?" stated:

Certainly, existing licensing procedures can be tightened. But they should not be tightened by extreme measures such as fingerprinting, unless that can be shown to be necessary. If the Government wishes to extend fingerprinting from the field of criminal record-keeping, it must show the move is necessary. For example, how many liquor licensees who should not have been issued licences would have been refused them as applicants if fingerprinting had been in use? The Government should also explain, if it wants publicans fingerprinted, why it does not want, for example, holders of gun licences fingerprinted, too. In all, this exercise smacks of hasty and superficial thinking by the Government and a woeful confusion and indecision by the Opposition.

I would agree entirely with the latter part of that statement, but certainly not the former. The Government believes that those who already hold licences do not need to be fingerprinted because they have shown themselves to be responsible people. But the Government is concerned that new people be closely monitored and I believe this to be correct. The two bills deal with existing licences, licensees and secretaries. They also deal with complaints; a very important part of the liquor and gaming legislation. There is an annual review for gaming-related licences which insists that gaming-related licences require annual returns. The director may further investigate the licensee and lay a complaint if a person is no longer considered suitable to hold the licence.

The bills set out the powers of the board to declare a gaming device to be an approved device and to clarify the authorisation process for gaming devices. The bills also provide for temporary approvals of devices to be given by the board pending full evaluation. Where a device kept by a hotel or club is modified in such a way that it becomes a different device, it ceases to be an approved device unless the modification is effected in accordance with certain requirements. The bills contain a range of controls to ensure the integrity of machine gaming, including new and modified provisions relating to: defective devices; security in relation to devices; protection of sensitive components of devices; unlawful interference with a device; compliance plates for gaming devices; and consignment or movement of gaming devices.

Maximum penalties for the most serious gaming machine offences are to be raised to $10,000 and or one year imprisonment. The maximum penalty which may be imposed for a contravention of the regulations is to be increased from $1,000 to $5,000. Offences which can attract the new maximum penalty include: illegal possession of gaming devices; unauthorised servicing and repair of gaming devices; offences by unlicensed persons; dishonestly making provision to gain subsequent advantage; and unlawful or improper interference with gaming devices. The definition of key officials is defined as: the Director of Liquor and Gaming; the Commissioner of Police; the Secretary, Chief Secretary's Department; police officers holding the position of patrol commander or a higher position; senior executives of the Police Service and Chief Secretary's Department; and other officers of the department or the Police Service nominated as key officials.

One of the more important aspects of the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill applies to the question of benefits for club directors, personnel and members. This bill will amend the existing provision to clarify that only a club and its members may be entitled to receive any profit, benefit or advantage arising from the club's registration unless any such profit, benefit of advantage is derived from dealings recently carried out or contracts reasonably made with the club in the ordinary course of its lawful business. The bill also includes additions to the present exceptions to the requirement that any benefit must be offered equally to every full member. The permissible exceptions include: an advantage which consists only of hospitality in the nature of reasonable food and beverages provided by a poker machine dealer, seller or adviser in certain circumstances; and the payment of reasonably incurred out-of-pocket expenses incurred in club duties and as authorised by the governing body.

Under-age drinking has been fully addressed in the Liquor (Amendment) Bill, which introduces a responsible adult requirement for minors entering late trading restaurants. This bill will require late trading restaurants to display a notice in areas where minors may be present. The notice will specify that minors must be accompanied by a responsible adult, as applies to authorised areas in hotels. The offences and penalties for the new provisions are consistent with those that now apply to authorised areas of hotels. Other amendments deal with the powers of special inspectors, the powers of local councils concerning applications, conduct on licensed and club premises and other minor issues. These are most responsible amendments to both the Registered Clubs Act and the Liquor Act. The registered club movement is one of the more important employers of
Page 2151
labour in this State and also provides entertainment for its many hundreds of thousands of members.

I do not suppose that any similar organisation in the world can compare with the performance of the registered club movement in this State. As a member of the Ex-Servicemen's Club in Orange I know what is provided, the low cost for food and the entertainment which brings in so many people from different walks of life. The low cost of membership is important and it enables those on low incomes - particularly pensioners - to be part of the club movement. I believe that is extremely important. At the same time, it is imperative that we have rules and regulations relating to gaming devices, and proper regulations relating to drinking hours and ages of people who are able to consume alcohol. I congratulate the Chief Secretary and her officers on these initiatives. I am sure they will prove beneficial to all parties concerned. I strongly support the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.48] The Australian Democrats support the Liquor (Amendment) Bill and the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill. It has consulted with the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales, which expressed deep concern about the amendments proposed by the Opposition in the lower House to fingerprint existing employees. The amendment was withdrawn, as were the Government's own amendments allowing fingerprinting of new employees. Those amendments have now been dropped entirely. The concerns of the Registered Clubs Association have been addressed by the Government and by the Opposition withdrawing the amendment.

A good deal of consultation has taken place with representatives of the industry and with members. Honourable members were well briefed on the legislation. It seems that this Government is looking at a new way of dealing with legislation. There is far more consultation now than there was three or four years ago. As a result there is far less contention. Again and again we receive in the upper House legislation that has been well thought out, even well thrashed out, in the other place. Three or four years ago this House used to amend legislation. Today our job is less important. Much of the legislation that now comes to the upper House has been cleaned up previously, as it were, by the lower House. There is no proposal by members in the upper House to introduce amendments to this legislation. All the work has been done in the lower House. All this House really needs to do is to pass the legislation.

The bill seeks to tighten regulations in two key areas - gaming machines, their licensing and use, and the appointment of key officials. Foremost among the miscellaneous amendments are those concerning under-age drinking and extended trading hours. According to the legislation, the number of gaming machines at any hotel will remain at 10, unless the Liquor Administration Board is satisfied that there is good reason to treat hotels as separate establishments. A pub owner will not be permitted to have approved amusement devices unless he or she is suitably experienced in their operation. Proposed new sections in the legislation relate to periodic payments of licence fees and periodic returns. A licence holder must comply with these regulations to keep his or her licence.

Some penalties will be increased for certain offences, and new provisions concerning approved amusement devices will be included. One of these provisions, which deals with compliance plates, states that an approved amusement device must leave the premises of a dealer with his or her consent. If a compliance plate is tampered with, the perpetrator is liable to a fine of $10,000. A key official is defined as the secretary, senior officers in the Chief Secretary's Department, the Director of Liquor and Gaming, the Commissioner of Police and other senior New South Wales police officers. None of those people would be allowed to hold any type of gaming or liquor licence, they would not be permitted to seek employment in any capacity at a licensed club or hotel, and they would not be permitted to seek employment from someone known to be a close associate of a licensee.

Furthermore, a key official will be prohibited from seeking to obtain a licence or seeking to obtain employment by a licensee for a period of three years after leaving office as a key official. It will also be an offence for a former key official to have any business or financial dealings with a licensee. The penalty for any of these offences will be $5,000. A licensee faces a similar penalty if he or she knowingly breaches the prohibitions to which I have referred. The bill also will make it an offence for an adult to allow a minor to drink alcohol on licensed premises or to leave a minor on licensed premises without first informing the licensee. It will become an offence to give false information when applying for a proof of age card.

Keith Kerr, from the Registered Clubs Association, said that he had no problem with the legislation that has been introduced by the Government, although he considered unnecessary the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party requiring fingerprinting of club members. That amendment was subsequently withdrawn. Watson Peck, Secretary of the New South Wales RSL Clubs Association, was unwilling to comment for fear that he would be misquoted. Unfortunately, we have not received any information from him. Apparently the Registered Clubs Association and hotels are satisfied with the amended legislation. Even though a number of problems were raised by members of the Opposition in the lower House, after discussing matters today with the Minister's advisers I am happy that those problems do not have sufficient foundation to warrant amending the legislation. Representatives of the industry and members of Parliament have been well briefed and well consulted on the legislation, the result of which will be passing it without amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.54]: The Call to Australia group supports the Liquor
Page 2152
(Amendment) Bill and the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill. These bills are designed to facilitate the efficient and honest operation of poker machines in clubs and to assist management to ensure that unreliable persons are not employed in this area - one of the reasons for the fingerprinting proposal for all new applicants. But, as we all know, this constituted an invasion of privacy. At one stage members of the Australian Labor Party wanted to fingerprint everyone involved with registered clubs. This industry employs 22,000 people, so that would have involved both massive expenditure and an invasion of privacy. That proposal has been rejected.

It may still be necessary to require clubs, with the assistance of police, to identify anyone with a previous criminal record who is seeking to become an official, a manager, or a member of staff. It might be the intention of such a person to devote the income of a club for his or her personal gain. Over the years I am sure all honourable members have heard stories about clubs that were making large profits. After personnel changes those clubs suddenly found that they were not making profits but were losing money. Individuals have used their positions in clubs for their own personal gain. The Call to Australia group is pleased with the introduction of this legislation. Even though we are on record as saying that we do not support the poker machine industry, we believe that there must be tough supervision by both the clubs and the New South Wales Police Service to ensure that patrons are not ripped off and to ensure that clubs do not lose income because of the activities of certain individuals.

The poker machine industry needs to be supervised because of the large amount of money being handled. People may succumb to temptation. The wrong type of people may be attracted to that industry. Clubs, through annual meetings and through the supervision of directors, should ensure that they are above criticism. Club directors should thoroughly supervise a club's activities to ensure that it is operating efficiently. Call to Australia is also pleased that the Liquor (Amendment) Bill will tighten the provisions prohibiting under-age drinking. The Government should do all it can to discourage teenagers from consuming alcohol - a matter that should be constantly monitored.

All honourable members should be concerned about the use of illicit drugs such as marijuana and heroin. The Government also should do all it can to discourage the use of legal drugs such as liquor and tobacco, in the interests of the health of our citizens. The Government must focus on teenagers; it must discourage teenagers from consuming alcohol and becoming seriously affected by it. In the past we have all heard of violent acts that have been caused by the consumption of alcohol. Young women have been raped and offenders have claimed that they were under the influence of alcohol. That may or may not be the case, but alcohol certainly plays a part. The Government must maintain tight control on the availability of liquor to teenagers.

The Call to Australia group supports the bills. We have been in constant contact with the Secretary of the Registered Clubs Association about its concern at the effect that the proposed casino and its 1,500 poker machines will have on the smaller clubs in the metropolitan area, particularly those in the vicinity of the casino. The association has encouraged us to do all we can to reduce the number of poker machines. We have not succeeded in that approach. We had hoped that the Labor Party might have taken a stronger stand, but it withdrew its bill in the other place. Call to Australia is concerned about the building of a supersize casino with 1,500 poker machines. Any person with even the slightest knowledge of poker machines would agree that it must have some effect on the registered clubs in Sydney, especially those in the Pyrmont area. The situation will have to be watched and perhaps something can be done before the casino is finally built. Call to Australia is pleased to support the bills.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON [6.1]: I wish to briefly criticise the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill. I also wish to record my support for the broad thrust of the reforms contained in the bill, having had firsthand experience of the club industry. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition noted, the Government has failed to see the highlights and the injustices of a compulsory six-month penalty for breaches of noise regulations. Under the Government's amendments, a club that is found to have exceeded acceptable noise levels and has suffered a restriction of trading hours as a consequence will not be allowed to apply for the lifting of the restrictions until six months have expired. This has the effect of limiting a club's revenue and therefore the level of service it can provide to its members. It also creates the possibility that a number of its employees could be made redundant.

This might seem reasonable at face value, but in reality it is very unjust. If a complaint about noise level is proved, the club committing the breach should be made to rectify the situation, that is, to take the necessary steps to reduce noise levels. This can be done by using various soundproofing technologies. These are sometimes expensive, but they are effective. It can be done by educating club members or by having doormen and staff monitoring the conduct of members and visitors in and around the club.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Or issuing the neighbours with ear muffs.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: Yes, we could do that as well. The erection of fences might be another way to reduce noise levels. It is clear that there are various ways of rectifying the problem of excessive noise. It is a practical problem that requires a practical and sensible solution. Once a solution has been found and put in place, I would have thought the problem was over, but unfortunately the Government seems to think that a mandatory penalty is required. That is something I cannot understand.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: The Government
Page 2153
would turn a deaf ear to your supplication.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: It sounds like it. The club's penalty, in effect, is that it must rectify the problem. That will usually involve the expenditure of club funds; sometimes vast amounts of money are involved. The punishment for excessive noise is, in effect, the cure for the excessive noise. Why is it necessary to enforce a double penalty on clubs? This merely has the effect of reducing the revenue to clubs and the services to club members. A club should be allowed, at any time after a noise level breach is found to have occurred, to make an application to have its trading hours reinstated or even increased. If it can satisfy the relevant authorities that it has rectified the problem to an acceptable or improved standard, its trading hours should be reinstated or extended. That would be a just solution to the problem for all parties concerned.

I do not know why the Government cannot see the sense in this approach. If it is, as was suggested in the lower House by the honourable member for Charlestown, to teach the clubs a lesson, the unfairness of the section is obvious. The lesson might result in the failure of the club, and therefore the loss of a community asset and a source of employment. That would not be a reasonable or necessary outcome. As the honourable member for Charlestown stated, if this does happen as a result of its unjust and unnecessary provision, it will be on the head of the Government.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [6.5], in reply: I thank honourable members for their important contributions. Though they may have raised several matters that have been of concern to the Opposition, I am very grateful for their support. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith's contributions referred specifically to that concern in relation to fingerprinting or the proposal to do with palm printing, but that matter appears to have been satisfactorily resolved. It is complex, important and significant legislation. It would be astonishing if a number of concerns were not raised, but I thank honourable members for their contributions and commend the bills to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training), on behalf of the Hon. J. P. Hannaford [6.8]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The purpose of this bill is to expand the operation of the court attendance notice scheme and to streamline procedures in the District Court in circumstances where an appellant does not attend the District Court to prosecute an appeal from a decision of a Local Court.

Looking first at the court attendance notice scheme, Division 3 of Part IV of the Justices Act, which contains sections 100AA to 100AE, was introduced in 1985 to provide a legislative basis for the scheme, which was intended to offer an alternative to charging offenders.

Under the scheme, a police officer, on identifying the alleged offender, could arrange the issue of a court attendance notice, which contained details of the alleged offence and which required the offender to appear at a Local Court on a specified date and time to be dealt with according to law. There was no need to arrest and charge the offender or to make a determination as to bail. If the offender failed to appear, the matter could either be dealt with in his or her absence or a warrant for apprehension of the offender could be issued.

The problem with the scheme in its current form is that the legislation requires that the issue of the notice must be authorised by a "prescribed member of the police force". Under section 100AA, this is defined as a member of the police force " . . . above the rank of sergeant . . . " or " . . . for the time being in charge of a police station . . .". This meant that generally an offender had to be taken back to the police station for the issue of the notice to be authorised, thus reducing the usefulness of the scheme. Police were not enthusiastic about the scheme and it has not been employed as widely as may be desirable.

The increasing incidence of people in custody attempting suicide has prompted a further examination of the court attendance notice scheme with a view to improving its effectiveness and encouraging its use by police officers.

It has therefore been proposed to increase use of the scheme by making it accessible for officers in the field, avoiding the need to bring offenders into the station. The proposed amendment will allow any police officer to issue a court attendance notice to an offender, where an assessment is made that it is not appropriate in the particular circumstances to arrest and charge the offender.

The change, if approved, will reflect a major change in outlook for the Police Service. Previously, the prosecution of offences was approached on the basis that an offender would be arrested unless there were particular reasons why the offender should not be taken into custody. The proposal will reverse this approach, in that police officers will examine cases on the basis that offenders will not be arrested unless specific factors are present which indicate that arrest would be appropriate.

These factors include such issues as whether the police officer is satisfied as to the identity of the alleged offender and whether it is necessary to remove the alleged offender to prevent a continuation of the offence or to protect a victim, witness or the alleged offender by the imposition of a bail condition. A court attendance notice will not be issued where the alleged offender is incapacitated due to intoxication.

This change will have several benefits. Firstly, fewer offenders will be taken into custody, which, it is hoped, will reduce the incidence of persons harming themselves while in custody. The new procedure will also mean that police officers will be able to spend more time on the streets, rather than back in the station processing offenders. Rather than having to arrest offenders, accompany them to the station and participate in the charging and bailing process, police officers will be able to issue court attendance notices on the spot to a substantial number of offenders and then continue their patrols.

The scheme will not be applicable for all offences but only for a category of most common less serious prosecutions, including both summary offences and some indictable offences which can be dealt with summarily, either with or without the consent of the defendant. Short descriptions for the offences will be prescribed to avoid any difficulties about the adequacy of the description of offences on the notices, pursuant to section 145B

Page 2154
of the Justices Act.

If the legislation is passed, the scheme will be trialed in a number of metropolitan and country patrols with a view to determining its effectiveness before introduction statewide.

If successful, the scheme will mark a significant change in police procedures. It will reduce the need for offenders to be taken into and held in custody and it will enable police officers to spend more time on patrol.

Turning now to the proposed changes to the appeal provisions, under current legislation, if an appellant does not appear at the District Court, the court may only proceed to hear an appeal if it is satisfied that each party had knowledge of the hearing, or that the appellant is avoiding service of the notice of hearing, or the appellant could not, after "diligent search and inquiry", be found.

It has become common practice, where the appellant has not appeared, for judges of the District Court to request a "diligent search and inquiry" prior to dealing with appeals. I am informed that over 1,000 such requests were made last year.

The "diligent search and inquiry" order is directed to the registrar of the court who, in turn, instructs the informant police officer to undertake an extensive investigation to locate the appellant and to supply a report to the court. The appeal itself is adjourned to allow the investigation to be conducted.

This practice has given rise to administrative difficulties and, more importantly, represents a waste of both court and police resources.

For instance, police informants must not only put aside other police duties to search for the appellant, but the search must often be conducted outside the district to which the informant officer is attached. Furthermore, due to the work commitments of police officers, the requests are often given low priority.

Therefore, on the adjourned date, the court is frequently faced with the situation that no report has been prepared. In other cases, the court may request an additional or more comprehensive report to be prepared. In such circumstances, the appeal will again be adjourned to allow the preparation of such a report or the calling of the police informant, adding further to court delays and creating more administrative problems for the registry - not to mention the drain on police resources.

Honourable members will see that such an arrangement as this means that valuable court time is expended not in addressing the backlog of cases but on administrative matters.

This bill will set in place an administrative mechanism to allow a court to dismiss quickly and confidently those appeals where an appellant has failed to attend to prosecute his or her appeal, in the knowledge that the every reasonable effort has been made to advise the appellant of the hearing date.

To achieve this objective, greater weight will be placed on the obligation of the appellant to prosecute the appeal. This will be done by amending section 123 of the Justices Act to make it a condition of any bail undertaking or recognisance which the appellant enters to prosecute an appeal that he or she notify the District Court registrar of any change of address.

A simple arrangement as this will ensure that the registry has an up to date address for the appellant to enable notices of listing to be sent. These notices of listing will inform the appellant of the date and place of the hearing and the time of listing.

On the date the appeal is listed, the court will be quickly able to satisfy itself whether or not the appellant has been advised of the hearing by referring to a copy of the notice on file.

It will no longer be necessary for the informant police officer to carry out a search in an attempt to locate an appellant who, in a large number of cases, has simply decided not to proceed with the appeal.

However, to protect appellants who, through no fault of their own, did not receive a notice of listing, the proposed section 126A requires the Registrar of the District Court to notify the appellant at his or her last known address of the order dismissing the appeal and of the appellant's right to have the order vacated under section 127A.

In addition, the proposed amendment to section 127A will extend the time limit (from three to 12 months) within which such an appellant may apply to the District Court to have the order for dismissal vacated. This measure will act as a safeguard and allow deserving appeals to be heard.

The bill makes similar provision in relation to the dismissal of applications for leave to appeal to the District Court, that is, in circumstances where the appeal is not lodged in time.

Currently, if an application for leave to appeal is dismissed on the failure of the applicant to appear, the applicant has no right to have the dismissal order vacated even if the applicant has a good reason for not appearing.

The proposed section 126A requires that where an application for leave to appeal has been dismissed because the applicant failed to appear, the Registrar of the District Court must notify the applicant of the order dismissing the application and of the right to have the order of dismissal vacated.

In addition, the amendment to section 127A will enable an order dismissing an application for leave to appeal to be vacated if the order was made because the applicant failed to appear and the applicant shows sufficient cause for that failure to appear. This amendment puts an applicant for leave to appeal in the same position as an appellant in similar circumstances.

The Justices (Amendment) Bill, as it relates to District Court appeals, represents a minor amendment to the Justices Act but a major saving to both court and police resources. Appeals to the District Court will be disposed of fairly and efficiently allowing judges of that court more time to deal with more serious matters. Similarly, the proposed amendments will free police officers to perform police duties. The bill nevertheless does not sacrifice the interests of the appellant in order to achieve these increased efficiencies.

Finally, I have been advised that the Chief Judge of the District Court, His Honour Judge Staunton, supports the proposed amendments to the Justices Act in respect to the appeal procedures.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.9]: The alternative Government supports the Justices (Amendment) Bill, the object of which is to amend provisions of the Justices Act 1902 in connection with the issuing of court attendance notices and provisions for appeals from local courts to the District Court.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [6.10]: I support the Justices (Amendment) Bill, which is designed to extend the operation of the court attendance notice scheme and streamline the appeal process to the District Court.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The Hon. J. R. Johnson will not converse with people in the public gallery.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I am confident that the proposed amendments will fulfil the desired aims. The current system is that a court attendance notice may be issued for certain offences, requiring an alleged offender to appear at a Local Court on a specified date and time to be dealt with according to law. On the surface that is a fair system for certain offences, as it will save the police time in the charging process, free up police cells by making it unnecessary to arrest all offenders, and determinations will not have to be made about bail.
Page 2155
If an offender fails to comply with the court attendance notice, the matter can be dealt with in his or her absence or an arrest warrant can be issued. The major drawback to that system is that the court attendance notice may be issued only by a police officer above the rank of sergeant or an officer for the time being in charge of a police station. Police on the streets do not generally fall into either of those categories, and that involves a lot of transportation to the police station so that a notice can be issued. That negates any practical benefits in the system. For that reason the scheme has not been as widely used as was hoped for originally.

Under the first of the proposed amendments to the Justices Act any police officer may issue a court attendance notice in the field in respect of certain offences. I strongly support that new development. As the Minister for Police noted in the other place, the new discretion for all police officers will be subject to strict guidelines. Consequently it should not arouse concerns about civil liberties and police powers. The benefits of the amendment are obvious: the scheme will be supported by comprehensive training for police; there will be much wider use of the scheme; discretionary powers will be given to the officer on the scene who is, after all, in the best position to make a judgment; there will be saving of time as officers will not have to return to the police station with every offender, whether the offender is being issued with a court attendance notice or being formally arrested; and the officer will be able to continue immediately with his duties after the issue of the notice.

Another advantage of which honourable members will be aware is the reduction in the number of offenders being placed in cells and the implications that will have on the number of suicides and attempted suicides in such circumstances. Any initiative that will reduce this risk is worthy of the full support of the House. The other proposed amendments relate to the appeal process, a somewhat convoluted process that has two distinct phases. The first stage is the application for leave to appeal, which must be lodged within three months, and the second stage is the appeal itself. In the first stage, if the application is dismissed because of the non-attendance of the applicant, the applicant has no right to have the dismissal order vacated, even if that person has a good reason for not attending. The proposed amendment will correct this inequity. The applicant will have 12 months within which to show sufficient cause for the failure to appear, thus giving appeals that have merit a chance to be heard.

In the second stage, when the appellant fails to appear the judge has two options: one is for the matter to be dealt with in the absence of the appellant, if the court is satisfied that each party had knowledge of the hearing. In that situation, when the appeal is heard in the absence of the appellant, the appellant has three months to apply for a dismissal order to be vacated. This will be extended to 12 months. In future it will be incumbent upon the applicant or appellant to notify any change of address to the registry. This minor change having been inserted into the legislation, the onus is placed on the applicant or appellant and it allows notification of the result of an application or appeal to be posted to the person. Such notification will include advice of the person's rights. The person then has a full 12 months in which to apply to have the order for dismissal vacated.

Judges will no longer have to adjourn matters specifically for the purpose of a diligent search and inquiry. The time of the courts and judges can be more efficiently used, resources will not be taken away from the police and courts in attempting to trace applicants or appellants, and the safeguards to ensure that people are given every chance of a fair hearing are unquestionable. In short, everyone wins. I have pleasure in supporting the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.14]: The Australian Democrats support the Justices (Amendment) Bill. The object of the bill is to amend provisions of the Justices Act 1902 regarding the issue of court attendance notices and for appeals from the Local Court to the District Court. The main amendment will expand the operation of the court attendance notice scheme. That scheme offers an alternative to charging an offender. After identifying an offender a police officer may issue a court attendance notice containing details of the alleged offence and a date and time for the offender to appear at a Local Court. The amendment will allow officers of all ranks - not, as is currently the case, solely a police officer above the rank of sergeant or in charge of a police station - to issue court attendance notices.

The Democrats fully support the aim of reducing arrests and the necessity to take offenders to police stations for minor offences. The amendment will reduce the number of offenders taken into custody and also will enable police officers to spend more time on the streets and in community policing. Obviously such a scheme will be available only for common minor prosecutions, such as summary offences and where it is clear that arrest is not necessary. The passing of the legislation will enable a trial to be carried out in a number of country and metropolitan patrols before it is introduced statewide. Proposed section 125A sets out the actions the District Court may take on the adjournment of an appeal from a Local Court, including releasing an appellant on condition that the appellant enter into a further recognisance. The amendment will streamline procedures in the District Court when an appellant does not attend that court to prosecute an appeal from a decision of a Local Court.

The District Court will be able to dismiss an appeal or an application for leave to appeal if an appellant fails to appear, without first having to conduct a diligent search and inquiry to locate the appellant or applicant. The amendment provides that, instead, the court may proceed if there is an error in, or non-service of, a notice of hearing, on the grounds that it is satisfied that each party had knowledge of the time and place fixed for the hearing and was not prejudiced by the error or non-service. When an
Page 2156
application for leave to appeal has been dismissed because the applicant failed to appear, the Registrar of the District Court must notify the applicant of the order dismissing the application and of the right to have the order of dismissal vacated.

Item (9) of the schedule enables an order dismissing an application for leave to appeal to be vacated if the order was made because the applicant failed to appear and if the applicant shows sufficient cause for that failure to appear. Amendments contained in the bill will alter the time limit within which an appellant may apply to the District Court to have the order for dismissal vacated. That time limit will be increased from three months to 12 months. Other technical amendments will be made to the conditions on which execution of conviction or order may be stayed and in relation to further recognisance to prosecute an appeal. All of these amendments are valuable and will simplify many minor matters that come before the courts. For those reasons the Australian Democrats are pleased to support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.18]: The Call to Australia group supports the Justices (Amendment) Bill, the object of which is to amend provisions of the Justices Act 1902 relating to the issue of court attendance notices and provisions regarding appeals from a Local Court to the District Court. The amendments will enable all police officers to issue court attendance notices to offenders. The bill will help to streamline procedures in the District Court in circumstances where an appellant does not attend that court to prosecute an appeal from a decision of a Local Court. Under the scheme that is being amended by this bill a police officer, on identifying an alleged offender, could arrange for the issue of a court attendance notice that contained details of the alleged offence and required the offender to appear at a Local Court at a specified date and time to be dealt with according to law. There was no need to arrest and charge an offender or make a determination as to bail if the offender failed to appear. The matter could be dealt with in the absence of the offender or on a warrant for apprehension.

A number of practical problems prevented the scheme from working efficiently. The notice had to be authorised by a prescribed member of the police force. This was defined as a member of the police force above the rank of a sergeant or for the time being in charge of a police station. That meant that the offender had to be taken to the police station for the issue of the notice to be authorised, thus reducing the usefulness of the scheme. The police became unenthusiastic about the scheme and it not being used to the extent originally intended. It is distressing that a number of people have attempted suicide while in police custody. This has led to false allegations that police somehow have been involved. As occurred in the Milton case, two officers - or maybe only one - might be supervising a police station. That police officer may be dealing with members of the public at the police station counter, answering the telephone, and engaging in radio communication so that time available to personally supervise a person in custody is limited or almost non-existent.

Though it might be expensive, the Police Service should consider installing in police stations the video camera system that operates in the corridors of Parliament House. The cameras could focus on the cell so that the police officer could observe the person in custody. It would be difficult to implement that system overnight in every police station that has cells, but with limited officers on duty in police stations, that is the only way to go. The legislation will not require a police officer to take an offender to a police station and place him in the cells. It would reduce the possibility of attempted suicides by offenders under the influence of alcohol or drugs or because of emotional reaction from being placed in a cell. If an offender is severely influenced by alcohol to the extent that he is incapacitated, the police officer has no option but to take that person into custody.

The legislation will increase the use of the scheme by making it accessible to officers in the field, avoiding the necessity for police to bring offenders into the police station and allow the police officer to issue a court attendance notice to the offender where an assessment is made that it is not appropriate in the particular circumstances to arrest and charge the offender. This will result in a major change in the operation of the Police Service and the way police officers deal with offenders. Formerly prosecution of offences was approached on the basis that an offender would be arrested unless there were particular reasons why the offender should not be taken into custody. This legislation will reverse that approach, and police officers will examine cases on the basis that offenders will not be arrested unless specific factors are present that indicate that arrest would be appropriate. Those factors include whether the police officer is satisfied as to the identity of the alleged offender and whether it is necessary to remove the alleged offender to prevent a continuation of the offence or to protect a victim, witness or alleged offender by the imposition of a bail condition.

I am concerned also that many complaints have been received where police officers have sought the name and address of an alleged offender. Under the present law a person does not have to provide his or her name and address and can give a false name and address. In a number of cases offenders have been insolent to the police officer and refused to supply a name and address. It is in the interests of the Police Service, the public and, in the long run, the alleged offender that those particulars are given because this procedure cannot operate if a police officer is not satisfied as to the identity of the offender. There should be a legal requirement for an offender to supply his name and address where the police officer has good reason to seek it. The provision of this information is not an invasion of privacy, and the legislation should be amended to require those details to be provided by an offender and to make it an offence for an offender to supply a false name and address.

The public should be encouraged to co-operate with the Police Service. The refusal to do so
Page 2157
undermines the authority of police and places them in a position of ridicule, particularly if it occurs in the presence of members of the public. With those comments the Call to Australia group supports the Justices (Amendment) Bill and urges the Attorney General to look to tightening up that section to require offenders to give their correct name and address to any police officer who makes a reasonable request.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training) [6.26], in reply: I thank honourable members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate and their general support of the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.27]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The objects of this bill, together with the amendment passed in the Legislative Assembly, are to amend the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Act 1992, No. 114, by, first, deferring the vesting of the Royal Agricultural Society Showground in the Centennial Park and Moore Trust; and second, deleting the appointment of the four additional local government trustees, and in their place establishing a community consultative committee and providing for the appointment of one additional trustee who shall be nominated by a majority of the members of the community consultative committee. Members will recall that in September 1992 the honourable member for Bligh introduced a private member's bill entitled the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Bill.

That bill, which was assented to on 8th December, 1992, requires first, the Treasurer to assess alternative funding sources for the Olympic bid prior to vesting; second, allows the Government to include the notional amount of $74 million for sale of the land in its documentation for the bid to be submitted on 1st February, 1993; third, provides for vesting of the showground site, currently owned by the Royal Agricultural Society, with the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust as original land, and repeals the Royal Agricultural Society Act 1911; fourth, requires the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust to grant a lease of the showground to the Royal Agricultural Society; fifth, requires appointment to the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust of a representative of each of the adjacent local councils; and, sixth, requires the establishment of an effective procedure for community consultation.

During the second reading debate the Hon. John Fahey, Premier and Treasurer, in opposing the legislation, expressed the Government's concern on a number of points. These were: the retention of the entire showground site for open space was impractical due to the high costs of refurbishing and rehabilitating the site; the appointment of four local government representatives to the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust, which could result in the business of the trust being seriously affected by local political issues of little consequence; the requirement for a community consultative mechanism, which was less than the existing consultative program implemented by the trust; the significance of the Royal Agricultural Society Sydney Showground in the overall financing of the Sydney 2000 Olympic bid; and the increased administrative and organisational burden that would be placed upon the trust.

A thorough appraisal of the amendment Act since its assent has been carried out by the Government in association with the Royal Agricultural Society and the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust. This has highlighted a number of operational and procedural issues for both the trust and the Royal Agricultural Society should the honourable member for Bligh's amendment bill come into force on 8th June, 1993. Whilst some of these problems may be resolved by negotiation between the Royal Agricultural Society and the trust, it is evident that a number of these issues will be subject to arbitration, where the result may not be in the best interest of either party or of the people of New South Wales. Of serious concern to the Government is that the vesting of the showground with the trust prior to the relocation of the Royal Agricultural Society to Homebush will mean that the Royal Agricultural Society will be divested of its land and buildings and its ability to obtain security for its continued operation. This would mean the end of the Royal Agricultural Society and its Royal Easter Show, which is part of our cultural heritage.

Honourable members should not lose sight of the fact that the Royal Easter Show draws approximately one million people each year over a period of 10 days. In doing so it is one of the most successful ways of educating city people about the activities of people who live outside the metropolitan area. Clearly, this was not an intended result of the honourable member for Bligh's private member's bill, and to rectify this the Government is seeking Parliament's support in amending the Centennial Park and Moore Park (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Act by deferring the vesting of the showground with the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust until a satisfactory relocation of the Royal Agricultural Society occurs. In doing so Parliament will assure the continued operation of the Royal Agricultural Society and its Royal Easter Show - a show that has long been an integral component of this State's cultural fabric.

The second major concern with the honourable member for Bligh's Centennial Park and Moore Park (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Act is the
Page 2158
requirement to increase the size of the trust from seven to 11. The four additional trustees are to be nominated by each of the four local councils whose areas either include or adjoin trust lands. These lands, which are administered by the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust, whilst being an important local resource, are of regional significance. Indeed, they are also of metropolitan, State and national significance, being the birthplace of the Commonwealth of Australia. To suggest that each of these local councils should be able to nominate a trustee is totally inappropriate, given what the usage of these parklands is now, always was, and will be. As indicated by the Premier last year, the Government does not believe that any rational member of the House or the community would expect this significant area of parkland to be restricted in any form from the people of New South Wales, for whom it was dedicated one hundred years ago by Sir Henry Parkes.

Additionally, it is clear that the surrounding local councils have used the parklands administered by the trust as a means of meeting the leisure needs of their constituents, thereby avoiding their responsibilities to provide, and effectively manage, open space within their municipalities. To place representatives of the councils on the trust would further exacerbate the situation and lead to the trust being forced to provide further recreational services and opportunities that should, in fact, be catered for by local government. Should this situation occur, the trust lands, which at present receive more than four million visits a year, will rapidly become a degraded resource and will no longer provide the people of Sydney with an enjoyable and pleasant environment in which to relax or recreate. Furthermore, the business of the trust is likely to be affected because of the political nature of the appointments and the intrusion of local political issues of little or no consequence.

There can be argument that the trust, as it is now established, performs its functions without favouritism and in an expeditious manner wherever appropriate, taking into account the needs and views of both park users and local residents. The trust has always recognised the need for public consultation. To ensure that stakeholders can provide input into trust activities, it has already established a comprehensive consultative program which includes: a sports council, comprising representatives of all major sporting associations that use the trust's facilities; an ongoing park visitor monitoring program; management advisory committees for special-purpose facilities such as the golf course; a consultative forum to enable local government personnel to have input into planning and policy matters; representation from various local community groups; the establishment of a local residents representative forum to enable residents to raise issues of concern and to act as an information forum; and group focus sessions where 10 to 15 individuals involved in a particular recreational activity are invited to discuss policy planning and operational matters.

The honourable member for Bligh's legislation also contains a provision for community consultation. As previously stated, it is the Government's intention to seek the removal of the requirement for four local government area representatives to be appointed to the trust. To ensure that the trust will continue to liaise with the local community, in particular those in the immediate vicinity of trust lands, it is proposed that the honourable member for Bligh's provisions for community consultation be enhanced. This is to be achieved by including a provision for the establishment of a community consultative committee whose membership and procedures will be governed by regulations. This committee, which will meet at least four times a year, will ensure that the trust continues to liaise with its neighbours in order to ascertain the impact, if any, of its activities upon local residents. This is what you would expect of any good neighbour, and I have no doubt that the trust would, even without this legislative requirement, give due and proper consideration to the views of its stakeholders, as it has done since its establishment in 1982 by a former Premier of this State.

As a result of concerns expressed by the honourable member for Bligh, the Government agreed to an amendment of this bill to provide for the appointment of one additional trustee. The trustee shall be nominated by the majority of the members of the proposed community consultative committee, to ensure that the community has a voice on the trust so its concerns about possible impacts arising from trust activities upon the local community can be given due consideration in the final decision-making process. This amendment removes both the concern of the Government and the trust about the intrusion of local government issues upon the trust's activities, while also meeting the local communities' needs for input into the trust's decision-making process.

It is the Government's intention that this bill in its amended form will ensure: the continued existence of two successful organisations which have continued and will continue to provide a range of services to the people of New South Wales, in particular, the future of the Royal Easter Show; that the honourable member for Bligh's key provisions of ensuring that the showground remains in public ownership and cannot be sold are maintained; and that local community concerns will be heard by the trust. I commend the bill to the House.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. D. J. Gay) left the chair at 6.37 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30 p.m.]

The Hon. J. W. SHAW [8.30]: This is a Government bill that seeks to amend in a number of respects a bill that originated as a private member's bill, introduced in the Legislative Assembly by the honourable member for Bligh. The original aim and objective of the bill was to preserve and protect the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust and to ensure the integrity of that area of Sydney. It seems to the Opposition that, although certainly making some changes to the original bill, the Government amendments do not essentially detract from the original thrust of that bill. There are two aspects to the Government's legislation. First is the deferral of the transfer of the showground to the Centennial Park
Page 2159
and Moore Park Trust until the Royal Agricultural Society has vacated the showground site. Apparently it is expected that that will occur in 1998, but to some extent, perhaps to a large extent, that is contingent upon the fate of the Olympic Games bid, which we will know about later this year.

Second, the bill will change the provisions in the original Act which provide for local government representatives on the trust and, alternatively, establish representation from a community consultative committee. This question of local government representation is one that the Opposition has had to think about seriously. On the face of things one might have thought that representation from local government was appropriate. However, the Opposition has been persuaded that the Government's notion of a community consultative committee is reasonable, and in the circumstances we will not oppose it. The Opposition has received representations from the Royal Agricultural Society and the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust, both of whom have put forward persuasive arguments for supporting these measures.

There are financial pressures and problems that justify the present amendments. For example, the Royal Agricultural Society has told the Opposition that it has $10.7 million in assets - 14 acres of land at the showground - but that it has a $7.5 million mortgage with the Westpac Banking Corporation. If the showground is transferred without the payment of compensation, the Royal Agricultural Society argues that it would be technically insolvent. As an Opposition we have no power to move the Parliament to require the Government to compensate the Royal Agricultural Society. That is one of the circumstances which motivates the Opposition to support these proposals. I believe there is considerable public support for maintaining the status quo, that is, maintaining the RAS at its present site until the Homebush facilities are complete, but the thrust of the bill does not seem to detract from the essential aim of preserving the existing situation.

As I have indicated, the bill provides first for a process of deferral to allow consultation with the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales and to operate once the society has vacated or substantially vacated the Sydney showground. As well, the bill will reconstitute the trust, which will henceforth, if the bill is passed by the Parliament, consist of seven trustees appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister, and one trustee appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a majority of members of the community consultative committee. The importance of the community consultative committee is that its members are appointed by the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust on the recommendation of the directors. Therefore there is a mechanism for input from the community - it is not purely a Government body - and that makes it more attractive and more balanced. In all the circumstances the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [8.37]: Although I support this bill, in my view the only thing wrong with it is that it does not altogether repeal the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Act 1992. I believe a better name for that Act would have been the Eastern Sydney, Moore Park and Sydney Showground Appropriation Act. By that Act some residents of eastern Sydney proposed simply to steal a public asset, the showground, for themselves and to retain it as open space and parkland for their enjoyment. They sought to do that at the expense of country residents and of those who live on the periphery of the city, such as in western, southern and southwestern Sydney, as well as those who have used the showground for four or five generations. For those people the showground provides an opportunity to see displays of the very best that country New South Wales has to offer. It provides an opportunity for country people to see the best that other country regions have to offer, with an interchange of ideas about the science and craft of agriculture. That is what the showground is about.

The showground is not a parkland or a resource for the people of eastern Sydney. Though they are privileged to live within close proximity to it, they have never had access to it other than in the same way that every other resident of New South Wales has. They have had to pay to get through the gate to help support the RAS, like everyone else, and I am of the view that we would be better without that Act. However, I recognise the difficulties in the other place which mean that the Government has to accept something. Therefore, I support the bill to the extent that it removes some of the more outrageous claims made in the Act it seeks to amend.

The previous Act was intended to prevent the Government selling off the showground site to facilitate the move by the RAS to the Homebush Bay site and, to some extent, the focus has been moved to the Olympic debate. Whether the Olympic bid succeeds, there is every reason, for the benefit of this State, why the RAS should move the showground to Homebush Bay, regardless of what the people of eastern Sydney think and regardless of how they stand in the way.

If that necessitates some part of the present showground being sold, so be it. That is not to say that any Government would contemplate selling the entire facility without leaving some element of open space within whatever is built in that area. But for the people of eastern Sydney to say that it is incumbent upon the residents of the rest of New South Wales to meet the expense of providing them with an open park space - with every facility of heritage value restored to pristine level - is outrageous and unfair. It is an ambit claim at the very least, one that I believe will have to be modified.

Moving the showground to the Homebush Bay site would allow a renewal of the RAS facilities, to bring them up to date and better display the best
Page 2160
aspects of farming, agriculture and industry in rural New South Wales. The facilities available at the present showground have long outlived their usefulness. Proper facilities require air-conditioning, adequate road space for people's comfort, and appropriate areas for the display and performance of the dramatic arts. In the past the Australian Wool Corporation has staged dramatic arts and fashion displays as part of the Royal Easter Show in the inadequate Hordern Pavilion. Better facilities are needed and the RAS should be able to move to Homebush Bay, which is closer to the centre of the city and accessible to more people. It would also allow more flexibility in what events can be staged.

I note that the honourable member for Bligh in another place has with some hypocrisy criticised the RAS for being in debt, yet she has led a number of residential protests against any other use of the showground that might have generated revenue to pay some of the debt of the RAS. Whether it be the Paul McCartney concert, the Prince concert or the Concert for Life, it seems that any open-air concert in eastern Sydney is not welcome, and that is not for the benefit of the people who live in eastern Sydney. Those facilities are in close proximity to the city, thus enabling people who want to see concerts by performers such as Paul McCartney, or, bless their hearts, Prince -

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: Did you attend the Paul McCartney concert?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: No, I did not. The difficulty is babysitting, but I would have liked to have gone. In this day and age Paul McCartney plays fairly sedate music. It could hardly be regarded as causing major noise pollution. The showground facilities must be multipurpose; that is where the people of New South Wales and the people of Sydney want them, because they are linked to excellent transport facilities. The honourable member for Bligh is constantly carping about the need for facilities to be available in locations served by public transport. The facilities at the showground are ideally served by public transport, yet whenever someone suggests an open-air concert she is in the front line trying to oppose them. In a press statement the honourable member for Bligh said, "I will examine ways to prevent future concerts from being staged at the Moore Park sporting stadiums" - by which I believe she also meant the showground. That is regrettable and closed mindedness at the very worst.

Both the honourable member for Bligh and the Australian Labor Party had the hide in the other place to make statements about the RAS being in debt. They have been at the forefront of limiting any activities of the RAS that might produce revenue. However, its removal to the Homebush Bay site will certainly give it remoteness, access to other public transport routes, and centrality to the city, and allow it to stage lots of other displays, including industry displays, that will be a credit to the organisation of the RAS. I look forward to its relocation for many reasons. If it comes at the cost of the sale of some land for residential housing, that is a perfectly reasonable proposition, because the RAS is an asset of all in New South Wales.

The purpose of that asset is to allow the RAS to conduct displays. If the RAS moves to a site like Homebush Bay - which is twice the size of Centennial Park; more than 440 hectares of land is available to the RAS, but obviously not all of that will be used for the showground - it will have considerable flexibility in the way in which it mounts displays. It will be able to lease other accommodation, and use car parking and other facilities. If that becomes available at the showground, the public will lose nothing.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: There is more open land in Homebush Bay than there is in Campbelltown.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Indeed. If the Government were to move the Sydney showground to another place, it would fulfil tenfold the debt it needs to repay to the people of New South Wales by disposing of that asset. Another thing I find interesting about Opposition members in another place is the manner in which they talk about the asset involved. They skirt over the fact that we are talking about expenditure from the public purse of tens of millions of dollars as if it is nothing. The honourable member for Bligh said:

The RAS debt can be solved in several ways; the Government's solution is excessive. The debt could easily be covered by a guarantee provided by the Government.

I wonder how the Labor Party would argue about that, given its opposition to the Government giving guarantees to outside organisations with regard to Eastern Creek. She continued:

I am confident public support would be strong for such a guarantee. The RAS is heavily dependent on public money for ongoing operation. After discussion with the RAS I found that maintenance of the buildings, the move to Homebush Bay and any building work that may be carried out at Homebush Bay is to be paid for by public money. The RAS has not created reserves to provide for any of these expenses.

If the Government has committed itself to providing hundreds of millions of dollars for the move to Homebush Bay, why does it not advance some of that money and pay out the mortgage or provide the guarantee?

This is the use of assets and resources that are desperately needed to provide welfare, health, police and education facilities; yet the honourable member for Bligh suggests that we have to spend those resources on providing residents of the eastern suburbs, who already have access to beaches, Centennial Park and open spaces at universities, with yet more open space. I will not read any more of her financial nonsense. I simply want to convey to the House the flavour of her level of financial irresponsibility. The same sort of view was put in another place by the honourable member for Moorebank, representing the Labor Party. He said that we are talking about only 3.4 per cent of the overall budget for the Olympic Games, but he neglected to mention that $74 million would hire many police and teachers and build many schools and half of the hospital that he wants in his electorate. It
Page 2161
is not just $74 million; it is a significant amount.

Added to that is the cost of moving the showground to Homebush Bay. The Government cannot be financially irresponsible; it has to be responsible. I believe it will be. Some government in the future will have to consider selling part of the showground. The honourable member for Port Stephens and other members of the Australian Labor Party in the other place had the hide to suggest that the Government should have noticed the errors in the Act prior to its promulgation. Who was responsible for that legislation in the first place? The honourable member for Bligh - and the Labor Party supported it. In my view it is their responsibility to iron out the problems. It is not fair for them to suggest that it is up to the Government to correct every bit of nonsensical legislation that they introduce in this Parliament. It is incumbent on Opposition members to examine their legislation and to look for unintended consequences.

The original bill introduced by the honourable member for Bligh, which was modified significantly by the Government, was believed to be adequate. I make it clear that I do not believe any Government member had his or her heart in supporting that bill. It was allowed through as a concession to the honourable member for Bligh. In my view it was not willingly accepted. However, I support this legislation for it deletes some of the more outrageous features of the original Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust Act. I look forward, as do the residents of western and southwestern Sydney, to the relocation of the showground to the Homebush Bay site. I look forward to Sydney winning the bid for the Olympic Games in the year 2000. Clearly, this legislation is part of that Olympic bid. I support the Government's visionary plan. Regardless of the antics of members in another place and members opposite I hope that these plans come to fruition.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.52]: I have received advice from a senior member of the legal profession that this legislation is unnecessary. That advice is as follows:

The Minister for the Environment has recently written to me, explaining that the bill whereby he proposes to delay the implementation of vesting the Showground pursuant to the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Act is motivated by an apprehension that this vesting will interfere with the finances of the RAS.

This is simply incorrect. The vesting under the Act is subject to the Trust providing a lease to the RAS on terms effectively replicating the RAS' entitlement before the vesting (vide the operation of S.18A to S.18D of the Act). Indeed, on one construction of the Act, the vesting in the trust cannot occur whilst the RAS remains in occupation, using the Showground for its purposes (vide S.18B(ii) of the Act and the operation of the Royal Agricultural Society Act 1911).

In his correspondence, the Minister opines that should the Government decide to sell the Showground at any stage . . . indicating that the Government wishes to keep open the opportunity of selling or developing some or all of the site in the future. This appears to be the true motivation in delaying the vesting of the Showground in the Trust, notwithstanding the Minister's statement that his Bill does not seek to interfere with keeping the Showground in public ownership.

It is alleged that, if the showground is vested in the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust prior to its relocation to Homebush, the Royal Agricultural Society will be technically insolvent. Though the RAS has $10.7 million in assets, plus 14 acres of land at the showground, it has a $7.5 million mortgage with the Westpac Banking Corporation. It is surprising that the society has accumulated a debt of this size. As it will cost a vast amount of money to relocate the RAS to Homebush, would it not be a good idea for the Government to allocate a portion of those funds to pay off the accumulated debt of the Royal Agricultural Society? It is likely that the RAS may not be able to repay the $7.5 million anyway, so would it not be a good idea to start it off with a clean slate?

In 1989 the former Premier Nick Greiner made an agreement with the RAS about selling Moore Park land and moving to Homebush Bay. This agreement is still secret; we have not yet been given details of it. Is there a hidden agenda to sell the showground? The Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Act requires the Treasurer to assess alternative funding sources for the Olympic bid prior to vesting. It allows the Government to include the notional amount of $74 million for the sale of its land in its documentation for the bid. If we win the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games bid it is likely that the Premier of the day will think seriously about acquiring the $74 million by disposing of the showground. It is quite likely also that, if we host the Olympic Games in Sydney, we can expect it to cost a lot more than $74 million. It is highly likely that it will cost the people of New South Wales $200 million or $300 million. The Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Chris Hartcher, in his reply to the second reading debate on 29th April said:

May I begin by echoing the remarks of the honourable member for Bligh that Moore Park is not for sale and Centennial Park is not for sale. It is fundamental that those magnificent areas remain in public ownership and for public recreation.

That is how it should be. Governor Macquarie dedicated 1,000 acres as common land for the people of Sydney. Over the years bits and pieces have been sold off. That area is now down to 388 acres. One could always mount a good economic rationalism argument to sell bits of the park to finance worthwhile projects. The fact is that the park is not for sale. As open space for today's generation and for future generations it is worth inestimably more than its real estate value. As urban consolidation increases and more people live in the city, green space becomes so much more valuable. We need places to escape from noise and air pollution. I doubt whether this Government will ever get the numbers in both Houses to sell the showground. Even though the next government may wish to do so, I am sure it would be ever more politically impossible. Let us not hear any more of selling the showground or bits of Moore Park and Centennial Park. They are inviolable, even if Sydney wins the Olympic Games bid.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL [8.57]: I share the concerns expressed by a number of other speakers about the hasty way in which this bill was introduced
Page 2162
and passed through both Houses of Parliament prior to Christmas. Had the honourable member for Bligh paid a little more attention to detail at that time, this amending bill would not be necessary. I assisted the Royal Agricultural Society in a press conference in Parliament House to highlight the difficulties it was experiencing with the bill introduced by the honourable member for Bligh. That legislation was pushed through this Parliament as a favour to the honourable member for Bligh.

This bill will correct many of the problems that resulted from the original bill. That bill vested in the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust the land occupied by the Royal Agricultural Society. The RAS was concerned about that for it was having problems financing its ongoing program. It was necessary for the Government to amend that bill because the honourable member for Bligh did not have the courage to introduce another when it was obvious that she had been wrong. When the original bill was introduced a number of discussions were held with the RAS, but the honourable member for Bligh did not concede that there were problems. That does not augur well for her political perception of what is right for the RAS.

The Royal Agricultural Society has served New South Wales and the people of the metropolitan area of Sydney extremely well for a long time. The Royal Easter Show has become an institution. I am sure a number of honourable members share my view that it will be sad to see the RAS move from Moore Park. The showground has been wonderful for the Royal Easter Show and for the RAS and, though it is inconvenient for people from the outer west, Campbelltown and such places, and an inconvenience during the 10 days of the Royal Easter Show for the people who live in the vicinity of Moore Park, it is a fabulous arena with historic and significant features that will be missed by many when it moves to Homebush Bay. When the Government first considered disposing of the showground site a number of excellent proposals were put forward by a number of people.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: Yes, the Institute of Architects.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: There were architects.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: The Total Environment Centre put up a beauty.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Those proposals included the retention of some of the lovely old key buildings, and of the arena. I have no idea what the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust has in mind for the site when the showground vacates it but, if the buildings and the arena are to be retained, what sort of Centennial Park extension will the showground provide? A number of people who use the horse facilities at the showground will expect to use the horse stabling facilities so that they can ride in Centennial Park. I hope the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and his friends are not trying to ban horses from Centennial Park and the showground site.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What are you talking about?

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I was not quite sure from his speech what he had in mind for the site. I anticipate that he envisaged bulldozing everything and sowing grass and trees. We have to think very carefully about the future of this site. Obviously an area of this site would lend itself to a commercial return, and areas should be set aside for the use of the public, especially those people who live in the vicinity of Moore Park and Centennial Park. The honourable member for Bligh has been totally selfish, as she might be as the local member, with regard to the future of this site.

I endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon. J. F. Ryan, who said that the people of Moore Park knew full well when they bought their residential properties adjacent to the showground, to the cricket ground and to the football stadium, that they would suffer inconvenience from time to time with extra lighting, extra noise, extra traffic and crowds. Their complaints are similar to those of people who bought homes near the airport and then complained about aircraft traffic. I do not share the concerns of the honourable member for Bligh about the comfort of those people who live near the showground. They obviously bought their homes knowing full well the usage of the site.

The honourable member has been overly selfish in her concerns about the future of the site. Nevertheless, we are stuck with the bill. This measure will go a long way to ensuring that the RAS will be able to continue to offer to the people of Sydney and New South Wales the outstanding show that the society has put on every Easter. I hope that when the time comes for it to move, that move will be for the betterment of the RAS, that the transition will satisfy everyone who has been associated for so many years with the RAS - not only the 800,000 people who attend the show every year and give it great support but also those who make their annual pilgrimage from the country to Sydney and those who receive pleasure from exhibiting and showing what the rural areas of New South Wales can do. I support the bill. It will overcome an anomaly that should never have occurred. I hope the House will support it in that context. I hope the RAS will be able to live with what I consider to be very hasty and poorly drafted legislation until the society moves to the new site at Homebush.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.5]: The Call to Australia group supports the bill. The principal object of the bill is to amend the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Act 1992 so as to defer the vesting of Sydney Showground in the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust until the RAS has vacated the showground. The legislation states, in schedule 1:

The date or dates of commencement of section 4 . . . by instrument in writing, that the Minister has consulted with the

Page 2163
Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales and that the Society has vacated or substantially vacated the Sydney Showground (being the land described in the Schedule to the Royal Agricultural Society Act 1911).

The other part of the bill deals with the trust, which will comprise seven trustees appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister and one trustee appointed by the Governor on recommendation of the majority of members of the Community Consultative Committee. That procedure is outlined in the legislation. Call to Australia was surprised, as was the Hon. R. T. M. Bull, when the bill came to this House last year that it moved so quickly through the Chamber when it had so many serious problems. To that extent the Hon. R. T. M. Bull was criticising the Government for its haste to satisfy the honourable member for Bligh, who I think, from memory, was sitting watching the bill go through.

The honourable member for Bligh has great zeal for her electorate and for anything that affects the interests of the residents of East Sydney but, as other speakers have said, overlooks genuine concerns - not just from the Government's point of view but from the point of view of all honourable members - about the effects of these major changes on the people of New South Wales. According to the RAS, the bill had a side-effect, almost an immediate effect, of threatening society and its viability. The Royal Easter Show itself was threatened; there was some question about whether it would be held this year. I would not like to have seen the Royal Easter Show harmed in any way or the RAS limited in its very effective work, which it has carried out for many years.

Many people of New South Wales, especially those in the metropolitan area, have benefited from the Royal Easter Show bringing directly together the country and the city. I always endeavour to attend the Easter Show, not just for my own personal interest but to take children - I took my two grandchildren, Joshua and Jessica, to the last Easter Show - to see their joy and excitement as they moved around the showground, particularly watching the grand parade. The commentator said it was a unique event and that many tourists had flown from all around the world to be in Sydney to see the grand parade with its wide variety of farm animals and the quality of animals on display - they being the winners of various competitions that had been held prior to the grand parade.

I share the concern of other members of this place that the honourable member for Bligh, whether she intended it or not, seriously threatened the continuation of the Royal Easter Show - that threat has a flow-on effect for the future development of the Homebush Bay Olympic site - and therefore threatened the Olympic 2000 bid. I am sure no one would want to sabotage that bid, which has every chance of success. I am impressed by the approach taken by the Hon. Bruce Baird, who leads the Olympic Games bid. The President of the International Olympic Committee seemed to be pleased with the preparations that had been made as part of the bid for the Olympic Games.

I drive regularly through the Homebush Bay site and have been impressed by the rapid development, as if the games were to be held tomorrow. I am sure that has been done to show the International Olympic Committee that Sydney means business with its bid. That bid cannot hope to succeed unless the site is developed and has buildings constructed on it so that one can demonstrate the potential of meeting the deadline for the holding of the games to enable the selection committee that will make its decision in September to choose Sydney as the venue for the Olympic Games in 2000.

The honourable member for Bligh threatened that bid. I am pleased that the Government persevered successfully with its intention. Another encouraging development, which ties in with community support for the Royal Easter Show, is the recent report that more than $10 million has been donated by business firms in Australia towards that bid. The money being spent with a view to winning the bid is not coming from the pockets of taxpayers but rather from corporations which have backed it with generous gifts. I commend them for their donations. Everyone expects that the games will be a great success, assuming Sydney gets them, and that there will be no cost to the taxpayers but rather that there may be a small profit. The Olympic Games can be financed, with great effort, from a combination of corporate support and income from sponsorship and international television rights.

I am pleased that the bill has been introduced. It is important that the Royal Easter Show and the Olympic Games bid are not threatened. It may be necessary to consider whether the original bill should be repealed and taken off the statute book so that the Government can assess the future use of the showground site for the benefit of all citizens of the State, taking into account the economy of the State, which is in difficulty because of the recession. During the contribution by the Hon. J. F. Ryan I interjected to say that the site had a lot of open ground around it. The honourable member thought I was referring to the Homebush site but I was referring to the showground site. It could be argued that in comparison with other suburbs such as Ryde and Campbelltown, the showground has more open land around it for Centennial Park and Moore Park are nearby. It is not as if the area has been built out or that there are problems of overdevelopment.

The Royal Agricultural Society buildings are in poor condition and it would cost millions of dollars to restore them. Some of the more symbolic buildings could be kept to maintain a historical connection with the original Royal Easter Show when the venue for that event is moved to Homebush Bay. That would not in any way take away open space from residents because the area is not used as open space now. It may be economically necessary for development to be allowed on part of the land, to offset the costs of moving to Homebush Bay and so that the Royal Agricultural Society can continue to be viable. With those comments the Call to Australia group supports
Page 2164
the bill.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [9.16]: I shall briefly register my support for the bill, the first object of which is to amend the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Act 1992 - or should I say the Clover Moore Act - so as to defer the vesting of Sydney Showground in the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust until the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales has vacated the showground site. The second object is to repeal certain provisions relating to the appointment of local government representatives to the trust and to amend a provision relating to community consultation to make provision for the appointment of a community consultative committee. The most important aspect of the bill is that the Royal Easter Show will continue to be held at the present site at the Sydney Showground until the Royal Agricultural Society has moved its activities to Homebush Bay.

I was interested in the remarks of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. As I understood it, he would like the area to be turned into a common. I wonder whether he understands what that word means. Anyone can come along with cattle, sheep and horses and let them graze on a common. Sometimes I think the honourable member lives in fairyland. That was the most stupid thing I have ever heard. A lot of discussion has surrounded this issue. A number of people, including my sister, are disappointed at the intention to move the present showground to the proposed Olympic site at Homebush Bay. Those people have stated that the Royal Easter Show has been held in the Moore Park area for a long time and they fail to understand why that should not continue.

I am very much in favour of the Royal Agricultural Society moving the Royal Easter Show venue to Homebush Bay, for a number of reasons. The first is that the present site and its surrounding buildings have outlived their usefulness. I am reliably informed that it would cost of the order of $70 million to upgrade the showground. Though the location is convenient for many people, especially those living in the eastern suburbs and those from the country who stay in the city, it has many problems in respect of parking and the movement of traffic at that time of the year. At Easter races are held at Randwick and the rugby league competition begins at the Sydney Football Stadium. All this can create havoc for the parking of cars in that region.

In addition, I believe that the relocation of the showground to Homebush Bay will have many advantages, especially for exhibitors. At present they must bring their livestock and produce into the heart of the city of Sydney. They come from the north, the south and the west. What better place to have a showground than Homebush Bay? The north, south and west converge on that area. During the Royal Easter Show one can drive around the exclusive streets of Darling Point and see horse floats parked outside residences because there is nowhere else for them to park. Parramatta is the central part of the city. It has every facility, ranging from five star hotels to motel-type accommodation. Access can be gained to the Homebush Bay area by water, rail and road. That in itself has a great bearing on the location.

I turn to the provisions of the bill. Schedule 1 provides for vesting of the showground - the site currently owned by the Royal Agricultural Society - with the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust as original land and repeals the Royal Agricultural Society Act 1911. It further requires that the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust grant a lease for the showground to the Royal Agricultural Society. This is important because it will protect the interest of the Royal Agricultural Society. It requires appointment of a representative from each of the four adjacent local councils to the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust and further requires the establishment of an effective procedure of community consultation. All these provisions are extremely important and safeguard the interests of the Royal Agricultural Society and, indeed, the hundreds of thousands of people - and this year close to a million - who come year by year to witness our top livestock and produce.

The show provides many other interests with exhibits of machinery, motor cars, et cetera. An important aspect of the Royal Easter Show is that city people, in particular, have the opportunity to see the fruits of the labour of their country cousins - livestock, produce and other important products, including hand-knitted garments and the wonderful parade of woollen and cotton clothes worn by beautiful models. Also, the livestock nursery attracts thousands upon thousands of young children who otherwise would not have the opportunity to look at and fondle lambs, calves and stock of various types. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting the legislation and trust that when the showground is moved to Homebush Bay we will have an even better exhibition to witness year by year.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [9.21], in reply: I thank the Hon. J. F. Ryan, the Hon. R. T. M. Bull, the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith, the Hon. J. W. Shaw, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for their contributions because a great deal of truth has been spoken in this debate. I regret to say that the contribution of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, though not untruthful, did not make a great deal of sense - but that is not unusual. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones makes a lot of sense to himself, and I suppose that is important. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile saw this bill for what it really is, as did my colleagues on this side of the House, who spoke eloquently on the subject.

This bill is typical and one of many unfortunate efforts of the honourable member for Bligh to try to curry favour with her constituents without consulting those who should have been consulted. She tried to grandstand on the subject of the showground and sought to hold the Government to ransom. If the
Page 2165
Government had a majority in the lower House, this bill would never have seen the light of day. Of course, the honourable member for Bligh put pressure on the Government at a time when it was most vulnerable. She was aided and abetted by her sometime friends in the Labor Party, who, though I warned them of the danger of dallying with the honourable member for Bligh, went along with her piece of legislation for craven political purposes. Initially, they agreed to oppose her bill because they saw the folly of it but were then sucked in by minority pressure groups, and in the end the Labor Party took the political course, which is not always the right course.

As a result, the bill passed through the lower House at a time when the Government was in the process of preparing the budget for the Olympic Games and the bid books for the Olympic Games bid. At that time it gave me no pleasure to be the Minister responsible for putting that bill through this House. The Premier had made it clear - and, of course, I supported his view - that we had to have a responsible budget for the Olympic bid. That budget had to include $70-odd million, which represented the sale of the showground. That was the dishonest addition the Labor Party made to the bill of the honourable member for Bligh and the reason why it supported the legislation. When the bill passed through this House I warned honourable members that they had not heard the last of it, and they have not. I am a little like the Hon. J. F. Ryan and the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith, who said that sooner or later this bill will have to be repealed altogether because it will not work.

My friend the Hon. R. S. L. Jones keeps saying that publicly owned land must not be sold. He does not understand that every day of the week the Government is buying and selling land on behalf of people - mainly buying it. If he took the trouble to find out, he would realise that many areas of Sydney have a great shortage of open space - Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to that in his contribution - and it is necessary under the green space and other programs for the Department of Planning and other departments to buy privately owned land and turn it into public open space.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: When are you going to buy Bongil Bongil?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The honourable member loves to throw red herrings into the ring. Bongil Bongil is a long way from Moore Park. It is all very well for the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to say that publicly owned land should not be sold because that would be a terrible thing to do because it is a sacred cow. Yet he does not complain when privately owned land is put into public hands for the benefit of the people, as the Government has done in the western suburbs of Sydney, where the Hon. J. F. Ryan lives. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said there is an enormous amount of public open space in the electorate of the honourable member for Bligh, yet she continues to make statements in the lower House about how underprivileged her constituents are because they have nowhere to go. If one flies over the area in a helicopter or plane, one can see acres of green grass, and it is not all golf courses.

This ill thought out piece of legislation is another example of political opportunism received in this House at a time when the Government was over a barrel. At that time the Government had to put forward a credible economic bid for the Olympic Games, and the sale of the showground had to be available as part of that bid. The Government was blackmailed into the legislation, and tonight's amendment, which ensures the future of the Royal Agricultural Society while ever it remains at Moore Park, is the next chapter of the sorry saga of the honourable member for Bligh and her political opportunism.

I predict that somewhere down the track - I hope after we have won the next election with a handsome majority in both Houses - common sense will prevail and the legislation will be repealed. It does not mean that if the Government redevelops part of the showground there will not remain a large amount of public open space at the showground - the ring, the cattle judging area and various other corridors through the park - or that heritage buildings of merit will not be preserved and that the showground will not be opened to the public.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the honourable member for Bligh like to go on about the showground being public land, but most of the time the gate is locked and even if one wishes, one cannot enter. I would much prefer housing on non-sensitive parts of that site - perhaps public housing - some stables to allow people to tether their horses after riding, an area of public open space, and a few heritage buildings to make proper use of the site for the benefit of the residents, improve the traffic flows, et cetera, rather than have this mindless idea that because it became public land in 1810, or whenever, it should always remain public land. Nothing is for ever. The Government is buying and selling public land all the time, yet the total number of hectares of public land in New South Wales is rising all the time.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is going down.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: It is not going down. My colleague announced another 11,000 hectares of national park yesterday. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones is often totally irrational in his approach. I promised my colleagues that I would not belabour this matter, but it is important that honourable members on both sides of the House, indeed, visitors in the public gallery and anyone who reads Hansard, understand exactly what this bill is all about. The approach taken by the Government was viewed by some people as caving in and giving way to an ill thought out piece of legislation. But I knew at the time we allowed the bill through, as did the Premier, that it would not be the end of it. The passing of this legislation in the other place has not been the end of it, and this debate is not the end of it; this is just the next chapter. With those few brief remarks I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Page 2166

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [9.31]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [9.31]: I wish to raise the concerns of a group known as Homes for the Disabled (Maitland) about the lack of adequate facilities to care for their disabled children. Recently I travelled to Maitland, where I spoke to a group of parents, at their request, regarding the problems experienced in caring for their children, some of whom have developmental disabilities, with the remainder having multiple handicaps, that is, both developmentally disabled and physically disabled. This group of parents, which included Mr Richard and Mrs Kerrie Mawkes of Elermore Vale and Mr Mark Jeston of Rutherford, told me that approximately 30 families in the Maitland, Cessnock and Kurri Kurri areas have children with these disabilities, who, in their view, need a permanent placement within a group home in a community setting.

The parents to whom I spoke are very grateful that a respite care facility has recently been established by the Department of Community Services in Maitland. However, the Maitland parents have told me that they are campaigning for the establishment in the Maitland area of two group homes, additional to the respite care facility, so that permanent placements of children with disabilities can be made. The parents are seeking a group home that would accommodate six ambulatory children and another group home in which six non-ambulatory children could be cared for. A community group home at Cessnock known as Alkira, a facility of the Department of Community Services that, until now, has been caring for the adult developmentally disabled, has recently become vacant following the transfer of those clients to a more independent living situation.

The Maitland parents have stated that this vacant group home could be suitably used in the care of some children with disabilities, subject to appropriate recurrent financial resources being allocated for this purpose. The former Premier, the Hon. Nick Greiner, at one stage when visiting the Hunter region said that the area was overresourced in facilities for the developmentally disabled. Clearly, that could only be the case if the very large facility at Stockton Hospital is taken into account. The House should note that Stockton Hospital can only be regarded as an outmoded facility which clearly would not comply with the standards laid down in the Disability Services Act recently enacted by this Parliament. I emphasise to the House the daily strain under which many parents live with disabled children.

Not only do the parents suffer stress and strain, but other siblings suffer in various ways, including lack of attention by the parents whose energies are largely absorbed looking after the disabled child. The Department of Community Services Hunter region manager, Ms Colleen Jupp, was quoted in the Maitland Mercury on 12th May warning that many parents of disabled children suffer breakdowns due to the stress involved in the daily care of those children. I realise that funding resources are not unlimited, but I strongly urge the Government and the Minister to actively consider the concerns expressed and requests made by the Maitland parents for facilities to be made available in the Maitland area for permanent placement in the community of children with developmental and multiple disabilities. The need for such facilities is very great, having regard to the stress and strain experienced by both the parents and siblings of children with disabilities.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE [9.35]: The Call to Australia group strongly supports the positive pro-family views expressed by Mr Joe de Bruyn, National Secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, in the association's recent newsletter, volume 10, No. 3. In spite of the vicious attack and ridicule directed at Mr Joe de Bruyn by the so-called loony left - the left-wing women in caucus - and the sarcastic presentation of the so-called Ernie Ecob award for the most sexist remark of the year, we believe the majority of women support Mr de Bruyn's call for a real choice between full-time employment and home duties as a full-time mother. I remind the House that the SDAEA is the largest affiliate and the largest donor of the Australian Labor Party. Mr de Bruyn is a member of the powerful, prestigious State administrative committee. In the newsletter Mr de Bruyn said:

The Prime Minister's decision to take note of his "femocrat" advisors on women's issues almost cost Labor the election.

Labor opened its campaign with a swag of promises to women, which generally went down like a lead balloon.

It was only when the Prime Minister changed tack and took up issues of real concern to women that Labor's campaign began to fire.

The lesson must be learned.

Radical "femocrats" ensconced in glass towers in Canberra have no idea what ordinary working women and their families really want.

It is the ordinary working people of Australia who elected this Government and it is their concerns that the Government must meet.

Providing tax cuts and subsidised child care to the wealthy is not what this Government has been elected for.

Exit polls showed that the issues which primarily persuaded many women to vote Labor were related to income security, equity and fairness.

The Government has been elected to maintain and build upon its past achievements in these areas.

The issue of critical importance is jobs but economic growth will be required if more jobs are to be created . . .

Page 2167

However, over the past decade there has been a major increase in the overall workforce participation rate.

During Labor's period in government, the proportion of married women in the workforce has increased by 10%.

According to the Institute of Family Studies, last year 68% of women aged between 22 and 55 years were in the paid workforce.

The traditional one-income family with the husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker is down to 28%. In Britain this traditional arrangement is down to 10%; in the USA, down to 11%.

Movement in Australia is clearly in the same direction.

There are a number of reasons why the participation rate has increased but one is that an increasing number of families need both spouses to be earning incomes.

It is highly unlikely that any western economy will be able, in the future, to provide jobs for everyone who wants one.

The Government must admit this and address its implications.

A sensible approach would be to try and identify those who do not at any particular time want to be in the workforce, but who are there for economic reasons.

Families with young children would often prefer to have one parent at home if they could afford it.

Earlier this year Labor MP Gary Johns proposed that the Government provide a payment to families of $50 a week for each child under five years of age.

This is a most sensible proposal. Under this proposal an adult shop assistant with two children under school age, working 15 hours or less a week, would be financially better off to withdraw from the paid workforce.

Providing support to families to enable them to do what they really want would achieve many beneficial results: the families concerned would be happy; pressures on government to provide more child care and associated fee relief would be reduced; the work force participation rate and the unemployment figures would be lowered; expenditure on unemployment would be reduced. The Government's promise to cash out the spouse rebate and pay it as an allowance to the caring spouse is a step in the right direction. The newsletter goes on to state that a recent study by Ms Sharne Rolfe of the School of Early Childhood Studies at the University of Melbourne showed that working women who would rather not be in paid employment experience high levels of depression.

Mr de Bruyn said that they must always be free to make a choice, and the operative word is choice. So long as families need two incomes to survive, that choice is not practically available. A study by Ms Gurjeet Gill, a lecturer in sociology at the University of New England, showed that many dual income families suffer high levels of stress because spouses spend most of their spare time catching up with household chores rather than having fun together. She showed that working mothers, in particular, pay a high price for trying to juggle dual responsibilities. In the newsletter Mr de Bruyn went on to criticise the Federal Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. He said the department is financing a pilot program to investigate how sick children can be accommodated in child care. [Time expired.]


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.40]: I wish to set the record straight in response to some grossly inflated claims Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile made recently both in this Chamber and by way of press release about the performance of the Call to Australia group at the last Federal election. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has claimed erroneously that the Call to Australia group is now taking the place of the Australian Democrats as the third force in Australian politics. A simple examination of the election results shows that nothing could be further from the truth. In a press release dated 29th April Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile trumpets the fact that his party's vote declined by less than half of 1 per cent. But he completely failed to mention the actual vote of the Call to Australia group, which was 1.02 per cent in the Senate nationally.

In New South Wales the Call to Australia Senate vote was a measly 1.213 per cent. The New South Wales vote in the House of Representatives was 0.16 per cent and did not even rate a mention on a national level. Only the most deluded mind could begin to claim that the Call to Australia group was the third force in Australian politics, particularly when it was overwhelmingly outpolled by the Australian Democrats and the Greens. In New South Wales the Senate vote of the Australian Democrats was 4.92 per cent and the House of Representatives vote was 2.81 per cent. This distortion of figures from the Australian Electoral Commission should be no surprise, given that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile do a cut-and-paste job on the Bible on a regular basis to substantiate their own narrow-minded point of view.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: On a point of order. Under Standing Order 80 I find the remarks by the honourable member, suggesting that I do a cut-and-paste job on the Bible, to be highly offensive and a reflection on my standing in this House. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile wishes me to withdraw that remark, I will withdraw it. It is to be expected that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should emphasise how little his vote has changed since the last Federal election, because the vote of the Call to Australia group in all Federal elections was minuscule to begin with. It is impossible for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to claim that Call to Australia will become the third force in politics in Australia since, except in New South Wales, it has never won a seat in any Parliament, whereas my party has had representatives in all States and my colleagues in South Australia hold the balance of power in the upper House.


Page 2168

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.43]: It has been more than two years since this Government set up the Cattle Tick Dip Site Management Committee, DIPMAC, to address the urgent and serious problems of contamination from cattle tick dip sites on the North Coast of New South Wales. Yet, two years on, there are still many families forced to live and raise their children on land contaminated with the highly toxic chemicals DDT and arsenic. One young family who bought their property unaware of the toxic time bomb buried in the garden has had levels of 8,000 parts per million of DDT detected in the soil between the children's sandpit and the family barbecue. These families have been told by DIPMAC that they must not disturb the soil, nor grow vegetables in it and certainly not carry out any of the normal activities, such as gardening or landscaping. They have, through no fault of their own, found themselves trapped on contaminated sites with no means to clean
up or remedy their home sites. As their properties are now close to financially worthless, there is no possibility of selling and starting again.

With the slashing of legal aid for civil cases these same families now find themselves denied all access to natural justice. New South Wales Agriculture has known about this contamination problem for more than 12 years. Its original sampling of cattle tick dip sites in 1991 detected levels of DDT in the soil of up to 106,000 parts per million - that is, more than 10 per cent of pure DDT in the soil - yet New South Wales Agriculture did nothing to ensure that these sites were not developed. The department chose to ignore its own foul pollution and, 12 years later, still tries to deny it is the legal polluter. It is only the actions of community groups using freedom of information legislation that have brought this disaster to light. The New South Wales Government's response was to form a committee in 1991, only days before the State election, and to stack that committee with employees from the Department of Agriculture - the legal polluter.

The DIPMAC committee reported to the Government and immediately requested an opinion on legal liability and recommended that a simple protocol for legal redress based on polluter-pays principles be instigated on behalf of affected residents. Cabinet responded by saying that the Crown Solicitor's advice would be released and even told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's "7.30 Report" that it would be available in a matter of days. That document has never been released, and the management of dip sites continues to be carried out in a legal vacuum. Who is this Government trying to protect - certainly not the innocent victims of the bungling incompetence of New South Wales Agriculture and the Environment Protection Authority. So where do the affected residents find themselves now? The only remedial option available appears to be - [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.