The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly with amendments:

Smoking Regulation Bill

Bill read a third time.

Petition praying that a bill be passed to provide for a statewide referendum on legalising strictly and properly regulated voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, received from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.

Petition praying that the rights of parents to freedom of choice in education be supported, and that any attempts to remove the exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act for Christian, religious and other non-government schools, churches and religious organisations be opposed, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that the Parliament support the Sexual Offence Damages Bill, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.

Parts 1, 2 and 3

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [11.10 a.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 1, 4 and 20 standing in my name in globo:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3, line 10. Omit all words on that line.

No. 4 Pages 2 and 3, clause 3, line 24 on page 2 to line 3 on page 3. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 20 Page 7, clause 14. Omit the clause.

All of these amendments contain definitions or explanations which are superfluous to the bill either because the redefinitions are not required or the explanations are unnecessary. For example, the redefinition of "actual bodily harm" is not required. Reference to "actual bodily harm" would be removed by forthcoming amendments because it is covered by the general sections of the bill dealing with the use of force by and responsibility of the householder.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.11 a.m.]: Speaking generally, the Government does not consider that the amendments moved by the Hon. J. S. Tingle will create a satisfactory final bill. I do not resile from the comments I made in my second reading speech when I dealt with a number of foreshadowed amendments and made observations about them. Despite the fact that the Government does not accept the ultimate bill if the amendments are approved as being satisfactory, it is clear that the amendments improve the bill. They ameliorate some of the adverse effects and meet some of the criticisms of the bill. The Government does not propose to oppose any of the amendments in Committee. I appreciate the point made by the honourable member that these amendments will omit definitions or prescriptions which are superfluous.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.12 a.m.]: I agree with the comments made by the Attorney General. However, the Opposition is prepared to support the bill and will support these amendments. The amendments overall improve the legislation. In the debate on the second reading I made a number of comments and raised issues concerning the bill. Some of the matters in these amendments address those issues. All of the amendments which have been circulated by the Hon. J. S. Tingle will meet the needs of the Opposition. Therefore, the Opposition will support all of the amendments.

Page 9059

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.13 a.m.]: As honourable members are aware, I did not support the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s home invasion bill in the second reading debate. I do not consider that these amendments will improve the bill and they certainly do not make the bill any more acceptable to the Australian Democrats. I oppose these amendments and again oppose the bill. I fully understand people’s feelings if break and entry occurs to their properties, if their property is stolen or even if they are menaced or intimidated by intruders. But I do not believe that taking the law into their own hands, which is suggested by the bill, is the proper course of action or redress. I oppose the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.14 a.m.]: Call to Australia has made its position clear: we support the bill. These amendments, even though they are minor, improve the bill and make it more workable. Call to Australia supports the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [11.14 a.m.], by leave: I move amendments 2, 7, 9, 17 and 18 standing in my name in globo:

No. 2 Page 2, clause 3, line 13. Omit all words on that line.

No. 7 Page 3, clause 5. Omit the clause.

No. 9 Page 4, clause 8, line 15. Omit ", including deadly physical force,".

No. 17 Page 6, clause 13, lines 21 and 22. Omit ", or deadly physical force,".

No. 18 Page 6, clause 13, lines 23 and 24. Omit ", or deadly physical force,".

There was some concern about the use of the expression "deadly physical force" and reference to it is removed from the bill by the various amendments. I point out to honourable members that it is impossible for legislators to be able to accurately predict what force or degree of force might be required to beat off an attacker. Therefore, it is unrealistic to place academic limits on the right of the householder to use force because the limits cannot be enforced or observed in every case. The bill has to simply allow that a householder has a basic right to use force but may be held accountable if the force used is later deemed to be unreasonable. An amendment to be moved later will clarify this.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.16 a.m.]: The Government agrees with the proposition that the reference to "deadly physical force" ought to be removed from the bill. Hence, the Government supports the amendments. The removal of the specific reference to "deadly physical force" does not stop the bill from authorising what is, in effect, deadly physical force. Deadly physical force is still encapsulated in the phrase "any level of physical force", which remains in the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.17 a.m.]: I am even more perturbed now that I have heard the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s explanation of his amendments. I agree with the Attorney General that the removal of the words "deadly physical force" does not mean that it is allowable for a home occupant whose home is invaded to use such force that will result in the death of an intruder. But it is still open to interpretation that the home occupant can use, in the words of the Hon. J. S. Tingle, whatever force seems reasonable. Whatever seems reasonable may vary from individual to individual. Some people may believe it is reasonable to draw a gun on an intruder. Other people not having firearms may believe it is reasonable to hit an intruder around the head with a golf club or cricket bat, either seriously injuring or killing an intruder. The amendments are very dangerous. In fact, they are probably more dangerous than what was originally in the bill. Once again I oppose the amendments and the bill.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [11.18 a.m.]: I want to comment on the remarks of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. As I understand it, these amendments bring the bill back into line with the common law. The precise purpose of the amendments and tuning of the bill are to recognise that it is impossible to predict what type or level of force might be used in a confrontation between a home occupant and a home invader. It allows for reality rather than academic limitations which are probably incapable of enforcement.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.19 a.m.]: Call to Australia supports the amendments of the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, as she always does, has focused on her concerns for the invader. The bill is concerned with the home occupants. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby seems to have missed the point. We are not concerned about the invader; we are concerned about people whose home is being invaded. I would interpret "reasonable" to mean that if the home invader has a knife at the throat of the daughter of a parent, that parent has the right to take whatever reasonable action he or she feels is required in that situation. "Reasonable" can be assessed in terms of the degree of threat to the family.

Page 9060

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.20 a.m.]: The analogy that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile draws about the intruder who might have a knife to the throat of the daughter of the house is far-flung and illogical. If the intruder has a knife to the throat of the daughter, it will not assist her if a member of her family bashes the intruder - she may be more seriously damaged. This is my whole point. I hold no brief for invaders; I hold no brief for criminals. It is not proper for citizens to believe that they have the right to inflict greater harm on someone committing a criminal act.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It is to defend themselves.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has said that it is for people to defend themselves. People get worked up to a weird state of fear in these situations. I again put on record the case of two innocent, young Asian tourists in America who knocked on the door of a house because they wanted to know the way. However, because they were strangers the member of the household who opened the door was paralysed with fear and was so ill-informed that he drew a gun on them and shot and killed one of them. They were perfectly innocent people.

An atmosphere of fear has been created. In the United States, gun ownership is easier to achieve than in New South Wales and in Australia generally. The Hon. J. S. Tingle said a few minutes ago that all his amendments are doing is what is permitted under the common law. If it is permitted under the common law, why do we need to have this bill and why do we need the amendments? The common law is already protecting people who wish to defend themselves against intruders. Again, I do not think it is necessary.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.23 a.m.]: I support what the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has said. I am concerned about the amendments. There are many instances where young people break and enter and find themselves confronted by the landowner. However, young offenders are not necessarily going to attack the landowner. Highlighting the example used by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, of intruders being attacked by landowners, will only exacerbate the cycle of violence. There are people who are properly trained to deal with these situations. Those who break and enter will not necessarily violate people. We have to go through the legal processes. If a person breaks into someone’s property, that is not an excuse for the owner of the property to murder the person. There has to be some degree of control over the trends in society that are leading to a vigilantism in our society that is beyond the control of people who do not have the proper training.

The Hon. M. R. Kersten: Has it ever happened to you?

The Hon. I. COHEN: I have had unwelcome visitors on a property a long way from any sort of support system, and I have been able to deal with the situation in a nonviolent manner. I appreciate that when things get out of control one must be able to call the police, who are trained for such situations. It is a dangerous step to allow people to take the law into their own hands. Taking that step would encourage people with various prejudices to be possessed by an inappropriate fear that can create gross overreaction. Young people, in particular, can be damaged unnecessarily, as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby illustrated in her comments.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [ 11.25 a.m.]: The bill is designed to send a message to home invaders that their actions are entirely unacceptable. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby mentioned the case involving Japanese tourists in America. Such a situation would not be covered by the bill because the young men were outside on the lawn and moving away from the home when one was shot in the back. There is no way that the person who shot him would get away with it under this legislation - that example cannot be used in this case. If anyone tries to invade my home, I will take whatever steps are necessary to protect it and my family. I hope to get a little more cover from the legislation. I am sure that all honourable members would feel the same way if their homes were invaded. We have a right to protect the community and to tell people that they have the right to protect their homes and families from home invaders.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena Mrs Nile
Dr Burgmann Rev. Nile
Ms Burnswoods Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Chadwick Mr Primrose
Mr Egan Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Ms Saffin
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Shaw
Mr Hannaford Ms Staunton
Mr Johnson Mrs Symonds
Mr Jones Mr Tingle
Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan
Mr Kersten
Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mrs Isaksen
Mr Moppett Mr Jobling

Page 9061

Mr Corbett
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Ms Kirkby

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [11.33 a.m.], by leave: I move my remaining amendments in globo:

No. 3 Page 2, clause 3, lines 15-17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) any building or other structure occupied as a dwelling, and

No. 5 Page 3, clause 4, lines 8 and 9. Omit "has a reasonable belief in the circumstances as the occupant perceives them". Insert instead "believes".

No. 6 Page 3, clause 4, line 11. Omit "or intends to commit,".

No. 8 Page 4, clause 7. Omit the clause. Insert instead:

7 Use of force

Any occupant of a dwelling-house is justified in using any degree of physical force against an intruder if:

(a) the occupant believes that the intruder is using physical force against any person in the dwelling-house, or

(b) the occupant believes on reasonable grounds that the intruder might use physical force against any person in the dwelling-house,

subject to sections 8, 9 and 10.

No. 10 Page 4, clause 8, lines 18 and 19. Omit "in the circumstances as the occupant perceives them".

No. 11 Page 4, clause 8, line 24. Omit "given, or". Insert instead "given".

No. 12 Page 4, clause 8, lines 25-27. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 13 Page 4, clause 9, lines 28-35. Omit the clause. Insert instead:

9 Warning not necessary

If at any time during the intruder’s presence in the dwelling-house the intruder threatens or employs physical force against anyone on or in the premises, the occupant need not give any warning to the intruder before using physical force against the intruder.

No. 14 Page 5, clause 10. Omit the clause. Insert instead:

10 Limitation on use of physical force

The use of physical force by an occupant of a dwelling-house against an intruder is not justified if the intruder has ceased to threaten the use of physical force, or to cause damage, or is fleeing or retreating from the dwelling-house.

No. 15 Page 5, clause 11. Omit the clause.

No. 16 Page 6, clause 12. Omit the clause. Insert instead:

12 Immunity from criminal liability

(1) Any occupant of a dwelling-house who uses physical force that is justified under this Act is immune from all criminal liability of any kind resulting from the use of that force.

(2) If an occupant accused of any crime as a result of a confrontation with an intruder raises a defence under this Act, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the defence so raised beyond a reasonable doubt.

(3) The trial of an occupant accused of a crime as a result of a confrontation with an intruder must be commenced to be heard within a period of 9 months after the occupant is charged with any offence arising from the confrontation. However, the 9-month period is to be extended by the length of any delay that is attributable to the occupant.

No. 19 Page 6, clause 13, lines 27-33. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) In any civil proceedings brought against an occupant as a result of a confrontation with an intruder, the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that the occupant’s conduct is not justified under this Act.

All the amendments are designed to remove from the bill aspects about which Government and crossbench members expressed concern during the second reading debate. The amendments were arrived at in consultation with the then director of the criminal law review division of the Attorney General’s Department, Ms Megan Latham, whom I thank for her help in this matter. I had believed that the amendments would make the bill more acceptable. I was a little surprised to find that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. I. Cohen in particular seem determined to keep such references as "deadly physical force" in the bill by objecting to the amendments to take them out. I commend the amendments to the Committee and ask that they be accepted.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.34 a.m.]:
Page 9062
As I indicated earlier, the Government agrees that in general terms the amendments will improve the bill. Without being exhaustive, I need to signal the concern that the amendments leave in the bill some aspects which are difficult to reconcile as a matter of policy. An example is amendment 12. As presently proposed, clause 8(d) provides that the requirement to warn of an intention to use any level of physical force is removed where the occupant perceives that substantial damage will be done to the dwelling house before the warning can be given. The difficulty I see about that is that it effectively values material property over the wellbeing of a human being.

In relation to amendment 13, clause 9 of the bill as it stands removes the requirement for a warning when an intruder, whilst on the grounds surrounding the dwelling or a reasonable distance from it, threatens physical force. That is not appropriate because in many such cases the use of force, even given the threat, is far from imminent. The occupant may, for example, be inside the house with the intruder outside. Having signalled continuing difficulties with aspects of the bill, I conclude by saying that the Government does not oppose the amendments.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.36 a.m.]: The Hon. J. S. Tingle just suggested that if my opposition to the last amendment had been successful, the words "deadly physical force" would remain in the bill. He is splitting hairs, because in his explanation of his other amendments he made it clear that he has altered his original bill but he would still allow whatever force an individual may believe is reasonable. And to some people that could mean deadly force. The amount of force exerted by a person could be deadly whether or not it was the intention of the owner of the property. The aim may not be to kill or severely wound another person but that might happen if the owner is in possession of a suitable weapon and in a sufficient state of fear or rage.

It is ironic that at a time when the gallery is full of young students and the community is trying to fight violence in schools - this is in the minds of many parents and teachers - we are saying, "I believe that I have every right to use whatever force is necessary to protect my home and my family. So I can rough up intruders, beat them insensible. I can do whatever I like because I now, under this bill, am permitted to take the law into my own hands." I find that very offensive. It sent a totally wrong message to all the students sitting in the gallery. I do not see how we can possibly earn the respect of young people if we turn on them and have draconian legislation to control their violent impulses, when we have other legislation which says, "If I am an adult and I have my own home and my property is threatened, I have a right to use force against an intruder." It does not seem to me to be the right message to be sending out to the community.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.38 a.m.]: I did not intend to add anything further to my earlier comments in support of the amendments, which will improve the bill, but the remarks of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby should not go without comment. She said that in effect the legislation will mean that any person can use whatever force is necessary to repel an intruder. That is an overstatement of what the bill is about. It does not entitle an occupant of premises to use whatever force is necessary. That is not the intention of the legislation. The test of reasonableness is still contained within the legislation. And the test of reasonableness is the current law. These amendments are a legislative restatement of it.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Then why do you need this legislation?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Because people in the community want to be able to turn to a piece of legislation that clearly states their entitlements. At the moment the law is contained in a series of court decisions. We should not have to say to the community, "If people want to know what their entitlements are, they should read the High Court decisions." The community wants the Parliament to clearly state what one’s entitlements are. The legislation is very much a restatement of the current law, but with further clarifications.

The proposed deletion of clause 8(d) is appropriate. When dealing with the use of force, the impact on individuals should always be relevant. Clause 8(d) provides that one has to take into account substantial damage done to a dwelling house, which should not be a relevant consideration. Therefore, the deletion of clause 8(d) will make it clear that property damage should not be countenanced when a judgment is made to use force. For that purpose, the deletion of clause 8(d) will be beneficial.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.41 a.m.]: Call to Australia supports the remaining amendments moved by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, which will clarify the legislation to make it more workable. The legislation codifies what is in the common law. It will be a valuable education process for society. If amendments enable citizens to understand their rights, they should be supported.

Page 9063

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.42 a.m.]: I support the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I could not have supported the original legislation, but it is quite clear that the amendments will codify the common law. The amendments will not allow home occupiers whose homes have been invaded to do more than is provided for already at common law. I am now able to support both the amendments and the legislation.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.43 a.m.]: I move the Opposition amendment as circulated:

Page 6. Insert after line 33:

14 Time for commencement of civil proceedings

Civil proceedings against an owner or occupant of a dwelling-house, or anyone lawfully within a dwelling-house, as a result of a confrontation with an intruder must be commenced not later than 9 months after the date of the confrontation.

The intention of part 3 is to ensure that when an occupant of a building has used force against an intruder, and criminal proceedings are initiated as a result, the hearing of such proceedings must be commenced within nine months. The time constraint will engender in the occupants of a home the knowledge that if they have used force against an invader their position at law will be clarified as quickly as possible; that there will be no prolonged uncertainty about whether they have acted appropriately in defending their homes. Clause 12 provides that such criminal proceedings should be commenced within nine months. The same principle should apply to the institution of civil proceedings.

As the law currently stands, civil proceedings may be commenced at any time up to six years after the event. If the possibility of civil liability is left in the air for six years, a level of uncertainty about the reasonableness of one’s actions in defending one’s home will be engendered. In relation to the use of force the test for criminal liability, beyond reasonable doubt, is different from the civil test, the balance of probability. The amendment will ensure that whatever proceedings arise following the incident are commenced and are before the court within nine months. Therefore, if nine months have passed and no proceedings have been instituted, the home occupant will know that no further action will be taken.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.45 a.m.]: In a sense the amendment brings the bill as it relates to civil proceedings into congruence with the bill as it relates to criminal proceedings, although not precisely so. Clause 12(3), which deals with criminal liability, requires that any trial be commenced to be heard within nine months, whereas the amendment requires the civil proceedings to be commenced, that is to say, an initiating process commenced, within nine months. But in the broad sense the proposal in relation to civil proceedings and the proposal in relation to criminal proceedings have some symmetry.

Time limits of this kind in the criminal law have some problems: for example, delays caused by the defendant in the process and, perhaps more importantly, whether these matters necessarily take priority over and above child sexual assault cases. They are difficult and competing considerations. Analogous considerations arise in relation to time limitations in civil proceedings. The Committee has approved clause 12(3) with respect to criminal proceedings and the Government would not oppose the amendment in relation to clause 14, which deals with time for commencement of civil proceedings.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [11.47 a.m.]: I support the amendment of the Opposition and take on board the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. He identified what was, perhaps, an inequity in the original bill. As he and the Attorney General have both said, the amendment brings clause 13 into line with clause 12. One of the amendments we have already accepted allows that, in cases in which delay is caused by the occupant or defendant, the period will be extended by that amount of time. I support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and report adopted.

Debate resumed from 8 May.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.50 a.m.]: Honourable members who are devotees of the game of golf would understand what I mean when I say that I am having difficulty getting a clear shot in this debate. Honourable members will recall that, last Thursday, when business of the House was -

Page 9064

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Was fluid?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I was going to say kaleidoscopic in nature, to say the least. On that occasion, somewhat unexpectedly this item of business was called on. Honourable members will recall that I rose with enthusiasm to contribute to debate on this important report, which was tabled some time ago. I am sure honourable members will also remember that I entered debate somewhat as John the Baptist did: someone sent out into the wilderness for some time to proclaim the coming of another. I know that honourable members are waiting with eager anticipation to hear from my colleague the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who made a major contribution to the Select Committee on Hospital Waiting Lists - a matter which I acknowledged in his absence. However, I too wish to refer to a number of matters in the report.

On the last occasion I referred to the fact that all members of the committee looked forward with eager anticipation and rightful expectation to spending some time in tranquil reflection of the evidence put before the committee, in peaceful, communal consideration of the implications of that evidence, and in quiet contemplation of the recommendations we were to make. Those anticipations and that rightful expectation were shattered by the emergence of divergence and dichotomy in the committee. Unfortunately, that was avoidable because of the seriousness of the matter under consideration.

I could not imagine a more serious matter to be placed before a committee of inquiry of this Parliament than that relating to hospital waiting lists. I say that not because of the waiting lists themselves - and the committee report goes into the significance of hospital waiting lists - but because of the way in which the Department of Health responded to the needs of the community. That is an important issue for this Parliament because at the end of the day - of course, the operations of the Department of Health are our responsibility - it is called upon to respond to members of the community who stand in jeopardy of losing what is arguably their most precious possession: their good health.

The committee inquired into not only issues directly placed before it but also the operation of our hospital system and the Department of Health. The results of this inquiry were likely to have grave significance for the political future of the Government. It is no wonder that the expectations about which I spoke earlier were not realised. In fact, debate was vigorous, occasionally generating more heat than light, but leading inevitably to an irreconcilable difference of opinion. I regret that I have had to say that, but I believe that was because of the attitude of certain members of the committee. I do not reflect on the chairman of the committee, who gave an excellent report on behalf of the committee, to which we are now responding. She endeavoured to remain impartial and above the hurly-burly of the debate, but inevitably she became enmeshed in it because a result had to be arrived at.

We went through an unseemly and undignified process - a process which I know my colleague the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will refer to - and we eventually came to conclusions relating to our discussions which were made the subject of the final report of the Select Committee on Hospital Waiting Lists. It is well known to honourable members, and I hope it is widely known throughout the community, that I and certain members of the committee - it is a coincidence I am sure, but they happen to be my colleagues the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn - almost unanimously and without any prompting felt disposed to submit a dissenting report. I hope the wider community has had an opportunity to read this dissenting statement.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And we did not write it until after we had seen the full report.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Absolutely! There was no collusion and no intention to collude. We would have been happy to have had a majority or unanimous report, but it was impossible to reconcile views which we held strongly with those that were advocated by - and again I am sure it is only a coincidence - Government members, who seemed to have a different view of the evidence. The evidence, which cannot be contested, has been documented and is available for honourable members to take into account. The evidence is not disputed by the three dissenting members, but the conclusions we reached are almost diametrically opposite to those published in the report. I am sure the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti would forgive me for saying that our conclusions were almost diametrically opposed to those self-serving, self-congratulatory recommendations in the majority report which seemed to concede that in some way, and with whatever qualifications and limitations were involved in the report, the Government had achieved the promise it had made.

The promises made by leaders and senior representatives of an opposition party are sacred matters of trust with the community. When those same promises are reiterated by members of the
Page 9065
same party when they are sworn Ministers of the Crown they must be taken extremely seriously. They must not be lightly, wantonly or unadvisedly set aside, as they were on this occasion. That is the substance of the dissenting statement. In my view, these promises were clearly understood by those who gave them. They knew what they were talking about. There was no room for ambiguity in the interpretation of those promises by the public or by the media, which gave wide coverage to the assurances given by the Hon. Dr Andrew Refshauge, as shadow minister for health, which, more significantly, were reinforced, expanded on and amplified by the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Bob Carr, when he was Leader of the Opposition.

As a result of a number of issues that I am sure this House will hear about during the budget debate, Bob Carr will be remembered as the Premier of broken promises. Although many of those promises have affected various sections of the community, including the motoring public out on the motorways, rural communities, and so many more, all of those promises have been capriciously broken as if they meant nothing. The most significant broken promise was the broken promise in relation to health services.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the new Glock pistol to be issued to the New South Wales Police Service does not have an X-ray profile? Does this mean that if a shipment of pistols is stolen from a manufacturer or some pistols are misplaced, they can be used by terrorists in Australia without camera and X-ray detection? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Australian-manufactured version will have an increased X-ray profile?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I regret that I am not familiar with the X-ray profile of Glock pistols. I have to confess to a gap in my knowledge about that matter. I do not say that in a flippant way, nor do I underestimate the importance of the question of the Hon. D. J. Gay. I will refer the honourable member’s question to the Minister for Police and seek to obtain an expeditious reply for him.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Attorney General a question without notice. Has Justice Barry O’Keefe, Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, refused to hand over the Yeldham file to the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption - a file he had previously promised to hand over? Is there anything on the file that some people would prefer to keep secret? What can the Attorney do to ensure that the ICAC hands over the Yeldham file to the parliamentary committee?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: My knowledge of this matter derives only from press reports; I have no personal or direct knowledge of it. I certainly have no knowledge of the contents of the file to which the Hon. Franca Arena refers, nor do I have any ministerial responsibility with respect to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. One can only assume that when that august body was established, on the advice of Mr Sturgess under the premiership of Mr Greiner, it was allocated to the Premier’s portfolio for some good reason. Responsibility for that body has never been entrusted to the Attorney General, either under the previous Government or indeed under this Government. One can only speculate as to the reason for that.

In answer to the honourable member’s question, it is really a matter for the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption to consider its legal rights with respect to Justice O’Keefe’s stance and the obtaining of the Yeldham file. If the committee wished to seek advice, for example, from the Crown Solicitor about its powers to require the production of the file, subject to any conflicts of interest or different advice that the Crown Solicitor might have given to other parties, that advice would probably be available. However, I do not think I can assist the honourable member in relation to the dispute which apparently exists between Justice O’Keefe and the parliamentary committee.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question without notice to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that unions have demanded that the Labor Government rule out the privatisation of Pacific Power and that they have passed a resolution that
Page 9066
would result in the current atmosphere of uncertainty being cleared? Is this a slap in the face for the Premier, Mr Carr, who has raised the possibility of selling a power station to fund infrastructure? Can the Treasurer give his left-wing colleagues in this House an ironclad guarantee that his Government will not privatise power stations?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of any such meeting or decision. I do not know where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition got his information from, but certainly nothing has been conveyed to me.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I ask a supplementary question. Given the Treasurer’s answer, how will New South Wales energy providers compete with interstate power providers when Pacific Power urgently needs at least $500 million in capital upgrades just to remain viable, let alone try to compete with interstate power stations? Will the Treasurer provide urgently needed funding for power stations and suppliers to carry out services and infrastructure upgrades?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware that Pacific Power needs a significant capital upgrade. Pacific Power’s major generating activity is the Eraring power station. From year to year capital expenditure is undertaken to keep infrastructure such as power stations up to the mark. I am not aware of any out of the ordinary requirement for a capital upgrade of the Eraring power station.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Chemicals and pesticides pose a concern for rural workers and other end users. Can the Minister inform the House what steps the Government has taken to address this threat to workers’ health?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I can report to the House that developments have occurred in relation to the move towards the safer use of pesticides and agricultural chemicals. The Government proposes to release for public comment at the end of this month two new codes of practice dealing with the safe use of pesticides and agricultural chemicals. Both codes have been drafted by WorkCover following industry consultation. The first is a code of practice for the safe use and storage of chemicals in agricultural workplaces. This code is designed for use by farmers, pastoralists, horticulturists, orchardists and foresters. The second is a code of practice for the safe use of pesticides that should be adopted by contractors, council workers, groundspersons and greenkeepers. The codes are guides to assist those users to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation, the Dangerous Goods Regulation and the Pesticides Act. The drafts will be released at the end of this month for public comment. Interested parties will have until 29 August to make their submissions.

Previously, farmers and agricultural workers were covered by general legislation relating to pesticides. Information was not specifically tailored to their needs as the end users of agricultural chemicals. Farmers, in particular, considered some requirements of the hazardous substances regulation to impose an unnecessary burden. Record keeping, risk assessment and health surveillance were seen to be impractical. Farmers had difficulty in obtaining material safety data sheets - known as MSDS - through rural retailers. In drafting these new codes WorkCover established a working party that included representatives from the Department of Health, the Australian Workers Union, the Department of Agriculture and the New South Wales Farmers Federation. The codes are a one-stop shop for advice, reducing to one document the amount of paperwork that rural workers, for example, need to be fully informed on this important safety issue. All agricultural chemicals are covered in terms of both the health risks - an issue that is covered under the hazardous substances regulation - and the storage risks - an issue that is covered under the dangerous goods regulation.

The codes take a systematic risk-assessment approach, rather than being a prescriptive manual. Chapters in the codes cover legal responsibilities of various parties, labels and the safety data sheets, consultation, training and record keeping. Example record forms follow each chapter. The approach is to carry out risk assessment. This establishes a basic system within which farmers and others can safely work with chemicals and pesticides. In most circumstances the risk assessment will be a straightforward process. Where possible, the codes encourage people to use existing documentation. As I have said, the codes will be released for public comment at the end of this month. They have been devised after extensive consultation, and I encourage anyone with an interest in chemical and pesticide use to provide comment.

Page 9067

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Community Services. In view of the Minister’s answer yesterday relating to the two children aged 11 years and 13 years living in a humpy in the bush near Blacktown Pistol Club at Shalvey, will he agree that section 60(2) of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 gives him and officers of his department explicit powers to remove any child in need of care where that child is not subject to the supervision or control of a responsible adult or living in, or habitually frequenting, a public place? Given that the children’s mother contacted the department many times over the past six months, and that under section 60(2) the Minister clearly has a legislative power and duty, why did he and the department not act sooner?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The first point that should be made in response to the Hon. Virginia Chadwick is that the children in question are not now living in a humpy: they are both in forms of care.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: She asked why didn’t you act sooner?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The honourable member used the present tense. One is in Ormond and the other is in foster care. On prior occasions the child in question has previously absconded from a number of placements, including Ormond. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick referred to contact over six months. If she refers to my response yesterday she will learn that this matter has a history going back six years, not six months. Four years of that six-year history actually occurred under the aegis of the former Government. I certainly do not intend to take legal advice from the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, who virtually destroyed the department. I would also add that if I were inclined to give legal advice to the honourable member, I would be inclined to charge for it. The Children (Care and Protection) Act certainly includes powers of removal. However, that does not bring us to the point where, removal having occurred, the children abscond, as they have on many occasions during the history of this matter. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick appears to be slow to absorb this fact. The powers of removal do not include powers of confinement or restraint. I regret that the honourable member appears not to be able to comprehend the clear legal position.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Minister in his response is clearly extraordinarily sensitive about any issue of control or restraint of the children, will he not agree that Ormond is a secure environment, and how does this correspond with his answer?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Ormond is not a secure environment, in the sense that it is not a place where children are confined. Ormond has a history in former years of being a juvenile detention centre. It is no longer that and if the Hon. Virginia Chadwick does not know that, she needs to learn a few facts about Ormond. Ormond is a place where children subject to substitute care are taken. It is not a place where children are under arrest or a place from which they can be prevented from absconding. That is a fact and the honourable member should be able to make distinctions between children who offend against the criminal law and can be confined in a juvenile detention centre and children who are in need of care. The important thing is that in this case the two children in question are currently in care, one in Ormond and one in foster care.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that a major new study on passive smoking shows that passive smoking almost doubles a woman’s risk of heart attack? Is it a fact that the study, which involved more than 32,000 women who had never smoked, found that those who were regularly exposed to passive smoking at home or at work were 90 per cent more likely to suffer a heart attack over the 10-year follow-up than those not exposed? In view of the alarming evidence of the harmfulness of passive smoking in regard to women, will the Government ensure protection from passive smoking as an urgent priority, and will it reinvigorate the Quit Smoking campaign, which appears to be stagnating, especially in regard to women?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I noticed a press report earlier in the week substantially to the effect of the facts and statements in the question of the Hon. Elaine Nile. The article referred to what were said to be the harmful effects of passive smoking. I do not have the technical expertise to deal with the matter. However, I shall be delighted to refer the
Page 9068
question to my colleague the Minister for Health to obtain a full response for the Hon. Elaine Nile.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I direct my question without notice to the Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. Is the Minister aware of proposals by the St Mary’s Catholic parish to demolish the Presentation Sisters Convent, Rippon Street, Young? Is the Minister aware that this 1895 convent is one of the most historic buildings in the most important heritage precinct in Young and that demolition could be a major act of vandalism? Will the Government take all possible steps to ensure the preservation of this magnificent historic convent?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have been advised by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning that Young Shire Council has received an application for the proposed demolition of the Presentation Sisters Convent, which I am informed was built in the 1890s, and the Christian Brothers Monastery, which was built in the 1920s. The Heritage Council Advisory Committee considered the matter and recommended that the Heritage Office negotiate with church representatives. If that failed, it was suggested that a submission should be made to the Minister under the Heritage Act to protect the buildings until a study could be carried out to assess their significance.

I am also advised that on Tuesday of this week Father Coll, who I assume is the local parish priest, agreed to requests for deferral of consideration of the application so that the Heritage Council of New South Wales could commission an independent heritage consultant to carry out a study on the significance of both buildings. On Wednesday of this week Young Shire Council agreed to defer consideration until its July meeting. I am advised that the Heritage Office has allocated $5,000 for the engagement of the consultant, who will prepare a study of the subject buildings and will prepare a report for the Heritage Council meeting on 26 June 1997. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald can be assured that the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning will closely monitor the situation and certainly will advise the honourable member of the outcome. I have to admit that I have not been to Young.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You ate their cherries, though.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I ate their cherries. I look forward to going to Young in the near future for a number of reasons, some of which are already apparent and others will become apparent in the near future. Young is a boom town and will be a boom town for the beginning of the third millennium. Having not been to Young I cannot say that I have ever seen the Presentation Sisters Convent or the Christian Brothers Monastery. However, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald has provided me with photographs of both and certainly those photographs depict them as magnificent buildings. As honourable members will know, I was educated by the Christian Brothers and I am very happy with the schooling that they provided to me. I am told that the Hon. I. M. Macdonald was educated in primary school by the Presentation Nuns. All I can say is that the Presentation Nuns did not do as good a job with him as the Christian Brothers did with me. I am happy to debate that at some other time. The orders of the Presentation Nuns and Christian Brothers are often found in the same towns throughout Australia. The two religious orders have an association going back to their foundation days in Ireland.

The founder of the Christian Brothers, Edmund Ignatius Rice from Waterford, through his association with the Presentation Sisters, got inspiration to found the Christian Brothers. The two orders have had a lot in common over the years. Both the Christian Brothers and Presentation Nuns orders are at Sutherland, where I was educated. I look forward to seeing these two buildings in Young. I appreciate the difficulties church authorities have in finding space for much-needed new buildings. I hope that we will be able to save these two fine buildings from demolition and at the same time assist the Young parish to find a way of meeting its needs for expansion.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. I refer to the Minister’s answer yesterday in relation to the two children found living in a humpy in the bush near Blacktown Pistol Club at Shalvey. Does the Minister still maintain that he does not have powers to restrain and hold children who desperately need stability so that counselling can be effective? When will the Minister put forward the necessary amendments to ensure that he can properly fulfil his duty as Minister?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The questioning on this point is becoming repetitive. It is my belief that no jurisdiction in Australia has the legal power to
Page 9069
confine children in the sense that they are restrained and unable to leave. That is certainly not the case when a child offends against the criminal law of a State or Territory. These children have not offended against the criminal law and ought not be confined in a juvenile detention centre or anywhere else. There is a legal power under the Children (Care and Protection) Act to remove a child in need of care and, where appropriate, to make a care application to a children’s court. In a proper case the presiding magistrate will make an order placing the child in care. The two children to whom reference is being made have a long history of involvement with the department, under the administration of both the previous Government and this Government. Unfortunately, these children are what are described as runners.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: One is.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: One in particular is a runner. The older child has a history of absconding. These children cannot and ought not be locked up. I would be surprised to hear that was the view held by any member of the House. If it is the view of members opposite, they certainly did not attempt to legislate to that end when in office. To add to the information that has been given already, as a result of a notification earlier this year the following agencies were contacted by the Department of Corrective Services: Careforce, Dalmar Child and Family Care, Barnardos Australia, Burnside, Centacare, Macarthur refuge, Penrith community services centre and Blacktown girls accommodation unit. At the relevant time only Blacktown girls accommodation unit was able to provide accommodation.

The department has been in regular contact with all of those agencies and a significant number of refuges over the past two months. Although placements on occasions have been successful, in the sense that a placement occurred, I regret to say that no placement has continued to be successful in the sense of placement on a long-term basis. Also, Aboriginal district officers in a number of community services centres have been either directly involved with these children or have been consulted regarding placement options. I repeat for the umpteenth time: today both children are currently in departmental care, one at Ormond and one in foster care.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister bring in an amendment?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No. It is not appropriate that an amendment should be brought before this House to confine and restrain children forcibly if they are in need of care. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick, the Hon. Jim Longley, the Hon. Robert Webster and the Leader of the Opposition did not do that and I will not.

The Hon. J. KALDIS: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Education and Training. According to Professor Chipman, overseas students studying in Australia are being offered up to $500 to switch universities, as reported in today’s Sydney Morning Herald. I ask the Attorney: are the universities in New South Wales affected by that illegal practice?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I assume the question refers to comments by Professor Lachlan Chipman who was the professor of philosophy at Wollongong university and is now, I think, a vice-chancellor in Queensland. Obviously the honourable member has noted observations made by Professor Chipman which are of significance. I will refer the question to the Minister for Education and Training and obtain a response.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, whether he has met with the Taxi Industry Services Association as he indicated he would some weeks ago. Was the Attorney General able to satisfy the association’s concerns?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have not met with the Taxi Industry Services Association. I understand that members of my staff have had contact with the association. If there is a tangible reason for a meeting, if some good can come out of it, in due course I will meet with that body. I apprehend that an application by taxi drivers for a contract determination is currently before the Industrial Relations Commission. I am aware of the concerns expressed by members of the Taxi Industry Services Association and representatives of non-owner taxi drivers. Extensive correspondence has passed between the department, my office and those particular bodies.

An opportunity was extended by my office to a representative from TISA to put the concerns of its
Page 9070
members at a meeting with me on 20 January 1997. The association made a decision not to attend. Many of the issues raised by TISA are now the subject of an application before the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. I am confident that with the guidance of the commission the parties will arrive at a reasonable resolution to the satisfaction of non-owner taxi drivers. Ministers have to make decisions about the allocation of time to meet with interest groups. If I can be persuaded that a useful outcome will ensue, then I am prepared to meet with that body. It is more likely that a proper resolution will be reached as a result of the proceedings before the Industrial Relations Commission.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Given the Minister’s emphatic answer to my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, does he agree with the following comments, which were made by the Premier in the lower House yesterday:

Why should children under 10 years of age roam unsupervised in the streets of Dubbo, Bourke, Wilcannia, Taree and Grafton at 2 o’clock in the morning? But, most important, these kids need protection and security, and this bill provides it. We must also take action to prevent young children wandering the streets in the first place.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It would ill behove me to disagree with the Premier. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe are dealing with two different issues - one arises under the Children (Care and Protection) Act and the other arises under the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act. I would be the first to say that it is not part of the civil rights of a 12-year-old girl to be found alone on the streets of Kings Cross at midnight. The Children (Parental Responsibility) Act is designed to remove young persons from the streets and to put them in a place of safety on a temporary basis. That legislation was rushed into the House by the previous Government as a political stunt prior to the last election. This Government has conducted an extensive trial of the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act and new legislation is to be introduced into the House by the Attorney General.

I am sorry that Opposition members have a perception problem, but there is a distinction between the Children (Care and Protection) Act and the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act. If children are taken off the streets under the parental responsibility legislation, they are usually taken to their own home. It is regrettable that often they are found on the streets again the next day - and they are again returned to their home. Nothing in the parental responsibility legislation is intended to confine children on a continuing basis.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: You are calling the Premier a liar.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Virginia Chadwick is usually not as obtuse as this. There is a distinction between the two pieces of legislation.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: She can be deliberately obtuse.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On this occasion, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick is being deliberately obtuse. She is not an unintelligent person and she is well able to appreciate the distinction between the Children (Care and Protection) Act and the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act. I adhere to the responses that I gave earlier: it is not appropriate to lock up children and to confine them on a continuing basis when they have not offended against the criminal law.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I ask a supplementary question. The children that the Premier referred to are not committing a crime, yet he is proposing that they be collected and confined. Does the Minister still hold to his answer?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yesterday I used an adjective in relation to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and I was obliged to withdraw it because of the forms of the House. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti appears to have a perception problem: he is not able to distinguish between the two pieces of legislation. A disease appears to be spreading rapidly -

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As I said, a disease appears to be spreading rapidly along the Opposition benches.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It is called Dyerrhoea.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If Opposition members are suffering from that particular ailment, they should leave this place as a matter of urgency. It is a joke that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, the
Page 9071
Hon. Virginia Chadwick and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe cannot distinguish between these two dissimilar pieces of legislation that serve essentially different objectives.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the Attorney's response to Professor Ronald McCallum’s call for the establishment of works councils for firms with 50 or more employees?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Professor Ron McCallum, of Blake Dawson Waldron, is a professor of industrial law at the University of Sydney. He is an interesting and impressive man with great knowledge in this area. I would like honourable members to meet Ron McCallum. Members of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice have had some extensive dealings with him in relation to workplace safety. Professor Ron McCallum is a friend of mine and I take his ideas seriously. I noted with interest some of the propositions he put forward at a recent lecture about workplace councils in enterprises. At this stage, I do not want to express any concluded view.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 provides for mandatory health and safety committees in workplaces other than small businesses. Empirical material indicates that such committees work differently in different industries - in some areas they have worked well, and in other areas they have not been successful. I have been persuaded over the years of the desirability of consultative committees in businesses - small, medium and large. The work done by Professor Russell Lansbury - a professor of industrial relations at the University of Sydney - is persuasive, both internationally and domestically. He believes that morale, workplace harmony and the like are greatly enhanced by consultative committees.

I have encouraged such committees on a voluntary basis. Most corporations that have a success story about human resources management have used such consultative mechanisms, and used them well, to achieve workplace reform and to keep employees informed as to management strategy. I am positive about such committees. We must consider whether the Legislature should make workplace councils compulsory. That matter has to be discussed with employers, the trade union movement and other interested parties. I am an agnostic on the issue at the moment. Obviously, the eloquence of Professor Ron McCallum is a factor in one’s consideration of the issue.

The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney General report to the House on initiatives to improve children’s participation in the legal process and children’s rights with respect to the law generally?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: There are a number of ways in which the Government is working to improve the treatment of children by the legal system. First, I refer to the contribution of New South Wales to the inquiry into children and the legal process. The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have been working on an inquiry into children and the legal process. In particular, the inquiry has been investigating legal advice, legal representation, evidence, sentencing, advocacy and issues of particular importance to children in remote communities. The commissions have consulted as widely as possible with individuals and organisations, particularly those with experience of and an interest in children and the legal process. The commissions sought contributions from interested parties to direct the work the commissions were doing and to shape the final recommendations and report.

In March 1996 the commissions circulated an issues paper entitled "Inquiry into Children and the Legal Process" to relevant agencies for comment. I have coordinated the New South Wales Government’s contribution to the inquiry. My department is preparing a joint response which coordinates issues raised by the Department of Gaming and Racing, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice and the New South Wales Child Protection Council. In addition, a number of key agencies have forwarded their advice separately to the commission.

The Federal commissions are currently coordinating another round of consultation in the wake of the release last Tuesday of the draft recommendations paper entitled "A Matter of Urgency: Children in the Legal Process". New South Wales is participating in this process and encourages submissions from all members of this House. A final report is expected in June 1997. The recommendations expected from the inquiry will build on the initiatives for children and the legal process which the State Government is already
Page 9072
implementing. The practical steps which we are implementing include the following. First, closed-circuit television will be introduced: the Crimes Amendment (Children’s Evidence) Act 1996 had as its purpose the easing of trauma when children give evidence in court. The initial capital costs of CCTV facilities for children in up to 60 regional and city locations will be $2.5 million.

There are guidelines in regard to the use of CCTV facilities, judicial education and training for officers at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and protection agencies, including the Police Service. The use of closed-circuit television for the giving of evidence in court by children accords with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. We want children to be able to use closed-circuit television not only in Children’s Courts but also in other courts such as the District Court and the Supreme Court where it is appropriate. The next positive step concerns the anti-discrimination legislation, which has recently been extended to protect volunteers and trainees against sexual harassment. Often this involves young people in insecure employment. The Act previously provided that a business could not offer accommodation concessions based on age. That is no longer unlawful, alleviating financial burdens on families with dependent children. The Government has prohibited sexual harassment in both government and non-government schools.

I refer finally to the young people and violence project. I have been pleased to participate on behalf of the Government in the young people and violence project, which is being coordinated by the Youth Action and Policy Association. The project is aimed at encouraging young people to explore the issue of violence and young people, and to seek constructive and meaningful solutions to the problem. I am of the view that the participation of young people in such projects is critical to addressing serious issues of violence. The young people and violence seminar was a good example of government working well with other agencies to consult young people about their experiences and those of their friends, and to work towards achieving a reduction in violence in our community.

I commend the Youth Action and Policy Association for the report it has produced on young people and violence and look forward to working with it to implement the recommendations of the report. I also congratulate the Banks Young Labor group on the constructive approach it has adopted to the development of a statement of youth rights. Last Sunday I was pleased to address the Banks Young Labor group at the Revesby Workers Club. I found discussions with the young people there very useful and informative.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that members of the public are not entitled to victims compensation unless they can prove that the other party intended to cause them harm? Can the Minister explain why an elderly woman from Wyong, Mrs Norma Franklin, was denied assistance by the Attorney General’s Department when she sought victims compensation following being knocked to the ground by two youths riding skateboards illegally on a footpath? She sustained broken ribs, severe bruising and trauma, and had her teeth knocked out. Will the Minister give an undertaking to investigate this matter?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am unable to shed any light on the case cited by the honourable member. If appropriate details are provided the case will be considered. The general principle is that a person seeking victims compensation from the Victims Compensation Tribunal needs to prove that a criminal act has occurred. The applicant does not need to prove that a particular person committed the offence. Compensation can be paid in the absence of a conviction of a particular person. If the police cannot track down the perpetrator, a victim can still apply for compensation.

I am a little puzzled by the honourable member’s question because recently we have set up the Victims of Crime Bureau. If the honourable member is saying that that is not working properly, I would be happy to hear about it so that I can take remedial action. The informal reports I have indicate that it is operating to provide help for victims of crime and it is able to steer them towards the right processes and forms to seek victims compensation. It can refer them to appropriate counsellors, guide people through the criminal court process, and assist them in their giving of evidence and the like.

I am quite pleased with the initiatives the Government has taken to assist victims of crime. I urge the honourable member to steer his constituent towards the Victims of Crime Bureau and to make sure that she contacts the bureau. If that is not effective he should feel free to let me know and I will do the utmost that I can to have that person assisted and guided.

Page 9073

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: I ask the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health: what research has been undertaken to determine the possible harm that may be done to a child’s spine and other parts of the body when a child is required to sit with legs crossed for extended periods? If any research has been undertaken, what recommendations would the Minister make to adults who supervise infant and primary school children participating in school activities to prevent the possible cumulative and adverse effects that may arise, especially among susceptible children, as a consequence of sitting cross-legged for protracted periods?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The question is a serious one and I shall obtain a suitable response from the Minister for Health.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Has the member for Bathurst, Mr Mick Clough, made representations to the Minister in relation to the setting up of a local Bathurst union? Is he aware of any formal representations made by Mr Clough to the Trades and Labor Council about the setting up of a local Bathurst union?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer is, not to the best of my knowledge and belief. It might be a gap in my knowledge, but I have not heard of the somewhat iconoclastic notion of a Bathurst union. But I am always receptive to new ideas and if Mr Clough wants to put that proposal forward I will give it the consideration it deserves.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. What is the Government doing to promote and encourage investment and infrastructure development in New South Wales, particularly in country areas?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The New South Wales Government is funding and organising four workshops across regional New South Wales this year as part of a joint program with the Federal Government known as the institutional and investment information service. That service was an initiative of the previous Federal Labor Government but I am pleased to say that it has been continued by the present Federal Government. It is one of the few regional policies or programs with which the current Federal Government has persisted.

As honourable members in this House know, the Federal Liberal and National parties’ principal initiative in regional development has been to axe entirely the $150 million regional development budget in last year’s budget, and they did nothing to redress that savaging of the regions in their budget this year. The Institutional Investment Information Service seeks to link regional project proponents seeking finance with major institutional investors, overcoming the significant information gap between the two groups. The New South Wales Government, under the auspices of the service, has organised for workshops at which members of a body called the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development - AusCid - will speak.

Member companies of the council include Boral Limited, Kumagai Australia Pty Ltd, Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd, Kinhill Engineers Pty Ltd, Thiess Contractors Pty Limited, Dresdner International Financial Markets (Australia) Limited, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Macquarie Corporate Finance, and many others. Each workshop will involve a site visit and the presentation of at least three investment-ready local projects. The first workshop will be held in Newcastle in less than a fortnight, on 3 June. Projects to be presented include the Cessnock-Singleton water pipeline project. Obviously, the development of a commercially viable pipeline project to deliver water not only for irrigation but also for tourist development needs in the Pokolbin, Hermitage Road, Broke-Forwich areas of the lower Hunter Valley would ensure and underpin the future of the region.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You have probably never been there.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, I have been there.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: But you did not know where you were.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I knew I was in Broke, but I was not aware of a location called Forwich. Obviously, that project would ensure and underpin the future of the regions viticulture, winemaking and tourism industries.

Page 9074

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Are you going to invite me?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If the honourable member would like to come, he would be most welcome. The second project is the Honeysuckle recreational marina, which involves the development of a 211-berth recreational marina, repair facility and associated land-based facilities, such as marina administration, retail outlets and an aquatic clubhouse. The project would deliver economic, social and environment benefits to the community and will be an exciting commercial venture for the private sector. Necessary infrastructure, seawall reconstruction, access improvements and environmental planning approvals have been completed, or are well under way, by the Honeysuckle Development Corporation.

The third proposed project to be presented at the Newcastle workshop is a private sector initiative, with the support and endorsement of Maitland City Council. The project involves the development of an industrial area adjacent to the Pacific Highway at Thornton, which will focus on the motor transport industry. The project would service bus, coach, heavy vehicles and transporters on both a regional and State market level. The proposed development will include vehicle maintenance, fuelling, general servicing and garaging facilities.

Further workshops will be held in the Illawarra, the central west and Queanbeyan, which I will detail to the House at a later date. In addition to the benefits of bringing some of Australia’s largest investors to the bush, these workshops will provide project proponents with a practical understanding of how to present their projects to investors. New South Wales regional development boards have been involved in selecting locations and projects to be discussed. The Department of State and Regional Development has recently discussed regional infrastructure priorities with the regional development boards and regional organisations of councils.

Often, potential private sector providers of infrastructure looking at regional infrastructure projects are concerned that they are too small. By seeing a range of regional projects, investors may discover that bundled together there are economies of sale, which may make investments that might not otherwise proceed worthwhile. I recommend these workshops and I would be most happy to send the details to the Hon. J. H. Jobling, the Hon. D. J. Gay, and any other member of the House who might like to attend.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: It was recently announced in Broken Hill that the National Parks and Wildlife Service would boost goat mustering on a wider scale than previously, and that it would include aerial shooting. Will the Attorney General, representing the Minister for the Environment, tell the House whether the goats that are mustered will be either destroyed or sold commercially? Does the Government have a policy, or would the Government allow private enterprise to enter national parks to muster goats?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Prudence would dictate that I refer the question to the relevant Minister and obtain a response.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Will the Attorney General, representing the Minister for the Environment, inform the House of the Environmental Protection Authority’s role in enforcing the remediation of sites affected by cotton industry pesticides in the Gunnedah area, particularly the Gunnible Lagoon, which received contaminants from aerial spray plane wash downs? Is it true that a full-scale health study is being planned? If so, what is the time frame and when will it report? Will the report date reflect the sense of urgency in the Gunnedah community?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I recognise that the topic of the honourable member’s question is a matter of current concern and controversy. I will refer the question to the Minister for the Environment and ask that an urgent reply be provided.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services advise the House about his recently announced healthy ageing grants program?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is well known that Australia’s population is ageing. The projected increase of the older population will be one of the most significant social changes to occur in coming decades. The New South Wales Government recognises that it must look to the health and wellbeing of its older citizens, both today and tomorrow. It is committed to ensuring that older
Page 9075
people are able to live active and independent lives. As part of this commitment I have agreed to fund a healthy ageing grants program to be administered by the Ageing and Disability Department and the consultative committee on ageing. The total funding for the healthy ageing grants program is $70,000. The program allows for a number of non-recurrent grants of up to $25,000 to be made available to community organisations or individuals for projects which promote healthy ageing.

The healthy ageing grants program aims to promote the independence and wellbeing of older people by increasing their role in the economic and social life of the community. The objectives of the healthy ageing grants program are to improve community attitudes to ageing and older people; increase the participation of older people in the work force, in education, and in leisure or volunteer activities; and improve the quality of life of older people. The program has been advertised in the Voice, the Combined Pensioner and Superannuants Association journal, the Council on the Ageing publication and the Australian senior citizen’s newspaper. This is just one example of the commitment of this Government to older people in the State. I look forward to advising the House of the successful applicants.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Is the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs, satisfied that the State Library provides adequate service in providing material in languages other than English and in providing for the cataloguing and processing of items in languages other than English? If not, does the Government have any plans to enhance the service to meet the needs of Australians, including those from culturally diverse backgrounds?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Premier.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Has the Government yet established the truth of claims by the tourism industry that price increases for Australian pre-booked tours by Japanese and European Community operators cannot be passed on? Will the Treasurer confirm whether increased government charges can be legitimately passed on to tour operators booking trips to Australia? Will the Treasurer provide advice that confirms this?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Some tour operators have put it to me that pre-booked tours may involve prices that cannot be added to. I am having a look at that matter. I have asked the Australian Hotels Association to provide me with information on any such arrangements. I anticipate that I will be in a position to know more in the near future.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Is the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Local Government, aware of continuing problems facing Gunning Shire Council following apparent non-adherence to the timetable finding in the report prepared by his own local government inspector? Following detailed submissions that have been sent to him by me and others, will the Minister now appoint an administrator to take over the affairs of Gunning Shire Council to protect ratepayers from a continued escalation of financial mismanagement?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will take steps to refer the honourable member’s question concerning Gunning Shire Council to the Minister for Local Government.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Did a group of mainly Muslim schoolgirls from Bankstown Girls High School recently attend a so-called health camp at Stanwell Tops? Without the knowledge or approval of their Muslim parents were these Muslim girls taught explicit details by male teachers, some of whom reportedly were intoxicated, about sexual intercourse, oral and anal sex, masturbation, lesbianism and homosexuality? Were these Muslim parents angry, furious and outraged, and did they lose their trust in the school? What action has the Government taken to ensure that children, especially from Muslim and Christian families, are not exposed to such courses? Will the Government withdraw the offensive kit called "Friends for Life", which is being taught in New South Wales high schools and primary schools?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I undertake to refer the question asked by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to the Minister for Education and Training and obtain a response.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

Page 9076

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 17 April the Hon. I. Cohen asked me a question concerning the Port Kembla copper smelter. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Illawarra Area Health Service has advised that it expects that, with compliance to appropriate license conditions, the community health impact of the smelter’s operation would be minimised.

In relation to general health status, the Area has advised that an epidemiological profile of the health of Illawarra residents, undertaken in 1996, found that the rate of hospitalisation of local residents was 10% lower than the rest of New South Wales. The life expectancy at birth, which was 74 years for males and 80 years for females, was the same for New South Wales as a whole. The standardised mortality ratio for premature death for Illawarra residents was approximately 15% higher than the New South Wales average.

The profile found that there was a slight excess of bladder cancer among males from throughout the Illawarra area and lung cancer rates were higher than the State average in the Warilla area. There were no other differences in cancer rates between this population and the rest of New South Wales. Injury was the most common cause of death among young people, cancer among middle aged people and cardio-vascular disease among older people.

This pattern of injury and disease is common in Australia and not unique to the Illawarra area.

Following the discovery of a leukemia cluster in the Area in 1996 a descriptive epidemiological study of cancer was undertaken. The study, which covered Cringila, Lake Heights, Port Kembla, and Warrawong, found that the leukaemia rate among young people from the Warrawong area had been unusually high in recent years. This is currently the subject of a detailed investigation.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 17 April the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question concerning the Westlakes Polyclinic Toronto needle exchange program. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Department of Health advises that vending machines, which dispense needles in safe, hard walled plastic containers called "Fitpacks", offer a low cost 24 hour access point for those injectors who cannot obtain sterile injecting equipment by other means, or are reluctant to access public needle exchange programs. In the absence of an alternative some, possibly hidden, populations of injectors are seriously at risk of contracting and spreading HIV, posing a very real threat to community health.

The Department also advises that trials and independent evaluation of the vending machines have found them to be well accepted by the community, with few or no problems reported, and that they are well utilised.

The Hunter Area Health Service advises that the provision of needle exchange service at the Westlakes Polyclinic has been discussed with nearby child care services and a discreet vending machine has been carefully sited to avoid any problems.

Hunter Health has successfully established a network of such services across its region in the last five years. The existence of such services helps to make the local environment a safer place for children by encouraging the safe disposal of needles. The Hunter’s Centre for Health Advancement will closely monitor the usage of the Westlakes service when it comes on line next year and maintain close consultation with nearby community groups to effectively address any concerns that may arise.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 17 April the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn asked me a question relating to Eagle Vale police station. The Minister for Police has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Deputy Commissioner, Field Operations has advised me Eagle Vale will continue to operate as a 24 hour station.

The restructure of the NSW Police Service is scheduled to be implemented from 1 July, 1997. The Deputy Commissioner, Field Operations has assured me policing services to the local community will be maintained.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 6 May the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked me a question concerning motor accident insurance. The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I refer to the answer I have already given in response to the Honourable Member’s question in the Council. I have received advice from the District Court of New South Wales in relation to the issues raised in your question.

The present limit of the civil jurisdiction of the District Court is $250,000, though the Court may hear and dispose of actions for amounts in excess of $250,000 if the parties consent. I am advised that in certain "special circumstances" an estoppel can be created which allows the Court to hear an action involving more than $250,000 notwithstanding the parties have not consented to the increased jurisdiction.

It is neither possible nor constitutional for me to "ensure that insurers consent to unlimited jurisdiction in the District Court", as suggested in the question. Similarly, the Court has no power to direct a party to consent to the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction.

I can inform the House that my Department is giving preliminary consideration to an increase in the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. Discussions are taking place with the respective Heads of Jurisdiction.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Page 9077

Bills received and, by leave, read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

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

Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence Orders) Bill
Jury Amendment Bill

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council’s amendments.


Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Consideration of the Legislative Assembly’s amendments.

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3, line 22. Omit "a body". Insert instead "a club or other body".

No. 2 Page 2, clause 3, line 27. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

vehicle means a train, bus, tram, aeroplane, taxi or hire car, or ferry or other vessel.

No. 3 Page 3, clause 7, lines 30-33. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

A person who is smoking in contravention of section 6 must comply with a direction to stop smoking in the enclosed public place concerned, given by:

(a) an inspector under section 12(5), or

No. 4 Page 4, clause 8, lines 7-22. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) if the defendant establishes that neither the defendant nor any employee or agent of the defendant provided (otherwise than by sale) any ashtray, matches or lighter (or other thing that could facilitate smoking) in the enclosed public place concerned and that:

(a) neither the defendant nor any employee or agent of the defendant was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, that the contravention was occurring, or

(b) as soon as the defendant or any employee or agent of the defendant became aware that the contravention was occurring, the defendant (or that or any employee or agent of the defendant):

(i) directed the person concerned to stop smoking in the enclosed public place concerned, and

(ii) informed the person that the person would be committing an offence if the person smoked after receiving the direction.

No. 5 Page 5, clause 10, line 6. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

in the other part of the premises from penetrating that place.

No. 6 Page 5, clause 10, line 14. Insert "from" before "penetrating".

No. 7 Page 5, clause 11. Insert after line 30:

(5) The regulations may prescribe classes of inspectors (however described) appointed under other legislation who are to be taken to be inspectors appointed under this section. If an inspector of a class so prescribed has an identity card by virtue of the other legislation under which he or she is an inspector (however described):

(a) the card may be used by the inspector for the purposes of this Act as if it had been issued under subsection (3), and

(b) subsection (4) does not apply to the card.

No. 8 Page 6, clause 12, lines 11-18. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(4) An inspector who has reason to believe that a person is committing or has committed an offence against this Act or the regulations may, on producing his or her identity card, require the person to furnish his or her name and residential address.

Page 9078

(5) An inspector may, on producing his or her identity card, direct a person who is smoking in contravention of section 6 to stop smoking in contravention of that section.

No. 9 Page 7, clause 18. Insert after line 33:

(2) The review must include an examination of the relationship between this Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 and other legislation that regulates or otherwise affects smoking in enclosed public places.

No. 10 Page 8, clause 18, line 2. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

period of 3 years (or if a shorter period is prescribed by the regulations, the shorter period) from the date of assent to this Act.

No. 11 Page 8, clause 18, line 5. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

that applies under subsection (3).

No. 12 Page 9, Schedule 1, line 12. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

8 Trains, buses, trams, aeroplanes, taxis and hire cars, and ferries and other vessels

No. 13 Page 1, long title. Omit "smoking in public places and places of employment.". Insert instead "smoking in enclosed public places.".

Motion by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Assembly amendments Nos 1 to 13 in the Smoking Regulation Bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.37 p.m]: I move:

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the House that the Committee agree to the Legislative Assembly’s amendments Nos 1 to 13 in the Smoking Regulation Bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.37 p.m.]: For the sake of guidance, Mr Temporary Chairman, surely it is possible for members to debate this matter. I do not believe that that opportunity has been extended to members.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. J. R. Johnson): Order! No member sought the call to do so.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I did not expect to be given the call. This is the first time I have seen the amendments. I have been reading the amendments and attempting to make some sense of their meaning. Surely members should be given notice that amendments are intended to be moved.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The matter was before the House earlier this morning and was set down for a later hour this day. The later hour has now arrived and the Committee resolved to consider the amendments forthwith. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile so moved, and the question was put and passed.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: It is common practice that when legislation or amendments are to come before the House they are circulated to members. This material was not circulated: I had to request it from the Clerk at the table. The attendants normally circulate the amendments among members in the Chamber, in the same way that legislation that is to be debated - of which prior notice is, of course, given - is circulated. But this particular message has not been circulated. I believe it is grossly unfair that it should be put through as a matter of form without members having an opportunity to debate it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.39 p.m.]: I understand the point that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby makes. Perhaps her concerns will be allayed if I point out that I have been advised that the amendments moved in the Legislative Assembly were machinery in nature and do not constitute a change to the substantive provisions of the bill that were forwarded from this place.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.39 p.m.]: The Minister is correct. That is the reason we are following this procedure. For the benefit of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, after reviewing the bill the Parliamentary Counsel recommended some machinery changes. Amendments 1 to 13 are simply machinery changes and do not change the bill that was passed by this Chamber.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.40 p.m.]: Despite what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has just said, my rapid perusal of this message does not suggest that the amendments are simply machinery changes. They make inoperative many provisions in the original bill; they change many things. They are not purely machinery changes. For example, amendment No. 10 -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The debate that is now ensuing is out of order. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby cannot further debate the previous question without the leave of the Committee. I am in the hands of the Committee.

Page 9079

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.40 p.m.]: I object.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [2.41 p.m.]: The Opposition has no objection to the matter being recommitted.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [2.41 p.m.]: May I suggest that we seek the leave of the House to recommit the amendments of the Legislative Assembly so that they may be considered further?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Is leave granted?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.41 p.m.]: I do not grant leave. I believe these are machinery amendments. I not wish to take the time -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The objection is fatal. I must proceed in accordance with the standing orders. The question before the Committee is that I do now leave the chair and report to the House that the Committee agrees with Legislative Assembly amendments Nos 1 to 13 to the Smoking Regulation Bill.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

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

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.44 p.m.]: I was talking earlier about the promise made by the former Labor Leader of the Opposition and the former shadow minister for health - a promise reinforced and reiterated after their election to the positions of Premier and Minister for Health respectively. I referred earlier to the importance of promises. The promise was made to reduce by 50 per cent, or 25,000 patients, the public hospital waiting list published by the former Government and honestly revealed to the public by the former Minister for Health, the Hon. Ron Phillips.

It is significant that when Labor was elected to government the promise was refined or modified. The apologists would say that the promise was recalibrated; it was not to take effect on the figures the coalition held to be the basis of the promise but on new figures that had a number of procedures removed from the count - that is, the significant medical procedures which I used to somewhat jocularly refer to as the "oscopies", which have become an essential part of preventive health procedures in this State.

This recalibration was not done unintentionally. The Government was seeking to limit as far as possible the extent of the commitment it had made when it realised it could not back out altogether. That became significant in the final count and shifted markedly the emphasis applied by hospitals and doctors to press ahead with certain elective procedures to the detriment of medical procedures. The Green report of the committee found that considerable reductions were achieved in waiting times for medical procedures and elective surgery but the emphasis was on getting on with procedures that could be readily and expeditiously completed. The waiting time for the other more difficult procedures, which required extra resources, tended to drift so that maximum effort would be reflected in reduced numbers. I shall not labour this point; I am sure my colleague the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will speak in detail about that recalibration process and the procedures.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Spare us. We would rather have you.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I know that. I am glad my contribution was interrupted; it allowed the Chamber to fill. People are waiting to come into the gallery to hear my erudite performance. However, I concede that when it comes to precision about such procedures and pronouncing the unpronounceable procedures I yield to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn is also well informed about the types of procedures that were scrubbed from the list. The procedures were vital to maintain the health ramparts that prevent people needing critical surgery at a later stage.

I am aware of the screening procedures, for instance, for bowel cancer, colonoscopy, and all the other ‘oscopies. I will not dwell on those because an expert from the Opposition will speak about them later. Last Thursday I spoke about these matters. When I started, the scope of my speech was indeterminate because I had been making generalised comments. As I was about to refer to the report I was relieved to be advised that urgent business had to be dealt with and I was able to adjourn the debate. My colleague the Hon. J. H. Jobling had furnished to me volume two of the final report which, fortunately, I did not look at because it contained simply a list of unpronounceable names and statistical summaries.

Page 9080

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It would have made great reading.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: It would have made wonderful reading. I could have gone on all night reading it out to the House. I want to talk about the next major area of concern: the results that were achieved. The majority report of the select committee stated that in a literal sense the Government could claim to have achieved the promised 50 per cent reduction in the elective surgery waiting list. I previously mentioned that in the view of three committee members who published a dissenting statement that claim was severely qualified.

It is worthwhile reiterating that we became aware that the major reason for the reduction in December, which was the time when the program was terminated, was the seasonality of the figures. That fact was acknowledged in the dissenting report. That is not just a claim I make. The evidence contained in the dissenting report and the committee’s findings refer to the seasonality being a significant contributor to the reduction. As I pointed out to the House last Thursday, immediately after December when the waiting list reduction program was terminated the waiting list steadily and inexorably rose to almost record figures, which indicates the hollowness and shallowness of the promise.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There are 5,000 more on the waiting list today than there were at the beginning of the program.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Yes, which shows it was a cynical exercise. Another factor that was important in the so-called achievement of the reduction was a list purging - making sure that during the period of the program anyone who could possibly be eliminated from the list by clerical adjustments or whatever method was removed from the list. I made brief reference to the fact that, under the terms of the financial incentives provided to achieve the targets, hospitals were even paid in respect of people on the waiting list who had died during the term of the program. I do not blame anyone for that; I am simply illustrating how cynical and silly the program was. Hospitals were rewarded even though, when the count was taken, people on the waiting lists had passed away. There were substantial clerical adjustments which temporarily moved people off the waiting list and allowed the reduction figure to be artificially inflated.

Another area of great concern is the way in which the resources applied were claimed to have been of lasting benefit and significance. Another cynical aspect of this exercise was the claim that as a result of extra funding a substantial number of additional nurses were employed to ensure that the waiting list reduction program had a successful outcome. From the evidence presented to the committee it was obvious that no new nurses were employed. The money that was paid in extra wages to nurses was for overtime. At the end of the program not a single extra nurse had been employed by the Department of Health. So behind all this, someone knew all along that the promise was not genuine.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Ms Moait told us that.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Ms Moait did tell us that and we had no reason to doubt her word. She said that the claims that extra nurses had been employed were false and misleading. I will not continue at length because I know my colleague wishes to speak in the debate. To demonstrate the cynicism involved in this obsession to reduce the figure, I refer to evidence given by Mr John Wyn Owen, Director-General, Department of Health. In his evidence to the select committee on 10 May he said that one of the key elements in maintaining the numbers is the ability not necessarily to do more work but to be able to tackle the actual numbers on the list.

That is the point I have been making. It was an exercise in statistics: move people to an area of the statistics where they would not be counted under the program and make sure that hospitals were much more rigorous in removing from the list people who were not ready for surgery immediately. That shows the Government’s cynical approach to its promise, which it so casually and indifferently allowed to lapse. Another area of concern is the claim of a substantial rise in the number of procedures completed as a result of the funding provided during this period. An arithmetical comparison was made of the number of procedures between comparable periods. This comparison completely overlooked the fact that the vast number of procedures that are undertaken steadily grows each year. So the figures have to be standardised for comparison purposes. The results were startling and were not isolated.

For instance, most people would regard the experience of St Vincent’s Hospital as indicative of this program. Evidence was provided by that hospital that it performed 300 fewer procedures, yet its waiting list was reduced by 600. What are we to conclude from that? Only one thing - that the whole program was an exercise in smoke and mirrors, the
Page 9081
manipulation of figures. I know that the House is anxious to hear from other speakers, so I will round off on a couple of points. One is the demoralising effect on all those involved in the program who genuinely and sincerely put their best foot forward. They arranged new procedures in their hospitals and made themselves available for overtime work. It is a credit to the nursing staff and doctors who made themselves available and perhaps overtaxed their physical resources. At the end, the way they were so shabbily dealt with has resulted in a great degree of demoralisation throughout the hospital system in New South Wales.

The demoralisation of staff is a long-term negative effect of the campaign, as was clearly brought out in the evidence. I will not labour particular items of the evidence because they will be brought out quite clearly by following speakers. Another matter to be deeply regretted in all of this - and I am sure more discussion will occur about it when budget speeches are delivered during the next few weeks - is that the hospital waiting list committee found evidence of severe financial hardship being imposed on the hospitals which participated in the waiting list reduction program. The hospitals geared up to this higher level of activity and, in effect, committed and undertook expenditure in anticipation that the program would be ongoing and the full financial commitment would be honoured, instead of this truncated effort. They were left high and dry on the beach, without a paddle to help them back into the water.

Financial hardship was reflected in the accounts of all health districts, and was particularly severe in some areas. The committee heard evidence in the northern rivers district - the largest health district - which has been lagging behind. The committee went to Wagga Wagga Base Hospital and saw evidence of financial hardship - a lasting legacy of this cynical exercise. The Minister for Health should hang his head in shame. The Premier will be brought to account at the March 1999 election. The people of New South Wales will remember the broken promises of this Government. They have lost confidence in the Carr Government, and one of the principal reasons for that is their concern about health services. People cannot believe the promises of the Government; the promises cannot be taken at face value. The Premier cannot be believed when he says that he is concerned about health outcomes, particularly his undertakings in relation to rural and remote communities.

I will not speak to the report at length, as other honourable members wish to contribute to the debate. The contentions that have been put forward by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and by my modest and humble contribution may be seen as a preliminary to the debate. Honourable members can look forward to a heavyweight contribution from a man who is respected throughout the medical profession. I say to the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and to all honourable members: if ever there were an example for the justification of the Legislative Council, it was the contribution that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti made to this inquiry. He is an expert. One of the lower House members is a doctor; the former member for Armidale, David Leitch, was also a doctor. It is not unusual for medical practitioners to be members of the lower House.

The contribution that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti made to the committee was free from the obligations that lower House members have to their electorates. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti brought to this inquiry a knowledge of health services throughout New South Wales, without which the committee would have been hampered when it tried to come to grips with the fog in which the Department of Health tried to envelope it. The committee pierced the fog. The conclusions of the dissenting report are a damning indictment of the Government, which has only a few months left in office. When the Government loses office, people in the health service will unite in saying, "Good riddance!"

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.03 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. D. F. Moppett for his contribution to the debate and for his enormous and sterling efforts during the inquiry of the committee. The Hon. D. F. Moppett attended every hearing and meeting of the committee, as did the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn - except for the one meeting at Wagga Wagga when there was a mix-up in the arrangements.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! In the interest of providing some assistance to Hansard, honourable members will show some restraint and reduce the level of noise.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am not at all concerned by the level of noise.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: I am.

The Hon. Dr. B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I appreciate your concern for Hansard, Mr Deputy-President. Committee members shared that concern every time the committee met. The Hon. Patricia Staunton screamed at us most of the time in her harridan-like voice. When it was time for someone else to ask questions, she not uncommonly left the room. I am not unsure of the reception that
Page 9082
my speech will receive. During the 1995 election campaign, Mr Carr, the then Leader of the Opposition, made a number of election promises. He said that a Labor government would not increase taxes, that it would take the toll off the south-west freeway and that he would resign - obviously, this was the touchstone promise - if he did not reduce hospital waiting lists. The waiting lists promise contained four parts. It came through the Labor Party’s printed, distributed and poorly produced plans for achieving government - in other words, its policy statement. The policy contains a section called "The plan to slash waiting lists", which states:

Under Labor, this money will be restored to the hospitals and spent directly on reducing elective surgery waiting lists.

The Labor Party policy states that the then coalition Government slashed money out of hospitals. That is not true, but it did not stop the Labor Party from saying it. The policy also states:

Adding to the pressure has been the wholesale closure of thousands of hospital beds over seven years and the partial closure of up to another 1,000 beds for lengthy periods each year.

That is not true. The policy continues:

Labor will immediately introduce a $550 million targeted "Waiting List Reduction" program - The Plan to Slash the Waiting Lists - upon gaining office.

The Labor Party did not have a plan at that time - the Opposition knows that and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby knows that. Instead, it developed a plan after it achieved government, and the Premier made the promise. The Labor Party policy continues:

Labor will:

•open an extra 500 hospital beds and ensure the bulk are placed in hospitals in growth areas;

•employ an extra 800 nursing staff; and

•employ an extra 500 medical and ancillary staff.

Members will be hard-pressed to find those statements in the report of the Select Committee on Hospital Waiting Lists. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and Labor members would not accept the inclusion of statements from a document, such as that distributed by the ALP, because the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby - possibly correctly - could not source it. Those promises were not and have not been kept by the Government. Perhaps they will be next year; we live in hope. I refer to a series of pronouncements that were made by Mr Carr during the 1995 election campaign. He started at Murwillumbah and Tweed Heads and went everywhere in New South Wales where he could find an ear. He was keen to publicise this: he wanted maximum press in the last week of the election campaign. The print media carried headlines such as "Labor vows to halve hospital waiting lists", "$256m boost for hospitals", "I’ll halve hospital waiting lists or quit: Carr" and "Carr puts job on the line."

An ALP advertisement said that a Labor government would slash hospital waiting lists by 50 per cent within its first year in office, and that it would pay particular attention to Sydney’s greater west and rural areas. That promise was made in the last week of the election campaign. It contained four parts: to lower surgery waiting lists by 25,000; to cut hospital waiting lists by half in the first term of office; to give an undertaking that resources would be injected into the health systems so that the promised goal would be met. This part of the promise stated that an extra $64 million per year - I emphasise per year - would be provided to pay for 500 more doctors and health workers and 800 more nurses, and to open 500 extra beds in public hospitals.

The fourth promise, which is the whole reason for the existence of the committee, was to appoint an Ombudsman to publicly report and to ensure that the promise was met. The Government walked away from that promise early in its term. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 March Bob Carr said:

. . . an independent watchdog would be appointed as an "added" guarantee of his party’s electoral "honesty".

In the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 March he said:

. . . to slash hospital waiting lists by 50 per cent in our first year in government we are giving you an Ombudsman to report publicly and to keep us honest.

In the Daily Telegraph of 21 March he said:

. . . an independent Ombudsman to police public hospital waiting lists would be appointed.

He did not do that. With the support of crossbench members in this Chamber I moved to establish the select committee to take over the role of the promised Ombudsman on behalf of the people of New South Wales on this important issue.

If one cannot get health care one cannot survive. Everyone in New South Wales is concerned about public health and public hospitals. The Government knew that, and as the Government would not appoint an Ombudsman, the Parliament had to take action. The Hon. Patricia Staunton, the
Page 9083
Hon. I. M. Macdonald, the Hon. B. H. Vaughan, the Hon. J. M. Samios, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner and I were members of the initial select committee. It had some good meetings and met with the Department of Health. Then Parliament was prorogued because the Premier was afraid that the Parliament might be recalled to debate his turfing the Governor out of Government House. The select committee and a number of other important committees were put into limbo from mid-January until April. The committee was then re-established with a different membership and it almost had to start again. Finding No. 2 of the report states:

The Committee finds that there was a lack of clarity over what constituted the promise. This resulted in conflicting opinions as to whether or not the promise had been achieved. The Committee also finds that the promise was made prior to the development of any detailed plan on how to accomplish it.

In other words, what Dr Refshauge had done - because he is basically pretty lazy - was put out nice words in a policy document but he had no plan on how to do what he had promised. His Premier then did not just commit him to reducing waiting lists; he actually set a target. We know that Dr Refshauge did not know about that because in a televised interview from the Domain which appeared on the night-time news following evidence given by Dr King, Dr Refshauge freely admitted that he was not part of the decision-making process before the deliberate announcement by the Premier in Tweed Heads. He did not have a plan and we knew it. At least the committee found that. The report contains the precise quotes that I am about to refer to. They are all laid out. I shall read them because they are important. Anybody reading the quotes will see that what I said about the four promises is correct, and that there were in fact four promises. I said that the promise was to reduce the elective surgery waiting list by 25,000. This is what the Premier said. The Sydney Morning Herald of 15 March stated:

. . . a pledge to lower elective surgery waiting lists by 25,000 in his first year of office . . . promised . . . to slash elective surgery queues by 25,000 patients in his first year of office.

An advertisement by the Labor Party on the same page says that it will slash hospital waiting lists across the State by 50 per cent within its first year of government. As was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 March:

Mr Carr promised he would quit as Premier if Labor could not meet its election commitment to slash public hospital waiting lists by half within a year.

As was reported in the Daily Telegraph on 21 March:

Bob Carr pledged to resign if he failed to cut hospital waiting lists by 50 per cent in 12 months.

Confident the 45,000-long list would be cut in half within a year, Mr Carr said he and the health Minister would resign if the target was not reached. This was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 21 March. The article stated:

Labor also promised $64 million extra per year to halve the waiting lists. This would pay for 500 more doctors and health workers and 800 nurses.

As was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 March:

Mr Carr vowed to cut hospital waiting lists by spending $64 million a year on 500 extra hospital beds and 1,300 more doctors and nurses.

The Sydney Morning Herald of 21 March stated:

Mr Carr pledged to spend $64 million opening 500 extra beds in public hospitals and recruiting a further 1,300 doctors and nurses to end long delays for elective surgery.

They are the three promises so far. Then he promised that the independent watchdog would be appointed as an added guarantee of the party’s electoral honesty, as published in the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 March. I have been through that. The fourth promise involved the Ombudsman. People should realise that the Opposition members on the committee - the Hon. D. F. Moppett, the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn and I - had considerable trouble determining why the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and Australian Labor Party members could not understand those simple promises and what they meant. The difference between elective surgical waiting lists and hospital waiting lists is the difference between surgery and medicine, elective surgery and medicine, elective surgery and elective medicine waiting lists. There are a number of differences.

For people who think that would be a difficult concept for Opposition members and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, I draw attention to the interim report, which has not been debated in this Chamber. It is at pains to show the difference between elective surgery and what was counted by the Government as elective surgery and what were the hospital waiting lists. As my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett said, a whole lot of things which were normally included and which had always been included by previous governments were taken out. They were things such as patients waiting for bronchoscopy, colonoscopy, dental procedures, endoscopy, retrograde procedures in X-ray departments, endoscopy of the biliary tract, oesophagus, small bowel, stomach, endovascular procedures such as cardiac catheterisation -

Page 9084

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Vitally important.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Yes. A patient cannot have cardiac surgery without them. Other procedures included gastroscopy, cardiac procedures such as insertion of external pacemakers, oesophagoscopy, panendoscopy, proctosigmoid-oscopy and sigmoidoscopy. All of those were removed. There was evidence before the committee that the figures for all these procedures were included in hospital waiting lists previously. In May of the year that the promise was made, the year that Labor came into government, the Public Health Bulletin was written by Dr Shiraev. Keep in mind that Dr Shiraev was the person who drove the whole program for the Government. He also was the chief adviser to the committee. In 1995 the bulletin included all of the ‘oscopies when reporting on hospital waiting lists. It also pointed out - I will come to this later - that these ‘oscopies were probably the most common and accounted for about 20 per cent of all the surgical or procedural workload in our public hospitals.

The numbers were not insignificant, they were huge. It is incomprehensible to this side of the House that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby could not see the difference between a hospital waiting list and an elective surgery waiting list. The Opposition can see it and the rest of the world can see it, but the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. Patricia Staunton, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald and the Hon. B. H. Vaughan, who were really not part of the whole deal, could not understand it, and did not try to understand it. Did the Government keep its promises? The Government failed to appoint 800 new nurses as promised. The committee confirmed that only an extra 443 equivalent full-time nurses, most of whom were existing staff working overtime, had been appointed.

The committee did not find any evidence that more doctors had been employed. A couple of doctors were appointed as surgeons to hospitals in western Sydney, but that is about all. The report failed to recognise that the promise of $64 million each year will not be fulfilled in the next three years. Evidence from the estimates committee revealed that the Minister planned to have that money available, but the allocation was not included in follow-up budgets, which the committee knew. The failure of the committee on these fronts has forced this dissenting report. On 31 July 1996, Sandra Moait, General Secretary of the New South Wales Nurses Association, told the select committee:

I can tell you statements were made that nursing numbers had been increased in terms of full-time equivalent nursing positions . . . That was, in fact, not so . . . in no way was money provided to enable the full-time employment of additional nurses . . . I am unaware of any permanent funding for any full-time additional nursing positions which had stayed in place following the completion of the work of the task force.

On 27 May at Wagga Wagga Dr Timothy Porter told the select committee:

My understanding was that the [$64 million a year ] funding would not continue at the high level required for the reduction of the waiting list but there would be a net increase in the basal level of funding in order to keep the waiting list at the reduced level achieved by the Waiting List Program.

I asked him:

Is it a fact that the amount of funding available to you has decreased?

To which Dr Porter replied:

I think it is indisputable that the funding has very much decreased.

On the issue of the Ombudsman, promises had not been kept. Promises about the $64 million per year funding had not been kept, promises on keeping beds open had not been kept, promises for extra nurses had not been kept, and promises for extra doctors had not been kept. A whole raft of promises had not been kept.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Let alone the numbers.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I will get to the numbers. It is important to realise that these patients are waiting for elective surgery. For some, waiting is not a problem, but for others it is a real problem. It was clear to members of the Opposition what a hospital waiting list was and what a surgery waiting list was, and that is the basis of the committee’s interim report. Most people thought that the promises would be kept after 12 months. The Hon. D. F. Moppett asked questions throughout the committee hearings about how one could, in relation to a promise to halve waiting lists, rationally use a December figure for comparison when the beginning date is in March and the final date is in December. One really must compare apples with apples. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked a number of witnesses whether that process compared apples with apples, and all of them said it did not.

Witnesses said it was possible to make comparisons with many assessments and to make seasonal adjustments, which we in Australia are used to with unemployment figures and the like, but this was not done. In September the Government made it
Page 9085
quite clear that it would make a dash for the line in December. That period is always the slowest part of the year for people on the waiting list because soon after that there are school holidays, and doctors, nurses and patients take time off to be with their families. Patients do not want surgery at that time. For many years it has been a practice to have time off during the Christmas-New Year period and at Easter; numbers always rise in March. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby knew that, but the report does not mention seasonal adjustment. No matter how many times the Hon. D. F. Moppett asked the question, no matter how many times it appeared in the transcripts of committee hearings, it does not appear once in the report by the chairman to this Parliament.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: The report is by the committee.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The report is by the chairman. The chairman’s report, which is substantially what the report is - and I will come to how this report evolved later - did not include any mention of seasonal adjustment. No matter how many times we tried to get those words in, or anything to do with assessment of seasonal adjustment, or discussion about seasonal adjustment, that was resisted by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. Patricia Staunton, in particular. The Opposition thought it was a bit tricky finishing the period in December. It was not just the community that thought the promises would be kept after 12 months. On 14 May - it is worth reading the lower House debate - my colleague, the Leader of the National Party, Mr Armstrong, spoke about the budget.

He reminded the Premier and the Treasurer of the unfulfilled election promise to resign if hospital waiting lists were not halved during the Government’s first term of office. Mr Iemma interrupted and said, "12 months", to which Mr Armstrong replied, "Thank you for your care and for your support." But later in his contribution, the Hon. Ian Armstrong got the better of Mr Iemma, who thought it would be 12 months, as he probably still does. He probably has not read anything. The Hon. Ian Armstrong made the point that the end result of this maladministration is that 50,000 people are now on the waiting list, compared with 45,000 who were on the waiting list when the coalition was in government. In March 1997, two years later - a comparative date - 5,000 more people are on the waiting list, and they are waiting longer. On 3 December 1996 the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby commented:

Although I also admire the oratory and rhetoric of the Hon. D. F. Moppett, I am not swayed by it. I do not deal in rhetoric; I deal in fact.

I ask honourable members to keep that point in mind. On 16 October last when debating the report of the Standing Committee on State Development and the rationale for closing veterinary laboratories at Armidale and Wagga Wagga, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said of the Hon. Patricia Staunton:

On a previous occasion I referred to my disappointment about the selective quoting of the report by the chair of the committee, the Hon. Patricia Staunton, on 18 September. I would not have believed that she would do that.

Later, in that same contribution, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said:

If the honourable member were a Minister I would say she misled the House . . .

Later still the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said:

The honourable member took his words out of context . . . it is extremely damaging for the chairman of a parliamentary committee to quote out of context. To do so is to put a totally wrong spin on everything in the report.

I ask honourable members to keep in mind that criticism by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby of the Hon. Patricia Staunton. Before we proceed further into this debate I remind honourable members of an episode in this Chamber this afternoon. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby sought to have an input in relation to the amendments moved in globo in the other place to a bill introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. She said that there had been no time to consider the amendments, that there had been no discussion about them and that she had not been able to participate in debate on the matter. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was quite rightly upset when she left the Chamber this afternoon because she wished to be given an opportunity to make a reasonable contribution to debate on the amendments that had been moved.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What has this got to do with waiting lists?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I will get to that. What happened today was important. When the committee was deliberating its final report, Opposition members tried to move 70 amendments. Sixty-seven of those 70 amendments were gagged. I had barely finished reading the amendments before the gag was moved. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald moved the gag on 66 occasions and the Hon. B. H. Vaughan moved the gag only once. On 63 occasions committee members had to vote on the gag motion
Page 9086
and the minutes record that debate ensued, as that is what is always recorded in the minutes. My colleagues who were present and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. Patricia Staunton will say that no debate ensued on many of those motions. The record will show that on each occasion the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby used her casting vote to support the gag.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: I have reported that to the House, Dr Pezzutti.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: At the time I objected and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said, "Dr Pezzutti, you will have plenty of time to explain this in the House."

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: You have the time now.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Exactly. I am explaining to honourable members that you have two standards, madam.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: I would never have believed it unless I had been there.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I would not have believed it either if I had not been there. I have been the chairman of a number of committees and I have served on parliamentary committees for nigh on seven years. The committees on which I was a member dealt with important matters such as the coastal issue - a matter that honourable members would not expect to get agreement on. Members of other committees have the ability to lodge dissenting reports but we had no ability to do so in the Select Committee on Hospital Waiting Lists. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby knew that. She had been appropriately advised by the Clerk that that was the case.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: So did you.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: We were advised by the Clerk. One would have thought that, under those circumstances, it would have been beneficial to have had some of the discussions recorded in the minutes. I am aware of the close attention to detail paid by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby in many other committees, for example, the police committee. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was careful in examining the evidence given to that committee in minute detail and adducing information from it. On that occasion the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was able to lodge a dissenting report, which had devastating results. The diligence and actions of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby resulted in the establishment of the royal commission. She was able to place her views on the public record, but we have been denied that opportunity. No matter how many times I presented information to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby concerning the issue of transfers, she refused to read it or understand it.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: All we wanted was consensus.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: We wanted only for her to understand our concern. Plenty of evidence was available to show that the way in which transfers were dealt with was different. There is a statement in the interim report to the effect that this contentious matter would be held over until the next report. One would have thought that there would have been plenty of time to debate this issue. There was not. In order to develop this report the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. Patricia Staunton and I sat down with the chairman’s draft report. I was asked to make suggestions about what I thought should be contained in the report. My suggestions were not included in the report. The initial draft report, which had been prepared by Dr Shiraev, was not good. It was rewritten by Warren Cahill. His draft report was vastly better.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: And it was done at your request.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It was. I think the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. Patricia Staunton agree with me that Dr Shiraev’s report was not an appropriate report for the chairman to present to the committee. When I received the second report prepared by Warren Cahill I noticed that the suggestions I had made for inclusions and exclusions had not been taken into account. I got nowhere. I worked hard to ensure that there was nothing in the report of which I would be ashamed. Some things were incorrect and some things had been taken out of context. I worked hard to get those things right. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, when faced with those issues, took them on board and said, "We will change them." When we got to some of the nitty-gritty issues concerning transfer she simply would not look at them.

I felt very sad about that as I had worked hard on this report. Honourable members will be aware that I am a stickler for detail. One of the jobs of members of the upper House is to review in detail those matters which come before us. I knew what the benefits were of getting the report right. I think the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and I would be at one on several issues - I do not want to verbal her if she disagrees with me on this - to ensure that no-one
Page 9087
made such a stupid promise again, that these sorts of numbers were not used again and that nobody is allowed to disrupt the whole operation of the health system to fulfil a political whim.

We were also determined to ensure that the benefits that had been achieved would continue to be implemented. I am sure that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby would agree with me on all those issues. The Opposition, which is likely to be in government in 1999, is determined to ensure that these games are not played again. The committee received 15 submissions, voluminous documents were tabled by the Department of Health and the committee received additional information in writing from witnesses. The committee also heard evidence from a number of witnesses from a single class - the players in the game. The bulk of the witnesses interviewed were departmental officers.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Program officers.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Program officers, and members of the Australian Medical Association were interviewed. We had the benefit of the wisdom of Mr Brent Walker, an actuary, and heard evidence from some doctors in the system and from Sandra Moait, General Secretary of the New South Wales Nurses Association. This high-powered committee had the benefit of the wisdom of people who knew the game. Those people were not unsophisticated witnesses; they were witnesses who knew what the committee was asking and -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Expert witnesses.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: They were witnesses who were expert at understanding the questions that were asked of them, and they were expert at answering the questions in the way they wanted to answer them.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It was not a layman’s committee.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It was not a layman’s committee. The detailed information that the committee received was complex - as it had to be - it was tediously specific, and, most importantly for the patients of New South Wales, the evidence was given under oath. The committee’s interim report states that a new computer program - called the waiting list collection on-line system - was introduced in August of 1995. That represented a change. Section 3.2 of the interim report states that the committee found that elective surgery lists were the target set by the Government. The report states:

. . . the objective of the Waiting List Reduction Program is to halve the elective surgery waiting lists . . . There was no aim to halve medical lists . . .

After halving waiting lists the Government halved elective surgery waiting lists, which also represented a change. The previous Government reported all of those waiting for treatment, including those waiting for medical, surgical and dental treatment. That is detailed in section 4.1.1 of the report, which states:

The Performance Survey, of September 1994, stressed waiting times over waiting lists. Waiting times were reported in detail for both medical and surgical patients. Average waiting times, average costs and numbers of procedures performed were reported for all procedures, both medical and surgical.

Up to March 1995 the annual publicly released report prepared by the previous Government on waiting lists included information on all ready-for-care patients who were to receive elective medical or surgical treatment. The committee found that the current Government changed what was reported. Section 4.2 of the report states:

The definitions for collection required by the Department of Health were unchanged -

but the definitions were still reported to the department -

but the reported information was varied . . .

The committee found that that was code for change. That was agreed by the committee. Section 4.2 of the interim report further states:

Between March and November 1995, Department of Health monthly waiting list reports . . . was a change to previous reporting.

Section 4.2 of the report found that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare definition of "elective surgery", previously only used for reporting to the Commonwealth Government on 30 June each year, excluded a range of procedures. Section 3.4 states that hospitals were paid on the basis of how many names were removed from the list, not on the basis of how many people were operated on. That section also states that payments were based on list reductions. Sections 4.2.3 and 3.5 state that there was an increased compliance with policies and auditing of the lists to reclassify patients. The Government committed $81 million - not $64 million - to the program but, as section 3.4 states, the report did not discuss the cost of the programs. Section 4.2.1 dealt with list transfers. As I said earlier, that issue will be discussed in the next report.

Page 9088

The report states that the previous Government included 7,000 list transfers; the current Government excluded 3,500. As section 4.1.2 states, the committee acknowledged the previous Government’s action to control waiting times and overcome long lists. Section 4.2.1 states that the waiting list information that was collected did not change, but that the information that was reported did change. As I said earlier, the definitions for collection required by the department were unchanged but the reported information was varied. Between March and November 1995 the Department of Health monthly waiting list report procedure was changed. That was the result of the interim report. Sadly, there was little debate about this report because it was simply tabled without discussion. I thought that was a bit odd.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: The Parliament was prorogued.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is correct. I now remember that Parliament was prorogued, and the report was listed for debate but not reached because, as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said, the Parliament was prorogued.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: When was the Parliament prorogued?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: On 15 January 1996. There are a number of discrepancies between the interim report and the final report in regard to hospital waiting list definitions. The committee overlooked those discrepancies, and when definition amendments were moved the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, as chairman of the committee, gagged those motions. As seen from the numbers previously mentioned, in most cases those gags resulted in the negation of the amendments with no prior consideration of information on the definitions which were overlooked. Previously, the reporting of hospital waiting list figures, as I said earlier, included all patients waiting for medical and surgical elective surgery who were ready for care.

When the hospital waiting list figures were published during the hospital waiting list reduction program, they included only those waiting for elective surgery, as defined by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, who were ready for care. This excluded some 60 high-demand procedures. This is an obvious change to the previous reporting, which caused a major variation in numbers appearing on hospital waiting lists reported during the program. Such changes in reporting, as recognised on pages 27 and 28 of the interim report, were not carried over to the final report. We wanted to include those because we were not able to debate the interim report at that time, so people would have forgotten them.

In relation to endovascular procedures, it would be interesting for people to understand that transluminal balloon angioplasty of the aortic arch branches was excluded. That sounds complex. That is an alternative to cardiac surgery. In other words, a balloon catheter is placed in the artery, past the obstruction, then the balloon is pulled back to break up the obstruction in order to make the artery patent again. This avoids the necessity for surgery. But because it was excluded from the count, at North Shore the number of cardiac catheters being passed was cut during the waiting list reduction program to make more resources available for surgery that was included in the count.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It is not as if cardiac failure is some insignificant illness in the community.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, it is not. The committee did not hear evidence that anyone suffered as a result of the program. In fact - and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby will be pleased to hear this - many people had their surgery earlier than they otherwise would have. As I have said before - and I will say it again - this surge of money into the system, with the concentration of a systems approach to waiting lists and the efficiencies that could be gained from the system, has big benefits - and I do not mind being quoted on that. If the Government had learned the lessons and continued to use the systems approach to making sure that there was equity of time access and that adequate amounts of money were being put into the system, it would know that there is no doubt that there is a great benefit in having accurate waiting lists on which to plan. Great importance is placed on giving people options at other hospitals.

There is enormous value in encouraging doctors to agree to pool patients if the patients do not mind. Surgeon A, who has a long surgery list, may agree with surgeon B, who has a short surgery list, to utilise the facilities provided by the taxpayers of New South Wales more effectively and efficiently to ensure swift access to elective surgery in the public hospital system. Evidence was given on the quality aspects review of the hospital system. I asked a number of questions on this issue throughout the inquiry in an effort to ascertain the significance of the changes that were put in place by the former Government.

Page 9089

I pay due credit to the John Hunter Hospital, which went out of its way to purge its lists early to be ready to take advantage of the money that was promised in return for a reduction in waiting lists. The Government provided that funding. The process worked something like this: letters were sent out and telephone calls were made to patients on the list. If no replies were received to the letters and telephone calls, the hospital would send out staff to the homes of the patients - or the general practitioners of the patients were contacted - to ensure that the hospital had a clean list. However, the John Hunter Hospital reduced its waiting list by only 30 per cent because it had started with a clean list in the first place. Under the former arrangements, as at March 1995 the Richmond Area Health Service had only about 400 patients on its waiting list - which equates to about two weeks work for that area health service. It was almost impossible for the hospital to reduce that number. However, it spent inordinately large sums of money trying to reduce the list further, to only one week’s work.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Diminishing returns.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The law of diminishing returns was very strong. The hospital reduced the number from 400 to 200. That was unsustainable and the hospital knew it. Because large amounts of money were poured into the program the system was disrupted. The stage was reached where a couple of orthopaedic surgeons pulled their patients out of the program because it was becoming unwieldy and unmanageable. Considerable evidence was received about exclusions. When asked about the exclusion of ‘oscopies Mick Reid said on 21 January 1996:

Those oscopies have not been removed. They are taking place in hospitals right around New South Wales as we speak. They are occurring in the normal urgency criteria. The Commonwealth definitions were excluded from what constituted elective surgery and included on the medical lists. In terms of how they are being managed during the process, unlike what had been a trend in some areas, there has been a decline in the waiting list for scope work of the order of 20 per cent, which is a remarkable achievement during the period.

And it was. It caught on because of the efficiency process. Nurses were keen to work overtime. I shall not canvass further the exclusions issue. The number of people waiting for elective surgery reduced dramatically. We do not know the numbers; the former Government had not split them up, and the department refused to report them in the same way. No matter how hard we tried, we were not able to ascertain that number. Nick Shiraev tried very hard but simply could not work it out, and that presented a difficulty.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: You could hardly be surprised if some members of the committee could not work it out.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am merely saying that we do not know by how many the numbers were reduced through exclusion. We know there was a reduction in the 44,707, but the department was unable to say by what amount. Nick Shiraev’s reporting system, which was introduced in August, was incapable of providing that information. I do not blame him for that; I simply make the statement that people were excluded and cut from the list, and this helped Dr Refshauge get his numbers down. The figures for December are always low, but by omitting those figures 5,000 were taken off the list. The December figure should have been seasonally adjusted and 5,000 should have been added to make the figures comparable with the March figures. The committee received an estimate but, of course, it does not appear in the report. There were a number of discrepancies in it and that was upsetting. Indeed, the committee’s report refers to evidence that suggests that the coalition’s December figures included both surgery patients and medical patients. John Wyn Owen wrote to the committee in February 1996 stating that the 1994 list included medical and surgical patients.

The Government, by its own admission, has not included medical patients in its waiting list reports. It adopted the definitions of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare - AIHW - but they were different from those of the former Government. A series of directions from the department, both written and oral, indicated that we should take a different view of the method by which patients were categorised to meet the aims of the program. Dennis King gave evidence about who one could expect to find on the elective surgery waiting list. Apart from emergency patients, people can be on the waiting list as category 1, category 2 or category 3 patients. Category 1 covers elective patients who must have the procedure done within a week; category 2 relates to patients who must have surgery within two or three weeks; and category 3 patients are those who elect to have surgery at a time that is convenient.

Category 4 covers patients who are not ready for care, for a range of reasons, for example, staged procedures. Women booked in for caesarean sections are always category 4 patients because they are not ready to have their surgery until their babies are at full term. The time for the procedure is determined by the age of the child, not by the choice of the mother, the surgeon or the hospital. Category 4 patients include also those who could be not ready for care as they are too ill to undergo surgery or
Page 9090
because, for personal reasons, the date set down for the procedure is not suitable. During the period of the waiting list reduction program the number of patients reclassified because they were not ready for care increased by 7,603. Therefore, 7,603 of the 44,707 patients on the waiting list were taken off the program because they were no longer classified category 1, 2 or 3; they became category 4 patients. The committee received ample evidence of that from witnesses from the Illawarra and the central coast in particular, as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby could attest.

A letter would be sent to people on the waiting list asking whether they were prepared to have their surgery done earlier than their proposed admission date. If they agreed, they would be classified as category 4 until a new date was allocated. If they did not agree, they were also classified category 4 because they were not prepared to accept an offer of an earlier date from the hospital. People were also reclassified category 4 when they were asked whether they were prepared to go to another surgeon. Earlier in the piece there were some abuses of this system. I acknowledge Mick Reid’s efforts to change the system. For example, if Gosford Hospital asked a patient whether he or she were prepared to go to Sutherland Hospital for surgery and the patient replied in the negative, that patient would be classified category 4 because the offer of another hospital was not accepted. Such patients were deemed to be not ready for care.

If a patient rejected the offer of a transfer to another surgeon’s list, that patient would be reclassified category 4. If the patient said yes, he or she would still be reclassified category 4 because until the new surgeon accepted the patient the patient was deemed to be not ready for care. No-one knows how many of those reclassifications to category 4 were fair dinkum. For whatever reason, the 7,603 patients on the waiting list for surgery are not disadvantaged by this process because if they are booked for surgery on, say, 17 August, the Minister will not count them. Although they are on the waiting list, they are not counted as they are category 4 patients.

In the opinion of Dr King from St George Hospital that was a dishonest exercise. In spite of some aggressive questioning of this matter, Dr King’s evidence stood up well. The evidence suggested also that a person waiting for elective surgery for a total hip replacement and who asked for an autogenous blood transfusion - that is blood that is sequentially donated by the patient himself to be stored for use by him at a later date - is classified category 4 because until the blood was donated the patient was said to be not ready for care.

The Hon. Franca Arena: How long does such blood last?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It lasts for up to three weeks, perhaps four. Such patients donate blood on three occasions so that when they undergo surgery they are able to use their own blood for the purposes of transfusion, thus avoiding the fear of contracting hepatitis C and other diseases.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Sort of on lay-by.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Exactly. In any event, the director-general directed that such patients should not be reclassified. However, until that directive those who had been through the process and were booked in for surgery were classified category 4. It is reasonable to ask a patient who may be caring for a sick husband or wife whether he or she can make arrangements to come to hospital for surgery on short notice. Such patients may be in a position to accept the offer. A hospital may find that it is able to operate earlier than expected and will ring around to find people who can come in earlier for surgery. It happens all the time. If a patient booked in for surgery tomorrow suddenly becomes ill and cannot undergo surgery, the hospital might seek to slot in another patient so that the availability of the operating theatre is not wasted.

If a patient is able to accept the offer, well and good. But some patients may not be able to accept the offer; they may not be able to rearrange their affairs on such short notice. I suggest that most members of this House if they were faced with the prospect of surgery would have a great difficulty being ready for hospital in less than three weeks, unless the procedure was urgently required. It takes time to organise busy lives. Most people waiting for elective surgery are like us: they are busy people. They may have work commitments or be pensioners who are busy working for Meals on Wheels or caring for grandchildren. They cannot suddenly drop everything and go off to hospital. So when they are approached and asked whether they are prepared to undergo surgery earlier, although some might be able to say, "Thank you, yes, I would love to" most would have to turn down the offer.

Once patients rejected the offer, under the waiting list reduction program they would instantly be classified category 4. Reclassification does not change the urgency for the procedure. However, it presented the Minister with the means of getting people off the waiting list. As the Hon. D. F. Moppett said, many hospitals were paid the minute such people came off their lists. That was a
Page 9091
disturbing, tricky way to reduce the waiting list. More importantly, the Minister was paying the hospitals to participate in it.

The committee heard evidence from St Vincent's Hospital that it reduced its elective surgery waiting list from 1,200 to 600 by performing only 300 extra procedures. The hospital had 900 fewer patients for the year. That is most bizarre. The committee discovered that hospitals were paid if people died waiting for surgery; that was all that seemed to matter. Another way of removing people from the waiting list reduction program was by audit - that is, those with legitimate reasons such as "unable to be contacted", "no longer required surgery", and "decided against having surgery". I do not believe that any hospitals lied about the process. Some people on the waiting list could not be found; some people when contacted said that the surgery was no longer required, that something had come up; some had decided because of their general condition or other advice not to have the surgery; and some had booked in for surgery but had decided against it for a variety of reasons. That accounted for 853.

Then there was the issue of seasonality, which I have referred to. In other words, what factors were taken into account when comparing figures in March and December. The most authoritative figure for that was 5,112. I shall refer in some detail later to the handling of transfers, which caused 1,803 to be taken off the list. It is not known how many procedures were taken off the list because they were reclassified as medical. Those figures - reclassification, 7,603; removals, 853; seasonality, 5,112 - add up to 15,371. That means that only 10,000 patients were removed from hospital waiting lists because of operations. As to the additional 10,000 patients who were operated on I say, "Good on you, Minister."

I do not doubt that the system planning process was considered to be good in the minds of the bureaucrats. We said as much in our report, and my view on that matter has not changed. I refer to the number of patients who benefited from this initiative. Most people would think that if the Government was going to reduce the waiting list by half it would do it in a fair-dinkum manner. For example, they would think that if the Government was going to reduce the list by 25,000, it would take 25,000 off the waiting list for operations. That is what I thought, that is what the grateful taxpayers thought, that is what everyone who voted for Mr Carr thought.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: The Premier was not game to own up to it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That is right. I know what the Minister for Health thought: he thought as Mr Carr thought, that it was going to be done by operations. However, the Government did not do that. The committee found that the increase in admissions was between 22,000 to 26,000 - not the 35,750 that we would need to reduce the waiting lists by the numbers suggested. The committee found that the number of admissions required to halve the waiting lists was of the order of 22,250 plus 13,500 adjusted for a nine-month period. However, the report failed to point this out. An additional 12,500 elective surgery admissions for the year is a long way off the 22,250 required to meet the target. The report did not state that the reduction was achieved by means other than by patients being operated on. That is breathtaking. Our efforts to have that information included in the report were denied.

It would appear that the Government employed creative techniques to reduce the waiting lists. In September 1993, the then shadow minister for health - now the Minister for Health - made the comment, "The New South Wales health system is the best in the world." He used those words advisedly at a meeting of people who knew what he was talking about - at a meeting of health planners, nurses and doctors. His claim that New South Wales has the best health system in the world is correct. In 1993 our health system had the shortest waiting times in the world; it had some of the best surgeons and nurses in the world; and it had some of the best facilities in the world. Those professionals are still working hard and well. We still have some of the best training programs in the world. However, that training is being interrupted by the Commonwealth Government at the moment - a criticism I have made of the Commonwealth Government on a number of occasions.

Why did the Minister want to waste money on a program - as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has said - that disrupted the whole system? He spent money unwisely. The previous Government placed emphasis not on how many people were waiting for surgery, but on the waiting time for surgery. I was parliamentary secretary to the former Minister for Health, Ron Phillips. I went all over the State saying, "It does not matter how many people are waiting, so long as each person waits a reasonable amount of time and no longer." The average waiting time in New South Wales in March 1995 - when the
Page 9092
coalition left office - was 29 days. The coalition also had categories 1 to 4.

The number of people waiting in March 1995 was 44,707, some of which were medical. They were waiting, on average, 29 days. I know that some people had been waiting a year and a half, and I accept that that was too long. However, when some people were asked to come forward on the list they indicated that they did not want to. For example, a doctor might say to a patient, "At some stage you will need to have your hip done. I will put you at the end of my list. However, if it becomes necessary, I will bring you forward by arrangement."

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Depending on the availability of a prosthesis.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That depends on how much money the Government gives. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby will understand that an orthopaedic surgeon may have an operating waiting list that covers a year and a half. She will also understand that if a patient towards the end of that list starts to get pain at rest or at night, the level of urgency changes and the surgeon brings the patient forward for surgery. Surgeons try to do that. It does not matter to them whether they operate on Mrs Jones or Mrs Edwards; what matters to them is that they give a fair shake to each individual. If one patient is in more pain than another patient, the surgeon will bring that patient forward. All things being equal, that is what happens. The number of operations that they can do at any one time is dictated by the budget of the hospital, and that is the best that any government can do because there is not an unlimited amount of money.

The previous Government published an average waiting time, month after month, of 29 days. It was the first government in Australia to do that, and it was done in an open and obvious fashion. When we saw waiting lists blowing out money was put into the system. Money was allocated on a needs basis. When we discovered people waiting for operations at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital who should have been waiting at Liverpool Hospital, we did something about it. That is why we built hospitals in the west - Nepean, Liverpool, St George and the like. That initiative reduced the waiting time for cardiac surgery, in particular. St Vincent's Hospital personnel gave evidence that its waiting time for cardiac surgery was only two weeks once a patient had his angiogram.

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

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council’s amendments.

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

MR PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly desires to acquaint the Legislative Council that on Thursday, 22 May 1977, it agreed to the following resolution -

(1) That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, the following joint estimates committees be appointed:

Estimates Committee No. 1

1. Premier, Arts and Ethnic Affairs
2. Education and Training
3. Olympics
4. Treasury, Energy, State and Regional Development
5. The Legislature

Estimates Committee No. 2

1. Health, Aboriginal Affairs
2. Community Services, Aged Services, Disability Services
3. Agriculture
4. Mineral Resources, Fisheries

Estimates Committee No. 3

1. Police
2. Corrective Services, Emergency Services
3. Attorney General, Industrial Relations
4. Fair Trading, Women

Estimates Committee No. 4

1. Transport and Tourism
2. Public Works and Services, Roads, Ports
3. Gaming and Racing, Hunter Development
4. Sport and Recreation

Estimates Committee No. 5

1. Urban Affairs and Planning, Housing
2. Environment
3. Land and Water Conservation
4. Local Government

(2) The Budget Estimates and related documents representing the amounts to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund be referred to the committees for inquiry and report.

Page 9093

(3) 1. Each committee is to consist of nine members, comprising:

(a) five members from the Legislative Assembly, being three from the Government nominated by the Leader of the House, one from the Opposition nominated by the Opposition Whip and one Independent, nominated by the Opposition Whip;

(b) four members from the Legislative Council, being two from the Government nominated by the Government Whip, one from the Opposition nominated by the Opposition Whip and one member of the crossbench, nominated by the Opposition Whip.

2. Nominations for Legislative Assembly members of the committees shall be made to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and nominations for Legislative Council members of the committees shall be made to the Clerk of the Legislative Council within seven days of the passing of this resolution by both Houses.

3. (a) Government or Opposition members of the relevant House may be appointed to the committees as substitutes for a member of the committees for any matter before the committees, by notice in writing by the relevant Leader of the Government, Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition, Government or Opposition Whips or Deputy Whips.

(b) Crossbench or Independent members may be appointed to the committees as substitutes for another crossbench or Independent member of the committees, provided they are of the same House as the member to be substituted, for any matter before the committees. Notice in writing of the substitute member, which is to be determined by agreement between the members themselves, can be made by any of the crossbench or Independent members provided that the others are in agreement.

(c) In the event that no crossbench or Independent member wishes to be appointed to a committee, the Leader of the Opposition or Opposition Whip or Deputy Whip can nominate a member to fill the position.

4. That the chair of a committee have a deliberative vote and in the event of an equality of votes a casting vote.

5. The chairs of the five estimates committees will be nominated in writing to the Clerks by the Leader of the House in the Legislative Assembly.

6. (a) A chair may from time to time appoint another Government member to act as deputy chair and the member so appointed is to act as chair when the chair is not present at a meeting of a committee.

(b) In the event of absence of both chair and the deputy chair, a Government member of the committee is to be elected by the members present to act as chair for that meeting.

7. The committees have power to send for and examine persons, papers, records and things.

8. The quorum of the committee is four members, provided that a member from each House is present.

9. The proceedings of the committees are open to the public unless otherwise ordered by a committee.

10. (a) The times, dates and places for meetings of each committee are to be set out in a schedule provided by the Clerks of both Houses to members of each committee.

(b) A committee may hold meetings supplementary to those set out in the schedule.

11. A committee may examine:

(a) each program area in the Budget Estimates and related documents by portfolio; and

(b) by portfolio, expenditure or income of any statutory body or corporation appointed, constituted or regulated under an Act of Parliament:

(i) which the Minister for the time being administers, and under which the statutory body or corporation is appointed, constituted or regulated; or

(ii) which is required to submit an annual report to the Parliament, either under the Act appointing, constituting or regulating the statutory body or corporation or under the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984.

12, In an estimates committee:

(a) the chair is to call over each program area and declare the proposed expenditure open for examination;

(b) members may question Ministers, and through Ministers, officers of any department of Government, statutory body or corporation, relating to each program area, or where possible, proposed income or expenditure or other relevant matter in each program area; and

(c) a question is to be proposed for each program area, "That the amount be recommended".

13. The time allocations for questions in each committee be three hours for each Minister’s portfolio areas with total times for questions allocated in the following order:

30 minutes Opposition
30 minutes Government
30 minutes crossbench and Independent
30 minutes Opposition
30 minutes Government
30 minutes crossbench and Independent

14. Any Minister present to answer questions may have staff present to assist him or her during the hearing of evidence and may refer to those staff at any time.

15. A daily record of the proceedings of a committee is to be published by Hansard.

16. (a) Before an estimates committee hearing, members or substitute members of a committee may provide written questions to the clerk of the committee who

Page 9094
will then distribute them to the relevant Minister and to members of the committee. Answers to these questions may be supplied in writing to the committee clerk prior to the hearing or tabled at a hearing.

(b) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a member from asking questions at an estimates committee hearing.

17. Where a Minister indicates that a reply or supplementary information will be given in response to a question asked, a written answer must be lodged with the clerk of the committee within seven days. The clerk of the committee is to publish in an estimates committee questions and answers paper the information requested and the reply.

18. The report of each committee is to state whether the amounts of each program area in the estimates are recommended.

19. (1) The committees are to report to the House prior to the consideration by the Committee of the Whole House of the relevant bills, after which the committees will expire.

(2) Where a committee fails to report in the time required under subparagraph (1), the amount for each program area is deemed to be recommended by the committee.

20. The reports from the committees will be received by the House without debate and their consideration deferred until consideration of the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills.

21. In Committee of the Whole House when considering the amounts for each program area in the estimates and the corresponding clauses and schedules in the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills:

(a) the chair is to put the question in respect of each corresponding committee report, "That the report of (name of the committee) be adopted"; and

(b) any remaining clauses and schedules of the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills are to be considered as one question, "That the remaining clauses and schedules of the bills be agreed to".

22. At the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole, the chair is to report to the House that the Committee has or has not adopted the reports from the estimates committees.

23. (a) If the House is not sitting when a committee wishes to report to the House, the committee is to present its report to the Clerk of each House.

(b) A report presented to the Clerk is:

(i) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House;

(ii) to be printed by authority of the Clerk;

(iii) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House; and

(iv) to be recorded in the votes and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly and minutes of proceedings of the Legislative Council.

And the Legislative Assembly requests that the Legislative Council pass a similar resolution.

Legislative Assembly John Murray
22 May 1997 Speaker

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [4.18 p.m.]: I move:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday, 27 May 1997, at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [4.18 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.18 p.m.]: I place on record my distress as a result of the Government not providing my office with a copy of the amendments to the Smoking Regulation Bill, which was debated earlier today. In my opinion, the amendments were rushed through the House this afternoon with great haste, and that is a process of which I cannot approve. As I attempted to say during the Committee stage, normally when bills or amendments are received in the Chamber, they are distributed to all honourable members by the attendants. I do not know when the amendments moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile came into the Chamber, but they were not circulated by the attendants. With the pressure of work, it was not possible for me to have read Hansard of the other place.

When I canvassed this matter this afternoon, it was suggested to me that I could have read it in Hansard of the Legislative Assembly. That is not good enough. We are under great pressure to read our own Hansard so that we can prepare our own legislation and responses to legislation and contingent notices. We should not be expected to read the whole of Hansard of the other place to work out what we are supposed to be responding to in this place. However, since the smoking regulation amendments were debated in the Chamber earlier, or went through as a formality, I have had the opportunity to look at them. I have also looked at the Minister’s second reading speech in another
Page 9095
place and I have gone back to the original bill. I have done this while taking notes on what the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti was saying about the Select Committee on Hospital Waiting Lists. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile suggested to me in debate this afternoon that these were really only technical, mechanical amendments.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is in order for the honourable member to complain about what might have happened but it is not in order for her to enter into debate on a matter which has already been decided by the House.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I accept your ruling, Mr President, but as you have authority in this House I ask you to ensure that there is not a repetition of what happened in the Chamber this afternoon when amendments were not circulated to members of the Chamber in the normal manner. I ask you to take on board what has happened. I was unable in Committee to debate matters of concern to me. I ask that in future you ensure that any amendments to be moved in this Chamber are circulated in the proper manner and with sufficient time for all honourable members to consider them. It is no use seeing amendments at the last minute once the Committee stage has started, because then it is too late to work on them or fully understand them. Without fully understanding amendments one cannot usefully take part in a Committee debate. I hope that in future the events of this afternoon will not be repeated.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN [4.22 p.m.]: I continue the remarks I was making on 20 May as a member of this Chamber and as a member of the Australian parliamentary group for drug law reform. The Wood royal commission considered that it would be appropriate for the New South Wales Government to support the trial in the Australian Capital Territory of the controlled prescription of heroin to dependent users developed by the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University. At present trials are being conducted in Switzerland. Prescribed heroin is provided to those with a long history of heroin use. Participants in the trial were chosen because of the unsuccessful attempts at treatment they had previously tried and the range of severe social problems associated with their drug use.

In Switzerland heroin is not prescribed for anyone who just drops in and says that he or she would like some. The Swiss trials demonstrate the public benefits of the system being tried. Figures from the medical and scientific teams conducting the trial show that among the participants in the trial homelessness declined, from 15 per cent to 3 per cent; employment more than doubled, from 18 per cent to 46 per cent; and illegal activities declined, from 53 per cent to 13 per cent. There was a significant reduction in health problems associated with drug use. There was a decrease in serious psychiatric disorders. There was a high retention rate - more than 80 per cent - among the 700 patients who have remained in the program. Some have been able to withdraw entirely from heroin dependence.

These are dramatic figures and the community at large ought to know about them. In March 1996 the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy met to decide whether Australia should proceed with the medically designed heroin trial proposed for the Australian Capital Territory. The Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, Kate Carnell, a Liberal member; the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, a Liberal member as everyone knows; and the then Premier of South Australia, Dean Brown, a Liberal, all supported the trial proposed by the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health.

Apart from Kate Carnell, where are all those people now? Presumably they have changed their minds, but Kate Carnell has not. We have to be somewhat adventurous in proceeding with this matter. I have thought of a better expression for the so-called, and wrongly-called, shooting galleries. That is a very emotive term, a term from the gutter in Kings Cross. It has been grabbed by the newspapers, particularly the Daily Telegraph, because it is sensational. An unemotional term such as safe rooms should be substituted. There are safe houses for our children; let us have safe rooms for people who have this problem. Let us hope that it will lead to a solution of the problem, hard and difficult though it might be.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.27 p.m.]: Yesterday in answer to a question from the Hon. Jan Burnswoods the Treasurer - I am sorry that they are not present in the Chamber - may have inadvertently misled the House. In referring to the defence force review he said that the Royal Australian Air Force base at Richmond which employs 2,000 personnel and injects $100 million into the local economy each year is to close and that
Page 9096
the land occupied by the base is to be sold by the year 2006. I have read the report on the defence efficiency review. I took some umbrage at reports on the review because the whole aim of the Federal Government in saving money from its administration and support services was to inject that money into combat forces.

Everybody knows - this has been criticised - that the defence budget has been kept the same; it has not been cut. So the discussion is about internal rearrangements of funds. The statements by the Treasurer in the Chamber yesterday were as irresponsible as they were untruthful. They were irresponsible because many people in the Richmond area now have fears about jobs, security and the future - not just the people who work on the base but contractors, people in small business and those involved with the real estate market. The statements of the Treasurer will have an impact on them.

The advice from the Minister for Defence is that the Federal Government has no plan to sell the Royal Australian Air Force base at Richmond. The defence efficiency review said that the Government has to closely examine the long-term cost-effectiveness of our major bases, including RAAF Richmond. There are many factors which determine the cost-effectiveness of an air base. Strategic considerations, operational issues, maintenance and running costs are but some of them. It is indicated that closure of RAAF Richmond will be considered in the mid-term - 2001-2006 - with functions being relocated to other airfields. Issues such as encroachment and air space availability must be considered. So far RAAF Richmond has held up well on all counts.

So there is no plan to sell and no plan to close the base. The Treasurer also said that he was concerned that the Federal Government does not appear to have considered the impact of changes on places such as Richmond, Newcastle and the Illawarra. Let me tell him about the Commonwealth Government’s plan in relation to defence facilities at Newcastle. RAAF Williamtown is seen to be a combat unit. All of the savings that are being proposed by the defence efficiency review are aimed at ensuring that combat forces are expanded, or at least retained. So Williamtown will keep every operational aircraft flying out of that air base.

More importantly, because of savings in administration and support, more money will be spent, and is planned to be spent, on buying equipment and technology, which means the minehunter program in Newcastle will expand. The lead-in trainer fighter project, also based in the Hunter, is where the money will come from. I heard the Minister talk about this very project in the House as a win for New South Wales. It is not a matter of how the review will impact on the Hunter, but how much extra money the Hunter will get out of the efficiency review. It rests ill on the Treasurer’s shoulders when he scaremongers about defence pulling out of Newcastle. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This State has nothing to fear from the review, which is aimed at spending taxpayers’ dollars as efficiently as possible within a maintained defence budget, but moving jobs from administration and defence into front-line forces. Obviously some jobs in support and administration will disappear. A lot of the work will be outsourced, which is good for small business in this State because it will create opportunities for small business to get some of the action. The Minister should be more responsible when he deals with people’s lives. He should not be, like Minister Martin, scaremongering, telling untruths and being deliberately deceitful. [Time expired.]

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: [4.32 p.m.]: On 10 February 1997 I wrote to the Minister for Roads expressing the concern of a number of people in the Tibooburra district about one of the dirt roads in the area, the Mount Wood turn-off to Adelaide Gate, which is located on the Wanaaring Road and runs through to Hungerford. I conveyed to the Minister that frequent users of the road considered that it needed grading at least once every six months. It is not uncommon for tourists to become bogged after heavy rain. That factor alone causes considerable problems for locals because the road becomes very chopped up, which makes it difficult to traverse. On 11 April I was informed by the parliamentary secretary for roads, on behalf of the Minister for Roads, that the road is normally graded every 12 months, consistent with the limited volume of traffic using the road.

The parliamentary secretary went on to say that prolonged wet weather across the north-west of New South Wales had resulted in damage to much of the road system. I duly forwarded the reply of the parliamentary secretary to many people who live in the area and, in turn, received a number of replies. They are all of the view that the prolonged wet weather referred to in the parliamentary secretary’s letter was one wet day, on 12 February. Heavy rain in Tibooburra and south-east of Tibooburra resulted in heavily flooded creeks that the road crosses. As a result, the road from Tibooburra to Wanaaring and
Page 9097
to Adelaide Gate was considerably damaged. Within a week the road was dry enough to take four-wheel drive traffic. However, the road condition signboard - which is the crux of the matter - on the outskirts of Tibooburra showed the "road closed" sign for several weeks after the rain. And that was even after the road had dried.

The dilemma for the people who live in the area is such that they had no choice but to ignore the "road closed" sign, as did many other travellers. Honourable members will appreciate that for people to conduct normal business in the township of Tibooburra and for those with children who needed to attend medical clinics at the Tibooburra District Hospital, it was necessary for them to ignore the road sign. The mailman had very little choice in the matter either, because he had to pick up and deliver the mail; mailmen often have to ignore "road closed" signs. Honourable members will be familiar with the slogan: the mail must go through. Within the first eight miles of Tibooburra were several bad wash-outs, only a few of which carried witches hats as a warning. I understand that had any of the users of the road had an accident while the "road closed" sign was displayed, they would have automatically lost their claim to any insurance.

I am told that a grader came out on 30 April and ironed out only the bad patches. Many people who have contacted me have expressed their concern about that work, and hope that it was not classified as the annual grading referred to in the letter of the parliamentary secretary. I would also point out to the Minister that even if a limited volume of traffic uses the road from the Wanaaring turn-off to Adelaide Gate, the users of the road still pay the same tax on registration and fuel as other people in this State who use sealed roads. Many graziers use a grader to maintain the roads on their properties and have indicated that they could easily drop the blade to level a bump from a road maintained by the Roads and Traffic Authority. However, as good as that suggestion might be, they would be foolish to take such action because if an accident were to occur on that section of road the repercussions for the grazier concerned would be horrendous. This area should be considered with a great deal more sympathy in the future.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.36 p.m.]: Call to Australia appreciates the work carried out by the royal commission in regard to the Police Service, but the community has a number of concerns about recommendations from Royal Commissioner Justice James Wood regarding drugs, particularly heroin. I have already made a strong statement on this point. I do not believe that Justice Wood has expertise in the drug area, nor do I believe his terms of reference gave him the authority to recommend such radical law reform for drug use in this State. I note that some other members of the House have said that if the Government does not accept the recommendation of establishing heroin shooting galleries, $73 million spent on the royal commission has been wasted. That is an amazing statement.

The terms of the royal commission were to investigate the Police Service and corruption. They were then extended to cover paedophilia. But it is ridiculous to say that $73 million has been wasted simply because the Government, rightly, is concerned about the impact of legalised shooting galleries, which are supposed to be clean rooms, established like youth centres, where addicts can be supplied with needles. I am aware of the proposed set-up of the shooting galleries: addicts will be shown how to clean their needles and how to inject themselves safely. Shooting galleries would be like coaching schools for addicts. I agree with the Premier, who said that he cannot accept the recommendation. For those in favour of some of these reform proposals, I suppose the next stage would be to supply the heroin as well. The Government is already supplying 5.5 million needles a year for heroin addicts. The only thing the Government is not supplying is the heroin and if it were to do so it would be like crossing the Rubicon.

Anyone in this society who thinks carefully about the issue would not want the Government to cross that line. Why do we have drug laws in the first place? Drug laws are not designed for the addict; they are designed to try to prevent as many young people as possible from becoming involved with drugs. Drug laws do not focus on the addict; they focus on the young people who have not yet become addicts. That is why we have drug laws in the first place. I know we must care for the addicts, but it now seems the debate is focusing solely on the needs of the addict, while ignoring the millions of decent young people in this State, and Australia generally, who have not taken up the drug habit and who do not wish to take it up. We do not want to make it easy for them to take it up. We do not want to put temptation in front of them.

I know that other honourable members have spoken in favour of the proposed Australian Capital Territory heroin trial. We strongly oppose that trial. All honourable members would be deluding
Page 9098
themselves if they believed that that trial, if successful, could be duplicated in Cabramatta, as Canberra and Cabramatta are very different. At some stage or another all honourable members would have visited Canberra. Canberra presents as a large country town, isolated from the rest of Australia. Canberra, because of its size, does not have an organised crime component. I know that there are drug problems there and that marijuana and heroin are used, but there is no duplication of the highly organised criminal activities that are found at Kings Cross.

The Australian Capital Territory Government is putting pressure on the New South Wales Government to approve of this heroin trial because the Federal Government will not provide the millions of dollars required unless the New South Wales and Victorian governments agree to it. It is a financial issue. The Australian Capital Territory Government could conduct the trial tomorrow if it wanted to, but it does not want to pay for it; it wants the New South Wales, Victorian and Federal governments to pay for it. It wants the Federal Government to contribute millions of dollars to implement what I believe is a harebrained idea - to provide needles, shooting galleries and heroin. A trial of that nature will condemn many young people in our society to drug addiction. Call to Australia opposes both proposals - the provision of shooting galleries and the implementation of any trial to distribute free heroin to addicts.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [4.41 p.m.]: I call on the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing to investigate a proposal to establish a cemetery and crematorium, in the form of a memorial park, at Campbelltown. A petition containing more than 10,000 signatures in support of a cemetery and crematorium in Campbelltown has been floating around that area for some time - ever since a proposal was put forward to Campbelltown City Council to establish the park. The petition and the proposal were rejected by council after intense lobbying by a group called the Scenic Hills Protection Group, comprising mostly local residents in the Scenic Hills residential area. Of those who appended their signatures to the petition 80.8 per cent came from the Campbelltown local government area; 10.1 per cent came from Camden local government area; and 3.6 per cent came from the Wollondilly local government area.

The Campbelltown City Council report revealed that Campbelltown was one of the fastest growing regions in the Sydney area and experienced a population growth rate of 2.6 per cent per annum between 1986 and 1991 - from 121,297 to 137,898. Those figures reveal overwhelming support for the proposal in the area, yet nothing has been done. The area is crying out for that service. Letters from 26 community organisations were also sent to Campbelltown City Council. Appeals came from all sectors of the community, including a host of religious groups and churches. There are no more plots for burials in cemeteries in Campbelltown. One local elderly woman promised her husband that, when he died, she would place his remains in Campbelltown to rest. She still carries his ashes with her, waiting for the day a memorial park opens so that she can fulfil his dying wish.

The site, in Varroville, is the right location for the proposal which has been put forward by an Australian company. The site is situated in the hills, providing a physical and visual barrier from nearby residences and the local community. It rests in the Central Hills land area, not the Scenic Hills area, as has been described by residents opposing the move. Campbelltown City Council staff agreed that the site was suitable for the proposal and that the development would have minimal impact on the surrounding area. However, those expert opinions were pushed aside while councillors to-ed and fro-ed on the issue before rejecting it. I quote a reference from Campbelltown City Council’s planning, building and environmental protection committee dated 15 August 1995:

It is indicated that the cemetery would increase the quality and quantity of the landscape setting as it is intended to undertake significant planting and improve the maintenance of the area. A detailed landscaping plan would be prepared with any development application to minimise any visual impact of the cemetery.

Campbelltown City Council’s staff also liaised with the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Health. Both bodies determined that there were no air and water quality requirements for cemeteries and crematoriums. Campbelltown is in dire need of a cemetery and crematorium facility. There is no such facility in existence in the local area. Residents are forced to drive elsewhere to conduct ceremonies and to visit the graves of their loved ones.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [4.45 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to pay sincere tribute to Dr Rick Alterator from the Cobar community. Honourable members would be aware that the availability of general practitioners in country areas
Page 9099
has not been all that we would have hoped it to be. When the Alterators agreed to come to Cobar they were welcomed with open arms. Quite remarkably, Dr Alterator, who involved himself in a wide range of community activities, was a member of Cobar Shire Council. His wife was also welcomed as she was a school counsellor. Up to that point in time Cobar High School had never been able to procure the services of a professional school counsellor. Regrettably, through a misunderstanding of professional colleagues, a complaint was laid against Dr Alterator and his visiting medical officer rights were suspended while charges were heard by his peers which, of course, is the normal procedure.

I am pleased to be able to say that Dr Alterator was completely vindicated. To his credit, he stayed in the community at his own cost until the matter was resolved, as he did not have VMO rights. On behalf of those who have had any dealings with him - I know that the Standing Committee on Social Issues is indebted to him for his contribution to its inquiry on rural suicides and there are many other instances to which I could refer of the wonderful community work that he has done - I say thank you to the Alterators. The incident which led to his leaving the district is very much regretted.

The PRESIDENT: Order! In the adjournment debate the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby complained that she had not been made privy to amendments which had been proposed in the other place to a private member’s bill which originated in this Chamber. I point out that there is nothing in standing or sessional orders nor in Rulings from the Chair which make it incumbent for amendments originating in the other place to be circulated to members prior to the Committee of the Whole considering them. However, there is a ruling from the Chair relating to amendments which originate in this place, requiring that they be circulated for consideration. The situation in which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby found herself was entirely a matter of courtesy as between members and not the subject of orders or rulings from the Chair.

Motion agreed to.