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

The President offered the Prayers.


Royal assent to the following bill reported:

Parliamentary Committees Legislation Amendment Bill

Motion for suspension of standing orders, by leave, by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would preclude the nomination of an additional two Members to act as Temporary Chairman of Committees during the present Session.

The President informed the House that on Thursday, 25 May 1995, the following honourable members were nominated by the Leader of the Government as chairmen of Legislative Council standing committees: Law and Justice, the Hon. B. H. Vaughan; Social Issues, the Hon. Ann Symonds; and State Development, the Hon. Patricia Staunton.

The President further informed the House that on the same day the following honourable members were nominated by the Leader of the Opposition as deputy chairmen: Law and Justice, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho; Social Issues, the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith; and State Development, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.


Petition expressing concern about legal changes that could increase or encourage the distribution or availability of soft drugs such as marijuana, and praying that the House take no measures that could extend the social problem of drug use, and oblige those who are promoting marijuana or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legislation or decriminalisation of their use is introduced, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.39]: The reform of the electricity supply industry in New South Wales is a major issue facing the Government and the people of this State. It has been on the agenda for years but the previous Government was paralysed. New South Wales has wasted four precious years while the other States have gone about developing and implementing their reform policies. The power industry is the silent partner of every business in the State. This Government will bring down the cost of producing power and make it cheaper for industry and households. We will give the State's businesses the competitive edge they need to expand and create jobs. And we will ensure that the restructured power industry delivers environmental, as well as economic, benefits.

Globally, governments are introducing competition into their power industries. Properly applied, competition puts power back in the hands of consumers, punishes inefficient, polluting power producers and gives new, environmentally superior technologies equal opportunity for commercial success. There are many different approaches to reform. The challenge for New South Wales is to find a reform path that maximises the economic benefits in a manner which conforms with the community's wider interests and concerns. What is clear is that the inactivity and lack of direction which has characterised industry policy in this State for the last four years, and caused New South Wales to forfeit any leadership in the development of electricity markets and other innovations, is no longer acceptable.

For too long this State has been an easy target for critics of its unwillingness to show leadership on critical reform issues, such as the development of a national electricity market. Worse still have been the charges that the lack of policy direction in this State has significantly delayed the introduction of important national reforms. We have wasted too much time and sacrificed too many opportunities. Today I want to outline clear policy directions for the electricity industry of this State. It is clear that we need a coherent electricity reform policy. Under current arrangements the industry has poor customer focus and is dominated by technocrats. It has been only recently, with the threat of reform, that managers in the industry have sought to improve their performance. This has shown how much there is to be gained from the implementation of real reform of the industry. We now need to focus on what other changes may be implemented to ensure that the industry continually improves and passes these benefits on to consumers.

We know that the industry can be more efficient. The Bureau of Industry Economics has estimated that there is a productivity gap of more than 20 per cent between the industry in New South Wales and the
Page 296
United States. The Government Pricing Tribunal suggests that wholesale electricity prices can be cut by 6.6 per cent in 1995-96 and by a further 3 per cent in real terms each year until the year 1999-2000. In distribution, the tribunal identified cost savings of $100 million if the metropolitan distributors were able to match the operating cost performance of the South East Queensland Electricity Board. International comparisons support the evidence of significant underperformance by New South Wales distributors, leading the tribunal to propose that distributors can cut real operating costs by 20 per cent to 30 per cent.

Electricity industry reform is a major part of the package of national competition policy reforms agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments. Studies undertaken for the council estimated that reforms in the electricity and gas industries are expected to result in an additional $6 billion of gross domestic product per annum. Electricity reform represents the bulk of these gains. These estimates do not even begin to consider the enormous costs borne by the community from the waste resulting from overinvestment in the industry. These poor investment decisions have added more than $1 billion to costs. And these costs would be substantially more if the cost to the environment were properly accounted for. The potential reform dividend is enormous. Reform can deliver a 51 per cent cut in the power bills of small to medium-sized businesses, 25 per cent for medium to large businesses and 7 per cent for households.

We have an obligation to establish an industry structure that creates the incentives for managers to invest wisely; promote environmentally sustainable generation and consumption options; operate efficiently; and respond appropriately to the demands of consumers. We also need to ensure that the gains that will flow from restructuring are passed on to consumers in the form of better services and lower prices. Reform will be good for consumers and it will be good for the environment. The present industry structure penalises environmentally superior technologies to challenge the coal-fired generators that dominate the market. We need to establish a market which provides an equal opportunity for demand management and more environmentally sympathetic technologies to compete with coal-fired electricity. To give new technologies a chance, we may have to intervene in their favour on occasion. We will provide sufficient support where the market fails to deliver satisfactory environmental outcomes.

Any reform of the electricity supply industry needs to be established within a framework based around the four separate functions of the sector: generation, high-voltage transmission, distribution and retail supply. Generation and retail supply can be subjected to the disciplines of a competitive market with minimal intervention by government. By contrast, high-voltage transmission and distribution are inherently monopolistic and will require different mechanisms to encourage efficient behaviour. The reform process will be carried out at two levels. At one level, we have set up a working group chaired by Professor Hilmer to advise the Government on the final shape of the generation sector. The working group will report to the Government on whether Pacific Power should be corporatised as one or more publicly owned businesses.

Legislation will be prepared for corporatisation of generation in September. Professor Hilmer's final report on recommended reform of the generation sector will be provided by no later than December 1995. A separate review will be undertaken of the shape of the distribution sector, with the clear objective to achieve a substantial reduction in the number of distributors. To deliver the benefits of competition, customers in New South Wales must be able to make real choices between alternative electricity suppliers. At a second level, we will be implementing and testing a range of reforms aimed at preparing for a national market and generating efficiency gains that can be passed on to consumers. As part of these reforms, a wholesale electricity market will be established in New South Wales to enable trade between generators and retailers. This will be an interim market only, and will be replaced by the national electricity market once this commences.

It is important that reforms in New South Wales complement and are fully consistent with the framework being adopted for reform at a national level. Indeed, given the size and importance of New South Wales in the national market, the effectiveness of any changes we implement will significantly influence whether or not reform initiatives at the national level are successful. Moreover, our packages of reforms are consistent with the principles embodied in the COAG agreement, which we signed and are obliged as a responsible government to meet. As a temporary measure, participation at the wholesale level in the interim State market will be limited to existing retailers. Once the national market commences, this restriction will be lifted and trade will occur under the nationally agreed rules, which allow end users to shop between competing energy retailers or, if they wish, participate directly in the wholesale market.

The Electricity Transmission Authority will be responsible for the development and administration of the interim State market, in addition to its existing responsibilities. It will assume all activities currently undertaken by Pacific Power which are necessary to carry out this function. Electricity distributors will be subject to review, with the intention of significantly reducing the number of distributors from the current level of 25. There will be a clear separation of the wires-based network activities of distributors from their retail supply activities through the placement of these in separate subsidiary businesses.

The amalgamation of electricity distributors will require the establishment of head office activities by the new distribution businesses within the regions they serve, leading to increased direct and indirect employment opportunities and associated economic benefits in the centres selected for head office location. All core industry assets in the generation,
Page 297
transmission and distribution sectors will remain in public ownership. I make that abundantly clear. Privatisation is not on the Government's agenda. The existing and new entities will be subject to a fully commercial financial and operating environment and governance framework to encourage them to act in a commercially responsible manner. These will not be the cosmetic changes that characterised the previous Government's attempts at corporatisation; they are real changes to the environment and incentives that these organisations face.

Economic regulation of the monopoly transmission and distribution sectors will be undertaken by the Government Pricing Tribunal, subject to the development of national regulatory arrangements for common carrier facilities. The tribunal will also retain a monitoring role of retail electricity prices until such time as the Government is satisfied with the operation of the national electricity market. To further support its environmental objectives the Government will establish a sustainable energy fund directed at promoting energy efficiency programs and furthering the development of renewable energy technologies.

Priorities and guidelines for the fund will be developed by a working group established by the Government, with the objective of reporting back within three months, setting out recommendations for the administration of the fund, a list of priority areas for action, and guidelines for project funding selection criteria. Interconnection with Queensland will make an important contribution to the development of a competitive national electricity market. As part of this reform package the Government will establish an industry committee to coordinate the State's position on Eastlink and to maintain the momentum which has been established. This development has received a major boost by the recent endorsement of Eastlink by the Queensland Government. The Electricity Transmission Authority will have a primary role on this committee.

The working group established to review the appropriate restructuring of Pacific Power will report back to the policy and priorities committee of Cabinet by December this year. Before this, the working committee is to report by mid-August on the more general question as to whether and how Pacific Power might be disaggregated. The Government has established a tight and challenging timetable for the introduction of the reforms that are to be implemented in the meantime, based around a three-stage approach.

Stage one commences the process of reform with the passage of enabling legislation in the current session of Parliament, to which I will turn later. Stage two covers the determination of generation and distribution sector arrangements, including definition of the new entities to be created, and the regulatory framework. This work will commence immediately and will conclude with the passage of legislation in the budget session of Parliament. Stage three covers the operational commencement of the new arrangements and the interim State market. The Government is expecting the operation of a New South Wales electricity market to commence in the first quarter of 1996. Once this stage has been reached, further developments will depend on the National Grid Management Council's timing for the commencement of the national electricity market.

The successful implementation of such a reform program depends critically on the managers and employees within the industry accepting the challenges and opportunities which the reforms present. Following the years of indecisive policy and frustration which the industry has experienced, the Government believes that the presentation of its clear and soundly based vision for the industry will inspire those people who have dedicated their working lives to raising the industry to world-class performance. Accordingly, the Government is not proposing to run a heavy-handed implementation process, but will limit its direct involvement to the clarification of policy and the overall coordination of reform. Within the policy framework set by the Government, responsibility for detailed implementation will rest with the acknowledged experts in the industry - the industry managers. However, consultation with outside parties will be critical to the success of these reforms. To make their task easier and to minimise potential barriers to an effective Government and industry interface, a number of changes are required to the legislation covering the industry.

The legislative changes contained in the Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill, which will be introduced into the lower House today, are an essential precursor to the implementation of an industry reform program and to the achievement of the associated economic, environmental and financial benefits. The proposed legislative changes are designed to achieve two objectives: firstly, to give the Government the necessary powers to direct the industry bodies, in particular Pacific Power and the electricity distributors, in the implementation of restructuring; and, secondly, to modify the boards of the industry bodies and their corporate charters to ensure that they are supportive, responsive, and effective in implementing the Government's reform program.

The main legislative changes are that the electricity commissioners of Pacific Power will be replaced by an interim board of four to seven directors, including an employee representative, and a newly created position of chief executive will be established. All board appointments will be for a transitional period and will be limited to a maximum of 12 months. A key responsibility of the transitional board will be to prepare Pacific Power for the structural reform of the electricity industry in New South Wales. The direction of such reform will require the preparation of Pacific Power for corporatisation, in a form to be determined by Cabinet, prior to the commencement of the interim State market in the first quarter of 1996. The corporatisation legislation will be introduced during the budget session of Parliament.

Page 298

Electricity distributor boards will be reduced in number and will be restructured to prepare them for the demands of implementing the reform of the distribution sector. The legislation provides for the appointment of new boards or an interim administrator. Boards or administrators may also be allocated responsibility for one or more existing distributors in order to facilitate the process of amalgamation. All appointments will be limited to a maximum of 12 months. All existing general managers and chief executives will remain in place and report to the appropriate board or administrator. The boards and administrators will have primary responsibility for the implementation of the agreed changes to the structure of distributors, as confirmed by the Minister, in time for the introduction of corporatisation legislation in the budget session of Parliament. It will also be possible for the Minister to formally amalgamate existing distributors. The direction of reform will require a substantial reduction in the number of distributors. This will be implemented following a period of review and consultation with the industry.

The functions of the Electricity Transmission Authority will be expanded to include the development and operation of an interim State wholesale electricity market. The composition of the Electricity Transmission Authority board will be reviewed accordingly. A specific provision will be added to the responsibilities and corporate charters of the distributors, Pacific Power and the Electricity Transmission Authority, requiring the boards of those bodies to respond to and implement government policy on structural reform. A regulatory framework will be developed to support the new industry arrangements, which will require amendments to the legislation governing the Government Pricing Tribunal, which will also be introduced during the budget session of Parliament.

The legislative changes proposed in the bill will leave the commercial and operational capacities of the bodies untouched during the transition period, in order to ensure the continued safe and effective operation of the industry. Once these legislative changes are introduced, industry reform can proceed rapidly, providing an opportunity for New South Wales to regain the ground lost over the last four years. The package of reforms which the Government intends to introduce are long overdue. The reforms have clear economic and environmental benefits and provide support to important national reform programs. They provide the people who work within the industry with the opportunity to move forward with a renewed sense of purpose and a clear direction. Moreover, we have established a program of policy implementation which will minimise any social or financial impacts.

In contrast to the reforms of the Opposition's colleagues in Victoria, these reforms are not driven by an ideological belief in perfect competition, nor are they driven by a privatisation agenda or attempts at creative accounting in order to deal with a debt problem. Rather, they are driven by a desire to deliver lower priced energy services to New South Wales households and businesses, based on introducing the incentives within the industry for it to take the next big step forward in efficiency and productivity. As a result, over the next five years electricity consumers can expect their power bills to be, on average, 20 per cent lower than those of their Victorian counterparts. I table the Government's electricity reform statement.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.59]: The community has been waiting for some time to learn about the Government's policy for it went into the election without one. At least there is now some idea of the direction in which the Government is proposing to move. Although it has been marketed by the Government as a clear directional statement, the document itself leaves as many questions to be answered as there were previously. One can only assume that the document has resulted from the apparent conflict between the Minister and Professor Hilmer over the direction in which the electricity industry should go.

Although a few short weeks ago the Minister told the community that Pacific Power would be broken up and that there would be three or four distributors his statement today contains an interesting comment about the direction in which the Government believes Pacific Power will go. The Minister clearly indicated in his statement today that Pacific Power may not be broken up and that the Government has now put in place a working party, which will report to the Government on whether Pacific Power will remain in its current condition or will, in the word of the Minister, be "disaggregated".

This clearly shows that the Government does not really know where it is going in this matter. It serves to emphasise that Professor Hilmer had some wins at least. Perhaps the cliff-top walk that he had with the Premier around Maroubra last weekend served some purpose. But one wonders whether he was walking on the cliff edge with the Premier and what threats might have been made to him. However, at least we now have a policy statement on which the community can move. The statement confirms something that the coalition parties, when in Government, said regularly - that is, that there was overinvestment in this industry.

Who caused the overinvestment? The overinvestment was caused by the a predecessor of the Leader of the Government, the Hon. Paul Landa, when he held a similar portfolio in an earlier Labor government. The work of the coalition Government during the past several years achieved major reform in the industry; indeed, that Government drove the process of reform in this nation. It set the agenda for energy reform. That agenda was picked up by the other States, but was not welcomed by the Labor Opposition that now forms the Government. There was a deafening silence from the then Labor Opposition about the direction that should be followed.

Page 299

As a result of the work done by the previous coalition Government, the cost of electricity was reduced by 20 per cent in real terms during the past four years. That is not something that the Minister's statement proposes will be equalled during the term specified by the Government. However, I am pleased to note that the Government will maintain many of the initiatives that were started by the coalition parties when in Government. We pursued the new technologies and this State is a world leader in wind and solar energy generation. At least the new Government intends to maintain those activities. We advanced more than $4 million for those initiatives. I note that the Government intends to continue such research, that new technologies will be given a chance, and that on occasion it may seek to intervene in their favour. We expect that as we move into a highly competitive market, those interventions will be transparent and will have total accountability. There must not be hidden subsidies, for they would undermine the program of competition.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: We would be most concerned to see cross-subsidies.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: As the Hon. J. H. Jobling says, we would be most concerned if there were cross-subsidies in this industry. This raises an issue that is not highlighted in the Government's statement - that is, community service obligations. Nowhere in the Minister's statement has the Government adverted to a need for community service obligations to ensure that those in our community who require support will continue to get it. I assume that that is an oversight in the statement.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I can give that assurance, here and now.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am pleased that the Minister has given that assurance because there will be a need to maintain a transparently obvious program of community service obligation. There will be a need for budget analysis and provision on an annual basis to ensure not only that the level of competition is maintained but that those in need in our community receive those beneficial programs. This leads to the next issue, the cost of electricity in country areas. I note that the Minister, in his statement, suggests that the cost of electricity will come down. The statement says that there will be a 51 per cent cut in the power bills for small to medium-sized businesses, 25 per cent for medium to large businesses and 7 per cent for households.

We will ensure that the Government keeps this promise, unlike its attitude to those that emanated from the lips of Government members several weeks ago, which are being broken regularly. There will be a need to ensure that people in rural communities are not disadvantaged in this program, although no statement in the Minister's presentation today gives that assurance. I note also that nothing in the statement will guarantee employment for people who work in these industries, particularly in country areas.

The only sop that is given by the Government to the 1,000 or more employees who are likely to be affected by the program is the statement that it will require head offices for these organisations to be established in regional centres. At least the proposed head offices will provide new employment opportunities. This might require some people to transfer from one locality to another to gain employment, but some will not be happy about having to move. Others will miss out on employment altogether. This is not adverted to in the Minister's statement, and no assurances have been given to the community in that regard.

The Minister intimated that Pacific Power should be corporatised, either as one publicly owned business, or more. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the nature of the Government's corporatisation. Already, we are seeing the Government undermine the existing operations of corporatised entities. The Government's legislative reforms propose to give the Minister the power to intervene in the corporate operations of these entities. When independent trading organisations are being established across the country - independent only subject to the implementation of policies - the role of the Minister, as shareholder, should be to set policy directions.

But the Government's proposal is that the Minister will have the power to issue directions in an operational sense. Such interference in the competitive operations of these bodies is of grave concern, and something that the Opposition will be looking at very closely. The Opposition will resist the Government's pursuit of such legislative programs. Political interference in the commercial trading operations of such entities will serve only to undermine them. Inappropriate Ministers will have the opportunity to corruptly direct the operation of these entities, undermining the total commerciality that the programs seek to achieve.

The Government also proposes to establish all core industry assets in the generation, transmission and distribution sectors so that they will remain in public ownership. The Minister departed from his prepared script to give an absolutely categorical assurance that such a proposal would not be the precursor to privatisation and that no privatisation would occur in this area. I have a vague recollection that something similar was said about the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. I remember that the matters were the subject of great debate at the Adelaide conference of the Labor Party. As a compromise the sacred cow was split: one half of the sacred cow - no doubt the milk-bearing end - was sold off; the front end was kept by the Government because it felt that the animal's long, drawn-out face suggested it had kept something that might have borne part of its intelligence.

However, as was obvious when the last Federal budget dealt with the Commonwealth Bank, the whole of the cow can be sold off. The assurances of this Minister will be as sacred as were promises to the
Page 300
public of New South Wales at the last election: no increase in taxes and no new taxes. I say without fear of denial that, as this Treasurer grinds the economy of New South Wales into the ground in his need to find funds to maintain the capital works programs, before the 1999 elections this Government will embark on the sale of part, if not all, of the electricity-generating programs. I hope the Government does not do as it did when it was last in government, that is, treat its borrowings as an asset or borrow to maintain recurrent programs. When the Government comes to sell off some of these assets, as it will, I hope that it uses the income for capital works purposes and not for recurrent purposes.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Wishful thinking.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Minister interjects by saying, "Wishful thinking." That he emphasises the point serves to highlight his hypocrisy. One proposal in the Minister's speech is that he will give himself the power to formally amalgamate existing distributors. Despite holding out to the electricity industry that there will be consultation, the Minister has sought to keep to himself all the cards that he possibly could. I warn the industry now that when it looks closely at this statement it will find that this Minister will use his regulation-making powers, or proclamation-making powers, to amalgamate distributors in the way in which he wants. He will force amalgamation on the industry. He will not do it by way of consultation and agreement. It will be a matter of: you do as I want, and if you don't, I will be ramming it down your throat.

We have already seen a departure by this Government from its promises. On 28 February the Minister said, "A Carr Labor Government has no plans for forced amalgamations of New South Wales electricity distributors." A few short weeks later he said, "Somewhere down the track there will be amalgamations, preferably by cooperation not by force." But then, only a few short weeks after saying that, he comes into the Parliament and says, "The Minister will be able to formally amalgamate existing distributors if he wants to." That clearly indicates the arrogance of this Minister. It serves to emphasise what is now becoming more and more apparent to the community, that this Government in its few short weeks of office, has become unbelievably arrogant. It is prepared to drive through any of its proposals if it does not get its own way, and the same thing will occur in this instance.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.16]: Call to Australia supports the statement presented by the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Minister Assisting the Premier in which he has announced major reforms to the State's electricity supply industry. I am sure that honourable members of this House, as well as the ordinary consumer, particularly those involved in business, want a program that will cut power prices and will make it more economical for businesses to operate in this State. Recent changes in Queensland have produced a more competitive attitude between the States, fighting for industry and jobs in their own particular States. Therefore, it is very important that New South Wales should take the lead, to make sure that power essential for business is provided at the most economical price possible and that it becomes a reason for industry to set up in New South Wales.

Call to Australia looks forward to that development. The statement contains promises and objectives. All honourable members will be watching to ensure that those promises and those targets are reached. I am sure that all honourable members would be pleased to see a 51 per cent reduction in the cost of electricity for small and medium businesses. It will be a major step forward. For larger businesses the reduction will be 25 per cent and for households, seven per cent, according to the work that has been done in evaluating the approach to amalgamation and greater competition that has been conducted by the Government Pricing Tribunal and the Industry Commission. Call to Australia supports the Government in these initiatives on the basis that they will bring down the cost of power in New South Wales, so that businesses in New South Wales will have a more competitive edge, thus helping them to expand, to create jobs and to compete in the Asian region, exporting products manufactured in this State.

Call to Australia has always looked forward to smaller government, to greater efficiency and to updating equipment. It also believes that New South Wales has set the lead and it acknowledges, as the Leader of the Opposition did, that the former coalition Government set in progress the reform of the power industry in this State by the restructuring of Pacific Power and that the new Government is continuing the reform process, as it should. Call to Australia looks forward to people in country areas not being disadvantaged by the reform measures and by the amalgamation of the 25 suppliers of electrical power in New South Wales.

It is always a sore point, given that the majority of people live in the metropolitan area and that some believe that NSW stands for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong, that areas outside the coastal band are often overlooked or ignored. Rural areas should continue to receive high priority. Farmers and country businesses should receive greater benefit than metropolitan companies from these reform proposals. Mr Carr has spelt out the social and other problems caused by rapid expansion of the Sydney metropolitan area. The cost benefits of power restructuring should be used to encourage greater development in country areas. People will move to country areas if jobs are created there. Call to Australia fully supports the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council in these endeavours.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.21]: I speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I hope the Minister realises that the days of centralised power production and distribution are coming to a close. We have obligations globally to reduce our emissions of
Page 301
greenhouse gases. Although we are per capita one of the greatest producers of greenhouse gases, it is fortunate that Australia leads the world in many energy management technologies. I have put on record in this House more than once Martin Green's new technology at the University of New South Wales. The previous Government increased funding to enable that new technology to come on stream within five years rather than 10 years. Perhaps four years hence householders and businesses will be able to acquire the Martin Green technology and produce electricity for themselves at a cheaper rate than buying it from the grid. The Eastlink proposal, which the Government continues to support, having inherited it from the previous Government as part of the national grid proposal, will be a $400 million white elephant. Eastlink will cause tremendous destruction to the environment, alienate large areas of productive farmland, and ruin vast tracts of untouched habitat. Demand management and energy use reduction, a field in which Australia is the world leader, should be encouraged, rather than the use of electricity produced from coal-fired power stations.

This morning I was visited in my office by a person who had just returned from a visit to a large company in France that uses Australian technology to reduce its energy consumption. That company, the largest consumer of electricity in France, using 0.4 per cent of France's electricity production, is being advised by Australians. Energy needs in France will be reduced by 0.2 per cent as a result of Australian initiatives. At the University of New South Wales, a world leader in battery technology, batteries can be recharged in seconds rather than hours. This new technology is just around the corner. Within a few years debate about a new grid and whether Pacific Power will be sold off or broken up will be academic. Australians will have access to energy from stand-alone electricity production units in their homes and businesses more cheaply than buying it off the grid.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The Hon. B. H. Vaughan has solar heating for his swimming pool.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I have solar heating on my roof, and I hope other members use it, too. Though electricity produced by photovoltaic technology, which is in use mainly in rural areas, is more expensive than electricity from coal-fired power stations, it can be generated more cheaply in some cases. Former Minister Pickard made a great mistake and wasted tens of millions of taxpayers' money in putting western New South Wales properties on the grid. A much cheaper course would have been to maintain the solar energy production at White Cliffs and use stand-alone and diesel back-up facilities. We should not be blind to a so-called reform process that encourages electricity use by spreading the grid. The grid should be stopped where it is. A proportion of savings made on household electricity use should be spent on production of photovoltaic energy and new battery technology.

Having been in business in this State for many years I would be only too pleased to receive a 51 per cent cut in my power bill, but being environmentally conscious I am also aware of the need to cut down my use of electricity. I hope the Government does not go ahead with the Eastlink proposal, a $400 million white elephant that will be strongly opposed by farmers and landholders in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, and which will never pay for itself. The M2 controversy will be nothing in comparison. The Minister should look once more at Eastlink: it is not necessary, it will be a waste of money, and we cannot afford it. Given that new energy technology will be coming on stream within three to four years, Eastlink will not be needed. The amount of energy produced from coal will decrease and other forms of energy production such as wind power and gas will be used. I hope that we move down the right path and are not blind to the great benefits of solar energy available to us as a result of Australia leading the world in that field. I hope Pacific Power adopts and markets the new technology.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That will not be done by Pacific Power but by the distributors and retailers who are buying it.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I hope the retailers or distributors will buy units from the Martin Green team or the company that commercialises the technology. If that happens, the grid will not be needed. Within 50 years - in my lifetime - power lines throughout New South Wales will be coming down.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.26]: I move:

That under section 9 of the University of Western Sydney Act 1988 Ms Burnswoods be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Board of Governors of the University of Western Sydney.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.27]: I move:

That the Question be amended by the omission of the words "Ms Burnswoods" and inserting instead "Dr Goldsmith".

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Ryan
Mrs Chadwick Mr Samios
Mr Corbett Mrs Sham-Ho
Mrs Forsythe Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gay Mr Tingle
Dr Goldsmith Mr Webster
Mr Hannaford
Mr Jobling Tellers,

Dr Pezzutti Miss Gardiner

Mr Pickering Mr Mutch

Page 302

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mrs Nile
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Mr O'Grady
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Mr Shaw
Mrs Isaksen Ms Staunton
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Kaldis
Mr Macdonald Mrs Symonds

Mr Moppett Mr Obeid

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.35]: I move:

That under section 9 of the University of Newcastle Act 1989 Mr O'Grady be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the University of Newcastle.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.35]: I move:

That the Question be amended by the omission of the words "Mr O'Grady" inserting instead "Mr Jobling".

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Ryan
Mrs Chadwick Mr Samios
Mrs Forsythe Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Smith
Mr Gay Mr Tingle
Dr Goldsmith Mr Webster
Mr Hannaford Tellers,
Mr Jobling Mr Mutch
Mr Pickering Dr Pezzutti

Mrs Arena Mrs Nile
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Mr O'Grady
Mr Corbett Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis
Miss Kirkby Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Dr Burgmann
Mr Manson Mr Jones

Mr Moppett Mr Obeid

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.41]: I move:

That under section 9 of the University of New England Act 1993 Mrs Symonds be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the University of New England.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.42]: I move:

That the question be amended by the omission of the words "Mrs Symonds" and inserting instead "Mr Moppett".

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Chadwick Mr Pickering
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gay Mr Webster
Dr Goldsmith
Mr Hannaford Tellers,
Mr Moppett Mr Ryan
Mr Mutch Mrs Sham-Ho

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mrs Nile
Ms Burnswoods Mr O'Grady
Mr Cohen Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Staunton
Mr Egan Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mr Macdonald
Miss Kirkby Rev. Nile

Mr Jobling Mr Obeid

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Page 303

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.46]: I move:

That under section 9 of the University of Technology, Sydney Act 1989 Ms Staunton be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the University of Technology, Sydney.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.47]: I move:

That the Question be amended by the omission of the words "Ms Staunton" and inserting instead "Mr Ryan".

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Pickering
Mrs Chadwick Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gay Mr Webster
Mr Hannaford
Mr Moppett Tellers,
Mr Mutch Dr Goldsmith
Dr Pezzutti Mr Samios

Dr Burgmann Mrs Nile
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Mr O'Grady
Mr Corbett Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Tingle
Mr Jones Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mrs Arena
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson

Mr Jobling Mr Obeid

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.50]: I move:

That under section 9 of the Charles Sturt University Act 1989 Mr Macdonald be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Board of Governors of the Charles Sturt University.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.51]: I move:

That the Question be amended by the omission of the words "Mr Macdonald" and inserting instead "Miss Gardiner".

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Pickering
Mrs Chadwick Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Dr Goldsmith Mr Tingle
Mr Hannaford Mr Webster
Mr Moppett Tellers,
Mr Mutch Mrs Forsythe
Dr Pezzutti Mr Samios

Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald
Dr Burgmann Mr Manson
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Mr O'Grady
Mr Corbett Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mrs Nile
Miss Kirkby Mr Vaughan

Mr Jobling Mr Obeid

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.55]: I move:

That under section 10 of the Southern Cross University Act 1993 Ms Saffin be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the Council of the Southern Cross University.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.56]: I move:

That the Question be amended by the omission of the words "Ms Saffin" and inserting instead "Dr Pezzutti".

Page 304

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Chadwick Mr Pickering
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Tingle
Mr Hannaford Tellers,
Mr Jobling Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Mutch Mr Webster

Mrs Arena Mrs Nile
Dr Burgmann Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Mr O'Grady
Mr Corbett Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Ms Burnswoods
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson

Mr Moppett Mr Obeid

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Pursuant to sessional order, business interrupted.



The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Did the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council make an emphatic commitment to the people of New South Wales that he would not raise taxes or create any new taxes? Having abandoned his guarantee on taxes, will he advise the House where he will next slug the people of New South Wales to pay for his Government's financial incompetence? Will he categorically rule out new petrol taxes? Can the people of New South Wales believe him, even if he does?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The answer to the first question is yes. To the second question, yes, I can absolutely rule out any new petrol taxes.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation. Is the Minister aware that Friends of Public Football Grounds has been set up? Does he realise that the concerns of the group are the use of public football grounds as venues for private profit, the privatisation of sport, and the eroding of the people's game - rugby league. What is the Government's position regarding this matter of great importance to the people not only of New South Wales but of Australia?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, I am aware that Friends of Public Football Grounds has been set up. Super League is a matter relating to the internal control of sport. The Minister for Sport and Recreation has made it clear that it is not the role of government to interfere in such a matter. The Minister shares the concerns of rugby league fans about the uncertainty surrounding Super League and the continuation of traditional clubs. She realises that the concerns of the Friends of Public Football Grounds relate to the use of public football grounds. The major complexes managed and operated under the auspices of a government-appointed trust that are used for rugby league are Sydney Football Stadium, Sydney Cricket Ground, Parramatta Stadium, Wollongong Showground and Newcastle International Sports Centre. Most other facilities used for rugby league are controlled by local government authorities.

The trusts that run the grounds are expected to operate the sporting facilities on a commercial basis. Therefore, it is up to the trusts how they lease out their facilities. It is not appropriate for the Minister for Sport and Recreation to pick and choose which sports play at what grounds. The Minister has stated that she has no intention of interfering with the trusts while they operate in accordance with their charter and act in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. The Australian Rugby League and the New South Wales Rugby League are not quasi-government instrumentalities, as suggested by some, and do not receive special treatment from the trusts or from the Government.

It would be premature and inappropriate for the Minister to pre-empt any dispute on this matter. There is nothing to indicate that a confrontation on the issue will occur, so it would be ridiculous for the Minister to suggest hypothetical solutions to a problem that does not exist. Though the Minister is not prepared to directly intervene in this dispute, she is watching carefully to ensure that the interests of the public are not compromised. The Minister will consider a different approach if and when it is needed.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, and Leader of the Government, in his
Page 305
own capacity and as the representative of the Premier and of the Minister for the Olympics, a question without notice. Is the land on which the proposed Olympic village will be built owned by the Commonwealth Government? Has there been a $1 billion blow-out in the Olympic budget, which will impact on the people of New South Wales? Will the Government urgently request the Commonwealth Government, as its contribution to the billion dollar Olympic Games 2000, to take financial responsibility for building the Olympic village and guarantee any profit or loss when the village is sold to private tenderers after the conclusion of the Olympic Games?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the answer to the honourable member's first question, but I will make some inquiries and ascertain the position. In relation to the second question, the additional cost of the Games over and above what the previous Government had the people of New South Wales believe arises in two ways. Firstly, the $819 million that was there from the start is based on 1992 costings. Based on those costings and the initial budget for all Olympic-related expenditure, the taxpayer will have to pay $819 million. My colleague the Minister for the Olympics has raised concerns about whether some of those items will be able to be met on budget. Of particular concern is the cost of the Olympic village, which, in all the financial estimates thus far, has been assumed to be funded entirely by private sector contributions.

Obviously, the Government is hoping that any blow-out in those areas can be contained. My colleague is doing all he can, and the Government will be doing all it can, to make sure that it sticks as closely as possible to the Olympic budget. However, even if we come in completely on budget, taxpayers will have to fund $819 million. The Government will seek contributions not only from the private sector, particularly in relation to investment in games infrastructure, but also from the Commonwealth Government. I appreciate the support that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has given to the Government's endeavours to obtain additional Commonwealth Government financing. I emphasise that the Government is absolutely committed - as it was before it became a government - to making sure that the 2000 Olympics are the best Olympics the world has ever seen. I also make it absolutely clear to members of the Opposition that the Government will not lie to the people about the true cost of the Games or the contribution they will have to make. I believe there is overwhelming genuine community support for the Games. There was never any need to lie to the people of New South Wales. They want to hear the truth. When the truth is told to them, they will of course continue to support the Games.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is it a fact that in a document entitled "Labor's Identified Savings" the Minister promised to save $65 million in capital expenditure by prohibiting work on the then Premier's scheme to encase the Cahill Expressway in a glass cage? Is it a fact that this expenditure was never in the State budget and, as such, the $65 million saving identified for the 1995-96 financial year will never materialise.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is a very weird question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The former Premier said at Circular Quay not only that the work would proceed but that it would proceed in the 1995-96 financial year.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: He never said that.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sorry; the former Premier appeared on at least three television programs saying that the work would commence in the 1995-96 financial year. One assumes that if the Premier of New South Wales - the Hon. John Fahey in those days - gives the people of New South Wales an assurance that the work will proceed in 1995-96 -

[Interruption]

If the honourable member looks at the television news reports for the night that the former Premier made the announcement, he will find that the former Premier gave a firm assurance that the work would begin in 1995-96. If that were so, I should have thought that there would be provision in the forward estimates, but I am finding that many of the things that the previous Government promised are not in the forward estimates. I shall give the House two more examples. Not only was there no provision of $65 million for the glass cage over the Cahill Expressway, but also there was no provision for the Parramatta-Hornsby rail link.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Have a look at the budget papers.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: There was $2 million for a feasibility study but not the $400 million that the project would cost. Likewise, there was no provision in the forward estimates for the Government's promises in relation to computers and technology teachers. Ten days before the election on the celebrated occasion when I challenged the former Treasurer - the present Leader of the Opposition - to a debate he assured the members of the press gallery that that commitment was also included in the forward estimates. It is not in the forward estimates, the Parramatta-Hornsby rail link is not in the forward estimates, and the $65 million for the glass cage over the Cahill Expressway is not in the estimates, despite the former Premier's promise that the work would proceed in 1995-96. We will sort out the financial mess that the former Government left us and keep faith with the people of New South Wales. I see the Hon. D. J. Gay holding up a headline that reads "Toll Retreat". Last Thursday he asked me, I think, two questions.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It was four.

Page 306

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I assured him then that he had got it wrong. I told him that his premise was false and that what he claimed I had said at a press conference the previous day was completely false. That has been borne out by the Premier's subsequent announcement.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Transport. Is it the Government's intention to restore many of the country's rail systems that were so blatantly destroyed by the previous Government over recent years in order to create an efficient, coordinated transport system, making better use of rail? What is the policy of the Government regarding this important issue to the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Franca Arena has asked an intelligent question, unlike those that I have been asked today by the Opposition. The question relates to the implementation of the Carr Government's rail policy initiatives. Honourable members of this House will be aware of the decline in rail services that occurred under the previous administration. The new Government is committed to the restoration of services, and will do so on the basis of the potential tonnage that is available for carriage on rail, the alternative cost in road maintenance if passengers and freight were to be carried by road, and the cost of vehicle crashes and the general environmental costs caused by heavy vehicle traffic. As honourable members will be aware, my colleague the Minister for Transport is also the Minister for Tourism and, therefore, is very much focused on the need to create job and tourism opportunities in regional New South Wales. The Government is currently moving to implement its election commitments to provide a regular passenger service to Broken Hill and to the Riverina. It is also committed to the introduction -

[Interruption]

All the former Government did in seven years was abolish rail services because the coalition parties do not believe in public transport. This Government is also committed to the introduction of cross-regional rail services within Sydney. For too long our railways have concentrated on a radial structure and allowed a cross-regional market to go to road transport. An announcement will soon be made on this issue. An issue of immediate concern to the new Government was the future of the main western line between Parkes and Broken Hill. The soon-to-be opened Adelaide-Melbourne standard-gauge line will allow the National Rail Corporation to route some services via Melbourne. The previous Government was unable to allay the concerns of western New South Wales regarding the impact on Parkes and Broken Hill.

I am pleased to inform the House that last night the Minister for Transport met with the Chairman and Managing Director of the National Rail Corporation. National Rail assured the Minister that it will continue to use the line, and that it has a continuing commercial interest in Sydney-Perth operations. The examples I have given are clear confirmation of this Government's policy on the development of the rail system. We will restore services, establish an efficient and coordinated system and provide certainty to the people of New South Wales that railways have a bright future under this Government.


The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Can the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council confirm that government revenue will increase by between $150 million and $200 million as a result of increasing tobacco tax? Given that the concomitant halving of stamp duty to 0.3 per cent is estimated to cost the State $125 million, how will the Government redirect the surplus, and consequent, $75 million to low-income people?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I cannot give that assurance to the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Shame.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Did honourable members hear the question? I am answering the first part of it. I cannot give an assurance that the additional revenue will reach $150 million to $200 million because we do not know to what extent cigarette consumption will fall as a result of the increase. I have heard an estimate today that the increase could lead to a decline in cigarette consumption of around 14 per cent.

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

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says, "Hear! Hear!" With my health hat on, I agree with him. It is in the interests of individuals and the community for people to give up smoking. I hope, if not to set an example, perhaps to follow the lead of some others. If the estimates are arrived at and there is a drop in demand of 14 per cent, the increased revenue will go nowhere near to providing the $125 million of additional revenue that we need to fill the hole caused by the halving of stamp duty on share transfers. As honourable members know, the Government was forced to increase the tax by the unilateral move by Queensland, which was supported by honourable members opposite. The move by the Queensland Government to cut New South Wales revenue by $125 million and to cut Victoria's by $100 million was described by the shadow treasurer, the honourable member for Miranda, Mr Ron Phillips, as laudable.

The New South Wales Government has done exactly what the Victorian Government has done: matched the Queensland move. To fill the hole in the budget the Government has increased tobacco tax. I
Page 307
hope that the revenue raised will more than offset the revenue that the Government will lose, but I cannot give the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner any absolute assurance that it will. The hole in the budget has to be filled. I noticed in this morning's edition of the Daily Telegraph Mirror that the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Collins, was reported to have said that the Government should have increased the State's debt, not increased the franchise fee on tobacco. What an abysmally irresponsible attitude from the man who used to be the Treasurer of New South Wales. Just increase the debt! That attitude explains why the State's debt went up by $2 billion after seven years of coalition government, notwithstanding $6,000 million worth of privatisation and asset sales.

The hypocrites opposite forget to tell us about their introduction of the 3 x 3 fuel levy in 1989, despite their promise before the 1988 election. They did not have to introduce the levy because they had been bowled over by some other State Government taking predatory, unilateral action; they were not filling a hole in the budget; they had no reason to do it. They did it because they wanted to bolster revenue. The only reason this Government has increased the franchise fee on tobacco is that it had to, just as Victoria had to.


The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the significance of the recent decision of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission in respect of the family leave test case?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The flexible use of sick leave to take care of family members is obviously an important benefit for employees in our community. Unfortunately, under the supervision of the previous Government New South Wales has lagged behind Commonwealth developments in this area. On 29 November 1994 the Australian Industrial Relations Commission handed down the family leave test case decision. It gave employees under Federal awards access to sick leave entitlements to care for or to support ill family members and other flexibility in relation to annual leave, hours of work and unpaid leave for family purposes. The then New South Wales Minister, the honourable member for Lane Cove, issued a press release welcoming that decision, but actually did nothing about it, effectively denying New South Wales employees the benefit of that flexibility, the benefit of that decision.

The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission handed down a family leave test case decision on 12 May. The New South Wales Government intervened in those proceedings to support the concept and to provide assistance to the commission in producing a test case decision. New South Wales employees under State awards now have the opportunity to use existing leave entitlements to care for family members who are ill or in need of support. The decision is consistent with submissions that the Government put to the commission that family leave entitlements must recognise the legitimate responsibilities of employees and that the cost of such leave to New South Wales businesses should be minimised.

The Government also advocated a non-discriminatory approach to domestic relationships, and that submission was adopted by the commission. In other words, the Government advocated a broad definition of a domestic relationship for the flexible use of sick leave. It did not restrict the definition to traditional marriage relationships, but adopted a broader, non-discriminatory approach. It is to the credit of the Industrial Relations Commission in this State that it acceded to those submissions. We can now reasonably say that New South Wales is leading the way. It has a more beneficial, more liberal-minded concept of family leave than is to be found in the Federal jurisdiction. That is the way it ought to be: New South Wales ought to lead the way and, under this Government, it certainly will in industrial relations.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment. What steps has the Government taken to ensure that its entire policy formulation takes place within the framework of the national ecologically sustainable development strategy?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will be happy to refer that question to my colleague in the Legislative Assembly to obtain an answer for the honourable member.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is it a fact that the Minister purchased a large quantity of cigarettes before he publicly announced the increase in the franchise tax? Is it further a fact that the Minister has acknowledged and, in fact, bragged to colleagues about purchasing a large quantity of cigarettes prior to the increase in franchise tax? How does the Minister justify this abuse in his position as Treasurer? If this is true, should he not resign immediately, as his transgression is greater than the transgressions of any member he has condemned in the past? There cannot be one rule for the Minister and another for the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is a disgraceful question, and it is without any foundation whatever. I regret to say that I buy my cigarettes packet by packet because I always intend the packet I buy to be the last one. The last time I went overseas I bought
Page 308
a carton, but I have certainly not stored up on cigarettes and I have not bragged to anyone. That is a lie, as is the first part of the honourable member's question, and he knows it is a lie. I expect an apology from the honourable member in respect of both questions. It is an absolute disgrace.


The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services inform the House of recent initiatives he and his department have taken to assist young people in care?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am glad to be able to recognise the longstanding and ongoing interest in young people in care shown by the Hon. Ann Symonds. Last Friday the honourable member and I attended the launch of the national Share our Future campaign for the Australian Association of Young People in Care, which was held at the University of New South Wales. Children and young people are in care through no fault of their own. They often have been subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse or neglect. They can feel vulnerable, confused and lonely without the supportive network of a family. The last thing these children and young people need is an unfair perception in the community, which makes it even more difficult for them to cope with their loss.

The campaign aims to challenge some of these attitudes, which, unfortunately, still exist towards children and young people in care. Children and young people in care should be given opportunities to support each other, to be listened to, to know their rights and to enjoy the same chances as all other children and young people in Australia. The Carr Government is committed to helping these children and young people by supporting the changes being made to substitute care which focus services on the needs of the individual. I welcome the input of young people in care to the development of policy directions and services, which can only result in a more effective care system that is responsive to their needs. The Department of Community Services has provided $121,000 to the New South Wales State network for young people in care. Together, the State and national groups are providing a stable and supportive network for children and young people in care that will give them encouragement and confidence to strive for a positive future.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development. Given the recent increase in cigarette taxes, which I assume was necessitated through the Government's concern for public health, what guarantees can the Government extend to ensure this increase in revenue will be matched by an increase in spending on programs designed to help people quit smoking?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti either has not been listening to everything I have said or is pretty dim. The franchise fee increase has been introduced to fill the revenue gap left by the halving of stamp duty on share transactions. It is not a question of using that revenue for additional spending programs. I do not understand the basis of the honourable member's question.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I ask a supplementary question. Will any of the revenue be directed towards assisting those people already suffering from the effects of long-term smoking?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Only if there is an excess of revenue over the revenue we will lose. But I can give no assurance that the revenue the Government will gain from the increase in franchise fees will meet the revenue it will lose. I hope it does but, as I said in a reply to the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, I cannot give that assurance. It depends on any fall in demand for cigarettes resulting from the price increase.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that this is Quit Smoking Week? Is it a fact that nicotine is costing this State billions of dollars through nicotine-related illnesses such as lung cancer, heart disease, et cetera? Will the Government, therefore, immediately introduce the free supply of nicotine patches to all persons addicted to nicotine?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the Hon. Elaine Nile for her question, which does involve an important matter of principle. I should be delighted to refer her question to my colleague the Minister for Health in another place for a considered reply to be forwarded to her.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Is the Minister aware there is concern in many country areas regarding the use of animals in circuses? Is it a fact that the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 does not have a set of standards and that at the moment a statutory committee is looking into this matter? Will the Minister please inform the House when the committee will effect its deliberation and when the set of standards will be made public?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am grateful to my colleague the Hon. Franca Arena for her question. I shall be delighted to refer it to the Minister for Agriculture for a considered reply. I shall give her his response as soon as it is furnished to me.

Page 309

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. In view of the Treasurer's answers given earlier today about the shortfall of income as a result of the increase in the franchise and his obvious concern that the franchise may not make up the income loss, can he indicate the time frame within which he will expect to determine whether the increased income derived from the franchise will be sufficient? If the income derived from the increased franchise is not sufficient, does the Treasurer intend to further increase the tobacco franchise tax? If so, what taxes does he intend to increase in order to make up the shortfall?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think the revenue will be sufficient, but the answer I gave to the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner was that I could not give an assurance that it would be sufficient. If it is not sufficient we will simply have to live with that.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is it a fact that the Minister is at loggerheads with his Cabinet colleague the Minister for Education and Training about a proposal to rename the University of Western Sydney as Chifley University? Is the Minister aware that the people of western Sydney take great pride in having a university named for their region, and that his proposal is a slap in the face to the residents of this important area of Sydney? Is the Minister further aware that Prime Minister Chifley had no connection either with universities or western Sydney, and that the person who first moved to expand tertiary education to make it far more accessible to the community was Sir Robert Menzies? In view of these facts, what is the reason for the previous State Labor Government now proposing that the University of Western Sydney be named after Chifley rather than Menzies?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I believe that the people of western Sydney would take great pride in having their very fine university named after one of Australia's greatest Prime Ministers.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is not true.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What is not true - that Chifley was one of Australia's greatest Prime Ministers? What a stupid statement for even the honourable member - one of the most inane members of this House - to make. Ben Chifley, by anyone's standards and by everyone's account, was one of the great Prime Ministers of Australia. The people of western Sydney would take great pride in having the university named after him. Recently I answered a question from the Hon. B. H. Vaughan along the lines of the answer I have just given. However, I noted in the press this morning that the spokesman for the Minister for Education and Training was reported as saying there would be a difficulty caused by any name change in that many graduates of that university would have received a degree from a university that was no longer known, at least by its former name. That is a valid point.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that the Premier has totally repudiated his statement that the University of Western Sydney should be renamed Chifley University?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have just said that I thought that the comment attributed to the spokesman for the Minister for Education and Training in today's press was a valid point.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: And the Premier?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Apparently, the Premier also thinks it is a valid point.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister proceed with the urgently needed reforms to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act which were foreshadowed by the previous Minister?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall refer the question asked by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture for a suitable reply to be furnished to him.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. In view of the Minister's statement this afternoon concerning the amalgamation of New South Wales county councils in which he stated that detailed proposals are to be announced by July, will he confirm whether these changes will be introduced by legislation during the Spring sitting? Is it a fact that his department is examining the options for introducing amalgamation by way of regulation, without an opportunity for debate in the Parliament? Will he give this House an undertaking that he will not do this by regulation?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Over the next couple of months the Government will review the number of electricity distributors and their boundaries. We will
Page 310
do that in close consultation with members of the Electricity Association of New South Wales, with whom I have had three conversations and no doubt will have many more. The view in the distribution sector of the industry is that amalgamations are required. Indeed, many distributors have had their own discussions about proposed amalgamations. I believe changes will come about with consultation with the industry.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I ask a supplementary question. Again I ask the Minister, is his department examining the options for introducing amalgamation by way of regulation? Will the Minister give an undertaking that amalgamation will not be done by way of regulation?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The honourable member will have to wait for the introduction of the bill.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Minister remember the question without notice I asked on 24 May regarding election promises on roads and tollways, especially those given by Labor members of the Legislative Council, to which he answered in the affirmative with the words "This Government will keep faith with the people of New South Wales"? The Minister has reiterated his answer in this Chamber today. Given that we are now three months into the Egan-Knight-Carr Government, can the Minister tell the people of New South Wales, particularly the residents of Taralga and Oberon, when work will start on bitumen sealing of the road between Oberon and Taralga as promised by Labor MLC the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann? Is this another lie perpetrated on the people of New South Wales and, sadly in this case, on the struggling but vital rural sector?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I cannot tell the people after seven weeks in government when the work will start. It seems though that the Hon. D. J. Gay is determined to develop a reputation in this Chamber for being both silly and grubby.


The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is the Government aware that senior Supreme Court judges have expressed concern about inadequacies in certain laws, particularly the Bail Act? If so, what does the Government propose to do about those inadequacies?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: This Government is aware of the concern expressed by judges and intends to take an active role in reforming the criminal justice system. We have been most concerned about a significant anomaly in the Bail Act. It is easier for a person accused of attempted murder to be released on bail and to be allowed to walk the streets than it is for a person accused of murder. The victim is at great risk because the accused might take the opportunity to complete the foreshadowed or contemplated mission. Many judges and citizens have expressed concern about this aspect of the bail system and they support change. There should be no presumption in favour of bail; rather, where there is an accusation or charge of attempted murder, the applicant must persuade the court that it is appropriate in the circumstances to grant bail.

Change is also needed in the laws governing stalking. An unacceptable anomaly exists, which defeats the Parliament's intention that these cases be dealt with seriously. The maximum penalty for stalking is five years imprisonment, but the five-year penalty cannot be imposed because the Act refers only to penalties imposed by a magistrate, and magistrates cannot impose a penalty of more than two years imprisonment. I will introduce a bill that will correct this unfortunate error and allow the prosecution to refer serious stalking cases to the District Court, which can apply the maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. If the behaviour is particularly obsessive or so chilling as to justify a higher penalty, the stalker will face a sentence of up to five years in gaol. Legislation will also be introduced to remove the presumption in favour of bail in cases of attempted murder in order to address judicial and community concerns.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women. When the Premier launched his women's safety plan prior to the State election was the key point the promise of the development of a women's safety kit to help women protect themselves from violence? Will the Minister inform the house when these safety kits will be made available? Or will the safety kit to protect women be another forgotten promise by the Carr Government?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe can be sure of one thing: the Carr Government will keep its promises. The honourable member well remembers that when Labor was in Opposition it was able to publish within 12 months of the 1988 election, when the Greiner Government came to office, a volume of 100 broken promises; within a further 12 months it was able to publish a volume of 200 broken promises. I assure the House that the Carr Government will not attempt to break that record or even approach it. The honourable member raises a question of substance; I shall refer the question to my colleague in another place and come back to her with a proper response.

Page 311

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister approach his Federal counterpart and ask the Commonwealth Government to join the New South Wales Government in holding a joint royal commission to establish the identity of the person, persons or organisation responsible for the Hilton Hotel bombing? If not, why not?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member asks a question about an enigmatic case, which is of interest to me. Something must be done about it. In the past this Parliament has expressed the view that there ought to be a joint Federal-State inquiry, a view with which I agree. Of course that requires agreement between governments. I am happy to continue a dialogue with the Federal Attorney-General to determine whether by agreement such an inquiry can be set up. In the meantime, as the honourable member may have seen in the press, there is foreshadowed an application to me to hold a judicial inquiry into the conviction of Mr Pederick. I will consider any such application on its merits in due course. Such an inquiry may provide a vehicle whereby the facts and circumstances of this curious case can be examined.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Is the Minister aware of the very high incidence of suicide in the statistical group comprising males living in rural and remote communities, particularly manifest in the younger age cohorts? Is the Minister also aware of the abrupt discontinuation by the Federal Government of its initiatives to combat these tragic occurrences? Can the Minister inform the House of the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues concerning suicide in rural communities? When can we expect implementation of the vital recommendations contained in this report?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am aware that suicides in rural areas of the State, among young males in particular, is a very significant problem. From discussions with members of the social issues committee, in particular with my colleague the Hon. Ann Symonds, who, at the relevant time, was deputy chair of that committee, I know that a great deal of attention was given to that problem. However, having regard to the seriousness of the issue raised by the honourable member, I will take the opportunity to consider the question in detail and I will get back to him with a full reply. There is no doubt that this problem has increased in recent years. It is important for both the State Government and the Federal Government to give an adequate response. I undertake to consider in detail the question raised by the Hon. D. F. Moppett. I will give him a full response at a later date.

The Hon. I. COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Given that tobacco-related diseases constitute the highest avoidable cause of death in New South Wales, will the Government retract recently granted exemptions to allow cigarette advertising for the 1995-96 cricket season and the Bathurst 1000 race?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have to admit that I am not aware of any exemptions. If there are any I take it that they have been given by the Minister for Health. I will ascertain the situation.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I direct my question to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Given the Minister's answer to the question concerning tobacco excises and the matter of public health, what assurances can the Government give New South Wales tobacco retailers, particularly those on the north coast and those close to Queensland, concerning any action the Government will take to protect them from unfair competition when cheaper cigarettes are bought across the Queensland border?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I assure the House that New South Wales authorities will take every reasonable step to prevent the smuggling, if you like, of cigarettes across the border, cigarettes that were purchased at a lower franchise. State authorities had experience of this when there was a significant difference between the rates in Queensland and the rates in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There still is.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is my understanding, though I stand to be corrected, that until the latest increase in New South Wales the rates were the same. The rates which have now been introduced by New South Wales and Victoria are the same those that have been introduced in all States except Queensland. I am aware of past difficulties. I recollect that the Office of State Revenue more or less got on top of that problem, although it took it some time. I assume that the Office of State Revenue is in a position to get on top of the problem quickly if it arises again.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Will the Premier guarantee that the Waterloo incinerator will be closed as promised and not modernised as has been
Page 312
suggested by Waverley and Woollahra councils? Has the incinerator been a long-term health risk to residents of the area and an enormous waste of resources that could otherwise be recycled? Will the Premier put the minds of residents at rest by letting them know that the incinerator will be closed?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am happy to refer that question to my colleague the Premier.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: The Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council was recently quoted in the Daily Telegraph Mirror as saying that, as a result of proposed reforms, electricity bills for all New South Wales householders were set to be cut by $375 a year. Earlier today the Treasurer, in a statement to this House, again referred to a 50 per cent reduction. As the average household domestic bill is between $650 and $750 per year, how can the Treasurer propose a 50 per cent reduction? Who will pick up the shortfall? Will the Treasurer give us an undertaking to adhere to that promise?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If the Hon. J. H. Jobling reads the article in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of a few weeks ago he will find that I did not refer to such a figure.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I can show you.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think the Hon. J. H. Jobling will find that the journalist in question made his own calculations. He divided the number of households in New South Wales to obtain the State savings as a result of reforms in the electricity industry. From memory, that was calculated by the Industry Commission. It is nonsense for the honourable member to suggest that there will be a $375 decrease in average household electricity bills. Most householders do not even pay that amount each year, so a reduction of that nature would just about wipe out their bills. Today I referred to a 51 per cent reduction for small and medium business, a 20 per cent reduction for big business and a 7 per cent reduction for households over the period of the implementation of the reforms. Those decreases are based on the work done by the Industry Commission and the New South Wales Government Pricing Tribunal.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister stand by his promise to give industry a 51 per cent reduction and big business a 20 per cent reduction? Will he undertake to implement those reductions?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Of course I do not. I made it quite clear that those reductions were based on the work done by the Government Pricing Tribunal and the Industry Commission.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: What is the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads, planning to do about the tragic weekend deaths of three people in a car accident on the M5 at Milperra? Will the Minister heed the calls of the new Chairman of the Staysafe Committee, Mr Paul Gibson, MP, to refer this matter to the reformed Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety? Will the Minister guarantee the construction of substantial safety barriers along notorious sections of New South Wales roads, such as the site of this weekend's accident and the Pacific Highway?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am happy to refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Will the Minister inform the House how many persons licensed to sell tobacco products have been prosecuted for selling tobacco or tobacco products to juveniles in the last 12 months? As it is now the Government's intention to increase penalties for older people who buy and sell liquor to people under age, will the Government agree that such legislation is needed for people who buy tobacco or tobacco products and sell them to juveniles?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Clearly, I am unable, when responding to a question that is asked without notice, to give the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby the response she requires regarding the number of prosecutions that might have occurred. I will refer her question to my colleague the Minister for Health for a considered reply in regard to both that aspect and the other aspects of the question she asked.

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

Questions without notice concluded.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.00]: I move:

That under section 32 of the University of Wollongong Act 1989 Revd Mr Nile be elected as the representative of the Legislative Council on the University of Wollongong Council.

Page 313

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.00]: To the best of my recollection, this is the first time that the Government has nominated a person who is not one of its members for appointment to one of the university councils. This being a first for the Labor Government, I commend Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for having received the nomination.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.00]: I move:

That the Question be amended by the omission of the words "Revd Mr Nile" and inserting instead "Mr Manson".

I have studied the history of the Hon. A. B. Manson and am impressed by his qualifications for being on the University of Wollongong Council. I have details of his history. He was president of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia; he is a member of the Building Workers Industrial Union. He was first appointed union organiser in 1974 and was appointed union office manager in 1976. He was elected the BWIU assistant secretary in 1977; he was elected the BWIU State president from 1983 to 1988, and trustee of the BWIU National Council from 1987 to 1988. The Hon. A. B. Manson joined the Australian Labor Party in 1963 and was an annual conference delegate from 1964 to 1988. He was a member of the administrative committee from 1977 to 1988, a member of the industrial committee from 1980 to 1988 and the national conference proxy delegate in 1986. He is the president of the Building Workers Club, a member of the Blacktown Workers Club and a member of the Blacktown City Soccer Club. His interests are industrial relations, the environment and housing. He has been a member of the Legislative Council for a few months more than seven years. I believe it would be very appropriate for the Hon. Andrew Bruce Manson to be on the University of Wollongong Council.

The reason for my amendment is that I have received innumerable representations from the University of Wollongong. The first such representation comes from Jamie Parker, the New South Wales President of the National Union of Students. The union represents more than 400,000 students nationally. Mr Parker is outraged by the proposal to appoint Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to the University of Wollongong Council. He stated:

University Councils are the peak decision making bodies at Universities. As such, these Councils have a significant role to play in the development of academic standards and long term goals of the institution over which it governs. The NUS NSW thus finds the appointment of the Hon. Fred Nile totally inappropriate.

There are many other members of the Legislative Council whose experience would make them better suited to preside over an academic institution.

The Carr Labor government has sold out students who were integral to the election result. The government is obviously playing political games with this appointment. Students, staff and the institution will suffer as a direct result.

The NUS asks that members advocate an alternative candidate who is better suited to ensuring tertiary institutions in this state are governed with an open mind and tolerance to diversity whether it be social, cultural, sexual or intellectual.

I also have a letter addressed to the Minister for Education and Training, Mr Aquilina, from Mike Donaldson, President of the University of Wollongong Academic Staff Association, which stated:

On behalf of the 380 academics who are members of the National Tertiary Education Union at the University of Wollongong, I am writing to express our outrage at the proposed appointment of Fred Nile to our University Council.

I am advising you that his appointment will precipitate a boycott of the Council by staff and student representatives.

I have a number of other letters, too. For example, I have a letter from Jo Kowalzyk, the Students Representative Council President, which read:

The students of Wollongong University are outraged by the proposal to appoint the Hon. Frederick Nile to our university council.

His letter makes similar comments to those made in the letter from Mr Jamie Parker. I have also many petitions. One I have here, on behalf of a number of signatories, expressed outrage:

Anyone appointed to such position, should be a freethinking, tolerant, understanding person. The [Hon. Fred Nile] has demonstrated himself to be a narrow minded, intolerant, religious bigot. We realise to get Fred Nile's support the Labor Government has to appoint him to something. PLEASE do not put him anywhere where he can have an effect on the education of us, or our children.

I have dozens of petitions. One that comes from the University of Wollongong, although I will not read the name of the petitioner, stated:

I object most strongly to the appointment of Fred Nile to the University Council. I am outraged! Never again will I vote Labour!!

Another, from Barry Lake of the University of Wollongong, read:

I am a fairly conservative staff member of the University of Wollongong (over 20 years) and I have just been horrified to learn that the ALP has nominated Fred Nile to be a member of our University Council. I am outraged that the ALP would even consider nominating such an out of touch bigot and treating us with such contempt -

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: On a point of order: I recognise that the honourable member is quoting from correspondence but I suspect that use of the word "bigot" is not in accord with Standing Order 80, which states that no member shall use offensive words against either the House of the Legislature, or its members. I therefore request that you call the honourable member to order.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: On the point of order: I have to speak in support of my motion. All I am doing is expressing the outrage of the university academics and staff.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I know what the honourable member is doing. He should address the point of order.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I believe that the word "bigot" in this case is not contrary to the standing orders of this Parliament. I believe that it is appropriate to use that word in this context.

Page 314

The PRESIDENT: Order! I do not believe that there is a point of order. The honourable member is quoting the opinions of other people. He has not as yet associated himself with those viewpoints.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Another letter I have is from Peter Sales, lecturer in history and politics. He wrote to the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen, Government Whip, on 25 May as follows:

Dear Madam:

It is with a tremendous sense of disappointment that I write to protest about the pending nomination of the Hon Rev Fred Nile to membership of the Council of the University of Wollongong. At no point in his public career has Mr Nile ever demonstrated the vision, understanding or tolerance which would commend him to be part of the governing body of a university.

Wollongong University has already suffered for having a conservative/reactionary leadership. Its record in regard to the promotion of scholarly values and academic freedom has declined dramatically in the post-Dawkins era. A high profile person like Mr Nile - who has been associated with intimidatory and repressive campaigns against those of opposing views and lifestyles - would be devastating for this institution.

Having been a supporter and electoral worker for the Australian Labor Party all my life, I feel quite betrayed by the idea that the Carr government could contemplate such an appointment. I respectfully seek the selection of a more appropriate person.

I have with me more pleas for a vote against Fred Nile. I have fax after fax saying, "I object most strongly to the nomination of Fred Nile to the University Council" and "I am outraged at this betrayal by a Labor Government." Suffice it to say that there is clearly an upswelling of disapproval from the University of Wollongong. The Government should have listened to the university staff and students, and should not have gone ahead with this nomination. It is most inappropriate to allow the appointment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to the University of Wollongong Council when his appointment is clearly deeply opposed by many of the staff and academics at the university.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.09]: It is interesting to note that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones proposes that a member of the Labor Party take the place of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I find that ironic, considering that the Labor Party could not originally find anybody who was interested in going onto the University of Wollongong Council - not a single member of the Labor Party wanted to be on that council. The Government then proposed, in a historic manner, to nominate a person other than a member of the Government for appointment to the council.

It is ironic that this proposal is made by a member of the Australian Democrats. In view of the statements I made earlier, the Opposition will not support the nomination of the Hon. A. B. Manson, even though he may have something to contribute. The amendment highlights that under the standing orders people who may not wish to be nominated to a position can be so nominated. I have not heard from the Hon. A. B. Manson whether he would like to accept this appointment. The House might keep that in mind in the future.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Cohen Tellers,
Mr Jones Mr Corbett
Ms Kirkby

Mrs Arena Mr Mutch
Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Mr Dyer Dr Pezzutti
Mr Egan Ms Saffin
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Dr Goldsmith Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Shaw
Mrs Isaksen Ms Staunton
Mr Johnson Mrs Symonds
Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan
Mr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr Manson Mr O'Grady
Mr Moppett Mr Ryan

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

[Interruption from gallery.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I direct the attendants to clear the public galleries.


The President nominated the following honourable members to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees during the present session: the Hon. Jennifer Ann Gardiner, the Hon. Dr Marlene Herbert Goldsmith, the Hon. John Richard Johnson, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, Reverend the Hon. Frederick John Nile, the Hon. Helen Wai-Har Sham-Ho and the Hon. Elizabeth Ann Symonds.


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

1. That this House agrees to the resolution contained in the Legislative Assembly's Message of 25 May 1995 relating to the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee to inquire into and report on road safety in New South Wales.

2. That the representatives of the Legislative Council on the Joint Standing Committee be Mr Jobling, Mr Manson and Mr Tingle, and that Tuesday, 30 May 1995 at 7.30 p.m. in Room No. 1136 be the time and place for the first meeting.

Page 315

Message sent to the Legislative Assembly acknowledging receipt of its message of 25 May 1995 and informing the Legislative Assembly of the appointment of Mr Jobling, Mr Manson and Mr Tingle to membership of the committee, and fixing the time and place for the first meeting of the committee.


Debate resumed from 25 May.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [5.22]: The Opposition supports the Superannuation Administration Amendment Bill, which will amend the Superannuation Administration Act. The bill seeks to formalise practices that have been followed by the State Authorities Superannuation Board since 1988 of operating a pooled fund for four structures: the State Superannuation Fund, the State authorities superannuation scheme, the police superannuation scheme and the basic benefits scheme. As a result of such a pool, certain administrative efficiencies have been effected so that only one return must be lodged under the Commonwealth regulatory legislation, with only one income tax return and the appropriate tax concessions resulting therefrom.

The amendments provided in this legislation will confirm and strengthen the existing practices of the pooled fund so that they are consistent with the formal regulatory requirements of the Commonwealth. The State superannuation pooled fund has been operating under amendments to legislation since 1988. This has been done in a correct and efficient way under State legislation, but following the entry of the Commonwealth it is now felt that some housekeeping should be effected and that the Superannuation Administration Act should be amended. The Opposition welcomes this good housekeeping legislation, and supports the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.25]: The Call to Australia group supports the Superannuation Administration Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to clarify and confirm the existing legislative provisions governing the operation of the New South Wales public sector superannuation schemes. As the Treasurer said, it will formalise the scheme's procedures for Commonwealth regulatory purposes, and that is the main purpose of the legislation. The amendments have been brought about by the increasing complexity of superannuation in Australia today, and in particular the extensive regulatory requirements of the prudential regime of the Commonwealth Government. The bill arises from Commonwealth regulatory requirements. The proposed amendments will affirm the status of the pooled fund of the State Authorities Superannuation Board as a single fund for the purpose of the Commonwealth requirements. We are pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.26], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 25 May.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [5.27]: I lead for the Opposition in speaking to the Government's Disability Services Amendment (Residents' Amenities Accounts) Bill. I look forward to speaking regularly, on behalf of the coalition, on matters that fall within the community services portfolio, including disability services and services for the ageing. In the last Parliament I had the pleasure of chairing the Government community services committee and of assisting the former Minister, the Hon. Jim Longley. I am pleased to report to the House that I will continue to chair the coalition's committee responsible for community services, and I will be assisting the shadow minister for community services, the honourable member for Eastwood.

I have long taken a personal interest in this portfolio, even before I became a member of Parliament. This is mainly because I was a client of the Department of Child Welfare, which was the precursor to our present-day Department of Community Services. Oddly enough, one of my first full-time jobs was as a public servant in what was then the Department of Youth, Ethnic and Community Affairs. I served as a clerk in the accounts branch; it was my job to examine food and spectacle vouchers, and pass them for payment. Later, as a student adviser and high school teacher at a school in a very disadvantaged area in Sydney's west, I had regular contact with officers of the Department of Community Services on matters that involved children at our school. One of the achievements in the last Parliament of which I am most proud was my success in lobbying for a package of resources to be made available to provide additional accommodation for people with disabilities who were being cared for by ageing carers, in particular ageing parents.

The previous Government announced a package of $173 million to cater for people with disabilities. The package included resources for post-school options for people with disabilities and an extension of residential care services for people living in the community. I am very proud that I was supported by many members of the coalition within my party room in lobbying the former Government for this package. There is no doubt that the greatest challenge of working in this portfolio is having to confront some of our society's greatest problems. I still find this task
Page 316
very distressing. Worse still is having to accept the fact that sometimes, despite our greatest efforts, some individual's social problems are beyond the assistance of any government. Fortunately, this dilemma is countered by the pleasure of meeting and working with some of the world's most precious people, in particular people who work in the field of community welfare, whether they are working in the public service, charities, volunteer agencies or non-government welfare agencies. It is also very satisfying to share in the personal triumphs of those who are battling against the odds and facing difficult personal situations, including people with disabilities, children seeking protection and people battling to get their families out of crisis.

On behalf of the shadow minister, Andrew Tink, I inform the House that the Opposition will support the bill. The bill seeks to untangle the legal minefield that arose in respect of funds held in patients' amenities accounts following the transfer of responsibility for people with developmental disabilities from the Department of Health to the Department of Community Services. Each of the government residential care facilities named in schedule 3 to the bill is currently holding funds totalling $1.5 million in frozen bank accounts. That money would normally have been used to provide amenities for people in government residential care centres, such as recreational and sporting equipment, swimming pools, holidays and outings, and educational equipment.

This pool of funds was built up over some years as a result of a former practice of taking the interest earned from the funds kept in trust accounts of people who were residents of large institutions. The former Government deserves credit for bringing this illegal practice to a halt in 1989. The money rightly belonged to the individuals on whose money the interest had accumulated. In that spirit some consideration was given to trying to return it to the same people, but that proved difficult. The former Government issued a discussion paper in 1991 proposing a number of options for disbursing the funds, which included a means of returning the money to the individuals to whom it rightly belonged.

The possibility of setting up a scheme under the Guardianship Act was canvassed, as was the possibility of dealing with the funds under legislation that controls dormant funds. Unfortunately, unscrambling the egg proved to be administratively cumbersome and very expensive. All the proposals were rejected after consultation with families and agencies representing people with developmental disabilities. The matter stalled because there was no consensus within the sector on how to proceed further. The recently established consensus has made it much easier for the Government to act. It is now widely accepted that the money should be used to benefit clients with developmental disabilities who still live in large government-owned residential care facilities such as the Rydalmere and Marsden centres in Sydney, the Stockton centre in the Hunter region and Peat Island on the central coast.

Earlier this year, and before the recent State election, the former Minister for Community Services, Jim Longley, indicated that he supported a change in the law to solve the problem. He committed the Fahey Government to introducing legislation to amend the Guardianship Act to free up the funds so that they could be used to benefit either the current residents of residential care centres or, in cases where centres had closed, the new community group homes in which the former residents are now living. The bill introduced by the Minister to amend the Disability Services Act achieves the same purpose. The complexity of this matter has understandably delayed finding a solution. The Minister has been less than generous in criticising the former Government when he was not prepared to endorse a solution to the matter until it was no longer a political hot potato and the former Government had announced its position.

I need only refer to the Minister's press release issued in October 1992 when he called on the Government to reallocate the funds in superseded unit advance accounts. He made no reference in the one-page statement to where, to whom and by what legal means the funds should be allocated. The Opposition is pleased to support the bill, subject to two conditions. First, none of the funds held in these accounts should be used in the scheme devised to disburse them. This principle was established by the former Government. The discussion paper released by the former Government on the matter allowed it to be canvassed, but it was roundly rejected by representatives of clients with developmental disabilities.

The second condition under which the Opposition offers its support is that none of the $1.5 million involved should be used in any way to substitute for the $50 million that the Government has now appropriated to fund an extension of group homes within the community. This particular scheme, of taking $50 million formerly held by Treasury for the purpose of allowing a transfer of clients in residential care facilities into the community, is how the current Government is funding its election promises to create more group homes. When disability services were transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Community Services it was agreed that a one-off payment would be made and that the funds would be held by Treasury. The purpose of the funds was to facilitate the relocation of disability services from the Department of Health from large congregate care sites to the community. This was the intended use of what has now become known as the famous $50 million which was held by Treasury.

The sorts of projects that might have qualified to be funded from this money were to be either one-off expenditures or the capital costs of moving the residents into new facilities. The former Government was in the process of preparing a three-year plan so that these major changes to residential care services could be properly implemented in a properly planned and adequately funded manner. I suspect that the former Government's plans are in jeopardy now that
Page 317
the spending of $50 million on expanding services for people with disabilities being cared for in the community and those being cared for by their ageing parents has slowed. I look for some assurance from the Minister that the program will continue.

I am concerned that the money in the amenities funds could be used as a substitute for the $50 million. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the House an assurance that his statement in his second reading speech that "the funds in these various accounts are not wasted but, rather, that they will be used to increase the potential for residents in these centres to move to community living, wherever possible" does not mean that this is one of the means by which these funds might be expended. Other than the two conditions I have raised, the Opposition is happy to support the bill because, like the Government, to its credit, it has consulted with representatives of groups representing people with disabilities, such as the Council for Intellectual Disability. The Opposition has been assured that the council supports the bill. Therefore, it would be arrogant of the Opposition not to offer its fulsome support for the bill. The Opposition wishes the Government well in its use of these funds for the benefit of the people for whom they were intended. The Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. J. KALDIS [5.38]: I congratulate the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services on his initiative in tabling the Disability Services Amendment (Residents' Amenities Accounts) Bill. I fully support the Minister in his first piece of legislation, which will release precious funds for people with disabilities. This important bill will mean that $1.4 million will be returned to people with disabilities to be spent on schemes beneficial to such people. Furthermore, the bill will validate past actions of persons who have handled the funds in good faith. Unless dishonesty is proved, they will have no personal liability. The money belongs to the residents of the centres and it must be released so that past injustices can be resolved.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [5.40]: Call to Australia is pleased to support the Disability Services Amendment (Residents' Amenities Accounts) Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Disability Services Act 1993 so as to provide for the use of money held since 1989 on behalf of residents of certain government residential centres who have disabilities, and to validate the actions in good faith of persons who have held money on behalf of residents of those centres. The Minister said in his speech that $1.5 million had been frozen for a number of years. I am deeply pleased that this money will now be used to service people in those centres. Call to Australia has always been concerned about people with physical and intellectual disabilities. Over the years we have received deputations and have visited a number of the centres. Only last year we strongly supported the Minister's motion on disability services.

As a family with two members suffering from intellectual disabilities brought about by medical procedures, we feel deeply for other families who over the years have looked for support from the centres. I congratulate the Minister on introducing the measure, which will release valuable funds for the use of residents in centres. One of the many newsletters and reports received by Call to Australia over the years has been a report by the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability alerting us to the dire needs of many people with disabilities due to the lack of funds to properly cater for those needs. I am pleased to note that the proposed legislation has the support of Mr John Jacobsen, Chairman of the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability.

As recently as September 1994 the NSWCID released a report by Dawn Jonas, BA, on unmet need for accommodation, respite and post-school opportunities for people with intellectual disability in New South Wales. That report called for the immediate release of $50 million to meet capital and recurrent expenditure for people with developmental disabilities. I trust that the release of funds activated by the bill will be only the first stage in providing markedly improved facilities and conditions for those who, through no fault of their own, have a disability and are dependent on others for their often daily needs. The report calls for an ongoing investigation of the future needs of people with disabilities and a definite plan to establish services to meet those needs. To ensure that the services note those identified needs it is vital that the wishes of people with disabilities and their families are considered. I am pleased to see that the Minister has said:

Under the proposals of the bill, as Minister I am obliged to consult with residents or their advocates in developing proposals for the use of these funds. I give my assurance that I will be carefully scrutinising proposals that are put to me to ensure that the paramount concern of the Government is the best interests of residents. There is a commendable flexibility in the arrangements proposed in the bill so that proposals can be tailor-made to those residents concerned.

The bill is landmark legislation. We trust it will be only the first stage in a wide range of improvements for this needy section of our community. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.44]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the Disability Services Amendment (Residents' Amenities Accounts) Bill. I, too, congratulate the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services for solving this problem so rapidly and so early in his administration. I was most surprised by the remarks of the Hon. J. F. Ryan. It will serve no useful purpose to confuse the purpose of the bill with the Government's plan for finding supported accommodation and respite care for intellectually and physically handicapped people, in particular those who have been looked after by their parents for many years. The bill's purpose and the Government's plan are totally different things. Under the previous administration, $50 million was transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Community Services. The previous
Page 318
Government had been in office since 1988, but in the run-up to the election we were still attending meetings where desperate parents, some of them in their seventies and eighties, were asking the Minister's representatives what would happen to their children when they, the parents, died, and where their children, now middle-aged and never having been in an institution, would go.

I put on record, as I did during the election campaign, that on no occasion did the former Minister responsible for people with disabilities attend a meeting. The Minister for Disability Services went to every one of those meetings. I went to many of them, and the Hon. J. F. Ryan attended to represent the former Minister. It is strange that the Minister of the day never found the time or had the interest to turn up at those meetings. But to muddle that $50 million with the money that has been locked up for all those years because of legal problems in the clients amenities fund does not do the Hon. J. F. Ryan a service. It is wrong that these two matters should have become so confused. Months ago I was approached by many welfare associations concerned that the client amenities fund had been frozen. During the run-up to the March election those representations increased in number. I quote from a letter that I and the Minister received from the Secretary of the Stockton Hospital Welfare Association.

For many years a Client Amenities Fund existed to which interest from Trust Accounts was paid. The proceeds in the fund were then used for the general benefit of all the clients, e.g. purchase of a new bus - the Fund therefore supplementing money provided by the Government and providing many things that otherwise could not have been provided

Some years ago it was decided that interest should be paid directly to clients, i.e. into their Trust Accounts and not to a general fund (Clients Amenities Fund) as previously.

No objection was made as the clients had use of interest on their own money. However, what was wrong was that the Department of Community Services, under the Greiner Government administration, decided to freeze moneys remaining in the clients amenities fund from June 1991. Funds were frozen on the basis that a legal framework was needed for their continued use and proportional disbursement to clients. After that happened the matter remained in limbo for 3½ years. The Stockton Hospital Welfare Association believes that the fact that nothing concrete happened for more than three years was a crushing indictment of the Government of the day and of the Department of Community Services of the day. I, too, believe that it was an indictment. The Department of Health did not encounter the same difficulty and resolved the problem without freezing the funds. I do not know why there should have been this problem in community services. The secretary of the association pointed out that the association appreciated there was a legal issue, but in a letter written on 10 January it said:

It is long overdue that someone in authority should bite the bullet. The funds had accumulated with the intention they be used for the general benefit of clients and it seems to us that this is the way in which they should be spent. At least in this way the clients will get an immediate and meaningful benefit. If a particular person or persons is aggrieved by this, then their particular case can be looked at. We are convinced that the intent or the spirit of the original laws was for the general benefit and that this is the best way to go for all parties.

The funds referred to in respect of Tomaree and Stockton clients now stand at over $500,000. The letter concluded, "We seek the immediate release of these funds." Of course, the funds could not be released immediately as Parliament was not sitting and honourable members were in election mode. With the introduction of this piece of legislation the Minister, through his administration, has facilitated a rapid release of that money for Tomaree and Stockton Hospital clients. I believe that more money is held in other amenities funds for similar clients in other parts of New South Wales.

For many years before the change of government I campaigned, asked questions and made speeches in the adjournment debate about problems faced by people with intellectual disabilities who were - some still are - living in totally inadequate accommodation. I brought these problems to the Minister's attention when he was shadow minister. Unfortunately, even with the best will in the world, many clients of Stockton Hospital will never be able to live independently in supported accommodation. It is tragic that some people with most severe disabilities simply cannot exist other than in situations like Stockton Hospital.

It is shameful that many people with disabilities in New South Wales lived in hostels that were run for private profit, not by the department and certainly without skilled staff to look after people. It was shameful for the previous Labor administration and it was certainly shameful for the previous coalition administration. Now that the Minister for Disability Services has introduced this piece of legislation I hope he will with all dispatch introduce supported accommodation programs for those in the most infamous of the hostels, the one outside Cooranbong, which I have referred to frequently because it is within three kilometres of where I live.

Though the administration of that hostel has been condemned, people still live there and need to receive better care and support than they currently receive. In spite of the questions asked by the Hon. J. F. Ryan, I am confident that the $50 million will be spent on these people. I hope there will be no further long-term reviews of their needs. For many years there has been review upon review and consultation after consultation; it is time for us to take action to provide necessary accommodation without the need to discuss how many years it will take before it is provided.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [5.54]: I support wholeheartedly this important piece of legislation. I decided to speak in this debate to take the opportunity to compliment the Minister who, I am sure, will prove to be one of the most able, humane and compassionate Ministers in this Government.
Page 319
Recently I met people from an organisation called Handital, which is an Italian organisation that looks after people with physical and mental disabilities. Unfortunately, until recently, especially in many ethnic communities, mostly Mediterranean communities - I am unaware of the situation in Asian communities; perhaps the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho can enlighten the House - having disabled children in the family was considered a matter of shame. The children used to be hidden at home, sometimes in most appalling conditions.

I chose to contribute to the debate to inform the Minister, though I am sure there is no need, that many families have children with disabilities, whether mental or physical. Many families of non-English speaking background - people who migrated to this country to provide a better life for the children - have children with terrible disabilities. Those families need special assistance because apart from having children with disabilities they also have a language problem. I merely wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister the existence of this group in our society, but I am sure many people in other groups also need his attention - for example, Aboriginal children and children from disadvantaged families. When a government, among its first initiatives, spends $50 million on people with disabilities, it is like a new day dawning.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.56], in reply: I am grateful for the support of honourable members who spoke in the debate. I include my colleague opposite the Hon. J. F. Ryan, who made some slightly critical remarks about my attitude as an Opposition member. However, he supports the legislation, as do my colleagues on this side of the House the Hon. J. Kaldis and the Hon. Franca Arena. I am also grateful for the support expressed by the Hon. Elaine Nile and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. Earlier this year I gave a clear undertaking that on coming to office the Labor Party would deal with this matter expeditiously. The previous Government explored, mainly via the Crown Solicitor, various non-legislative options to deal with the problem, such as approaching the Supreme Court under the Dormant Funds Act and the Trustee Act. The Crown Solicitor advised against those particular options.

I have read the Crown Solicitor's advice and I am aware that at least two years ago the Crown Solicitor advised that a legislative option would have to be followed. The previous Government chose not to follow that course. Early last year I asked questions of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, representing the Hon. Jim Longley in another place, with a view to stimulating the latter Minister into doing something about this particular matter. I also wrote to the Hon. Jim Longley about the problem, but I did not receive any satisfactory response. In desperation I approached the former Attorney General by letter on the basis that he was responsible for the Office of the Protective Commissioner. I received much more co-operation from the Leader of the Opposition. He indicated to me that a legislative solution was necessary and appropriate. In any event, I have brought forward this legislation promptly. I see that as a clear delivery of a pre-election undertaking by the Carr Government.

I intend to keep the promises I made, in whatever area, prior to the election. This is one example of such a promise being kept. Another example is that, at the first Cabinet meeting held by the Government in Newcastle, the first policy decision was to give effect to my undertaking regarding the spending of the $50 million, to which the Hon. J. F. Ryan referred in the course of his remarks. The ageing parents of people with disabilities is an important human rights problem. It is important for me to create the 300 accommodation packages that I promised prior to the election. Planning is currently under way to do just that. Even if I do nothing else I am determined to bring relief to those people.

Many ageing parents and carers of people with disabilities are worn out after caring for those people for decades. I am very conscious of the matter raised in debate by my colleague the Hon. Franca Arena. I am looking closely at the position of the clients to whom she and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred. I imagine that they were referring to clients at the Watagan Centre, which was formerly known as Carynia Oaks. For various reasons that facility is likely to close later this year. I am considering what assistance can be given to clients at that facility who are in need of support.

I refer now to the practice of the Department of Community Services in regard to clients' frozen amenities accounts. This legislation has become necessary because it was simply not possible to readily ascertain who owns the funds. There are a number of reasons for that. Following the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Health to the Department of Community Services in 1989 there was a lack of legislative authority to do anything with the funds: therefore, they were frozen. In subsequent years it was difficult to identify who was entitled to what portion of those funds. Clearly, over the years people moved into and out of the system. Some clients died. Interest accrued upon interest in the common fund. It was not possible to say whether an identifiable part of a fund could go to, say, client X.

It became apparent to the former Government, via advice given by the Crown Solicitor at least two years ago, that a legislative solution was warranted and necessary. I believe members of the previous Government, in particular, the Hon. Jim Longley, slept on that matter. In the immediate lead-up to the last State election the previous Minister indicated that a legislative solution was necessary and would be followed. I am giving prompt effect to the promises I made. I am delighted that members of the Opposition, members of the crossbenches and my own supporters have given approval to the method I have adopted to solve this outstanding problem.

In regard to the matters raised by the Hon. J. F. Ryan I give a specific undertaking to the House that no funds from the amenities account are to be used in the administration of the scheme. When I use the word "scheme" I am referring to proposals made
Page 320
to me by relatives, carers or clients for the use of the funds. The administration of the scheme will be at the cost of the Department of Community Services. I will not permit the $1.4 million of funds to be depleted by the administration of schemes put to me for approval. No funds are to be used to supplement the expansion of community-based accommodation services.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan, who seemed to have some concern in that regard, was seeking to link the $1.4 million, or part of it, with the provision of community-based services. He seemed to be referring to the Government's undertaking regarding the $50 million. I realise that these funds, which have accrued in a common fund, now total $1.4 million. It is my intention to approve schemes so that those funds are used for the benefit of clients within the system. There are all sorts of practical ways in which those funds can be used, such as the provision of spa baths to help clients avoid muscle spasms and similar conditions and the provision of television and videos. There might well be other ways in which the funds can be used for the benefit of clients within the system.

No doubt proposals will be made to me and, if I see fit, I will approve them if they are at all reasonable. I note that this legislation requires me to consult with people in regard to those proposals. The funds are targeted at residents of current facilities. Any proposals to be approved by me will be developed by those residents, their families and their carers. I trust that I have responded to all the matters referred to in debate by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. I have given clear undertakings in regard to the proposed matter. I thank all honourable members for their support of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Mr President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly.

Mr President

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

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

Marie Therese Andrews
Kerry Anne Chikarovski
Paul Gerard Lynch
Peter Alexander Cameron Macdonald
Reba Paige Meagher
Peter Richard Nagle
John Harcourt Turner
John Arthur Watkins

Legislative Assembly John Murray
30 May 1995 Speaker

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

Mr President:

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

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

James Anderson
Marie Therese Andrews
Marie Ann Ficarra
Jill Griffiths Hall
Peter Alexander Cameron Macdonald
John Charles Mills
Stanley Thomas Neilly
Barry William Rixon

Legislative Assembly, John Murray
30 May 1995 Speaker

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

Mr President:

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

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

James Anderson
Andrew Raymond Gordon Fraser
Bryce James Gaudry
Jeremy Stirton Prevost Kinross
Paul Gerard Lynch
Reba Paige Meagher
Clover Moore
Anthony Paul Stewart

Legislative Assembly, John Murray
30 May 1995 Speaker

Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.11]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Page 321

The Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Bill adopts the Consumer Credit Code as a law of New South Wales. That code was passed by the Queensland Parliament in September 1994, as agreed by the national Ministerial Agreement on Credit Laws, as the first step in the process towards achieving uniform consumer credit laws in Australia. Honourable members would be aware of the long history of this legislation. The honourable member for Port Macquarie introduced this legislation last year. We are introducing it again. I commend her efforts in that regard. It was recognised when the Credit Act 1984 took effect that the law was already outdated and the process would have to begin again, but on a different basis.

That knowledge has influenced the philosophy and structure of this legislation in a major way. It taught us that legislation must be flexible enough to accommodate major changes in government policy - in this case deregulation of the finance sector - and the demands of the marketplace for products which suit the present and future needs of the consumer. I am confident that this legislation will meet the needs of the credit consumer for the foreseeable future. I believe it will be effective in redressing the imbalance of power between the borrower and the lender. The market will work more efficiently than it does now, and both consumers and industry will benefit. Honourable members would be aware that the Credit Act 1984 regulates less than 20 per cent of the consumer credit market. In New South Wales it applies only to credit under $20,000 and to certain farming machinery and commercial vehicles. Not all types of loans or credit providers are regulated. Housing finance is not covered. The majority of consumer credit purchasers in this State are therefore without protection. The bill seeks to protect the consumer without undue interference or over-regulation of the industry. Where it is considered that competition will not address a problem, that is directly regulated.

The bill is based on truth-in-lending principles. It aims to give the credit purchaser accurate and relevant information on which to make an informed choice of products. It also aims to inform potential debtors or guarantors of their rights and obligations under the contract. I am sure that honourable members would be aware that the most common complaint about financial institutions has been that they did not give essential information before the contract was entered into. The Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Bill will certainly ensure that debtors and guarantors will be properly informed in the future. I mentioned in my opening remarks that the bill forms part of a legislative scheme which is to be uniform in all States and Territories. The scheme is based on the uniform credit laws agreement 1993 signed by Ministers of all jurisdictions. The agreement required that Queensland enact a uniform consumer code, and that the other States and Territories apply the code as the law of that State or Territory, or pass alternative consistent legislation. Therefore, it is intended that New South Wales adopt the consumer credit code passed by the Queensland Parliament as a law of this State. The code is appended to the New South Wales adopting bill.

Under the terms of the ministerial agreement any amending legislation must not be introduced by a State or Territory unless there has been a resolution of the ministerial council, passed by a majority comprising at least two-thirds of the members. Any jurisdiction which breaches this clause of the agreement ceases to be party to the scheme. Ministers also agreed that they would not submit legislation to the Parliament or make regulations which would conflict with or negate the operation of the credit legislation. The agreement therefore recognises the importance of laws that are consistent across all jurisdictions. Businesses and consumers will benefit from cost savings achieved by standard documentation in all States and the greater certainty of application which flows from uniform legislation. However, certain matters are left to the individual jurisdictions and are not required to be uniform. These include the fixing of a maximum interest rate, the establishment of trust funds with designated purposes into which forfeited interest charges may be paid, the establishment of a scheme for the licensing or registration of credit providers, and the vesting in a tribunal of jurisdiction which under the code is vested in a court. I will address these matters further when I explain the specific clauses of the adopting bill.

Honourable members may be aware that the Ministers responsible for this legislation have recently agreed to extend the date for its implementation to 31 March 1996. Due to the complexity of systems changes and new documentation - both of which rely to a great extent on regulations which are yet to be formally released - industry successfully put the case that more time was needed in order to comply with the legislation, and this was agreed. It is heartening that industry has shown a determination in relation to this legislation to getting it right. There is little doubt that the Credit Act 1984 had no such support and New South Wales has seen a succession of credit providers in the Commercial Tribunal seeking reinstatement of credit charges. I hope we have come to the end of that era. The new legislation reflects a more mature industry and a more informed and rational consumer. I believe it is also true to say that the support for this code is due in great part to the extensive consultation which has taken place over the past few years. Both industry and consumer representatives have been closely associated with its development and will have a stake in its success.

New South Wales has had a major role in developing this legislation; in fact, it has been drafted in this State with the agreement of all jurisdictions. We can be confident that the legislation is fair and workable. There is, of course, much work remaining. In order that consumers get maximum benefit from the legislation, governments will have to ensure that they are educated as to their rights and educated in credit matters. To this end, the jurisdictions are pooling their resources to maximise them. I am committed to my department's full and continued involvement in credit education. An informed consumer is essential to the proper working of the credit market. I believe we will see the development of better products at better prices as a result of the transparency that the legislation requires. Governments also have to turn their attention to the administration of credit, and decide whether to continue with licensing of credit providers and finance brokers. This will require legislative changes before the code comes into effect.

I turn now to the provisions of the adopting legislation. Clause 1 names the Act the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Act 1995. Clause 2 provides that the Act will commence on a day or days to be proclaimed. Clause 3 defines terms used in the Act. Clause 4 excludes the explanatory notes from the Act. Clause 5 applies the code as a law of New South Wales and names it the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Code. Clause 6 applies the regulations under the Queensland code as regulations under the New South Wales code. The regulations are also uniform under the terms of the agreement. Clause 7 defines some expressions in the code as they apply to New South Wales. Clause 8 provides for the exercise of jurisdiction under the code to be by the Commercial Tribunal, if regulations so prescribe, or in other cases a court of appropriate monetary jurisdiction. Regulations conferring jurisdiction on the tribunal will be made shortly and are intended to follow the current policy of giving expert jurisdiction to the Commercial Tribunal and shared jurisdiction in other matters.

Clause 9 specifies that the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs should exercise the functions of the Government Consumer Agency under the code. Clause 10 continues the functions of the Financial Counselling Trust Fund in relation to the code so that amounts paid under the civil penalty regime in the code can be paid into this fund. Clause 11 allows a maximum interest rate to be prescribed. New South Wales intends to prescribe a maximum interest rate, but it is intended to review the current methods of prescribing that rate before it is applied to the code. Clause 12 provides for offences under the code or the regulations to be dealt with by a Local Court constituted by a magistrate

Page 322
sitting alone. Clause 13 binds the Crown. Clause 14 provides that special savings and transitional regulations may be made for New South Wales. Clause 15 allows the Governor to make regulations for the purposes of this Act. Clause 16 gives effect to a schedule of consequential amendments. Clause 17 requires that the Act be reviewed in five years to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid. That is the extent of the New South Wales adopting legislation. The code has been fully described in its introduction in Queensland so I will not explain it on a clause-by-clause basis. I will, however, highlight the important aspects of the code.

The code will apply if a debtor is a natural person or a strata corporation and the credit is to be provided wholly or predominantly for personal domestic or household purposes. While the focus of the legislation is consumer credit, these provisions recognise the multipurpose nature of some loan products, so that if some of the credit is used for business purposes, as long as it is less than half of the proposed advance of credit, it will not prevent the application of the legislation to that product. Section 7 of the code sets out circumstances in which the code will not apply. These are: where the contract is for 62 days or less; credit without prior agreement, such as an overdrawn account; and, if the contract has both debit and credit facilities, that part of the contract relating to the debit facility; bills of exchange. While it is accepted that bills of exchange may be used for consumer credit purposes, it is doubtful whether they are in fact deferred debt and it was decided to exclude them. Certain aspects of such facilities are in fact regulated by the Commonwealth.

Insurance premiums by instalments are considered not to be a credit contract intended to be regulated by the code, even though they may fit the definition of credit, because the contract is in effect terminated by the debtor discontinuing the instalments and there is no outstanding debt. Pawnbrokers are also considered to be generally outside the scope of the Act and are subject to their own legislation. However, the unjust contracts provisions of the code will apply. Trustees of estates which give loans to beneficiaries are similarly exempt except for unjust contract provisions. Employee loans are exempt from the code except for hardship and unjust contract provisions, provisions relating to enforcement procedures and expenses, related sale contracts, and the miscellaneous provisions. Where the employer is a credit provider, the exemptions apply only if the terms of the contract are more favourable to the debtor than debtors who are not employees. These are all the exemptions; however, the code has a power to make regulations to exclude other types of credit should this be considered necessary.

Section 8 applies the code to mortgages which secure credit contracts or guarantees which are themselves covered by the code. If a mortgage also secures contracts or guarantees that are not covered by the code, the code will apply only to the extent that it secures obligations under the regulated contract or guarantee. Section 9 applies that same principle to guarantees in relation to obligations under the credit contract. I now turn to the pivotal part of the legislation: negotiating and making credit contracts. This is where the truth-in-lending concept has most relevance: before the contract is entered into. Section 12 provides, firstly, that the contract document should be in writing; however, section 13 implicitly acknowledges that technological developments may, at some time, overtake the written contract. It is not intended to deal with such a prospect until contract law has addressed the issues, but the power is there in the code to modify the rules should this become necessary.

Section 14 addresses the timing for the giving of information. It also requires that the information which is to be given is that which will be in the contract document, as well as a statutory notice describing the rights and obligations of the debtor and credit provider under the code. This means that all that a potential debtor needs to know about his or her financial contractual and statutory obligations will be given before the contract is entered into, or before the debtor makes an offer to enter into the contract. In addition, certain financial information will be required to be given in a tabular format so that the prospective debtor can see at a glance the cost of the credit being negotiated. This requirement has replaced the requirement for a comparison rate; however, the code allows credit providers to supply a comparison rate if they wish. If they do, it will be calculated according to the method required by the regulations.

The matters which must be contained in the contract document are set out in section 15. I will not detail all the information which is to be given to the prospective debtor since that is clearly set out in the code, but honourable members will note that the information which must be given is all the costs that are ascertainable at the time the contract is entered into. The code does not limit what can be charged but ensures that the prospective debtor is fully conversant with the arrangements. The disclosures are, I believe, comprehensive and will allow comparisons to be made between lenders so as to get the best deal possible. This is a primary objective of the code and will, I believe, result in credit providers being far more responsive to the needs of consumers so that, in future, products offered will give real value.

Division 4 contains two very important sections. Honourable members would have noted that the code does not specify what fees or charges can be charged; it merely requires that the fact and, where ascertainable, the amount of particular fees and charges are disclosed to the potential debtor. Consumer affairs Ministers were persuaded that competition would keep fees and charges to a minimum. Should this not be the case, or should a particular fee or charge be resistant to competitive forces, Ministers have the power under section 29 to prohibit particular fees or charges or classes of fees or charges. Credit providers should be aware that while Ministers are prepared to give the market the opportunity to control prices, they have the power and the will to act if it is clear that credit consumers are being cheated.

Section 30 reflects the code's response to an unacceptable practice. It has been noted that credit providers have in some instances inflated a fee or charge due to a third party that is passed on by the credit provider, thereby retaining for themselves that amount in excess of the actual amount payable to the third party. This is considered to be a totally unacceptable practice, and it is prohibited by the provisions of this section. Division 2 of part 3 is significant in the protection it affords to guarantors. Honourable members would be aware that a considerable number of actions before the courts in past years have been by guarantors who were not aware of the potential consequences of guaranteeing another's loan. This code will ensure that guarantors are properly informed about both their legal obligations and the financial commitments of the debtor whose loan they are considering guaranteeing.

The code provides firstly that the guarantee must be in writing. Before the guarantor guarantees the debtor's loan he or she must be given a copy of the credit contract which is to be subject to the guarantee. The guarantor can therefore be aware of the financial commitment that is to be undertaken by the debtor and make a judgment as to whether, in the guarantor's view, the debtor would be able to fulfil these financial obligations. The prospective guarantor will also be given a statement which explains the rights and obligations of the guarantor. This is a plain English document which should leave no doubt as to the risks involved in going guarantor. On the basis of these two documents the guarantor can make a rational decision about his or her involvement.

The next aspect of the code, part 4 - changes to obligations under credit contracts, mortgages and guarantees - represents something of a departure from the current legislation in order to more closely reflect the commercial realities of a deregulated finance market. The credit products of the 1970s and 1980s were relatively simple and few in number.

Page 323
Today, and increasingly, credit products are more sophisticated and closely tied to the movements of the market. The highly regulatory approach of the Credit Act 1984 resulted in significant market distortions and cross subsidisation. These may be exemplified by the fact that interest rates on credit cards were kept at a very high level when other rates had fallen dramatically. This reflected the inability of the credit provider to reflect costs in the fee structures, and to change rates without a substantial period of notice. This code has taken the approach that changes can be made under the contract, provided that the contract clearly states that this might happen. There is nevertheless one unilateral change which is prohibited under the code. Section 64(1) prohibits the method of calculation of early termination charges from being changed in a fixed rate contract. It is considered essential that credit consumers should have certainty in relation to break costs so that they can change credit providers if a better deal can be obtained elsewhere.

I believe the next division of part 4, changes on grounds of hardship and unjust transactions, is noteworthy in several respects. Firstly, the provisions with regard to the ability of the debtor to negotiate changes on the basis of hardship have been changed from those in the current Act to reflect desires of consumers to be allowed direct access to the tribunal where a credit provider declines to negotiate a change. Currently the debtor may ask the commissioner to negotiate on his or her behalf and be referred to the tribunal only if the credit provider will not negotiate. It was considered that there would be greater benefit to the debtor in making the process simpler and shorter, thereby reducing the amount of debt that might accumulate if the debtor were unable to make payments. The commissioner will of course negotiate if that is the debtor's wish, but there will be no statutory duty to do so under the code.

These provisions will, however, be limited to contracts where the maximum amount of credit to be provided is $125,000 or less. Given that the scope of the code is unlimited, it is considered that resources should be targeted where they are most needed. When a matter is before the tribunal, any enforcement proceedings can be stayed if it is thought appropriate. The credit provider will have the right to apply for a variation or renegotiation of the tribunal's orders under a hardship application. I would now like to direct the attention of the House to the provisions with regard to unjust contracts. In legislation such as this, which relies to a great extent on market forces to achieve the desired outcomes, it is important to have strong redress mechanisms to help achieve a balance of the power relationship between borrower and lender. Section 70 gives power to the court to re-open a transaction which gave rise to a contract, mortgage or guarantee, or a change to any of those contractual arrangements. The matters to which the court is to have regard in determining whether a term is unjust are detailed in subsection (2) and are based on those in the New South Wales Contracts Review Act. There is already a substantial body of law in relation to that Act which will assist the court in its deliberations.

I will not address each matter but would draw the attention of honourable members to one particular ground for reopening which received much public attention when it was first proposed. This is, and I quote, "whether at the time the contract, mortgage or guarantee was entered into or changed, the credit provider knew, or could have ascertained by reasonable inquiry of the debtor at the time, that the debtor could not pay in accordance with its terms or not without substantial hardship". This ground for reopening was added specifically to address that common occurrence of the 1980s: overcommitment. It was clear that many borrowers were being offered credit they could not possibly repay, simply because the credit provider did not make adequate inquiries about a potential borrower's financial commitments, income and expenditure.

This was a symptom of the intense competition for market share in the years before high interest rates and the subsequent difficulties experienced by many credit purchasers. This is not, however, to imply that credit providers are to be obliged to predict the future. This is a requirement that credit providers, on the basis of information made available to them at the time by the debtor, make a proper assessment of the potential borrower's capacity to repay the credit for which they have applied. That is not to say credit providers cannot use credit scoring, but they must do more. This legislative requirement makes good sense for both parties and merely reflects prudent lending practices. It is not a stand-alone provision. It is to be considered in the context of whether the contract, mortgage, guarantee or change is unjust. I say this because fears have been expressed that such a provision will prevent low-income earners or first home buyers from getting home finance. That is not the intention of the legislation. It is recognised that most people are prepared to make sacrifices in order to buy their own home.

What Ministers aim to do with these provisions is to ensure that credit providers do not take advantage of people who may not realise the dangers of overcommitment and who may be unfairly persuaded or allowed to take more credit than they can afford. I have alluded to the fact that the credit provider is not required to predict the future, and subsection (4) states that "in determining whether a credit contract, mortgage or guarantee is unjust, the Court is not to have regard to any injustice arising from circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable when the contract mortgage or guarantee was entered into or changed". I believe there is no ambiguity in that regard. I turn now to that part of the bill which has been highly contentious but which now appears to be accepted by all the major players. I refer to the civil penalty provisions.

Honourable members would be aware that the Credit Act 1984 has an automatic civil penalty regime which means that a penalty in the way of forfeited interest charges is imposed as soon as a breach of disclosure occurs. That legislation requires a credit provider to make application to the court before any interest charges can be reinstated to the credit provider, and the proportion which is reinstated depends on matters related generally to the conduct of the credit provider. This system is considered to have been instrumental in encouraging a culture of compliance in those institutions covered by the Credit Act. It does have, however, consequences that were possibly not foreseen by the drafters.

Systemic errors by banks have resulted in many thousands of contracts being affected. Applications to the Commercial Tribunal have been heard over a very long period and, as could be expected, at considerable cost in legal fees. In most cases there was little or no financial detriment to the borrower as a result of the breach. Another issue was the contingent liability incurred by the automatic nature of the penalty. While it is unlikely that a credit provider which applies to the tribunal will not have the major part of the interest charges returned to it, until the matter is determined the liability is the total amount of interest charges due under the contract, and this has all sorts of implications for the balance sheets of a credit provider's accounts.

In review of the legislation when the decision was taken to increase the scope, very real fears were expressed that the small institutions, such as some credit unions, might incur such a liability which, if it became public knowledge, could cause a run on funds which might cause a collapse. Clearly, this could not be permitted to happen. This was another matter in which Federal Treasury intervened in view of the serious consequences that could be foreseen, and a capped regime was suggested. This proved unworkable when worked through by practitioners during a period of consultation, and finally a scheme was developed which had the necessary incentives for compliance but did not threaten the viability of the institution. The civil penalty regime in this bill is not automatic but relies on application by a party to the contract, or a guarantor, or the Government Consumer Agency, to the court for an order. It might reasonably be asked what incentive is there for a credit provider to comply in such circumstances. The incentive

Page 324
lies in two processes. Firstly, the penalty differs according to which party takes the matter to the court or tribunal. If the debtor applies, the penalty can be the full amount of credit charges due under the contract. If the credit provider applies, the penalty for a class of breaches Australia wide is a maximum of $500,000.

Clearly, five single debtors with breaches of disclosure in relation to their housing contracts could have a penalty decided in their favour to the value of $500,000. If a credit provider or the Government Consumer Agency applied to the court, that same amount of penalty could apply in relation to thousands of contracts Australia wide. There would be great benefit in a credit provider making the application first, in which case a debtor cannot apply for an order relating to that particular breach. The second factor that creates a compliance incentive is the list of factors that the court must take into account in determining the level of penalty which is to apply. These relate not only to the conduct of the credit provider, but also to a situation when the credit provider became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the contravention; any systems or procedures of the credit provider to prevent or identify contraventions; whether the contraventions could have been prevented by the credit provider; any action taken by the credit provider to remedy the contravention or compensate the debtor or to prevent further contraventions; and the time taken to make the application and the nature of the application.

It is evident from these criteria that the credit provider's efforts to comply with the requirements of the legislation will be significant to the consideration by the court or tribunal of the issue and the imposition of the penalty. Section 103 deals with the penalty if an application is made by the debtor or guarantor. In addition to the maximum penalty of all interest charges under the contract, or for the statement period if the contravention relates to a continuing credit contract statement, subsection (2) allows the court to impose a greater civil penalty if the debtor or guarantor satisfies the court that the debtor has suffered a loss. The amount of the civil penalty is to be not less than the amount of the loss. Section 104 provides that where an application by a debtor or guarantor is successful, the civil penalty may be set off against any amount outstanding under the contract, or if there is no amount outstanding, is a debt due to the debtor or guarantor.

I have noted previously that the penalty if the application is made by the credit provider or Government Consumer Agency is $500,000. Section 105(2) directs the court to determine the appropriate amount of penalty for disclosed contraventions in all jurisdictions and to determine the amount of penalty payable in each jurisdiction proportionately according to the number of contracts in that jurisdiction affected by the disclosed contraventions. This provision is especially important as it means that a credit provider need make only one application in one jurisdiction, and that will be a considerable saving with respect to the court's time and all parties' legal costs. Section 106 allows payment of a civil penalty, where the application is made by the credit provider or Government Consumer Agency, to be paid into a fund established for the purposes of this section. Honourable members would be aware that such a fund exists under the current legislation and the penalties paid into it are used for the purposes of financial counselling and education. It is intended that this practice will continue under the new legislation.

This brings me to the end of this important legislation. In conclusion, I would like to say that this code represents the very committed efforts of all stakeholders to provide a fair legislative solution to the very complex problems which exist in the financial marketplace. Inevitably some interests will not be satisfied but the Government is satisfied that the best possible compromise has been reached which will have positive returns for consumers, credit providers and the market. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.12]: The Opposition has great pleasure in supporting the bill, which is basically the same as the bill that was introduced by the coalition Government last year. It is the Opposition's strong belief that the bill is a step forward for both consumers and credit providers. It will definitely benefit consumers. The bill is particularly relevant to those New South Wales citizens who are currently being offered a range of new credit cards. The aim of the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Bill is to introduce, for the first time, uniform credit laws in this country. The progress of the bill has taken many years - it has been a long time coming. I am pleased that the Labor Government has seen fit to introduce the legislation.

That the bill has finally come before the House is of credit to the work of the two former Ministers for consumer affairs, the honourable member for Lane Cove and the honourable member for Port Macquarie. The previous Government, of which I was proud to be a member, should be applauded for having had the persistence and determination to carry out the process that led to this bill's entry to the House. It is important not only for New South Wales but for the whole of Australia that the legislation should work and that consumers and financial institutions throughout Australia should have a system that is fair to both sides, the credit providers and the consumers. A mammoth effort was undertaken by everyone involved with the legislation, as was acknowledged by the Minister in the other place. I am very pleased that the bill has been introduced.

The honourable member for Lane Cove, Mrs Chikarovski, has to be particularly commended for her effort to find agreement between the Ministers of the various States and Territories on the complex drafting involved with the legislation. She is to be commended for perseverance in her long and complex task. I also acknowledge the work of the honourable member for Port Macquarie, Ms Machin. After the initial agreement was signed by all States and Territories she had the task of translating the agreement into legislation and into its final code. This in itself was a complex and challenging task. As I said earlier, I support the bill as it is basically unchanged from the legislation introduced last year by the coalition Government. The bill aims to simplify financial work for consumers. The bill is specific about the information to be provided to consumers and the manner in which that information should be provided. The legislation will go a long way towards helping consumers through the complex maze of financial information, advertising, promotion, regulation and so on. Consumers will have the ability to make an informed choice.

The bill covers a much wider range of consumer credit than that covered by the current legislation. The current legislation is known for its complexity and for its incomprehensible language. This bill will rectify that. As both the Minister and the shadow minister stated during the second reading of this bill in the other place, the current law covers only 20 per cent of consumer products, consumer spending,
Page 325
consumer loans and consumer credit. This bill covers a much wider range of products, and that will be of benefit to all consumers. An important aspect of the bill is that it will help bring all the States into line on the issue of consumer credit. Last year Queensland passed its consumer credit legislation. New South Wales is the second State to introduce such legislation, and I am sure that the other States will follow suit. Before concluding my contribution, I should like to say that one of the major defects of the current law is that it is complex. It has become out of date and inadequate due to the rapidly changing financial world. I welcome the new legislation and I applaud the fact that it will be reviewed in five years. The review process should be a continuing process. I have no doubt that a review will be absolutely necessary to keep pace with the fast-changing financial world. The Opposition strongly supports the bill.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [6.17]: The Call to Australia Group supports the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Bill. The objects of the bill are to provide laws that apply equally to all forms of consumer lending and all credit providers and are to be uniform in all Australian jurisdictions. The bill is based on the principle of truth in lending, which will allow borrowers to make informed choices when purchasing credit. The legislation will replace the Credit Act 1984 and the Credit (Home Finance Contracts) Act 1984. The Credit Act 1984 was drafted to apply to the highly regulated financial industry of the 1970s and has been of limited value in a deregulated market in which flexibility is essential to the efficient working of the credit market and to respond to consumer demand.

The Credit Act 1984 covered less than 20 per cent of consumer credit products and has been widely criticised for its difficult drafting style and highly regulatory approach. The proposed legislation has addressed criticisms of the 1984 Act. It will cover all consumer credit products, including housing finance, and has no monetary ceiling except for hardship applications and applications for postponement enforcement. In such cases, the ceiling is $125,000, that being the monetary ceiling in the Credit (Home Finance Contracts) Act. The legislation will cover all lenders, including credit unions and building societies, which are not currently covered by the Credit Act 1984. There will be exceptions to the legislation, and these are detailed in proposed section 7 of the consumer credit code. The exceptions are considered not to be maintained credit activities.

The philosophical basis for the bill is to allow market forces to prevail where this is seen to be effective, to assist the process where the market works imperfectly and to regulate when competition does not produce an equitable result. The legislation is based on truth in lending principles and requires disclosures of relevant information to a potential debtor before entering a contract so that an informed decision can be made. This applies also to mortgagors and guarantors. It is considered that these requirements will address one of the major criticisms of credit providers - that they do not give sufficient information about the obligations that debtors, mortgagors and guarantors undertake under contracts. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.20]: The Australian Democrats support the legislation. However, I would like to put on record the perceived shortcomings of the bill. It is unfortunate that this type of mirror legislation precludes making any amendments to the bill. Being mirror legislation, it can result in lowest common denominator legislation. The main concern of the Australian Democrats relates to the means by which changes can be made to the contract during its life. For those with an existing loan of $20,000 or less this bill will result in less protection rather than more. Part 4, division 1, allows for unilateral changes to certain aspects of the contract by the credit provider. All that is required is for the credit provider to give notice of the proposed changes through publication in a newspaper throughout the jurisdiction at least 30 days before the change takes place.

The Australian Democrats do not consider this to be an adequate form of notification. Debtors may not see such a notification, and therefore would be unable to take action to avoid losses. Because I hoped that those affected by a change in their contracts could be notified personally in writing, I would like the Minister to explain why that cannot be so. The bill also lacks a comprehensive monitoring process. Is there any intention to monitor whether notification via the newspapers is working and to ascertain that no abuses are taking place? In particular there is a need to ensure that those taking out small loans - such as a teenager borrowing $5,000 to buy his or her first car, and with no experience as a consumer of credit - are not unduly disadvantaged.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.22], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the provisions of this bill. In regard to the matter raised by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, I am advised that in practice the matters to which he refers are not seen to be a problem. If the honourable member has a remaining difficulty regarding the matters he raised during debate, I will provide him with a written response as soon as possible. However, I am assured that the matters to which he refers are not a significant problem so far as actual contractual relations are concerned. I commend the bill to the House and I express my gratitude to honourable members who have spoken in the debate for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[The President left the chair at 6.24 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

Page 326

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [8.01]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The purpose of the bill before the House is to amend the Totalizator Act 1916 and the Totalizator (Off-Course Betting) Act 1964 to enable future variations to the rates of commission which may be deducted from on- and off-course totalisators to be set by way of order of the Governor on the recommendation of the Treasurer. Under the current provisions of the Totalizator Act and the Totalizator (Off-course Betting) Act commission is deducted from all investments made on all totalisators at a rate which is determined by the type of bet: these are, a win and place bet, 14.25 per cent; quinella, 15 per cent; double, trifecta and exacta, 17 per cent; and superfecta, 20 per cent.

The legislation will further provide that this commission be shared between the Crown, the Totalizator Agency Board and racing clubs conducting totalisators in accordance with set formulae. No doubt honourable members would be aware that following the passage of legislation through the Victorian Parliament in mid-1994, the Victorian Totalizator Agency Board was fully privatised and is now a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock Exchange. I expect that, as with any public company, that organisation will now be seeking to maximise return for its shareholders, with the result that many of the agreements which have existed between the various TABs throughout Australia could well be cast aside.

In fact, during the lead-up to the float both the Victorian Premier and the Victorian Treasurer made several references to the opportunities which would exist for the privatised TAB - known as TABCORP Holdings Limited - to expand its business overseas and interstate. Naturally, this has concerned the racing industry in this State, and fears have been expressed that TABCORP may well take action to reduce the overall rate of totalisator commission applying in Victoria, and in turn embark on a major campaign to attract investors away from the New South Wales Totalizator Agency Board and the New South Wales racing clubs. As a result, both the TAB and the major racing clubs recommended that the Government take immediate action to counter the effects of such a campaign by reducing the commission rates in this State.

The clubs and the TAB have argued that the cost of a reduction would be revenue neutral; however, neither I nor my department is as confident in that regard. In fact, based on recent experiences in New South Wales and interstate, I suggest that turnover increases sufficient to offset the forgone commission will not be achieved. Nevertheless, although I am not prepared at this stage to recommend that totalisator commission rates in this State be reduced, it is imperative that the Government take action to better position itself to be able to react quickly should any reduction of commission rates in Victoria have significant detrimental effects on government and industry revenues in this State. This bill will have that effect as it will allow the Governor to vary totalisator commission rates by order published in the Government Gazette on the recommendation of the Treasurer.

The bill will also provide for the Governor to vary the ratio by which commission is distributed between the Crown and the racing industry. However, I emphasise that the legislation will not empower the Government to increase totalisator commission rates above existing levels, and the maximum rates will continue to be fixed under the respective Acts. In addition, the bill provides that before recommending the making of an order to vary totalisator commission rates, the Treasurer must consult and have regard to the advice of the Minister for Gaming and Racing.

I also assure honourable members and the racing industry that the Carr Government will not repeat the mistakes of the former Government, which increased totalisator commission rates in 1991 without any regard for the effects of that increase on the industry. That ill-conceived decision had a crippling effect on the finances of the racing industry, and forced the Fahey Government into an embarrassing about-face. Apart from placing the Government in a position to react quickly to any negative effects from actions taken outside New South Wales, the changes contained in the bill before the House intend to send a clear signal to interstate authorities that the New South Wales Government is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to protect the viability of the racing industry, as well as its own revenue base. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.01]: Her Majesty's Opposition - or should I say the alternative government, which is a phrase that the previous Leader of the Opposition used on numerous occasions, though I do not know whether it brought him any luck - has much pleasure in supporting this legislation. The bill is a measure that the former Government approved through its Cabinet and intended to bring into the House anyway. This legislation is the result of the corporatisation and then the privatisation of the Victorian Totalizator Agency Board, which has promoted an opportunity for that organisation possibly to trade across the border and compete against the New South Wales TAB for the gambling dollar. It is very important that New South Wales should try to retain its share of the market and not let the Victorians take away our TAB gambling dollar, as they have taken just about everything else since 25 March.

The legislation is simple but important. It will allow the Government, by statute, on the advice of the Treasurer and the Minister for Gaming and Racing - and it is important that he has a say about the percentage of commission that will be taken from the TAB in New South Wales - to reduce commission rates and in that way allow the TAB in New South Wales to compete with the Victorians if the occasion arises in the future. I might add that at the time of the privatisation of the Victorian TAB, which has obviously been a successful move because the organisation is going from strength to strength, the Victorian Opposition, led by Mr Brumby, went to a lot of trouble to try to derail the privatisation process and to talk down the future profits and success of the Victorian TAB - commonly called VicTAB - to the detriment of the Labor Party in Victoria.

However, the attack was unsuccessful and the Victorian TAB was successfully floated. Obviously, it poses a threat to New South Wales in terms of the commission rates in this State. Some $327.9 million has been appropriated this financial year from the commission rates in New South Wales, and that is a substantial amount. It is important that the revenue remain at the maximum level. The legislation
Page 327
provides for a maximum rate of commission to be in place and for flexibility so that the Government can reduce the rates of commission from time to time. However, honourable members, especially the Hon. A. B. Manson who knows a little about gaming and racing in this State, will understand that it is important for the maximum amount to be returned to the race clubs in this State. Honourable members may be aware that country racing is in a predicament at the moment. The amount of revenue available to country clubs and the patronage of country clubs have fallen.

The minimum amount fixed as the prize money that must be paid out for each race in New South Wales has increased. That has really pinched the race clubs. At the moment a number of country clubs are struggling and are in dire straits. It is important that proposed section 8 of the Totalizator Act, which will change the proportions of commission that can be distributed between the State, the TAB and race clubs, is not taken too seriously by the Government. I know that the proposed section has been included for a very good reason: it will be available to the Government at any future time to vary those proportions between the State, the TAB and race clubs. As the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services knows, the last thing we want is for the Government to increase its take at the expense of race clubs and at the expense of the racing industry in this State.

A finite amount is available from gaming and gambling. Whether through the new casino that will start in September, through the clubs, or through the gaming machines in hotels, only so much is available from the gaming dollar in this State, and it would be a great pity if at some stage racing clubs, in particular country racing clubs, found themselves in difficulty because of a reduction in the rate of commissions available to them. That is certainly something that the Opposition will be watching to ensure that the Government, if it must reduce its commission rates, does not penalise the racing clubs so that country racing clubs in particular will find it even more difficult to survive in the future.

With those few comments, the Opposition supports the bill. It is one of the coalition's pieces of legislation. We appreciate that the new Minister has brought this legislation forward so quickly, as it will protect the TAB in New South Wales from further possible incursions by the Victorian TAB. The Opposition looks forward to the corporatisation legislation, which I hope has not been ruined by some other prospective State-owned corporations legislation that the Government intends to introduce into the Parliament. New South Wales needs a fully corporatised TAB that will not be beholden to the government of the day but will operate under circumstances similar to those that apply to VicTAB, and will look after the interests of racing in this State.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON [8.08]: The purpose of the proposal before the House is to amend the Totalizator Act 1916 and the Totalizator (Off-course Betting) Act 1964 to enable future variations to the rates of commission that may be deducted from on-course and off-course totalisator investments to be set by way of order of the Governor on the recommendation of the Treasurer. The changes contained in the bill are vital to the continuing viability of the racing industry in New South Wales, which now faces possible increased competition from the recently privatised Victorian TAB. Any subsequent reduction of commission rates in Victoria may have significant detrimental effects on government and industry revenue in New South Wales.

The proposed amendments to the totalisator Acts of 1916 and 1964 will enable the Government to react quickly should any reduction of commission rates in Victoria take place, as both the Victorian Premier and the Victorian Treasurer have referred to opportunities for expansion interstate. I remind the House that in the 1993-94 financial period government revenue from the industry was $313.5 million and that it is estimated that $327.9 million will be received in the 1994-95 period. These proposed amendments show that the Government is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to protect the viability of the racing industry, as well as its own revenue base. The legislation will not authorise the Government to increase totalisator commission rates above their current levels. Maximum rates will continue to be fixed under the respective Acts.

Additionally, the amended legislation will enable the distribution of commissions among the Government, the TAB and the racing industry to be varied on advice from the Treasurer, in consultation with the Minister for Gaming and Racing. The legislation will ensure that the mistake of the former Government of increasing totalisator commission rates in 1991 is not repeated. In contrast with the lack of regard the former Government had for the racing industry, this Government will take whatever action is considered necessary to protect what is a popular and worthwhile industry in New South Wales, and to send a clear signal to interstate authorities that the Government is in a position to react quickly to any negative aspects from actions taken outside New South Wales. I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.12]: The Totalizator Legislation Amendment Bill is a technical bill that neither promotes nor reduces gambling in this State. It seeks to maintain at least the present level of gambling on the TAB, in view of the threat posed by Victoria following the privatisation by the Victorian Parliament of the Victorian TAB, now known as TABCORP, a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock Exchange. Such privatisation has led to concerns in the industry in this State that TABCORP could take action in the future to reduce the overall rate of totalisator commission, or the rate for a type of totalisator applying in Victoria and, in turn, embark on a major campaign to attract investors away from the New South Wales TAB and the New South Wales racing clubs.

Page 328

The bill will enable the Government, if necessary, to react quickly to any action taken by Victoria or any other State to undermine anticipated income on which the budget is based. One of the concerns that I have raised year after year is how much revenue is raised from the various forms of gambling - the TAB, poker machines, lotto, football pools, et cetera. Almost every facet of our society is in some way involved in gambling, which means that governments become more and more dependent on the gambling dollar as part of their revenue to finance government services, including hospitals, schools, and police. It is a dangerous and alarming situation that the Government has a vested interest in promoting gambling and ensuring its success.

We now have a new scenario: New South Wales is not being left alone to exploit the gambling dollar. This State is now competing with two other States - Victoria and Queensland - whose previous actions in other areas leave them open to be labelled as being ruthless in their approach. They are not particularly worried if they damage New South Wales economically. New South Wales will try to outbid Victoria and Queensland, thus creating more pressure to expand gambling, to increase revenue from the gambling dollar, and to improve facilities for gambling, which results in a tremendous social cost. In the past week some of the major newspapers have published front-page stories about the serious nature of the social problems being caused by gambling. In my opinion gambling always has been a serious problem, but it has not always been spoken about by the mass media.

I have been saddened in recent days to read stories of persons charged with embezzlement. In many instances the bottom line is that the person charged became hooked on gambling and started to take funds from his particular organisation. He may have been a person who held a highly respected position, a trusted person with no previous pattern of gambling behaviour who became addicted to gambling, got out of his depth and started taking funds from a company, a hospital, or a charity. I urge the Government to take heed of the red light that is flashing. The Government, in its overall governing of the State, must take serious note of the effects of gambling. It must govern in the best interests of the people of this State.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [8.17], in reply: I thank honourable members, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who led on behalf of the Opposition, for their support for the bill. The common thread of the bill is to introduce a scheme to protect the New South Wales racing industry and government revenue in the face of possible increased competition from the privatised Victorian TAB. In that regard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said words to the effect that the Victorian TAB is going from strength to strength due to privatisation. My advice is that the Victorian TAB is, in fact, going from strength to strength, not because of wagering activity but largely due to gaming activity. I also note that TABCORP has a 50 per cent share in the operation of poker machines in Victoria and that the racing industry is able to benefit from that source, as well as from its traditional sources of revenue. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was clearly right in saying that it is in a strong position.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that the bill is technical in nature because it neither promotes nor reduces gambling in this State, and that is a fair comment. The point the honourable member sought to make was that the bill could be said to have a neutral effect. I take it that, although Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile clearly has a commitment to fight gambling, which is something I understand, he does not take particular exception to this legislation, given that its purpose is to maintain the level of revenue and the existing scale of activity in the face of possible increased competition from Victoria. I again thank those who have spoken in the debate, including my colleague the Hon. A. B. Manson. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [8.21]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table my second reading speech for incorporation in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Some members of this House may be aware that a very similar bill to the Fire Brigades Amendment (Contributions) bill was introduced in the other place by the former coalition Government late last year. However, the bill only proceeded to second reading before the Parliament was prorogued.

Mr President, the Government has effectively decided to reintroduce the bill.

In late 1993 amendments were made to the Fire Brigades Act to, among other things, alter the reporting base of premiums received by insurance companies from a calendar year to a financial year basis.

This particular amendment brought into line the reporting requirements of insurance companies to both the NSW Fire Brigades and the Department of Bush Fire Services.

This new arrangement was more administratively convenient to the insurance industry because it meant that insurance companies could report to both fire services at the same time.

Mr President, the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) informed the previous Minister for Police and Emergency Services that the amendment had created an unintended consequence for the insurance industry.

Insurance companies had incurred a double legal liability to pay a levy on premiums collected between July and December 1993, estimated at $75 million. This assessment period was used to facilitate the alignment of the reporting periods of insurers to both fire services.

Page 329

In order to overcome this problem, Mr President, it is proposed that the contributions by insurance companies and local councils to fire brigade costs will be determined on a financial year basis rather than a calendar year basis which exists at present.

This is the primary object of this bill.

The bill will also provide for advance contribution payments to be made by local councils to fire brigade costs but does not of itself increase payments due from councils. Such advance payments are already required from insurance companies.

There are other minor amendments of a financial nature included in the bill.

Mr President, this legislation is simply machinery in nature and is designed to remedy an unintended consequence of a past amendment.

Extensive consultations have occurred with representatives of the Insurance Council of Australia and the Local Government and Shire Associations. Both of these organisations have indicated their support for this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.22]: The Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the Fire Brigades Amendment (Contributions) Bill, the object of which is to make a small amendment to the Fire Brigades Act 1989. My understanding of the background to the proposed legislation is that it was introduced by the previous Government prior to losing office on 25 March. The alternative government has great pleasure in supporting the bill in this Parliament.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON [8.23]: The main purpose of the bill is to change the basis of calculations of contributions to the costs of New South Wales Fire Brigades from a calendar year to a financial year. The bill has been supported in the other place by all parties. A similar bill was introduced by the former Government in the final session of the last Parliament. However, that bill proceeded only to its second reading before Parliament was prorogued. The new bill is designed to correct an unintended consequence of a previous amendment to the Fire Brigades Act 1989 which, for the sake of administrative convenience, brought into line the reporting requirements of insurance companies to both the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Department of Bush Fire Services.

The unintended consequence of that amendment was that insurers incurred a double legal liability to pay a levy on premiums collected between July and December 1993. The estimated value of that liability is $75 million. In order to overcome that unintended consequence, insurance industry reporting and contribution periods have to be made the same. This will entail changing the basis of calculation of contributions to New South Wales Fire Brigades by the insurance industry and local councils from a calendar year to a financial year. The bill is simply machinery in nature. It has the support of the Insurance Council of Australia and the Local Government and Shires Association. I support the bill.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING [8.25]: The Opposition supports the bill, for the obvious reason that it was originally prepared by the previous Government, and we have not changed our minds. The bill is a simple measure related to the funding of the New South Wales Fire Brigades or matters to do with that funding. As such, I need not burden the House with further exposition of the detail of the bill. There is a crying need for citizens of this State to appreciate that we can no longer afford the luxury of maintaining two fire brigade organisations within New South Wales.

The State is ill-served by having two separate fire brigade organisations. The only reason two organisations exist is that the Government is not willing to grasp the political nettle to rationalise them. When I was the responsible Minister I went dangerously close to bringing the two organisations together. I had solved the political problems and had received agreement from both organisations to amalgamate the administration, not operation, of both brigades. Unfortunately, I ran foul of another organisation I was managing at the time and did not have time to continue in that direction. I strongly recommend that the new Government look seriously at the desperate need to reduce costs and dramatically increase efficiency by amalgamating the administrations, though not the fighting arms, of the two fire brigade organisations. Amalgamation will provide a much better service to this State at a significantly reduced price.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.28]: Call to Australia supports the Fire Brigades Amendment (Contributions) Bill. The bill seeks to overcome the unintended consequence of a previous amendment to the Fire Brigades Act which led to a clash in the basis of calculation of levies contributed by insurance companies and local councils. The object of the bill is to amend the Fire Brigades Act 1989 to provide that contributions by insurance companies and local councils to fire brigade costs will be determined on the basis of a financial year rather than a calendar year, and to provide for advance contribution payments to be made by councils to fire brigade costs, given that such advance payments are already required from insurance companies. The bill proceeded through the last Parliament but did not become law. That shortcoming will now be rectified. I support the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [8.29], in reply: I thank members for their support of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 24 May.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.30]: On behalf of the Opposition I am pleased to support the Evidence Bill and cognate bills.
Page 330
This piece of legislation has been introduced because of the work pushed by the Opposition when it was in government. I draw attention to many milestones in the development of this piece of legislation. In June 1988 the New South Wales Law Reform Commission released its report on the law of evidence in this State. In 1991 Attorney General John Dowd took up that report and, to his credit, introduced into the Legislative Assembly the Evidence Bill 1991. That bill was based upon the work of the Law Reform Commission of June 1988 and was released by John Dowd for the purposes of obtaining comment. The concept of moving towards codifying the law of evidence in this country was fraught at that time with significant controversy. The Law Society and the Bar Association in New South Wales were strongly opposed to the Evidence Bill released by my former colleague John Dowd.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: His Honour was a radical.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: It would be fair to say that John Dowd was always a radical of his time. Notwithstanding that, he did not proceed with the bill because the legal profession strongly opposed it. As Attorney General, I considered that the work of John Dowd should be moved forward, notwithstanding the opposition of the Law Society and the Bar Association. Honourable members would acknowledge that I was not deterred by professional associations that did not see eye to eye with me.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: You were very courageous.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Perhaps sometimes not courageous enough. In August 1993 I released a further exposure draft bill to obtain further comments. As the Attorney General said, approximately 80 submissions were received in response to that draft. At the same time I took the view that the work again started by John Dowd to try to achieve uniform evidence laws throughout Australia should be pursued and should continue at least at Commonwealth and New South Wales level. I must acknowledge the work of Dr Roger Brown, the author of a book entitled "Documentary Evidence in Australia", who is now a member of the magistracy of New South Wales. Dr Roger Brown took up the cudgels on my behalf to try to gain acceptance of this legislation. At that time the views of the bureaucracies in Canberra and Sydney on uniform legislation were miles apart.

Dr Roger Brown, who is acknowledged in this country as one of the experts on evidence, sought to knock together the heads of bureaucracy. The Federal Minister for Justice, the Hon. Duncan Kerr, instructed his department that agreement was to be reached to achieve uniform legislation. I thank him for his assistance because agreement was reached. The Commonwealth Evidence Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives in December 1993 because Duncan Kerr and I acknowledged that if the bill were introduced in New South Wales, with such strident opposition from the legal profession and with the state of the Parliament in 1993 I could not guarantee that it would be passed.

We hoped that by introducing the bill in Canberra, where the Government had control of the lower House and might have some influence in the Senate, the legislation might be passed and it might then be passed in New South Wales. The legislation was introduced and passed in the House of Representatives. As expected the Senate opposed it. The legal profession exerted its influence in Canberra and the bill was sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That committee received much evidence from many attributed experts around the country, many of whom opposed the package of legislation. Following consultations I had with representatives of the Senate a report was received recommending that Duncan Kerr and I should confer on certain issues. Agreement was reached and the Commonwealth bill passed through both Houses and became law on 18 April. The principal bill has now been introduced in New South Wales. When I ceased to be Attorney General I received a number of letters. One letter that pleased me was from Duncan Kerr. I will burden the House with one paragraph of that letter in which he said:

I have always appreciated your co-operative and progressive approach to law in justice reform. But for your efforts we would not, for instance, be so far down the road in the important area of uniform evidence laws and the model criminal code.

I am pleased that New South Wales was able to drive the initiative that is now before the Parliament. The Commonwealth and New South Wales bills are uniform except where minor drafting variations and technical differences are required. The principal bill is unique in its presentation as it models Federal legislation and some sections actually have no words. Those sections relate only to the Federal arena and their contents have been omitted from the New South Wales bill. The Federal legislation has similar gaps that would otherwise contain information that relates only to New South Wales laws.

In my experience there has never been legislation quite like these bills. That is something of which we in New South Wales can be proud. Over the last few years the former Government sought to implement national law reform by reaching agreement with the Commonwealth Government, by putting in place what could be described as template legislation, and by encouraging other States in Australia to adopt the law. Under our common law system the current law of evidence in Australia causes significant increases in costs and delays in many legal proceedings. Different laws of evidence apply in different States. As we are now moving towards a national legal profession - we are encouraging lawyers from Western Australia to come to New South Wales to practise and encouraging lawyers from Tasmania to go to Queensland - we need to be able to ensure that practitioners can appear in courts of any jurisdiction knowing that judges will take a consistent approach to the law of evidence

Lawyers currently have to prepare their cases differently because the laws are different. That adds to the cost and, in some cases, to the confusion.
Page 331
Consideration has always been given to the impact of change on the time taken to hear cases, the cost of litigation and the cost of activities outside the court. This legislation is a big step towards streamlining those issues. As the Attorney General said earlier, it should be noted that, though the legislation will codify many aspects of the law of evidence, it is not intended to operate as an exclusive code. The principal bill specifies that, apart from contrary intentions, the principles of the rules of common law and equity relating to evidence will not be affected. We are taking a radical approach in this legislation. We need to approach reform of the law of evidence gradually. If we had pursued total codification it would have been strongly opposed by the conservative elements of the legal profession and we would not have achieved anything.

This legislation is an evolutionary approach to law reform. The Attorney General referred earlier to the extensive changes to documentary evidence. It will be necessary to bring the law of evidence up to date to enable the use of technology. We have to recognise that changing the law is a very slow process. It would not be correct for me to use the word "radicalism" when referring to the legal profession, as the terms "radicalism" and "legal profession" are inconsistent. In the last few years we have tried to come to grips with that. I hope the Attorney General continues progress in that regard. The proposed legislation seeks to bring evidence law up to date with record keeping and technology. The Attorney General said earlier that, if we are able to implement national evidence law, it will mean potential annual savings of millions of dollars for the Government, businesses and individuals. I hope that the Attorney General, when attending meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General continues the law reform commenced in New South Wales. It is fair to say that Attorneys-General, around Australia were prepared to look to New South Wales for leadership. I trust that will continue.

The Attorney General has taken steps to establish a monitoring committee which will comprise representatives of the judiciary and the legal profession. That committee will monitor the implementation of this legislation and make recommendations to the Attorney General if any problems are encountered. I hope the Attorney General does not just leave it at that. Having been involved in the negotiations to achieve this law reform, I can say that significant compromises were made to reach this stage. Much more needs to be done to improve the law of evidence in this State. The Attorney General might be interested to learn that Dr Roger Brown, a magistrate, was involved in negotiations. The Attorney General might wish to obtain his expert views on the route that we should take. He, as a somewhat impartial person, might be able to grasp the nettle and proceed to the next stage of reform. The Government has taken the first step by monitoring the implementation of this legislation. Its next big challenge is to implement substantial reform. We have got this far in the last few years and we have changed the attitude of members of the legal profession. If we now grasp the nettle and implement the next stage of reform, we will significantly change for the better court procedures in this State.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.46]: The Australian Democrats support the Evidence Bill, the Evidence (Consequential and other Provisions) Bill and the Evidence on Commission Bill. Other speakers in debate on this legislation pointed out that these changes to the legislation, which have been in the pipeline for a long time, are the result of extensive consultation throughout the legal profession and the community. I am pleased that New South Wales has played such a leading role in what can only be described as an overdue but sensible part of the law reform process. The Australian Democrats recognise the urgency with which changes to our laws must, in some cases, take place to keep pace with rapidly advancing technology, particularly with regard to the admissibility of evidence and the need for laws to be uniform to provide some consistency in the delivery of justice, not just in New South Wales but throughout Australian States and Territories.

At the second reading stage of the Commonwealth Evidence Bill 1994, which was passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate in February this year, my Federal colleague Senator Sid Spindler moved an amendment that sought to include an additional definition of de facto spouse. The Minister's second reading speech points out that, during this extensive consultation process and its attempt to strike the necessary balance of interests, not everyone can be fully satisfied. Though I agree with the Minister's statement that the bills represent a valuable reform of our laws of evidence, I do not believe there will be true uniformity and equality before the law until the definition of de facto applies equally to same-sex couples who live with their partners on a genuine domestic basis. My dissatisfaction with the Evidence Bill is focused on this omission. I do not intend this far down the track to chip away with an amendment that mirrors the amendment moved by my Federal colleague. However, I place on record the need for same-sex couples of long standing to be recognised equally before all law.

The Australian Democrats support the intent of this bill to broaden the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings. It has the potential to minimise judicial discretion, which currently governs the admissibility of evidence. We further support the provision in clause 30 that will enable the use of an interpreter where witnesses not conversant with English are required by a court to appear. I realise that in some country courts this may be difficult, particularly in view of the number of languages now being spoken in New South Wales. I hope that the Government will determine whether or not a court can obtain the services of an interpreter. I hope also that the provision will lead to a reduction in the over-representation of Aboriginal Australians in custody. In conclusion I should like to quote from comments
Page 332
made by my colleague Senator Spindler in relation to the final report on the Commonwealth Evidence Bill 1993. Senator Spindler, when dealing with his own amendment that would allow same-sex couples the same rights as other de facto couples, made this statement:

The Minister continues to suggest that the amendment "would create a legal status similar to marriage for homosexual couples".

However, this ignores the fact -

this is Senator Spindler's view -

that the Bill equates married couples with de-facto couples.

Therefore the comparison is more appropriately made between homosexual and heterosexual de-facto couples and the amendment seeks equality of status for both, in line with the welcome trend for legislators to remove discrimination against homosexual partnerships in other areas of statute law.

Further, people in a gay or lesbian relationship are just as likely to confide in each other as a heterosexual couple and should be treated in the same way.

The Senator went on to speak about the final amendment, his own amendment:

The final amendment is that in relation to the definition of a parent, there is a need to include in the definition "a person with whom the child is living as if the person were a member of the person's family".

I believe that Senator Spindler's comments bear repetition, although I do not intend to move any amendments. I should like once again to make it clear to honourable members that I believe we can introduce amendments further down the track. For the time being, the Australian Democrats support the legislation before the House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.52]: The Call to Australia group supports the Evidence Bill and cognate bills. The object of the legislation is to reform the law of evidence applying in the Supreme Court and other State courts and in proceedings before other persons or bodies that, in exercising functions under laws of the State, are required to apply the laws of evidence. The Evidence Bill replaces the Evidence Bill 1991 that was introduced in the Legislative Assembly for comment on 23 March 1991. As has been stated, the Evidence Bill 1995 is the result of discussion and consultation in relation to the Commonwealth Evidence Bill introduced in the House of Representatives on 15 October 1991. The Commonwealth and New South Wales developed new bills having a common text except for differences reflecting constitutional and technical considerations.

The Commonwealth introduced its new Evidence Bill 1993 in the House of Representatives on 15 December 1993. The Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995 was assented to on 23 February and, with the exception of part 1.1 and the dictionary, commenced on 18 April. It is important that the State have clear laws relating to evidence, the giving of evidence, what can be accepted in court as evidence and the whole relationship of evidence. That is necessary in matters of first-hand evidence, hearsay evidence, and so on. Clause 21 in division 2 of the Evidence Bill deals with oaths and affirmations. Changes, which would have originated in the Federal scene and which reflect the multicultural aspect of our society, have been introduced. The majority of Australian citizens - census figures are as high as 70 per cent - still profess to a Christian background, but there are also large numbers of people from other religious groups such as the Muslim and Buddhist faiths.

Clause 24 deals with requirements for oaths and states that it is not necessary that a religious text be used in taking an oath. I am curious about the way in which an oath could be taken if there were no religious basis. I do not criticise the idea of someone taking an oath on the Koran or some other religious text, but to have no religious text would seem to be a contradiction of the concept of an oath. As I have already said, the legislation is tremendously detailed. I have to lean to the wisdom of qualified legal practitioners, and there are competent legal practitioners in both the Government and the Opposition. We accept their wisdom.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [8.56], in reply: It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the role of my predecessor, the Attorney General in the coalition Government, in the production of this legislation. New South Wales has been a prime mover in the quest for uniform and rational evidence laws, which is an appropriate procedure. I thank all honourable members for their support. As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile foreshadowed, the legislation will require ongoing discussion, monitoring and, no doubt, amendment in due course. The matter raised by the honourable member can be the subject of further discussion and refinement. The difficulty with trying to state the laws of evidence in a simple and codified form is that all of us with an interest in the laws of evidence might take a different view as to precisely how it should be expressed.

Obviously, compromises are embodied in this package. Those compromises will need to be reviewed to determine how they work out in practice in the courts. Essentially, the reform is important, and I think it will prove to save costs. In an era when State causes of action are vested in Federal courts and Federal causes of action are vested in State courts, it is of paramount importance that there be uniformity. I commend the legislation to the House and thank the House for its support.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 24 May.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.59]: I have pleasure in supporting the Corporations (New South Wales) Amendment Bill. The previous Government and I, as Attorney General, played a significant part in developing this legislation.
Page 333
At the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, New South Wales was instrumental in implementing the necessary reform to ensure greater access to all courts in all States in disputes involving corporations. Court decisions had narrowed down the original intention and ensured that there was access only to the superior courts in various jurisdictions.

This legislation will ensure that those who wish to litigate against corporations will have access to all courts, and will be able to gain that access up to the jurisdictional limit of those courts. Therefore, litigation involving corporations will be significantly cheaper, significantly more expeditious and thus greatly more beneficial to all constituents of New South Wales. I am pleased that the Government has proceeded with this legislation in this session. Lawyers, particularly in the regional law societies which I visited extensively during my period of administration, have informed me that they are looking forward to this legislation, which will be welcomed by all legal practitioners in this State. I hope the legislation is proclaimed as quickly as possible after it is passed. I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.01]: The Call to Australia group supports the bill. As has been previously stated, this bill seeks to amend the Corporations (New South Wales) Act 1990 so as to confer jurisdiction on lower courts to hear civil matters arising under the Corporations Law and to enact consequential savings and transitional provisions; to make an amendment that is consequential on the Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 of the Commonwealth; to make an amendment that is consequential on the Evidence Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, which has just been passed; and to make a minor amendment to clarify the powers of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Call to Australia supports this bill, which will make the courts of our State act more efficiently, in the best interests of individuals and, in this case, corporations. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.02]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the bill. It bears repeating that this legislation has arisen because recent court decisions have indicated that matters arising under the Corporations Law could be heard only by superior courts. Concerns were voiced by the business community and the legal profession that legitimate action would not be able to be brought because of the cost and delay in bringing actions before superior courts. These amendments will reduce cost and delay so that small civil matters can be brought under the Corporations Law, and will ensure that justice will be available to all members of the community at a reasonable cost. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, for very small claims the filing fees alone often prevent the commencement of civil proceedings in a superior court. I, too, congratulate the Attorney General on bringing forward this important amendment bill, and I take great pleasure in supporting it.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.04], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support and I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 24 May.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [9.06]: Her Majesty's official Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the Coal Industry Amendment Bill. As the Attorney General said in his second reading speech, the purpose of this legislation is to provide for the abolition of the Coal Industry Tribunal and to transfer the activities of that tribunal, or its jurisdiction, to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. This matter has been the subject of considerable negotiation between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. Agreement was reached last year that the matter should proceed. The Commonwealth Government, in accordance with its agreement with the New South Wales Government, has passed legislation to achieve the transfer.

I seek an assurance from the Minister in relation to the operation of common-rule awards under the changes. Because of the constitutional arrangements, and therefore the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, will the Minister indicate how common-rule awards will be dealt with as a result of this transfer and how, constitutionally, we can be satisfied that they will be appropriately covered so that there will not be jurisdictional dispute? This matter has been the subject of some concern. An effort has been made to address the issue, but the matter is not clear. The Minister can be assured that he will receive the support of the Opposition on this issue if further action needs to be taken. However, the parties need clear assurances from the Minister of his satisfaction that the matter has been attended to and that there will not be a problem; and, if problems arise, that legislative change will be pursued as a matter of urgency. The Opposition supports the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.08]: I put on record the support of the Call to Australia group for the Coal Industry Amendment Bill. The object of this bill is to reform arrangements relating to industrial matters in the coalmining industry in New South Wales. At present, industrial matters are dealt with by the Coal Industry Tribunal and local coal authorities under powers conferred by legislation of the Commonwealth and the State. This has created unnecessary duplication and problems. Under this legislation and the new arrangements the Coal Industry Tribunal and local coal authorities will be abolished. It is proposed that the industrial functions and powers will instead be exercised by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The coalmining industry has at various times been troubled by
Page 334
industrial problems. It is hoped that this legislation will help to reduce those problems immediately and to eliminate them in future. Obviously, those who work in the coalmining industry already work in one of the most difficult industries. They should at least be working in an industry in which there is no stress or additional controversy caused by the operation of the industrial courts. We look forward to seeing this legislation pour oil on troubled waters and helping any disputes to be resolved speedily, particularly in the interests of the miners themselves, and the maintenance of the important coalmining industry in Australia.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.10], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the bill. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a constructive point, as one would expect in a debate of this kind, as to whether the bill will effectively confer power on the Federal tribunal, if I could so refer to it - the Australian Industrial Relations Commission - to make common-rule awards in relation to the coal industry. Generally speaking, the AIRC cannot make common-rule awards; it can only make awards that resolve disputes between identified parties. It is probably not as important in the coal industry as in some other industries that common-rule awards be made because, by and large, there are major employers who can be identified and made respondents to the awards.

But I must acknowledge, in response to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, that there is some room for doubt as to whether the AIRC will have the jurisdiction to make common-rule awards or agreements in respect of the coalmining industry, given the general constitutional problem or gap of the Federal commission in dealing with measures on that basis. That is something that we are prepared to consider. Indeed, we are prepared to consider it during the passage of this legislation through the Parliament. But more practically, it is something that can be considered in due course and, if some additional conferral of power is needed, it is something that we will consider, having regard to the comments of parties within the industry.

The overriding consideration is to have the legislation passed so that there is no legal confusion when the Federal legislation comes into force or effect. We must have power conferred on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission generally with respect to the coal industry. It would be untoward and certainly untidy if the State legislation were to remain in force and effect, propping up a coal industry tribunal with powers to deal with disputes in New South Wales. In short, I take on board the point raised by the Opposition and undertake to give proper consideration to it. However, I stress that the overriding importance is to have this legislation passed so that the coal industry comes into the mainstream of industrial relations in Australia, a proposition supported by both the employers and the relevant union in the coal industry.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Suspension of certain standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.16]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Public Defenders Bill will better define the functions and responsibilities of public defenders and introduce mechanisms to ensure that public defenders are accountable for the efficient and effective performance of their duties. Public defenders are currently appointed and hold office pursuant to the Public Defenders Act 1969. That Act is largely silent on questions of management and accountability, and unduly restricts the scope of the work of public defenders. The 1969 Act is to be repealed and replaced with legislation better reflecting the current and potential role of public defenders, and placing appropriate emphasis on issues of accountability and management.

One point I wish to make clear at the outset is that the introduction of this bill should be in no way interpreted as suggesting any criticism of the past work of public defenders, or of the past or present holders of that position. All evidence points to the fact that public defenders have always and continue to perform their duties with diligence, efficiency and excellence. The various inquiries that have examined the work of public defenders all point to the value and quality of their work. The fact is that public defenders are poorly served by the limitations of the present legislation. The proposals in the bill follow upon the recent inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament into public defenders. The Public Accounts Committee report was completed in June 1994, and made some 30 recommendations aimed at formalising accountability and management, whilst at the same time preserving the independence of public defenders in the performance of their work. Public defenders act principally for persons accused by the State of criminal offences. It is of course vital that they are unfettered in the performance of that role by the threat, real or perceived, of government interference or retribution.

The Government is grateful for the work of the Public Accounts Committee and its staff. The current bill largely follows the proposals in the Public Accounts Committee report. One particularly significant recommendation encapsulated in the bill is the proposal that the Senior Public Defender and the deputy senior public defenders should be appointed on a term basis. One area of departure from the Public Accounts Committee recommendations concerns the recommendation that the new legislation create an Office of Public Defenders as a separate administrative office for the purposes of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 and annual reporting legislation. There is no policy objection to this
Page 335
proposal. However, as a practical matter, the question might be asked as to whether the significant administrative burdens that would be placed on the office, including the preparation of separate audited financial reports, are justified.

Financial arrangements in relation to public defenders are already open to scrutiny by inclusion within the accounts of the Attorney General's Department. On balance, it is considered that the creation of a separate administrative office is not warranted. I will now briefly examine the provisions of the bill. Clause 6 of the bill provides that public defenders may be appointed by the Governor. The current Act provides that only barristers are eligible to be appointed as public defenders. Consistent with the common admission regime now established by the Legal Profession Act 1987, the requirement should be for admission as a legal practitioner. Pursuant to schedule 2 to the bill, the Crown Prosecutors Act will be amended in a similar fashion.

Clauses 4 and 5 provide for the appointment by the Governor of a senior public defender and one or more deputy senior public defenders. The terms of appointment set out in the bill - up to seven years for the Senior Public Defender and up to five years for deputy senior public defenders - are as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee. Non-senior public defenders will continue, subject to the provisions in the bill, to hold tenure indefinitely. Clause 7 of the bill allows the Attorney General to appoint acting public defenders for periods of up to 12 months. A similar power exists with respect to Crown prosecutors. This provision will provide valuable flexibility in meeting fluctuating workload requirements and otherwise ensuring the effective management of resources. Part 3 of the bill deals with the functions of public defenders.

Clause 8 defines the management role and responsibilities of the Senior Public Defender. The Senior Public Defender is to be accountable to the Attorney General for the effective overall management of the work of public defenders. As an administrative matter this might be supplemented as an agreement by the Attorney General and the Senior Public Defender setting out agreed outcomes and performance measures. Consistent with this responsibility, the Senior Public Defender is to be given authority in relation to the day-to-day management of the Office of Public Defenders and power to make arrangements for the disposition of work by public defenders. The Senior Public Defender is to provide advice and assistance to public defenders and to monitor their work and activities. As an administrative matter, that monitoring role might extend to providing for individual public defenders to enter into statements of duties, as was suggested by the Public Accounts Committee.

Clause 8(1)(c) of the bill makes it a function of the Senior Public Defender to enter into arrangements with the Legal Aid Commission in relation to the provision of services to legally assisted persons. The Public Accounts Committee recommended that the Senior Public Defender and the Managing Director of the Legal Aid Commission should enter into an annual contract for the provision of legal services to include work value targets and consideration of the other services provided by public defenders. This provision would facilitate that. The management powers of the Senior Public Defender are qualified in one important respect: a public defender owes a duty to his or her client in each particular case, and the management powers of the Senior Public Defender should not unduly intrude on this. Accordingly, the bill expressly preserves the authority of public defenders in respect of the conduct of any particular proceedings.

Clause 10 deals with the functions of public defenders. The provisions in the bill reflect the traditional functions of public defenders in respect of criminal proceedings, but also allow for their role to widen to act, for example, in respect of proceedings under mental health legislation. The ability of public defenders to act in cases concerning a person's release from or detention in prison, for example, in bail and parole applications, is also clarified. Of particular significance, increased flexibility is provided by making provision to enable public defenders to act for bodies such as an Aboriginal legal service or a community legal centre. The current Act provides for public defenders to accept instructions only from the Legal Aid Commission. It is appropriate that public defenders be able to make their expertise available to clients of community legal aid centres and, in particular, to clients of the Aboriginal legal services.

However, given the distinct funding regimes that apply to these organisations there is a need to allow for arrangements to be made concerning the costs of providing such services. This is addressed in clause 12 of the bill. Part 4 of the bill deals with some miscellaneous matters. Of importance is clause 15 which facilitates the secondment of public defenders to act as Crown prosecutors or to assist in the conduct of royal commissions or Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiries or other such inquiries or investigations. It is intended that this will include coronial inquiries. Clause 17 enhances accountability and parliamentary scrutiny by requiring an annual report on the work and activities of public defenders to be prepared for the Attorney General. The Attorney General of the day must table the report in Parliament. Clause 18 deals with the establishment of an external review committee to monitor the work and activities of public defenders.

Schedule 1 to the bill deals with the conditions of appointment of public defenders and senior officers. Of particular importance are the provisions relating to vacation of office. These provisions reflect the provisions of the existing Act. However, one significant change is the addition of unsatisfactory performance as a criterion for removal of office in clause 5(2)(a) of schedule 1. The application of the Public Sector Management Act to public defenders is specifically excluded. Schedule 2 to the bill makes a range of necessary consequential amendments to other legislation. Finally, schedule 3 contains savings and
Page 336
transitional provisions. All existing public defenders will be reappointed as public defenders under the new legislation, and their existing rights will be preserved.

Though much of the Public Defenders Bill may seem of a machinery or even a pedestrian nature to honourable members of this House, it does include some very important new initiatives. Public defenders will be able to perform an expanded range of work, including acting for clients of an Aboriginal legal service or community legal centre. The bill ensures appropriate management and accountability whilst not impinging on the independence of public defenders. Public defenders provide expert and efficient legal representation to those most in need in our community. The bill will place public defenders on a sound footing to continue that very important work into the future. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. M. Samios.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.27]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN [9.27]: Tess Gleeson, one of Australia's leading women harness racing drivers, was disqualified on 15 August 1994 for allegedly failing to allow the horse to run on its merits. On appeal, the disqualification of 12 months was reduced to nine months. A number of supporters of Tess Gleeson, who considered that she had been dealt with unfairly, formed the Justice for Tess Gleeson Committee. On 10 November 1994 the committee submitted new evidence under section 19A of the Harness Racing Authority Act seeking to reopen the stewards' inquiry. Additional new evidence was submitted to the Harness Racing Authority on 28 November 1994. The National Trotguide reported the General Manager, Brian Judd, as saying that the application was the most energetically discussed matter at the board meeting on 1 December 1994. As a result, a decision was taken to adjourn and seek legal advice. On 22 December 1994 a decision to reject the application was made three votes to two.

The Harness Racing Authority Board has refused to disclose any information in relation to the legal advice it received, or the board's reasons for reaching its decision to decline the application. The deliberate lack of reference to the vital legal opinion strongly implies uncertainty and hence the benefit of doubt should have been given to Tess Gleeson. She was a rising star in harness racing. Top women drivers are rare, and Tess was in line to win the 1993-94 premiership at the time of her disqualification. She would have been the first woman to do so. It should be noted that in the New South Wales Supreme Court in August 1990 Mr Justice Young, in quashing a 12-week suspension by the same steward involved in the current matter, ruled that she was not afforded natural justice and that prejudice existed. That prejudice is evident again. During the initial stewards' inquiry the chairman, in response to a witness's question on how they based their judgment, said:

The stewards are the people who adjudicate and decide on a charge, decide on the matter of guilt, and decide on what penalties, if any, are imposed. So we are the observers, the prosecutors. We are the jury and we are the judge. Does that put it clearly enough?

On Tuesday, 15 November 1994, Tess Gleeson's request to the chairman, Mr Donoghue, to present her new evidence in person was rejected point blank. This was an extraordinary action when compared to the recent handling by the Victorian Racing Club Committee of Lee Freedman, when it willingly allowed more than 20 owners from all over Australia, plus their legal representatives, to address them. Freedman had been suspended for four months on a far more serious charge than that which led to Gleeson's disqualification of 12 months. The Justice for Tess Gleeson Committee was formed after the appeal hearing on 6 September 1994. It claims that additional new evidence comprehensively disproves the stewards' findings and proves Tess Gleeson's innocence. At the age of 26 Tess Gleeson has announced her premature retirement from harness racing due to the stigma of the unjust disqualification. I would like to read her press statement:

It is with deep regret that I announce my premature retirement from harness racing. The sport has been both my great love and my life.

I feel I cannot return to driving while the stigma of disqualification remains. My conscience is clear and I am totally innocent of the offence. Owners have a right for their horses to compete on equal terms. I have felt harassed and victimised by the stewards and I feel I could not do justice to the owners' horses in the circumstances that exist.

I dearly wanted to win the 1993-94 drivers' premiership and become the first female to do so and achieve a place in harness racing history. I believe the stewards callously and wrongly denied me my goal. It was within reach and the decision devastated me.

I am grateful for the continuing efforts of the Justice for Tess Gleeson committee to clear my name. The support and sympathy shown by so many people, including total strangers, has been a great comfort to me and my family throughout this distressing period.

I remain hopeful justice will eventually prevail.

I support the public appeal by Mr Max Presnell, racing editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, for the Minister for Gaming and Racing to investigate this case to ensure that Tess Gleeson has received a fair go.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN [8.32]: I draw the attention of the House to the plight of a former member of the Police Service who appears to have
Page 337
been unjustly treated by a number of government departments. The officer is former Sergeant Bill Pinkerton, who prior to the incidents I shall outline was a member of the Police Service in the Liverpool patrol. Mr Pinkerton was charged with a number of very serious charges, including receiving bribes, during 1991. The basis of the case against Mr Pinkerton was evidence given by two convicted criminals who had been found guilty of serious drug offences. They had claimed that Mr Pinkerton had allowed one of them to receive drugs during the time he was being held in a police cell at Liverpool in return for bribes of the order of $5,000. One of the criminals was said to have identified Mr Pinkerton in a line-up of photographs, and their evidence was said to have been supported by another police officer who was employed at Liverpool patrol.

The charges arose after an investigation by officers seconded to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Mr Pinkerton was actually suspended without pay from the Police Service. The charges came to be heard in the Local Court. During the time the charges were being heard in the Local Court one of the prisoner informants retracted his evidence and the charges were eventually dropped. However, the distress Mr Pinkerton was placed under was so great that he was eventually forced to leave the Police Service. He is currently in receipt of a police pension. Since the charges were dropped further evidence about the manner in which these charges came to be laid has come to attention. The police officer who gave corroborating evidence was also found to have given two conflicting accounts of the events in the Liverpool police station, and has revealed that he only gave the first statement, which accused Mr Pinkerton of wrongdoing, after he had left the Police Service, in an attempt to enhance his claim for re-entry to the Police Service at a future time.

It was revealed in court that the evidence used to identify Mr Pinkerton in the line-up was flawed by the fact that the line-up was conducted by a single police officer acting alone; that Mr Pinkerton's photograph was laminated, unlike all the other photographs shown to the person supposed to be identifying people; and that, of the two people who were middle-aged and likely to be Mr Pinkerton, one was obviously not a Caucasian. The line-up was so obviously flawed that it attracted comment and serious criticism from Magistrate Gould, who heard the case and dismissed the charges.

Mr Pinkerton applied for an ex gratia payment from the Government to make up for the obvious loss he has sustained through having to undergo this trauma. He has written on two occasions to the former Government. During the election period the honourable member for Camden and I wrote to the former Premier. The election intervened and we received a reply after it. But we discovered, after the former Premier's Office allowed me to view the file, that there were a number of serious flaws that appeared to warrant independent inquiry. I took the file home, researched it over two or three days, and interviewed Mr Pinkerton in order to get the story straight.

In tandem with the honourable member for Camden, I wrote a fairly detailed letter to the former Premier. The election intervened. The new Premier assumed responsibility for making a reply. I made two approaches to Mr Carr's office. By that time I was aware of a brief from the Police Service stating that Mr Pinkerton, although obviously having been wronged, was not entitled to any support from the Government because the officer who had brought the case against him was seconded to the ICAC, and therefore the New South Wales Police Service could not possibly have been responsible. Letters written by Mr West and by Mr Griffiths, and eventually even advice from the former Premier, were based on that one piece of advice which had come from the legal office of the police department. No inquiry had been made to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the ICAC. There had been no whole-of-government approach to answering this matter.

I raised that issue in a fairly detailed letter to the Government. I really intended to raise it in a bipartisan manner, and I am not trying to score political points. But I was most disappointed, having written to the Premier and made representations to obtain the details, that I received a letter of almost four lines from the Cabinet Office. I have been told that Mr Pinkerton's claim for an ex gratia payment has been closely examined but it is considered that there is no basis for changing the advice previously provided on this matter. A three-line answer to a series of very serious questions about a most important matter is inadequate. I raise this matter in the House to bring it to the attention of the Government. I hope the Minister at another time will provide Mr Pinkerton with an answer to the serious matters I brought to the attention of the Government in my letter, which attracted a three-line response.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.37]: A highly organised campaign has been mobilised by a small number of activists to misrepresent, vilify and denigrate me over my appointment to the Council of the University of Wollongong. I have received from sympathetic students and staff at the university copies of all faxes that have been sent out, many of them supportive but others critical. I have been shocked by how much critical material is based on falsehood. I thought that people attending university would spend time ensuring that their facts were correct. One of the faxes sent far and wide, from someone called Jeff connected with the university, stated:

I have some contacts in the ALP . . . Nile's nomination to the University council did not come from the ALP but from Fred Nile himself.

That fax was signed by someone called Jeff connected with the university. When asked to accept the nomination I did not thoughtlessly give my assent but made investigations about the workload that could be required of a person nominated to represent the
Page 338
Legislative Council on the university council. I considered whether I could meet the requirements of a council member. I envisaged the role of a council member as liaising between the university, the Government and the Parliament, and assisting the university in any way possible. After becoming aware of the workload, how many council meetings would be held, and so on, I gave my assent to the Government that I was happy for my nomination to go forward. I felt privileged that the Government had even considered my nomination.

I give my assurances to the staff and students at the university that I have had and have no designs on the University of Wollongong; I have had and have no hidden agendas. I fully support free expression of views in the university by the staff, professors, students and lecturers. I am totally opposed to what has been happening, especially in universities in the United States, where staff and students have been forced to adopt what is regarded as the politically correct options for the day. Universities should be the last bastions of free speech in this society. I have been encouraged by letters of support from students at the university. One letter, from Stuart Laird, stated:

I am confident that he [Mr Nile] has the intelligence to understand the problems which exist within the university. It would seem that the SRC leaders have rejected Fred Nile simply because his beliefs conflict with theirs. It should be noted that just because someone's views are different does not automatically mean that they are wrong. It would seem highly hypocritical in this Year of Tolerance if Fred Nile is not appointed a member of this University Council, simply because his beliefs are different to those leading the SRC. It is ironic to note that the Student Representative Council representatives who have made such a public outcry are claiming to speak on behalf of the students of Wollongong University. I for one was not consulted on this matter and I feel that I have been misrepresented by this Council.

It would be an honour to have Fred Nile appointed as a member of the Wollongong University Council, and I believe he can offer a positive contribution to the University Council.

Many students, including James, Karen and others, also sent faxes. To my surprise, Mr Collier, a lecturer at the university, sent a detailed fax criticising my appointment. He should bow his head in shame for these words:

Nile's record speaks for itself, particularly on the issues of tolerance and diversity. Nile has no personal experience with tertiary education. He chose to leave Cleveland Street High School at the minimum leaving age of 15.

Most honourable members know that in the period 1949-50 very few young people had the choice to remain at university. I certainly had no choice; I had to leave school to earn an income. The day after leaving school I went to the local Commonwealth employment agency and asked, "What jobs have you got?" I was told, "We have a job for a junior storeman at a factory." I said, "I will take it," and started the next day. I obtained my grassroots education as a junior storeman at a factory. Later, with more time and clear objectives for my life as an adult, I undertook adult matriculation at Sydney University. I have undertaken courses at universities though I have not completed degrees, except for a theological diploma at the Melbourne College of Divinity. I have completed courses in ancient history, philosophy and other subjects and, as honourable members know, served in the Sydney University Regiment and in the Melbourne University Regiment. [Time expired.]


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.42]: Shellcove, promoted by the Australian Labor Party controlled Shellharbour council, violates six of the seven basic items of Labor's coastal policy announced in March 1995. The first item is a ban on new canal estates. Shellcove plans residential development around the outer and inner harbours. The second item of the policy is for there to be no new ocean outfalls, and the third item is containment of coastal development to existing coastal villages. To finance building the harbour residential development, Shellcove proposes the sale of 3,200 residential lots creating a village the size of Kiama to use the existing, already overused, facilities of the Shellharbour sewage treatment plant. The fourth item is tough controls to protect coastal wetlands. Shellcove plans to destroy the 19-hectare designated wetland 376, a valuable fish nursery and home to 55 bird species, to create a mud hole boat harbour to accommodate 350 yachts for which there is no demand, and to sell off for residential development the adjoining golf course which acts as a buffer zone between residential areas and the wetland.

The next item that has been violated is related to the new coastal national parks and marine reserves to protect high conservation areas. Pollution from the harbour and urban run-off would seriously damage, if not destroy, the offshore marine wonderland of coral and sponge reefs, which a local conservation group called SPACE (Inc) has applied to New South Wales Fisheries to have designated as a marine park. The next basic item is a moratorium on the development of environmentally sensitive coastal sites until the completion of a conservation inventory. Shellcove also violates Labor policy by compensating for the loss of a salt marsh wetland with an artificial water wetland; selling off most of 229 hectares of public land; creating beach foredune development; impeding public access to beaches with a 200 metre channel through South Shellharbour Beach; creating breakwaters that will damage the remainder of the beach; and digging up both acid sulphate soils in the harbour and the remains of an adjoining former rubbish dump that generates methane gas and contains calcium, ammonium bicarbonate, nitrate, zinc, lead and manganese, together with some oil and hydrogen sulphide.

The previous National Party Minister for Land and Water Conservation recently transferred to Shellharbour Council 49 hectares of coastal land purchased for $800,000 in 1984 for environment protection. Shellcove proposes using this land for harbour and residential development. In 1986, as Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr
Page 339
zoned about 400 metres of beach for harbour development and 288 hectares of coastal land as special residential, though it included wetland 376, a public golf course, several playing fields and 49 hectares of environment protection land purchased in 1984. Until recently he has refused to reply to any questions or answer any correspondence on the issue. On 13 April on WIN Television's channel 4 Mr Carr replied to a question on Shellcove with these words:

We in government were in favour of that development. I've inspected the site. There is not much in the way of development there. It's a suburban site. As I understand it that proposal is currently being examined by a Commission of Inquiry. We'll have the benefit of seeing the report of that Commission of Inquiry before we've got to make a decision on it.

The Premier was not right on two points. The area is not a suburban site and there is no commission of inquiry, because the development application and the environmental impact statement, which were supposed to be lodged in September 1994, have still not been lodged, as many government departments consider the draft EIS deficient in its concern for the environment. On 17 May when Cabinet visited Wollongong and Mr Carr was again asked a question about Shellcove by a WIN Television reporter, he replied:

I supported it when I was environment Minister. I supported it as Opposition Leader and I support it now.

Fortunately not all Ministers were so intransigent. A delegation from SPACE (Inc), which included prominent ALP members, was graciously granted a three-quarter hour interview by Mr Craig Knowles, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. The leader of the delegation, Mrs Mairi Petersen, told me that she was grateful to Mr Knowles for his courtesy. When interviewed by WIN Television reporters she said:

We were most impressed because he was dying to see the video we gave him. He went back with an armful of books and papers from us, and he agreed he would read them with great interest.

The coastal policy does not apply to National Party areas alone or areas where local ALP municipal councillors agree with the Premier. It applies also to areas where the council is controlled by ALP rednecks. From experience and personal contact I know that the majority of ALP members and supporters do not support their counterparts. The Premier should not disappoint the people from SPACE (Inc). He must withdraw his support from people like the Shellharbour councillors, who can be classed only as an embarrassment. If not, he will find that the green credentials bestowed upon him by the Nature Conservation Council will be withdrawn and he will be regarded with the same contempt bestowed by the conservation movement on the previous Liberal-National Government.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.47]: On 28 May the site of the Aboriginal civil rights demonstration was placed on the interim register of the National Estate. Sydney's Cyprus Hellene Club and Australian Hall in Elizabeth Street were the venue for the day of mourning and protest on 26 January 1938, but regrettably these buildings are under threat of demolition. Speaking outside the Cyprus Hellene Club, the Chair of the Australian Heritage Commission, Ms Wendy McCarthy, said that the commission had put the building on its interim listing to highlight its significance and to help save it and the Australian Hall, which is now the Mandolin Theatre. A public inquiry is considering the Aboriginal History Committee's bid for a permanent conservation order to be placed on the building. The club was built at the turn of the century and is important for its links, initially with German and later with Greek Cypriot communities. Ms McCarthy said:

This building is steeped in history and is of exceptional social significance. It is held in high regard by the Aboriginal community for its association with the Day of Mourning - a major event for Aboriginal people. It is estimated about 100 Aboriginal activists from around Australia came to the event, which marks the start of the Aboriginal political movement. This building is where the Aboriginal people publicly began their struggle for citizens' rights. To tear it down more than 55 years later would be an outrageous disregard for such an important part of their history.

Ms McCarthy has urged all Australians to become involved in the fight to save the nation's heritage. She said:

This precious heritage is what makes us distinctively Australian, yet in some cases it is in real danger of vanishing. We are becoming too complacent about conserving our heritage. It is absolutely vital that we become more involved in protecting significant, natural and cultural places for ourselves as well as future generations to appreciate.

The interim list of the National Estate is Australia's national list of natural and cultural heritage places compiled by the Australian Heritage Commission. I call on the State Government to assist in this fight and to ensure that a permanent conservation order is placed on the building so that it will be retained for all time.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [9.51]: I draw to the attention of the House Amnesty International's 1995 Campaign for Women. Today I received a letter from Nalyni Mohamed, the Australian Coordinator of the 1995 Campaign for Women. I would like to share with honourable members some of the information Nalyni Mohamed has in her letter, which includes the photographs of three women. Nalyni Mohamed, when telling some stories about these three women, stated:

Each of these women protested peacefully for the things she believed in and each has suffered the consequences.

One of the women she referred to is Ma Thida. Nalyni Mohamed continued:

There is a prison cell in Myanmar which is small and dark. As you read this, 28-year-old Ma Thida is sitting in that cell. She has been locked away for more than a year. Suffering from an ulcer and other health problems she is growing thin and weak and, if the Burmese military rulers have their way, she will spend 19 more years like this, sick and alone in the darkness.

Page 340

Dr Ma Thida is one of Myanmar's many female political prisoners. As campaign assistant to Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, she worked on the 1990 election campaign which saw the National League for Democracy win its landslide victory. The NLD never came to power. By election time, most of its leaders were already in gaol, suppressed by a brutal military government.

Until her arrest in 1993, Ma Thida continued to campaign peacefully for democracy in Myanmar. Then, charged with "endangering public tranquillity", she was sentenced to 20 years in solitary confinement.

Meanwhile, inside a prison cell in Turkey is a woman called Eren Keskin. A lawyer and member of the Turkish Human Rights Commission, Eren has defended people charged with belonging to illegal organisations. Among her clients have been members of the armed opposition group, the Kurdish Workers' Party.

Last September, after publishing an article about the plight of the Kurds and the human cost on both sides of the conflict in southern Turkey, she was found guilty of spreading "separatist propaganda" and sentenced to two years in gaol.

The threat of a Turkish prison did not silence Eren Keskin. No threats of any kind have. She has been shot at in the street and assaulted by police. While her sentence was under appeal, she received numerous death threats on the phone - "we are measuring your coffin," one caller told her - but still she continued to speak publicly against human rights violations in Turkey. In late March, her prison sentence was confirmed and the police took Eren Keskin from her home.

Nalyni Mohamed continued:

For me, nothing underlines the urgent need for this campaign quite like the case of the third woman pictured here. Her name was Katia Bengana and she was neither lawyer nor prominent political activist. She was a school girl - an outspoken adolescent with strong convictions - and her story demonstrates just how dangerous life can be for a woman without rights.

When 16-year-old Katia refused to wear a veil to school, there was nothing her family could do to change her mind.

Her father recalls how he pleaded with her. He supported his daughter's right to dress as she wished, but he grew increasingly afraid for her safety. This was Algeria. It was 1994. Armed Islamic groups were issuing threats against women who appeared in public without covering their heads with the hidjab or Islamic veil.

Her father's worst fears have been realised. In February last year, while walking home from school with a friend, Katia Bengana was shot dead. She wore the "wrong" clothes and she died for it.

Such injustice must not be forgotten like yesterday's news. At Amnesty International, we never forget. Our members around the world are working to keep the memory of Katia Bengana alive, fighting for recognition of the basic human rights she was denied. By taking swift and concerted action, we can save the lives of others.

Amnesty International pointed out:

Women are . . . subject to violation of their basic human rights on a massive scale.

According to the United Nations Children's Fund . . . more than a million infant girls die because they are born female.

Every year, millions of women are mutilated, battered to death, burned alive, stripped of their legal rights or bought and sold in an international trade in slaves for domestic or sexual purposes.

The vulnerability of women to human rights abuse is compounded by economic inequality, discrimination in education and a comparative lack of access to positions of influence.

I commend Amnesty International on its 1995 Campaign for Women, especially as the women's conference in Beijing is being held this year. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.