The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 5.30 p.m. to elect a member of the Legislative Council in the place of the Hon. Edward Phillip Pickering, resigned.

The Clerk read the message from the Governor convening the joint sitting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am now prepared to receive proposals with regard to an eligible person to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council left vacant by the resignation of the Hon. Edward Phillip Pickering.

Mr COLLINS: I propose Charlie John Stuart Lynn as an eligible person to fill the vacant seat of the Hon. Edward Phillip Pickering in the Legislative Council, for which purpose this joint sitting was convened. I move:

That Charlie John Stuart Lynn be elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat in the Legislative Council left vacant by the resignation of the Hon. Edward Phillip Pickering.
I indicate to the joint sitting that if Charlie John Stuart Lynn were a member of the Legislative Council he would not be disqualified from sitting or voting as such a member. He is a member of the same party, the Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales division, as Edward Phillip Pickering was publicly recognised as being an endorsed candidate of that party and who publicly represented himself to be such a candidate at the time of his election at the Fifth Periodic Council Election held on 25 May 1991. I further indicate that the person being proposed would be willing to hold the vacant place if chosen.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Does any other member desire to propose any other eligible person to fill the vacancy? As only one eligible person has been proposed and seconded, I hereby declare that Charlie John Stuart Lynn is elected a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat vacated by the Hon. Edward Phillip Pickering. I declare the joint sitting closed.



Page 2009

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

The President offered the Prayers.


Petition praying that the proposed amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act to ban open season and the sport of hunting game birds for recreational and environmental purposes be opposed, received from the Hon. J. Tingle.

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 Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that any attempt to legalise or decriminalise euthanasia be opposed to ensure that the quality of life of the elderly, handicapped and terminally ill is not subject to unjust or unethical procedures, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.


Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

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

That General Business Notice of Motion No. 1 relating to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice Report Date be called on forthwith.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.08]: I move:

That the Standing Committee on Law and Justice present its report on the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill, referred to the Committee by the House on 11 October 1995, by 16 November 1995.

It is clear, particularly from comments made by the Premier, that the Government regards the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill as falling clearly within the mandate of the Government. In my contribution to the second reading debate I indicated that the Opposition was not opposed to the legislation. However, it is concerned about the effectiveness of the proposed legislation and whether it will achieve any real change to the law. I acknowledge the Government's mandate to introduce the bill. I have moved this motion because I believe the committee should report as soon as possible on whether the legislation will achieve any real change to the law so that the House can complete its deliberations on the bill before the Parliament rises.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.10]: As honourable members are aware, the Australian Democrats were opposed to this draconian and unnecessary legislation. However, we were happy to support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, under the chairmanship of the Hon. B. H. Vaughan, who has legal qualifications. I do not think any honourable member of this Chamber would agree that the committee could carry out its work by 16 November. It would be impossible for it to carry out the necessary advertising, which all committees do when they give notice that the committee has been established and they call for public submissions and invite members of the public to give evidence before the committee at public hearings.

In view of the desperately short time period, any possibility of the committee doing valuable work is remote indeed. This is a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to make the committee unworkable. I do not know what the Opposition's motives are. I can guess or I can postulate to myself many motives, none of which is particularly honourable or ethical. I should like an assurance from the Leader of the Opposition and also from the Leader of the House that the chairman of the committee will be given the opportunity to come back to the House to ask for an extension of time if the committee attempts to start its work and finds that it cannot complete that work by 16 November. It is inevitable that that will happen.

I should like an assurance also from the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition that they will not block that extension of time. I do not wish this committee to sit for months into the future, nor do I believe it should be used in an attempt to bury the legislation. But any attempt to block the committee in any way from carrying out a reasonable examination and investigation of the legislation will diminish the standing of all our committees. I cannot tell what will happen to the committee, and I do not know what the vote will be
Page 2010
if an extension of time is denied by this House. However, I warn the House that if an extension of time is not agreed to, I shall oppose it most vigorously both in this House and through the media.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.14]: The Government supports the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. In relation to the request by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby to me and to the Leader of the Opposition, all I can say is that if there appears to be good reason for the committee's inability to meet the deadline, the Government will consider an extension - but there would have to be good reason. Both as a member of this House and as a staff member of the former Leader of the House, I have supported the establishment of an effective committee system in this Parliament. However, the effectiveness of the committee system will be undermined if every reference to a committee is regarded as a reference that will take from six months to three years to finalise.

When the legislation establishing the New South Wales Financial Institutions Commission was debated, the Opposition at the time had concerns about it and set up a select committee of this House, with a reporting time of 10 days. The committee reported back within 10 days. When I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee the committee was given an extensive reference by the Minister for Health to inquire into public hospitals. The committee's first report was completed within two months. It was an intensive exercise covering an extensive area, but the committee got on with the job. Often it is not necessary to advertise for submissions. Committee members frequently know who the interested parties are and can easily contact them. If they want to put something before the committee they can do so in a short time. The committee system should be used to get on with the job, to do things expeditiously. Honourable members should not expect every reference to a committee to turn into a six-year royal commission that produces all sorts of academic tomes that no-one ever reads. The Government supports the motion.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.16]: Call to Australia originally opposed reference of the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice because we believed there was sufficient information to permit a vote on the bill. We would have expected the bill to be passed and enacted. It is the sort of bill that can be adopted by the Parliament so that its impact on society can be assessed and monitored. The bill has been referred to the committee but one must ask whether the referral is genuine or is a tactic to delay the bill. Some Government members may wonder whether the referral was genuine. In this House at some time all honourable members have used strategies to delay and postpone legislation.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred to the practical problem of how the committee can carry out its business without being brought into disrepute. Honourable members do not want to make the committee look foolish in the eyes of the community by setting it an impossible task with such a short deadline. I have raised the practical problems of getting the committee off the ground, with allocation of funds and staff. The committee has been delayed far longer than other standing committees. It has been hamstrung by lack of clarity on the allocation of funds. It is a new standing committee with a new area of investigation and needs new staff.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I did not have any staff or funds when I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. We did the work ourselves.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is right. So it had to start from scratch. Standing committees have developed a formula and, rightly or wrongly, they are now dependent on staff because of the comprehensive nature of their inquiries. The committee has to advertise for submissions from the community, receive the submissions and hold public hearings. The committee appears to have been given an impossible task, unless it is intended that the inquiry be superficial and that members of the committee who have preconceived views will vote and produce a brief report. Does the House expect the committee to conduct a substantial inquiry into this issue? The underlying issue is whether mandatory life sentences have any effect, leaving aside the question of whether the courts already have powers. That could be debated for years. The committee could seek submissions from around the world, from governments with different policies, including the United States of America, which has capital punishment, and the Muslim nations, such as Iran and Iraq. It is a big issue.

If the committee is to look at the issue properly, it cannot complete its inquiry and report by 16 November. I am in a dilemma. I feel that the bill should proceed and become law. I said in my contribution to the second reading debate - and I think the Premier paraphrased what I said - that the legislation will send a message to the Mr Bigs in our community. Perhaps the bill has a slightly different purpose to that of other legislation. It deals with a serious social problem. So long as that message is sent, the legislation is justified. I have had discussions with other honourable members about my intention to move an amendment to the motion, but not to call for a division. I want the record to show that the committee has been given an impossible task. Therefore, I move:

That the question be amended by omitting the words "16 November 1995" and inserting instead "31 March 1996".

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.21]: As I moved the motion to refer the bill to the committee, I am disturbed that the Opposition is now attempting to have the committee complete the inquiry in a matter of a few weeks. So far as I am aware, the
Page 2011
committee is unfunded and has no staff. It will be impossible to pull together all the conflicting arguments on this matter and to present a report to the Parliament within the specified time. I was a member of the Standing Committee for State Development during the time that the Hon. J. P. Hannaford was chairman. He knows as well as I that it is impossible to produce a decent report in only a few weeks. This is an important inquiry.

The committee must debate the issue thoroughly and obtain all available information from overseas on whether mandatory sentencing has been successful and its potential impact on crime and on the killing of police officers in the course of their duties by the Mr Bigs who refuse to be arrested. I talked to a senior lawyer the other day who said he knew of three potential witnesses who had been killed by a person facing a life sentence to ensure that he did not go to gaol. I fear that completing the inquiry in such a short time will result in the killing of more witnesses and police officers and ensure that all available information on the appallingly bad concept of mandatory sentencing will not be put before the committee.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [11.23]: I place on record my concerns about the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members recently participated in a forerunner to this debate when they considered how quickly an inquiry can be completed. In the end, a number came to the view that inquiries should not be capricious and that difficult topics should be dealt with thoroughly. Yesterday I was prepared to support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and, having spoken to all the relevant people in this place, I thought that was the Government's position. However, at about 10.45 a.m. this morning I learnt that that was not the case and that the Government intended to support the outrageous attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to stifle a historic inquiry into the concept of mandatory life sentencing.

The inquiry could be undertaken within a time frame of three to four months. The Legislative Council is sitting next week; I am chairman of an estimates committee the following week and the House will not sit the week after that. The Parliament will then sit again for several weeks. I have several commitments away from Sydney during the week off. However, at the committee meeting yesterday I agreed to the proposed hearing dates. As honourable members are aware, the committee received funding and staff only last Friday week, and last week senior staff were appointed to the committee. It happened rapidly, following certain questions the committee chairman asked the previous day. To put a time constraint on the inquiry means that we do not want an inquiry at all. That is the intention of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and I believe that we are inappropriately supporting that intention.

I welcome the statement of the Leader of the Government that the Government will consider an extension of time if it is necessary. I echo the comments of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile on this matter. We must avoid placing the first inquiry of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice into a time frame that even the Leader of the Opposition knows will make it difficult for the committee to produce a credible report. I expressed my views in detail during the second reading debate on the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill. It is not a question of whether individual members have views on the topic. To suggest that that somehow justifies a short inquiry is an ill-considered approach to the work of inquiries.

The essence of the committee system is that the community is able to present views to this Parliament on various topics that are subject to the inquiry process. If the committee has to report by 16 November most people will be prevented from having an opportunity to present their views to the inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition is effectively saying that a few of us have formed an opinion, we want the inquiry over and done with and we will allow only a few people - perhaps a few experts from the Law Society and the Bar Association, one or two academics and so-called tall poppies around here - to state their views. Many people at various academic institutions in New South Wales have researched and studied the topic of mandatory life sentencing for a long time, and I gave details of that in my contribution to the debate last week. I am sure that the committee would be interested to hear from a number of those people.

In heated debates in which political opportunism tends to run ahead of thought, we need to have a proper and considered assessment of what is relevant to the issues. I have had an opportunity to look at much of the material on overseas experiences. Some of that evidence should be gathered by the committee; obviously, it will be presented to the committee by various academics and criminologists. Let me turn to the inquiry process. The committee has not yet advertised the inquiry. It determined at 9.30 a.m. yesterday that it would call for and advertise public hearings on 9 and 10 November. The earliest the advertisements can appear in the newspapers is the weekend or early next week. The committee will then need to contact people. A number of people who would like the opportunity to express their views to the committee have rung me to say that they will be excluded from the process.

I welcome the comment of the Leader of the Government that an extension of time will be considered. The committee's report must have merit and have more than a for-and-against resolution by the committee, with a few paragraphs attached to it. If the report is to have any merit and to assist the Government to develop policy, it needs to have a lot more weight than a report produced within a time frame of three or four weeks. The obsession that some people seem to have with the concept of a lapsed bill is inappropriate. What is the problem about both Houses debating this issue over an extended period of time? I do not believe there is
Page 2012
anything wrong with that. Honourable members should not be running away from the issue; I certainly am not. I had hoped that the committee would produce a report in a relatively short period of time, perhaps three or four months, and that the report would be available for honourable members to refer to during the debate. The amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would achieve that result. Bearing in mind that staff have not been appointed to the committee and that the House will be sitting for the majority of the period, I believe the motion is counterproductive and is destructive of the committee system of this Chamber and of this Parliament.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [11.31]: I also have concerns about the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I agree with the Leader of the Government that many matters can be dealt with by committees in a few weeks. However, I suspect that this inquiry is not one such matter. As other speakers have pointed out, 16 November is less than a month away. The House will be sitting during that time, and intensive estimates committee hearings will take place also during that time. I doubt whether more than one or two days would be available to the committee to hold an inquiry.

The issue of mandatory life sentences is complex. As Chair of the Standing Ethics Committee of this House I have found that once an inquiry has started, the issue under consideration becomes more rather than less complex. The Standing Ethics Committee has had to seek an extension of time because many of the issues thought by the members of the committee to be simple have become more and more complex as the committee has considered them. Many submissions from members of the public can be expected in relation to the issue of mandatory life sentences. The stakeholders in this issue number more than three or four, and they all have the right to be heard. The experience in the United States needs to be considered. That may not necessarily involve a trip, but evidence needs to be made available as to why mandatory sentencing has broken down in America. Why have 52 Federal Court judges refused to sit on cases involving mandatory sentencing?

When the committee members start examining what has happened in relation to mandatory sentencing in America, I am sure they will discover that they will need to take more and more evidence. I am sure also that the complexity of the issue will lead to the committee requiring an extension of time. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Government say that he would be willing to consider an extension of time. A refusal to grant an extension of time would make a joke of the committee system in this House, and the Legislative Council would fall into disrepute. Those are my concerns about the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.33], in reply: The Leader of the Government might be surprised to hear that I would adopt all of the words he used in relation to this matter.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You should do it more often.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I know the Leader of the Government would love me to do that more often. The structure of the three committees that have now been established will result in those committees receiving a large number of references. As the committees are legislation committees, honourable members must understand that the approach of the committees to such references will be totally differently from the approach taken to their judicial inquiries. The committees may be expected to report even within seven days in relation to particular matters. On occasions the committees will have to use professional consultants to undertake analytical work. The Parliament will have to make resources available for that.

The committees cannot expect to have the luxury of time that they have had for other inquiries. This committee will not be reporting on a policy direction. The policy direction in relation to this matter has been set by the Government. It is now a simple exercise to examine the legislation, to determine its effectiveness, and to report to the Parliament on whether the objects of the policy will be achieved. The House will then be able to make its final decision. I do not believe that deferring the reporting date to the end of March is a responsible approach. As the Leader of the Government said, if the committee has a good reason for seeking an extension of time, the House will listen to that reason and make a determination. The lesson to be learned from this exercise is that when a matter is referred to a committee, the motion should set a time limit for the committee to report.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Cohen Mr Tingle
Ms Kirkby Tellers,
Mrs Nile Mr Corbett
Rev. Nile Mr Jones

Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald
Mr Bull Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Moppett
Ms Burnswoods Mr Mutch
Mrs Chadwick Mr Obeid
Mr Dyer Mr O'Grady
Mr Egan Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Ms Saffin
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Shaw
Mr Hannaford Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan
Mr Jobling
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mr Ryan
Mr Kersten Ms Staunton

Page 2013

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.45]: I move:

That the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow a motion being moved forthwith that General Business Order of the Day No. 9 relating to the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill be called on forthwith.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.46]: It is within the purview of the House to make its own decisions as to the reordering of business. However, the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill is listed as a general business order of the day because it has been before the House on a previous occasion. The motion involves a question of fairness to members other than the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Notices of motion that have been dealt with are reordered and placed on the notice paper and general business orders of the day. In the Opposition's view it is preferable that matters be dealt with in the order in which they appear on the notice paper.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.47]: I support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. No purpose is served if private members' motions remain on the notice paper month after month with no possibility of a vote ever being taken. If it is the will of the House not to carry this motion, so be it. I have had a private member's bill on the notice paper of this House for nearly four years. The bill is debated when its turn comes up, but the opportunity is never available for honourable members to vote on it. Many members of the crossbenches share my feelings about this matter. Private members' motions should not be allowed to drag on month after month and year after year. My colleague's private member's bill is of vital importance because of the imminence of the shooting season. It must have some priority. I ask honourable members to support my colleague's motion to suspend standing and sessional orders so that the House can make a determination on the matter.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.48]: The Government supports the motion. I believe every member of the House would agree with the comments of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. All honourable members have seen motions on the notice paper that are never dealt with. As I indicated to the crossbenchers soon after the election, the Government intends to assist, within reason, members of the crossbenches and members of the Opposition in having their private members' bills debated and finalised, whether or not the Government supports the bills. Obviously, the Government cannot facilitate the debating and finalisation of bills if every member has a number of private member's bills on the notice paper. However, private members have the right to have their bills debated, and I am sure they can prioritise their bills.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.50]: The motion moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones involves two issues. No-one would disagree with the contention of the Leader of the Government that private members' bills should be debated. I am sure all honourable members want that to happen. Some of those bills will ultimately be passed; some will be defeated. If a bill is defeated, one has a sense of satisfaction in having had it debated. Two of the bills introduced by the Call to Australia group, the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Bill and the Letona (Financial Assistance) Bill, were passed by the House. Other bills we introduced in relation to the pro-life versus abortion issue have been defeated, and we accepted that.

The question that has to be answered is whether one honourable member should leapfrog other honourable members. General business orders of the day sets the order in which matters are to be debated. Honourable members have an agenda for debate today. The National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill is not listed on that agenda, and honourable members have not prepared speeches to contribute in debate on it. This matter might be of great importance to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones; I do not know whether it is for other members of this House. There is no justification for changing the procedures under which the House operates to bring on this matter immediately. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby rightly said that other matters have been listed under general business orders of the day for a long time. The Call to Australia group has been most disadvantaged by the system; we have had bills listed under general business orders of the day for as long as six or seven years. Today our Alcohol Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill is the second item listed under general business orders of the day. Later, hopefully, the Sexual Offence Damages Bill will also be debated.

Those bills and other motions moved by members of this House take precedence over the bill of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, which is the ninth item listed under general business orders of the day. I object to a change in procedures which could lead to a bias or discrimination in this House. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones may have reached some agreement under which the Government will support his bill and he will support the Government in relation to other matters. Such an agreement discriminates against individual members of this House and the minor parties in this House. The Call to Australia group has not used this device to leapfrog over private members' bills introduced by the Australian Democrats.

We want to maintain some order of business in this House - a truce, if you like - and to operate under certain rules and regulations. We accept the right of
Page 2014
honourable members to proceed with matters in the order in which they are listed on the business paper. If the procedure proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is adopted, Call to Australia will be forced to negotiate with the Government to bring on our bills ahead of six or seven other items in exchange for our support of the Government. That is not a good precedent to adopt in this House. The House should follow the business paper. This is the beginning of a new session of Parliament, and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will have an opportunity to have his bill debated. It might be debated next Thursday or two weeks after that. It is not right for the Government -

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It is a shoddy deal.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: To use the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is not right for the Government to make shoddy deals with the Australian Democrats. I do not support the motion.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [11.54]: I support the Leader of the Opposition in opposing this motion. My motion, which is the fifth item listed under general business orders of the day, dates back to 1 June 1955. Honourable members have referred to matters of importance, but none could be more important than the Farm Hand Appeal. This motion has been moved to suit the shoddy political agenda of the Australian Labor Party. It has been moved at a time when the Opposition is one member down. An honourable member of this House had to resign because of ill health. This Government has done a shoddy political deal with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to bring on his bill before other matters, the first being the motion of the Hon. Franca Arena on euthanasia. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones should be ashamed of his association with this motion. There is no need for this bill to be debated urgently, as the duck season does not commence until autumn next year. There is plenty of time for this bill to be debated in its proper order. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has done a deal with the Australian Labor Party to bring on this bill ahead of other matters. The Opposition opposes the motion.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.56]: I oppose the motion that has been moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to give priority to the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill. The Leader of the Government in this Chamber, who supports the motion, said that his support was predicated on its timeliness. I hope that he acknowledges that there was no open season for duck shooting last year. That situation could apply again this year if the Government believes it is appropriate. If honourable members are called upon to debate this motion I will certainly oppose the bill. Clearly, the urgency does not relate to the duck season because the Government could simply proclaim that there will be no duck season this year. The proper order of business should not be disturbed to debate this bill.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [11.57]: I also oppose the motion moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Where do we draw the line if we cannot rely on the business paper that is put out by the Government every day? The second item listed on the business paper today is the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill, a Call to Australia bill. The Leader of the Government in this House said that alcohol is the cause of most of the health problems in this country. Honourable members are listed to speak to the bill, but it is being pushed further and further down the business paper. Is the Leader of the Government able to tell me how honourable members will be able to believe what is listed by the Government in the business paper? I oppose the motion.

Question - That standing and sessional orders be suspended - put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Bull Mr Mutch
Mrs Chadwick Rev. Nile
Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti
Miss Gardiner Mr Ryan
Mr Gay Mr Samios
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Tingle
Mr Jobling Tellers,
Mr Kersten Mrs Nile
Mr Moppett Mrs Sham-Ho

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted.



The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Is it a fact that budget cuts of $1.2 million this year and $4.8 million next year are proposed for residential disability centres? Is the Health and Research Employees Association meeting to consider strike action over those cuts? What action will the Minister take to ensure such cuts will not take place.

Page 2015

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order: the question is clearly out of order. This matter can be discussed in the budget debate and also pursued in estimates committees hearings. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the question is blatantly out of order. It is difficult to understand why he would abuse the standing orders of the House.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: On the point of order: there is nothing in my question that relates to the budget. The question relates to the continuing financial administration of the Minister's department. It would be totally inappropriate for you, Mr President, to rule that during the period the budget is before the House a Minister cannot be asked a question about continuing financial administration of his or her department. It would be different if the question arose out of or related directly to the allocation of funds to a department, which is the substance of the budget debate. My question is not related to the allocation of such funds.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order: if the annual appropriate bills are not about continuing financial administration, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, I do not know what they are about.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order. The questioner simply made a statement of fact, which is public information. He sought the Minister's knowledge as to whether he was aware that particular strike action was being threatened and he asked the Minister what he proposed to do to avert the strike action.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Government has asked the Stockton centre and other large disability residential centres to adopt measures that will ensure we are getting the best value for public funds. In that regard, administration management and ancillary and support services will be reviewed by the Department of Community Services with a view to ensuring that services are provided which are competitive with others available in the community.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: So you are contracting them out?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not saying that. The department and this Government have a strong commitment to caring for people with disabilities. That is clearly evidenced by the action the Government has taken since it assumed office. For example, the Government is creating 300 places for people with intellectual and other disabilities that the previous Government overlooked and neglected during its seven years in office. The Department of Community Services does intend to ensure that the services I am referring to are provided within the Government's funding allocation for the Department of Community Services for disability services.

The strategies that are being adopted relate to improved efficiencies and cost savings in areas that do not have an adverse impact on the direct services provided to clients. It is well known, for example, that the costs of operating a group home through the Department of Community Services are considerably greater than the costs of operating one through a non-government agency. There are some savings that can be achieved. The department has offered to meet with the Health and Research Employees Association to discuss issues referred to in the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The department has also reassured people in the Hunter region of this State that disability services provided by the Stockton centre will not be affected by cost-effective measures to be implemented as a result of this budget.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware that violence in the workplace is increasingly becoming an occupational health and safety issue? What is the Government doing to ensure the safety of employees from violence in the workplace?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Government is actively concerned about violence anywhere in the community, and is taking a number of steps to make New South Wales a safer place, particularly at work. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 employers have an obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees, and this clearly includes protecting them from violence in the workplace. Members will recall the tragic attack last year on a youth worker who was allegedly murdered by a resident of the refuge where she worked. As a result of concerns raised about the systems of work in place at the refuge to manage incidents of violence by refuge residents and representations received from the Australian Services Union and the Health and Research Employees Association of New South Wales, WorkCover subsequently investigated the incident.

The investigation has been completed and the recommendations arising from the investigation are currently being reviewed by legal officers. As a direct result of this incident WorkCover has also established two working parties, comprising representatives from the community services industry, to develop guidance material and other strategies to assist in the management of violent behaviour in the government and non-government sectors of this industry. The taxi industry is another industry in which violence has increasingly become an occupational health and safety issue. To assist this industry to protect its employees from violence WorkCover has provided a grant, through the injury prevention, education and research grants scheme, to the Department of Transport to investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of options for protecting taxidrivers from violent assaults.

A draft report has been submitted to WorkCover for comment and will be released following further consideration by the tripartite Taxidrivers Safety Committee convened by the Department of Transport. WorkCover is also progressively developing guidance
Page 2016
material to assist other industries to protect their employees against violence in the workplace, such as the "Armed Hold-Ups and Cash Handling Guide" released last year. This guide, which has been well received by industry, outlines a range of work practices and principles of workplace design that, when used in combination, can significantly reduce the incidence and severity of armed robbery. The guide also covers the type and scope of training needed by staff to cope with violence and the procedures for minimising post-traumatic stress.

WorkCover has also established a team to conduct an investigation into the occupational health and safety aspects of the recent armed hold-ups involving security guards. At the completion of the investigation a report will be provided to counsel assisting the Industrial Commission of New South Wales in its inquiry into the transport and delivery of cash and other valuables industry. Finally, WorkCover investigates major incidents of workplace violence as they are reported, and if an employer is found to have failed to take adequate steps to protect their staff from violence WorkCover will take appropriate action against that employer, including prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Is the Attorney General aware that Mr John Gordon, an Australian solicitor with the firm Slater and Gordon, was detained upon his arrival in Papua New Guinea on Wednesday, 11 October, and was later expelled from the country? Mr Gordon is involved in a $4 billion compensation claim concerning the Ok Tedi copper mine in Papua New Guinea. It has been claimed that the detention and expulsion of Mr Gordon were politically motivated. What is the Attorney General's view of this situation, and will he be taking this matter up with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am, of course, aware of the matter to which the member refers. I was concerned about the way Mr Gordon was treated by the Papua New Guinea authorities. I am happy to take this matter up with other Attorneys General, although more particularly with the Commonwealth Attorney-General, who no doubt would liaise with the Department of Foreign Affairs. But it is a matter of concern, and the member has reasonably and properly raised it in this House. I will take it up.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services the following question without notice. Will the Minister inform the House what happened to the Law Reform Commission report on adoption information legislation, which was published in 1992? Did the previous Government neglect to do anything about the recommendations of the report? What is this Labor Government going to do about those recommendations?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: A comprehensive review of the Adoption Information Act was carried out by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in 1992. The terms of reference were to inquire into and report on the operation of the Act, public awareness of the Act and its implementation. I am well aware that the original legislation arose from an inquiry carried out by the Standing Committee on Social Issues of this House. However, in practice it has become necessary to review the practical application of the legislation. I remind the House, and the Hon. J. H. Jobling in particular, that it was the former Government that made a reference, via the Attorney General, to the Law Reform Commission to review the practical application and working of the legislation.

The terms of reference given to the Law Reform Commission were to inquire into and report on the operation of the Act, public awareness of the Act, and its implementation. The commission considered the impact of the legislation on all parties to adoption, that is, adopted people, birth parents, adopting parents and the extended families of all parties. The Law Reform Commission completed a series of public hearings and released its summary report on the outcome of those hearings and public submissions on 30 July 1992, three years ago. The commission praised the concept, impact and nature of the legislation, and recommended a number of technical improvements which were agreed to by the relevant parties involved in the legislation.

However, the former Government delayed its response to the report. In simple terms the answer to the honourable member's question is that the former Government did precious little about the recommendations contained in the report. This Government, however, has decided once again to make the decisions that need to be made in an ongoing effort to clean up the mess left by the previous Government. I am happy to inform the honourable member and the House that recently Cabinet approved in principle amendments to the Adoption Information Act which are entirely in agreement with the recommendations contained in the report of the Law Reform Commission. Drafting instructions have been forwarded to the Parliamentary Counsel. I expect to be able to table amending legislation by mid-November this year.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. With regard to the Minister's statement yesterday that he will be writing to his Federal counterpart, Senator Collins, urging that the rabbit calicivirus trial be completed and the virus be released as soon as possible, has the Minister read the editorial
Page 2017
in today's Australian newspaper, mirroring the concerns I raised in my question to the Minister yesterday that caution be exercised before the virus is released, due to the real risk of higher predation rates that foxes and cats would inflict on native wildlife populations? Will the Minister consider reading that newspaper article before he puts his letter in the postbox?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not sure whether my colleague the Minister for Agriculture has read the editorial appearing in the Australian concerning the rabbit calicivirus -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Why not?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have not yet had an opportunity -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You should come into the Chamber with this sort of information at your fingertips.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Although I might be well-informed, I am not sufficiently well-informed to deal with a matter relating to rabbit calicivirus.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You did not pronounce it correctly.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I remind the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti that he is a medical practitioner and not a veterinary surgeon. I shall be delighted to refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture so that a thoroughly authoritative response can be given to her question.


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. Can the Minister confirm or deny that the submission of the Australian Labor Party to Justice Badgery-Parker of the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal will seek an increase in salary? If so, is this request for a salary increase prompted by the ALP's direction to Labor Party members of Parliament to increase their annual contribution from 2 per cent to 3 per cent of their salary and up to 6 per cent of Ministers' salaries, in order to help repay the $10 million debt of the Labor Party, which was caused by mismanagement of the party's finances?

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: We don't get premiums or commissions from insurance companies.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: We do not mismanage our finances. If so, is this a further example of the Labor Party using the taxpayers of New South Wales to fund its own outrageous financial mismanagement?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As a Minister of the Crown I have no responsibility for what activities may or may not be undertaken -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Don't you listen in caucus?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is not a matter for which I have responsibility or for which the Government has responsibility. My understanding is that no such application has been made. The Hon. D. J. Gay would be in a position to establish whether it has been made. His question is mischievous. My understanding is that our salaries are determined by a nexus with the salaries of Commonwealth public servants, which in turn determines the salaries of Commonwealth members of Parliament. Our salaries are fixed at that level.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: And you are paying the 2 per cent?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Of course I am paying the parliamentary levy, and I am proud to do so. We have been paying a levy since I became a member of this Parliament. We do have some political convictions, unlike the National Party, which has its snout in the trough day in and day out. We actually have some conviction and commitment.


The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister inform the House what steps he has taken to improve the efficiency of the home and community care program care program in New South Wales?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the Hon. Janelle Saffin for her question, because it gives me the opportunity to provide the House with information about improving the efficiency of the home and community care program in this State. For 10 years the home and community care program has played a valuable role in providing support to frail, aged people and younger people with disabilities, assisting them to remain in their homes and in the community and preventing premature institutionalisation. The program is diverse and innovative and truly represents the efforts of the community at large, as many services rely on volunteers and community members to carry out their work.

Since becoming the Minister responsible for the home and community care program earlier this year, I have undertaken a number of important steps to ensure that the program continues to develop and to ensure efficiency in the support it provides to older people and people with disabilities. The home and community care program is, of course, a joint program, with funding from both the Commonwealth and the State. Following the recently completed Morris report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the home and community care program I have instigated a review implementation steering committee to advise the Department of Aged and Disability Services on policy and procedures relating to home and community care program reforms.

In addition, with my colleague the Minister for Health, I have announced that a review of the way home and community care services are funded will be
Page 2018
undertaken with a view to possibly transferring some functions to the Department of Aged and Disability Services. By bringing administrative functions under one roof, so to speak, I am confident that overall efficiency and effectiveness in the program will be increased. I have also given an undertaking that the process of reform of the home and community care program will include consultation with all key stakeholders.

The efficiency and effectiveness review highlighted the need for the home and community care program to respond to new directions. These include the need for better information about services, enhanced focus on quality of service and consumer choice, improved performance monitoring, and the development of a nationally consistent fees policy. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government is committed to increasing efficiency and effectiveness within the home and community care program, recognising that it provides valuable support to frail older people and people with disabilities in maintaining their independence and quality of life within our community.


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. Were his comments in the House this morning regarding Parliamentary committees "producing all sorts of academic tomes that no-one ever reads" a reflection upon the vote of the House which established the standing committees of this House? Do his words represent the response of the Government to the serious social concerns that the Standing Committee on Social Issues, for example, has addressed in its reports into such things as youth violence, sexual violence and rural suicide? Finally, the Treasurer may recall having promised me in response to a previous question without notice some time ago that he would report back to the House on the report of the social issues committee into suicide in rural New South Wales. Is he any closer to providing a response to that report?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith has been a member of this House for a fair while but she is a very slow learner. I should have thought that if she took exception to anything I said in the debate she could have participated in it.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: I was not in the Chamber.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Well, the honourable member should have been.


The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier. Will the Minister inform the House of the recent decision by the Bankers Trust company to locate its Asian regional headquarters in Sydney?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. E. M. Obeid has asked a most important question. I am pleased to announce that, despite some tough competition from both Singapore and Hong Kong, Bankers Trust Australia Limited has decided to set up an Asian regional headquarters in Sydney. This will add significantly to Sydney's credentials as a leading international finance centre, and obviously the Government welcomes it wholeheartedly. Bankers Trust was one of the companies that the Premier and I visited when we went to the United States in June. We went in hard for New South Wales during that trip, and I am pleased that our message about the advantages of New South Wales as a business location is getting through. The decision by Bankers Trust follows similar decisions by American Express and State Street to base their Asian regional operations in New South Wales. Bankers Trust is bringing the Asian regional headquarters of its global custodian services to Sydney.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: There are problems in America at the moment.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Does the Opposition not want Bankers Trust to come here? Does it want to reject it? The Hon. Patricia Forsythe is saying that the Opposition want to reject Bankers Trust.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: All I said was that there were problems in America at the moment.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Does the Opposition want the company to go home?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That is not the issue.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I ask the honourable member simply to tell us whether the Opposition wants those companies here. Does it welcome those companies here, or does it want to send them home? Bankers Trust is a big player in the custody market, where it provides taxation, accounting and risk management advice to managers of superannuation funds and other funds. The company currently has about $US1.4 trillion under custody around the world. Bankers Trust recently decided to reorganise the processing of its custody transactions into three regions and time zones in Europe, the United States and the Asia-Pacific area. The regional centre in Sydney will eventually employ 300 people and involve a capital investment of $19 million. By its nature, custodian business attracts other financial service providers such as dealers and fund managers. The arrival of another major custody operation in Sydney is a shot in the arm for the State's financial services industry. I wish Bankers Trust every success with its Sydney venture.


The Hon. I. COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Given yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister of a
Page 2019
two-week extension of the Commonwealth's public consultation period over its deferred forest assessment process, will the Minister ensure that the public consultation period over the New South Wales order of works is extended for the same period to ensure that the two processes continue to be synchronised?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Hon. I. Cohen has an obvious interest in and knowledge of this matter. I will be happy to raise his question with the relevant Minister and obtain a response.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: 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, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Given that the first review of the use of red light cameras indicated an increase in the number of crashes and injuries, although they were less severe, will the Government undertake a follow-up review to confirm the usefulness of red light cameras to improve road safety?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is probably the first serious question that I have been asked by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, and I congratulate him on it. The honourable member is intelligent, and the House would benefit if he approached his duties seriously more often. I am not aware of the matter to which the honourable member referred but I will bring it to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Transport and obtain an answer as quickly as possible.


The Hon. E. M. OBEID: What steps has the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services taken to change policy and funding arrangements for the meals on wheels program in New South Wales?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am pleased to announce that the Government regards increasing support for meals on wheels services as essential to meet the needs of the community. The provision of a food service for people in the home and the community care target group will remain a high priority community care response to encourage people to live independently. As all the studies show, the maintenance of basic health, particularly for the aged, is very much related to adequate food and nutrition. Concentrating on the future of food services and their changing image, I shall outline the policies that are driving the development of meals on wheels services in New South Wales today. These policies of course are very much in line with the important industry and program reform that is occurring at the moment. They are driving the move of meals on wheels services to program funding, as it is known in New South Wales, and are particularly reflected in the State's new food service guidelines.

The policies are primarily directed to providing a greater focus on the users of the services particularly through formal assessment and consumer feedback mechanisms, increasing attention to measuring outcomes for clients, increasing emphasis on the flexibility and quality of the services and the diversity of the consumer base of the services, and improving and quickening responsiveness to client needs. The food service that we are striving to achieve in New South Wales will be capable of providing an individualised response to meet the specific needs of each consumer. Individualised packages of service are being developed as part of new assessment processes aimed at meeting identified consumer needs.

Clients should be able to benefit from a range of assistance, other than delivered meals, such as shopping, centre-based meals, cooking and nutrition education and equipment advice. Consumers should always be able to choose from a menu and be able to decide the time of delivery and whether frozen foods delivered in bulk are an option. With surveys showing that as many as 25 per cent of clients of meals on wheels services are malnourished, major emphasis is now placed on providing more food to meet the daily intake requirements of clients. One delivered meal a day is not enough for any adult who has no other social support and whose frailty or disability does not enable self-support. Accordingly, meals can be supplied for lunch as well as dinner, together with breakfast packs if required. Consumers may also be able to have their meals at a centre so that they can enjoy a meal with other people. That is an important avenue of social support for the lonely or the isolated.

While most volunteers continue to deliver prepared meals, others prefer to help with shopping or to assist a person to cook or to eat a meal. While services have made some positive achievements along these lines in the past few years, delivering this wide range of assistance has required significant additional funding. This funding has been made available to services in the form of program funding. Basically, program funding is about phasing out food service subsidies and replacing them with funding that covers the entire cost of operating the service, other than the cost of the meal. As a result, funding for meals on wheels and food services in New South Wales has doubled, with an additional $5 million being made available to services throughout the State. Two-thirds of meals on wheels services, or 170 services, have transferred from meal subsidies to program funding. These services now represent about 80 per cent of all meals provided on a daily basis.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I refer the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council to the answer to the question I asked on 12 October about aircraft
Page 2020
noise. In view of the answer the Treasurer gave yesterday to the question the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith asked on the same issue, when he said the committee is a backbench members committee and is not part of the Executive Government, will he inform the House whether the Government has any policy at all to deal with aircraft noise? Is the Government taking any action to address the health and wellbeing of the people affected by aircraft noise?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I recall the question the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked and yesterday's question from the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith. As I said yesterday the backbench committee is, of course, not part of the Executive Government and Ministers of the Crown are not answerable for its activities. As the honourable member is so keen to know the activities of that committee, I have been in contact with the honourable member for Port Jackson, Sandra Nori, who has supplied me with some information about the committee's activities. I preface the answer by pointing out that if honourable members opposite had supported the Labor Party in its opposition to the third runway these problems probably would not exist.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: We want a third runway. We only have two at the moment.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The former Government wanted the new runway and it got it. It did not care and was not concerned about the impact it would have on the people who live near the airport. The backbench committee is open to all Labor Party members of Parliament whose constituents are affected by aircraft noise emanating from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and to those who represent electorates in the vicinity of Sydney West Airport. Active members of the committee are the honourable member for Fairfield, Mr J. Tripodi; the honourable member for Badgerys Creek, Mrs Diane Beamer; Mr John Murray, the Speaker and honourable member for Drummoyne; the honourable member for Gladesville, Mr John Watkins; and the honourable member for Port Jackson, Ms Sandra Nori, who is the chairperson.

The members of the committee have had a number of informal meetings and discussions mostly to facilitate the contents of their submission to the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. The committee has met formally on four occasions and is due to meet again next week and at a minimum of once every week while the House is sitting as well as in between parliamentary sittings, as required. Formal meetings are scheduled for Monday 11 September, Thursday 21 September, Thursday 12 October and today. The committee was established in early April. The Government strongly believed it was necessary to appoint a committee that would coordinate the State Government's responsibilities in relation to the provision of infrastructure for Sydney West Airport and to continue to give support to the residents of Sydney who are affected by aircraft noise under the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport flight paths.

Shortly after the establishment of the backbench committee the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing, Mr Craig Knowles, announced that the Sydney West Development Corporation would be established to ensure that all relevant government departments would actively work towards the development of the necessary infrastructure, transport links and planning instruments to ensure the Federal Government could go ahead and develop Sydney West Airport. This announcement was soon followed by a Federal Government decision to establish the Sydney community consultative committee, which was to monitor aircraft noise from residents affected by the flight paths for Kingsford-Smith airport. All members of Parliament representing flight path seats are represented on that committee and Ms Sandra Nori represents State members of Parliament on the inner executive of the SCCC.

Earlier this year the new Labor State Government established the Standing Committee on Public Works. Its first reference was the inquiry into State infrastructure requirements for Sydney West Airport as a major international and freight airport. That committee is nearing the completion of its deliberations and I understand that it will report to Parliament in the near future. The Government has developed a comprehensive strategy to deal with the needs of residents affected by flight path noise as well as to ensure that Sydney's future airport needs are met. Further, while it was originally intended that the backbench committee would look at all the issues associated with the provision of infrastructure for Sydney West Airport and monitor aircraft noise, it was clearly apparent that it would not have the power or resources to undertake these tasks to the same extent as the Sydney West Development Corporation, or indeed the Standing Committee on Public Works inquiry or the SCCC.

The backbench airport committee has prepared a comprehensive, well thought out submission to the Senate select committee, and that is now a public document. I invite the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith to read it. Even though to a great extent the original concept of the backbench committee has been superseded by the various committees that have been established that carry with them the right to report to Parliament, subpoena witnesses and undertake research, the backbench committee will continue to meet and monitor the progress of these committees and other matters that may arise in relation to airport noise in the Sydney metropolitan area.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Treasurer's answer, will he inform the House what resources the backbench committee had in making those submissions? What effective step can the Government take to implement the committee's recommendations?

Page 2021

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The backbench committee would use the resources that are available to backbench members of Parliament. No doubt the committee members would seek information from relevant government authorities and Ministers, as they are entitled to do.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations whether a recent issue of the bulletin of the Australian Parents' Council, New South Wales claimed that he has stated that he plans to remove the historic exemption for non-government schools, especially Christian schools, from the Anti-Discrimination Act? Does the same bulletin then quote the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs, the Hon. John Aquilina, as opposing the removal of the exemption? What is the Government's policy regarding this important exemption? What is its agenda on this vital exemption? In order to allay the fears of Christian schools in New South Wales, will the Attorney give a clear-cut assurance that he and the Government have no plans to remove the exemption?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I must confess that I have not seen the bulletin to which Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile refers, but I can state that there is no proposal within or before the Government to alter the exemptions for non-government schools in anti-discrimination legislation. It is true that a reference was placed before the Law Reform Commission placed by the former government to consider the Anti-Discrimination Act generally. I cannot state what might emerge from that process. The Government currently has no proposal before it to alter or remove the exemption for non-government schools.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: 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 Transport, and Minister for Tourism, aware of the assurances given by the Minister for Transport that the rail services, particularly those to Broken Hill and also to the Riverina, will be reinstated? Is the Treasurer aware that the Minister for Transport at the time of giving those assurances intimated that the train would be put together from existing rolling stock? In view of that statement, when will the service be started?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am aware of the announcement of the Minister for Transport. The Premier announced that passenger services would be restored to Broken Hill and the Riverina. I was not sure until the honourable member asked this question sure whether the services had been recommenced or were about to be.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Not yet.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will seek some information from my colleague the Minister for Transport, but I understand that the cost of recommencing such services is in the vicinity of $3.5 million. Provision has been made for that. I will find out from my colleague when these services will recommence.


The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: Will the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council inform the House of the magnificent achievement of the Office of State Revenue in winning a national annual report competition?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have been waiting for that question for months. I should have thought, given that the award relates to the activities of the Office of State Revenue when the previous Government was in office, that honourable members opposite might have asked the question. As honourable members would be aware, I have had a longstanding interest in the quality of public sector annual reports. Indeed, I was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the early 1980s - the good old days when the committee used to produce its own reports, the members did not go on overseas trips and the committee did not have one million staff - when it was given a reference to inquire into the accounting and reporting standards of statutory authorities. The committee recommended the introduction of an annual reports bill, which subsequently came to pass. That initiative was responsible for a significant improvement in the quality of annual reports produced by statutory authorities. Change was certainly long overdue.

At the time the standard of reporting in the public sector was abysmal. Annual reports often failed to present taxpayers or the Parliament with any clear information about their operational performance or, indeed, their financial performance. It was hard to judge how these public bodies were performing and whether they were giving taxpayers value for money. I am thankful that the quality of public sector reporting has improved dramatically since that time. The most recent and significant example of that improvement is this year's victory by the Office of State Revenue in winning a prestigious national annual report competition. The Office of State Revenue is the first public sector organisation to win the report of the year award in the 45 years since the annual reports awards have been held. That first prize was won not just against public sector entrants in New South Wales and Australia, but against public sector and private sector entrants across Australia.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I can assure the Treasurer that he wouldn't have received one for his Public Accounts Committee reports.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The honourable member can argue about that.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Did anybody read them?

Page 2022

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They did, in fact. In those days the chairman used to write his own reports, and he used to get some coverage in the media, unlike the stuff honourable members opposite were responsible for. According to the judges, who included Mr Alan Cameron, Chairman of the Australian Securities Commission, the Office of State Revenue entry surpassed all previous annual reports in clarity and disclosure. Not only was the panel saying that it was the best annual report of all public sector bodies, but it was also the best annual report of all public and private sector bodies, and the best annual report the panel had seen in 45 years.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Better than News Limited?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Absolutely.

The Hon. Franca Arena: But that is a glossy one.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: One has to realise that these reports are not judged on their glossy quality or their public relations quality, and that was one of the problems of annual reports in days gone by. The purpose of an annual report is to establish not only what an organisation is doing, but whether it is doing it well. It needs to contain all the operational information to enable that judgment to be made and all the financial information to determine the financial strength and the financial performance of an organisation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How many photographs are there of the Treasurer?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think the only photographs are of the previous Treasurer.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Who was he?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think it was the Hon. Peter Collins.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He was probably responsible for the report.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I doubt that he was responsible for the report. But I gave credit at the beginning of my answer to the former Government. This award was an achievement by the department that occurred under the previous Government, and the previous Government deserves credit for it. Though the Office of State Revenue is headed by some top-class public servants, if a government is not on the ball, eventually public sector organisations tend to lose their edge. When an organisation is performing well it is a reflection not only on the leadership of the organisation, but I have to admit it is also a reflection that something is right in the ministerial oversight of the body

For the six months that I have been the Minister, the Office of State Revenue has impressed me as a top-class outfit. It is quite unusual for a tax-gathering organisation to be well regarded by the community, but every piece of correspondence I have ever received from professional accounting bodies or professional legal bodies heap praise on the organisation. I think that praise is well deserved. I commend Mr Bruce Buchanan, the head of the Office of State Revenue, and all his staff for their outstanding efforts in winning the award in a field that included some of Australia's largest companies. I also recognise the efforts of Sydney Electricity and Prospect Electricity in winning gold medals for their reports.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council a question without notice. As the Minister is now aware that Ministers have a constitutional obligation to appear before the estimate committees, is he able to confirm that all Ministers will indeed attend to answer questions?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I am not. But I will certainly be there.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Does the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services recall his frequent calls in Opposition for the State Government to match Commonwealth funding offers for the home and community care program? Is the Minister aware of comments made today by Mr Gary Moore, Director of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, that funding for the home and community care program has fallen behind the growth in demand? What action will the State Government take to ensure that all funding offers for the home and community care program made by the Commonwealth are matched by the State Government?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is interesting that this question comes from the Hon. J. F. Ryan, a member of a Government that provided no extra funds in the financial year 1993-94 to enhance HACC services; in other words there was no matching of HACC funding under the former Government in the financial year prior to the one just concluded.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Are you doing it this year?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Government is providing growth funding this year. The State Government is committed to the provision of an effective range of services to frail older people and younger people with disabilities through the home and community care program. The Carr Labor Government, in its election platform, indicated its support for the HACC program. It recognises the important role it plays in the community and it made a commitment to real growth in the program. I am happy to be able to inform the House that the Government has delivered on its election commitment by providing real growth in the HACC program of $4.5 million in the financial year 1995-96.

Page 2023

That funding is on top of provision for cost indexation for all services. In fact, total funding for the HACC program this financial year will be $239 million. Against a background of a budget marked by fiscal restraint, the level of growth to which I am referring demonstrates the Government's real commitment to the home and community care program. Decisions on the allocation of growth funds to services are being considered as part of the annual HACC planning process. I hope that even the Hon. J. F. Ryan will recognise that this Government is providing growth funding to the home and community care program in New South Wales and that what the Government is doing is in no way inconsistent with what I said when I was in Opposition.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: 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 earlier answer that the backbench committee dealing with the third runway has met at least four times, and in view of the fact that the coalition of local government councils in the area is spending a considerable amount of ratepayers' money in seeking solutions to the problems arising from the third runway, has the backbench committee as yet met with the coalition of local government councils?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I suggest that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe might take up that matter with the honourable member for Port Jackson.


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. Has a leading Family Law Court judge, Justice John Fogarty, said that increased gambling in Victoria through the expanded casino will lead to more family breakdowns and neglect of children, with more children appearing before the court? Did the judge also say that the Victorian court had shown contempt for the Children's Court with its approval for the expansion of the casino whilst failing to provide adequate court protection for children whose families had collapsed because of excessive gambling? What policies has the Minister introduced to assist the New South Wales Children's Court to cope with the anticipated increased workload because of the harmful impact on families of the Sydney Harbour Casino?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: At this stage my attention certainly has not been drawn to any increased workload in the New South Wales Children's Court arising from the circumstances referred to by the Hon. Elaine Nile. I have been watching closely to ascertain whether incidents have occurred, such as those which occurred in Victoria where children have sometimes been left for lengthy periods in locked cars outside the casino. To date that sort of incident does not seem to have occurred in New South Wales. However, as Minister responsible for child protection, I have a duty to react if such events should occur in New South Wales. I hope that they will not. The Hon. Elaine Nile would be aware that a fund has been established to provide community benefits by way of counselling and other services.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: A 2 per cent tax.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As the Hon. J. M. Samios has indicated, there is a 2 per cent tax on turnover, which provides for the social and counselling services to which I am referring. If any untoward developments occur such as those forecast in the honourable member's question I would be very concerned. If the Children's Court becomes overloaded I will take action. At this stage there is no indication of those sorts of adverse social consequences occurring. The casino has not been open for very long. I assure the honourable member that I will closely monitor developments and react appropriately if the need arises.

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


The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 20 September the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked me a question without notice regarding the Olympic Games social impact assessment. The Minister for the Olympics has provided the following answer:

•A preliminary social impact assessment of the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games was prepared for the previous government by consultants Keys Young and released in February this year.

•An interdepartmental committee to review the report promised by the previous government, had not been established before the election.

•The government is determined to share the benefits of the Olympics as widely as possible. Constructing venues and facilities not just for seventeen days in 2000, but for the long term benefits of the people of NSW is of fundamental concern to the government.

•The preliminary social impact assessment called for a clear statement of Olympic finances. The government has promised transparency and has consolidated Olympic spending from five agencies into one budget.

•The social impact report called for the development of high quality, high capacity transport to Olympic venues. We have announced the go-ahead for a loop rail link to Homebush Bay. We are planning to effectively link Homebush Bay with Sydney's rail, ferry, bus and bus services.

•The report saw the Olympics as an opportunity to improve access and services for people with a disability. The Minister for the Olympics had announced previously that the OCA is preparing access guidelines for disabled people in consultation with peak disability groups and the department of aged services.

•High priority was recommended for environment protection. Again, that has been the practice of remediation work which is continuing at Homebush Bay.

Page 2024
It is recognised in the new structure of the OCA and the continuing liaison with environment and industry groups by the OCA.

•Since the election we have progressed key Olympic issues such as the Olympic Stadium, the Athletes Village and the Masterplan as well as establishing the Olympic Co-ordination Authority to improve the government's planning for the Olympics and to assist the contact with interested private sector companies and the community generally.

•The government recognises the need to examine issues raised in the social impact assessment and those raised by the NSW Ecumenical Council. There are legitimate social issues associated with the 2000 Games and the government is intent on ensuring that any disadvantages are minimised.

•When the Minister for the Olympics introduced the OCA Act he said . . .

"The first task I will be insisting the incoming Director-General of the OCA to complete is the finalisation of the basic structural plan for Homebush Bay".

•The Masterplan is now completed. The Minister for the Olympics will now be asking the Director-General of OCA to undertake, as a priority, the task of updating the social impact assessment of the Olympic Games, including the provision of an action plan. There will be consultation with community groups in that process.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 20 September the Hon. J. M. Samios asked me a question without notice regarding the Walsh Bay redevelopment. The Minister for Public Works and Services has provided the following response:

•The short list of proponents was arrived at after assessing the five registrants who responded to the public call for expressions of interest which closed in March of this year. The assessment panel recommended three of the registrants to the call who demonstrated the capability to meet the government's objectives and who were considered worthy of proceeding to submit detailed proposals to redevelop the site.

•The approach of short listing expressions of interest is undertaken to reduce the private sector cost of tendering.

•As the recently issued call for detailed proposals is limited between the three short listed proponents and government, the documentation has been appropriately classified as confidential to these parties to maintain the integrity of the tendering process.

•The intent of the government's objectives for the project has not altered from that outlined in the public call for expressions of interest.

•The art facilities "Wish List" as so named, is in fact a document outlining Sydney's estimated demand for different arts facilities and was prepared by the NSW Ministry of Arts. This document was provided as an attachment to the detailed call for proposals as information only.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 19 September Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked me a question without notice regarding French nuclear testing. The Premier has provided the following answer:

France has failed to make available to the international community all French scientific data, samples and studies so as to enable an independent and comprehensive assessment of the environmental and health impacts of the 130-140 underground tests at Mururoa atoll since 1966.

Although Australia currently has no evidence of short-term effects on human health, the environment and marine life, there are indications of serious long-term damage at Mururoa atoll. The long-term effects are detailed in a Commonwealth Government paper presented to the South Pacific Environment Ministers' Meeting in August 1995, drawing on information from three independent, yet restricted, scientific missions conducted at Mururoa atoll in the 1980s.

According to this paper, the tests have already damaged the limestone cap, fractured the volcanic rock around each test site and caused fissures, subsidence, submarine landslides and contamination of the lagoon. Mururoa atoll is a repository of a substantial amount of radioactive material and there is a significant long-term risk of radioisotopes leaking into the lagoon, the surrounding ocean and the atmosphere.

Scientists have speculated radioisotopes could begin leaking in five years time or in 500-1000 years time, depending on factors such as the geophysics and geochemistry of particular explosion sites. The health consequences of such a leakage would mainly affect the atoll, as the dilution of the ocean would minimise the impact on the wider region.

The New South Wales Government has publicly condemned the renewal of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. For example, the Premier described the tests as "an unforgivable act of environmental vandalism", addressing a rally at Sydney Town Hall on 7 August 1995.

The Premier sought to mobilise the sort of Australians who would not normally attend political demonstrations by organising peaceful family picnic protests in Sydney, Wollongong, Bathurst and Lismore on 17 September 1995 and a cabaret in Newcastle on 21 September 1995.

The New South Wales Government has acted in accord with the Commonwealth government decision to limit actions to the diplomatic and defence spheres. The Premier has supported the Commonwealth's decisions to freeze military co-operation with France and defer entering into any new contracts for the sale of uranium to the French Government until France enters into a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

On the advice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, this Government has refrained from introducing economic sanctions. Economic sanctions could disadvantage the New South Wales economy and cast doubt on Australia's commitment to international trade obligations, possibly without any impact on French diplomatic decisions.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 20 September the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked me a question without notice regarding student travel concessions. The Minister for Transport has now provided the following response:

There is no record of a pre-election promise in regards to travel concessions for full-fee paying overseas students.

Student (temporary) visa criteria include an explicit condition that students must have sufficient funds to support themselves in Australia. Applicants sign a declaration that they will abide by visa conditions. As such, it is the policy of the NSW government that full-fee paying overseas students are not entitled to transport concessions.

The issue of granting concessions to full time distance education students is distinct from concessions for overseas students.

The government pricing tribunal is currently conducting a review of pricing policies of government agencies supplying public passenger transport services. The review will include travel concessions, and it is considered that this may be the appropriate forum for student associations to raise these issues.

Questions without notice concluded.

Page 2025

The PRESIDENT: Order! I draw to the attention of honourable members that the procedure commenced before question time by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in relation to the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill was interrupted as a result of question time and, technically, should be commenced de novo. However, immediately after the luncheon adjournment I will seek the leave of the House to permit the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to proceed from the point at which those proceedings were interrupted.

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

The PRESIDENT: Order! In view of my intimation prior to the luncheon break, I ask the House whether leave is granted to proceed with the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill from the stage it had reached? If leave is not granted, the procedure will commence de novo.

Leave not granted.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.33]: I move:

That the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that General Business Order of the Day No. 9 relating to the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill be called on forthwith.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ms Burnswoods Mr Manson
Mr Cohen Mr Obeid
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 Mrs Arena
Mr Macdonald Dr Burgmann

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Chadwick Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jobling Mr Tingle
Mr Moppett
Mr Mutch Tellers,
Mrs Nile Miss Gardiner
Rev. Nile Mr Kersten

Mr O'Grady Mr Hannaford

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.45]: I move:

That General Business Order of the Day No. 9, relating to the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill, be called on forthwith.

Question put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald
Dr Burgmann Mr Manson
Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mr Corbett Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Staunton
Mr Egan Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan
Mr Johnson
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mr Cohen
Miss Kirkby Ms Saffin

Mr Bull Rev. Nile
Mrs Chadwick Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Dr Goldsmith Mr Tingle
Mr Jobling
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Moppett Mr Mutch
Mrs Nile Mrs Sham-Ho

Mr O'Grady Mr Hannaford

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Debate resumed from 12 October.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.48]: I want to express my opposition to the bill on a number of grounds. The bill is totally unnecessary and should not have been brought into the House at this time or at any other time. Like all my colleagues, farmers and those who engage in duck shooting, I am concerned about our native fauna, especially species that can be identified as endangered. We should all
Page 2026
have a proper and balanced regard for these creatures. However, it would be wrong to accept the suggestions by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones about ducks being an endangered species or requiring special legislation for their protection.

Yesterday I said, in my contribution to the debate on the motion to establish priority of the bill this afternoon, that if it were substantiated that the population of these species is lower than normal through some seasonal factor, the Government, on the recommendation of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, could suspend the duck season at any time. Until now, proclamation of an open season for the shooting of ducks has fulfilled two purposes. It has given an opportunity for the legitimate aims of those who enjoy the sport of shooting, and it has served to curb the excessive numbers of these birds, which are a problem in some districts, especially for the rice industry. The numbers of these birds since the landscape of Australia was modified for agricultural purposes has burgeoned considerably. The second line of argument by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to justify the introduction of the bill could be termed the animal liberation argument. We certainly heard at length about his empathy for the birds in question. It is totally inappropriate that his views should be dealt with by way of a special Act of Parliament. If he were consistent, he would be seeking to talk also about fishing, both for recreational and commercial purposes.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: That is the next bill.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has said he is a vegetarian, and I respect his consistency in putting forward his views, but we must continue to ask him to respect the views of other people - in this case the vast majority of people. The duck bill, if passed, will create grave concerns in various important agricultural sectors of the State. It will create uproar amongst another group of citizens who have just as much right to air their views. I look forward to the contribution of the Hon. J. S. Tingle. I will not try to bespeak what he might say later. I and my colleagues believe the bill is most inappropriate. It seems it may be part of some sort of general pact with the Government when it has been allowed priority of other matters of general business and private members' bills that are far more worthy of consideration.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.51]: The Government supports the bill, which was introduced by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. This bill will ban game bird shooting for sport and recreational purposes and will end the open season for hunting water fowl, which has existed since 1901. At the moment the open season for ducks runs from March to May, and for quail from May to August. There are a number of reasons for the Government supporting the bill.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: We would like to know the real reasons.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Contrary to what the Hon. D. F. Moppett said, it is not a matter of one individual - the Hon. R. S. L. Jones - moving in some idiosyncratic way. The end of the duck season has been discussed for a long time. One major issue that has been under discussion is cruelty. In 1988 the Animal Welfare Advisory Council, which was set up by the Labor Government, reported that duck shooting should be terminated because the level of pain and suffering of the ducks was unreasonably high. The advisory council recommended that the season be brought to an end. I do not want to talk at great length in this debate, but no-one can be in any doubt about the cruelty occasioned to the birds, particularly as it is estimated that as many as 20 per cent of birds that are shot die a lingering death.

Another reason for the Government's support of the bill is the undoubted risk to other species. The previous Government's abandonment of the open season for 1995 because of the drought drew some attention to that ongoing risk. A number of birds of the species that are listed as endangered are killed each year because, even with the best will in the world, endangered fauna are often shot by mistake because shooters, by mistake or carelessness, hit endangered fauna rather than the ducks or other species that they are aiming at.

Other matters of concern include the ongoing risk from the lead that is being dumped in lakes and wetlands and, more broadly, its threat to wetlands. This Government is particularly concerned about our wetlands and is taking steps to look after our inland rivers and wetland areas. My final reference is to public opinion on this issue. The attitude of the public to duck shooting is not in dispute. The last full-scale survey carried out by Morgan Gallop in 1993 showed that 70 per cent of all those surveyed disapproved of duck shooting during the open season. While the percentage of those voicing disapproval was particularly high amongst Labor voters, from memory it was as high as 76 per cent among Liberal and National Party voters. Public opinion in New South Wales on this issue is quite strong.

Public opinion on duck shooting is strong elsewhere as well. The Labor Government in Western Australia terminated the open season in 1992. On this issue, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said in his second reading speech, the New South Wales Parliament is lagging behind public opinion rather than leading it. I also stress that the bill does not affect the existing mitigating licence. Concern has been expressed by rice farmers in particular, but that concern is unfounded. The bill bans shooting of wild fowl for sport and recreational purposes. It does not ban the existing right of owners to have other people, acting on their behalf, shoot ducks and other water fowl that are a nuisance, in rice growing areas in particular.

Concerns have been expressed by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The Government respects those concerns, and I am sure there will be continuing negotiations and discussions with him on some of the
Page 2027
matters he has raised, for instance, an ongoing consultative committee. One area that concerned him was mitigation licences, which I have just dealt with. He knows they will be continued and that this bill poses no threat to them. The statistics are very revealing. There are now only 6,407 licences current, and the figure has been dropping for many years. Of that 6,407, only 23 per cent - 1,473 - are held by residents of New South Wales. The overwhelming majority of people who shoot ducks in this State are Victorian - 73 per cent.

The vast majority of duck shooting that occurs in the Riverina area is by Victorians crossing the border. It is quite clear from my conversations with people interested in this issue, including shooters in the Orange district, that duck shooting is not an issue of particular concern in those parts of the State. It is fundamentally Victorians who come across the border and shoot New South Wales ducks. While I and the Government recognise the concerns of the Hon. J. S. Tingle, the number of his constituents that are concerned about this issue could be very much exaggerated. Finally, I reiterate the reasons for the Government's support of the bill. Pam Allen, the Minister for the Environment, has long been on record as having a personal commitment to this issue, as have I and many other members of the Government. A press release put out today by the Public Land Users Alliance contains a number of serious misstatements about the position adopted by the Minister for the Environment, but I am sure the Minister will make appropriate responses to those matters when she speaks on this bill when it reaches the Legislative Assembly.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [2.58]: I will not speak at length on the bill because I suspect most honourable members have decided how they will vote on it. No matter how eloquent I could be, I feel I would not be able to change their minds. That does not mean I am not going to give it a go. I face one huge problem. It is that the bill, which is marked as having been "introduced by the Hon. Richard Jones, MLC" should read "introduced by the ALP". The Australian Labor Party has voted in caucus to support the bill. As the Public Land Users Alliance said in a letter from which the honourable member almost quoted, this bill should be subtitled "Pam Allen and Australian Labor Party". This is Pam Allen's backdoor way of getting her anti duck shooting bill into this House.

That gullible Democrats member, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, has been used as a vehicle by the ALP to get its legislation passed without risking the backlash from the public of New South Wales. The Australian Labor Party has taken a huge risk; it has crossed the barrier in relation to this matter. In her contribution the Hon. Jan Burnswoods said that the ALP supports the bill. As a press release issued today by the Public Land Users Alliance stated, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones had been used by Pam Allan to introduce the legislation. On behalf of the National Party and my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I oppose the legislation. I reaffirm that when the coalition is next in office - and the way the Government is going, that will not be too far away - it will repeal this appalling legislation.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle will be aware that the previous Government acted responsibly and cancelled the last duck shooting season because of the prevailing drought conditions at the time. That is proper management of the situation. Earlier the Hon. Jan Burnswoods mentioned the problems in the rice area. She was correct when she said that the problems faced by rice growers will not be affected by the bill. However, she failed to mention that large areas of rice have produced artificial wetlands, which in turn have led to an increase in the duck population. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones raised the problem of lead shot and waterfowl. That is a legitimate concern. I read some of the information supplied to me today by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The Field and Game Federation has identified the lead shot and waterfowl problem and is considering ways of substituting lead with other non-toxic shot.

The Hon. I. Cohen: They have been talking about that for years.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Field and Game Federation wants to make a sensible contribution rather than be subjected to a silly authoritarian bill that will not achieve anything. The bill will alienate many people and cause community conflict. It is contrary to best resource management practice. Instead of getting together and solving the problem, members opposite are opposing the best resource management practice. I will not prolong the debate because, as I said earlier, I suspect that honourable members have made up their minds about the bill. I simply reiterate that the Liberal and National parties oppose the bill. If the legislation is passed by this House, we will oppose it in the other place. We will do everything we can to help shooting organisations by opposing this Labor Party-Pam Allan legislation that has been introduced as a result of the duping of the honourable member opposite.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.03]: Honourable members will not be surprised to learn that I oppose this bill. I do not understand the urgent need to debate the bill today, but the debate has been brought on. So be it; let us debate it. I find it strange that my esteemed colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is trying to ban something. When I helped to start the Australian Democrats with Senator Don Chipp in 1977, I understood that the Australian Democrats were not about banning things. The Australian Democrats were about freedom, about giving people a fair go, about letting people enjoy their lifestyles and about letting people move freely about their community. I am surprised that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is now attempting to ban something.

I am not a duck shooter. The only duck that I have been close to is the yellow rubber duckie in my wife's bath, and that does not have any shot holes in it. Duck shooting is one of the oldest forms of wildlife hunting. It is second only to fishing, and I have been told that the Government will also ban fishing if it gets half a chance. Fishing has already been banned in national parks because it is regarded as a form of hunting. Fishing and hunting are two
Page 2028
different things. Wildfowl hunting came across with the Normans in 1066. They became very good at it. I understand that another Richard, Richard the Lion-Heart, was a keen wildfowl hunter, but his present-day namesake obviously does not share his passion.

The bill is a sham. It is not about ducks, and it is not based on the welfare of ducks. It is not designed to save the lives of ducks, to stop them from being slaughtered. The stated intention of the bill is to stop the killing of game birds. That aim is contrary to world's best conservation practice promoted by the International Union of Conservation Nations. Australia is a member of the IUCN, and the Federal Government supports what is called sustainable utilisation. Sustainable utilisation is recognised throughout the world as a powerful conservation tool, and it is supported by a majority of wildlife scientists in Australia. Despite what the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has said, the bill and its intentions cannot be justified on the basis of any decline in the number of ducks. He said that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has estimated that during the decade to 1994 some species of ducks had declined by as much as 95 per cent.

That is blatantly untrue. The honourable member has used sample survey figures from aerial surveys that cover only 12 per cent of eastern Australia. The figures for duck populations over the past 11 years reveal increases of as much as 30 per cent in some species. In 1986, the number of freckled duck, our most rare species, was counted at 201. In 1992, more than 12,000 were counted. That is an increase in the freckled duck population of more than 6,000 per cent. The number of ducks varies from time to time, but recent surveys have shown a steady growth in numbers until the recent drought, at which time the Field and Game Federation responsibly cooperated with the New South Wales government of the day in the decision that a duck shooting season was inappropriate. To suggest that that voluntary agreement to exclude one duck shooting season should be extended to a permanent ban on duck hunting in New South Wales takes the matter much too far.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has stated in a number of published papers that recreational hunting is not a threat to either the game bird species or any other protected species. Indeed, statistically the duck shooting season, short as it is, takes less than 1 per cent of the duck population in Australia. It is not a major threat to duck species. The prohibition of recreational and sporting shooting of ducks envisaged in this bill will not result in any substantial saving of duck numbers. The same number of ducks will die, but they will now die from starvation as autumn waters recede, or from widespread poisoning in many parts of the State. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods referred to the use of lead shot. Her figures are slightly out of date. Lead shot has been phased out since 1993, when it was recognised as a pollutant, as something that could kill ducks.

Ducks will not be any better off because of the bill. Many of them will merely die a much slower death. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods said that she is concerned about cruelty to ducks. What is the quantum difference between being shot and dying from poisoning or starvation and thirst? I know what my preference would be if I were a duck which, thank God, I am not. I have not said that there should be an open season or open slather on duck shooting. I have put to the Government what I consider to be a responsible compromise alternative to the bill proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I hear him laugh; I know that he does not approve of my proposal. Both sides of the argument must be considered. I have suggested to the Government that instead of having an open season, there should be a closed duck season across the State for most of the year.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones said in a radio debate with me this morning that I want a permanent open season. I do not. I am suggesting a closed season across the State. The National Parks and Wildlife Service can divide this State into five or six biological duck zones. If honourable members do not know what a biological duck zone is, they should not ask me because I do not know either. I gather the expression relates to the fact that ducks have different biology patterns. They nest and mate earlier in the north of the State than they do in the south, so the State can be divided into zones. My proposal was that the closed season in the north of the State would end, and a few weeks later the closed season in the Hunter would end, then perhaps the closed season in the west, then the closed season in the Riverina, and so on.

My proposal was that closed season end at lunchtime on a Tuesday, not at six o'clock on a Saturday morning when everyone is standing around up to the armpits in cold water, when animal liberationists, television cameras, and shooters are jostling with each other and one gets a dreadfully grim picture of a dawn massacre. That is what is wrong with the present arrangement of declaring the duck shooting season open at the same time early in the morning throughout in the State. I have also suggested to the New South Wales Government that it should follow the example set by Victoria and introduce a human safety Act.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What was the Government's answer?

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: I have not got an answer yet. The Government is considering the proposal. I suggested a human safety Act designed to keep protesters at a certain distance from the people with guns. No-one on either side of the House wants anyone to be shot accidentally when the duck shooting season opens. I have made that suggestion to the New South Wales Government, but so far I have not received an answer.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Remember that if Labor has the answer, it must have been a silly question.

Page 2029

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: The Hon. D. F. Moppett is right: ask a silly question and you will get a silly answer. The bill seeks to make it an offence to take or to kill game birds or any other birds declared under the proposed Act for recreational or sporting purposes. It has been suggested in this House that because of that provision the bill will have no effect on farmers. The converse is likely to be true because rice farmers and other grain cereal crop farmers in this State depend on contracting out their duck mitigation licences to recreational and sporting shooters - the people who go on to the farms and keep the ducks off the crops. If they are prevented from doing that, the rice crops and the grain crops of this State will be in a parlous condition indeed.

The recreational and shooting hunters who work on the grain crops as contractors try to keep the ducks off the crops for sporting and recreational purposes. I have received legal advice that under this bill they will not be allowed to do that. The only people who will be allowed to shoot ducks on grain crops will be farmers and their employees. The bill does not say anything to the contrary. If this bill is passed and if the legal advice I have received is correct, and I have no reason to believe it is not, the only people who will be able to shoot ducks on New South Wales grain farms will be farmers and their employees. Recreational shooters will no longer be allowed to do so. No farmer will have either the financial or physical means to do that. The resources required by rice growers to mitigate the damage to their crops caused by game birds is beyond the financial limits of any rice grower. Rice growers rely on recreational hunters. This bill makes the involvement of recreational hunters illegal.

As I have said, the bill allows only rice growers or their employees to participate in damage mitigation activities involving game birds. During his second reading speech the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said that only 1,400 people had taken out duck shooting licences last year in New South Wales. He is perfectly right. But that figure does not take into account the number of people who are required to take part in the same activity on grain crops and in farms. The figure also totally overlooks the fact that many people simply refuse to go through the bureaucratic hocus-pocus and the cost of taking out a licence and are now shooting without licences. The Shooters Party does not approve of that, but it is a fact. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has already issued 1,900 licences this year for shooting on grain farms. That figure gives some indication of the size of the problem faced by the rice and cereal crop farmers. What will happen to those licences under this bill? More importantly, what will happen to rice and other grain cereal crops? I would appreciate an answer to that question, and I am sure honourable members will get an answer from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in reply.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Don't hold your breath!

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: No, I might go red in the face. A few moments ago the Hon. D. J. Gay mentioned the political backlash. The media has reported that I have threatened the Government. That is not true. This bill threatens the Government. In this House today I presented a petition containing 3,552 signatures from people who do not want duck shooting banned in this State. I point out that all those citizens of New South Wales signed that petition in one day. The petition has been signed day after day, and although I know that the bill will be passed by this House this afternoon I look forward to presenting further bundles of petitions at a later stage. I want honourable members to know that a far greater number of people than the 1,400 people referred to by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones are bitterly opposed to the passage of this bill. The people who will be offended by this bill and will therefore turn against the Government are not only shooters, people like me - and I have already said that I am not a duck hunter - but members of ethnic communities. In some ethnic communities - including the Italian, Greek, Yugoslav and German communities - duck hunting has been a family tradition for generations. It is the only sort of shooting those people engage in.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about the miners in Cessnock, Lithgow and Broken Hill?

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: I am coming to them. Members of those ethnic communities will be deeply offended by any suggestion that what their families have been doing since long before this country was started by white settlement is now regarded as an illegal anti-social, anti-environmental activity. I know that they will not accept that. What about ordinary working people - the backbone, the faithful, the true believers of the Labor Party, the artisans? I remind the Government that shooting is and always has been a working person's sport. That was demonstrated clearly in 1988 by what happened in the Hunter and the Illawarra regions, where the coalminers, steelworkers and other workers - who spend their time shooting when they are not down in the mines or in the factories - voted in masses against the Unsworth Government and helped to remove it from office.

As someone who is deeply involved in the shooting movement, who is close to shooters' feelings about this issue, I am able to say that this same anger could arise again. I believe it probably will if this bill ever becomes law. Every shooter, whether or not he or she is a duck shooter, regards this bill as a hostile act that will further restrict what has always been a legitimate and respected recreation occupying only a brief part of any given year. Since I became a member of this House, I have been working with the Government to try to bring commonsense to firearms policy. I commend the Government on its realistic approach in general to firearms policy. If this bill becomes law, all that good work will be undone. And for what reason? For a minimal effect on the numbers of ducks that are shot. Shooters were beginning to believe that this Government might give them fair treatment. At this stage I should like to remind honourable members of this House of something they might have forgotten, or perhaps have not seen. I refer to a statement issued on 10 January 1995 by the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr, as a firearms policy. The conclusion of that policy reads in part:

Page 2030

The Ministers responsible for Police, Planning and Environment and Sport, Recreation and Tourism will . . . consider and report to cabinet on the issue of wildlife and vermin control on public lands. That will assist the preservation of threatened species and permit responsible hunting.

I repeat the words "permit responsible hunting." What has happened to that part of the policy? Is this to become another broken promise of this Government? The opposition to recreational hunting stems from a personal moral view on animal utilisation. That view is irreconcilable with a view that supports recreational harvesting of wildlife or fish. That is evident in this House today. Neither view can be regarded as fundamentally right or wrong. The arguments relating to the shooting of non-game species, all the material about lead shot and so on, are side issues influencing the management of the activity to various degrees. When taken individually or in total, none of those arguments justify the abolition of this activity.

Surely to goodness the trend in enlightened government is to avoid where possible arbitrating on issues of personal lifestyle choice. Is this not what governments have been doing? Governments have not been arbitrating on issues of personal lifestyle choice and personal morality, they have been in favour of individual rights. I put it to honourable members that this kind of recreational hunting is one such activity but, honourable members will be surprised to hear, I do not expect much agreement from the Government side of the House. Surely the role of government in regard to hunting should be to ensure that the harvest is sustainable and that non-game species and the habitat are not threatened, and to protect the rights of citizens to participate free from harassment. The issues raised by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones are a smokescreen to hide the basic sentiment behind the bill. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones does not care about our game birds. If he did, he would recognise the logic that sustainable utilisation would provide conservation benefits for the species and for the environment.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones maintains that the human species should not have the right to take the life of another species. So far as I can see, this bill is another small part of his campaign to bring the human species down to the level of the animals. To him his view is very ethical. Unfortunately, many others in our society have a different cultural upbringing and do not subscribe to the ethics of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, which may be to their sorrow or to their advantage - I do not know. But, as I have said, the large European immigrant groups regard hunting and fishing as a very important part of their culture. The Minister for the Environment promised the shooting groups that they would have the opportunity to present their views before a decision was made about the duck season next year. Labor's support for this bill will be seen by all shooters and the rest of the community as the leading edge of an attack on hunting, fishing and all forms of shooting; but more than that, it will be seen as another broken promise.

I assure honourable members that the passage of the bill will see a stronger and more concentrated community campaign against the Carr Government than was ever mounted against Unsworth. The residents of New South Wales are not prepared to put up with restrictive bureaucratic hurdles and the high cost involved in getting a duck licence. Rural New South Wales residents tend to shoot ducks whenever they want a feed, and ducks are taken opportunistically by most New South Wales hunters. Indications are that this would involve between one million and two million people. The people who buy duck licences are those who are keen and committed, those who live in cities and shoot on the few major wetlands that attract extensive law enforcement activities on the opening weekend. The majority of New South Wales resident duck shooters laugh at the thought of buying a licence because they know that the chances of being caught are very slim. I should like to read from a letter I have received from a person in Hay, who happens to work for the Department of Conservation and Land Management:

Dear Sir,

Please relay to your compatriots in Parliament that any attempt to ban duck hunting is a direct attack on my cultural heritage, and on my lifestyle. Hunting is an essential part of my life, and any such ban is inconsistent with prevailing attitudes towards cultural and ethnic minority groups.

Please tell the Parliament that R. Jones is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to destroy my hunting heritage.

If this bill becomes law, and I am sure it will, no more licences will be issued. What will be the result of that? Sure, it will mean that legally nobody will be shooting ducks, but it also will mean that the Government will have even less idea of how many ducks are being shot. The Government will not know how many ducks are being shot and it will have no control over shooting activity. The resources are not available to police the legislation, so the whole thing will go through the roof. This bill will make the situation immeasurably worse, not just for duck hunters but for the ducks. For that reason I foreshadow a move at a later date to rescind this legislation, should it be passed. If one could ask the ducks about this I make so bold as to suggest that they would say whoever thought of a move like this is a bit of a goose.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.24]: I strongly support the bill introduced by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, and supported by the Labor Party. Unfortunately, to members of the National Party a duck is a duck, and that seems to be as far as their thinking goes. I remind honourable members on the Opposition benches that Australia is the only first world megadiverse country on the entire planet. This country has a resource that no-one else has, and the luxury of being able to maintain its animal species. I heard the Hon. J. S. Tingle say earlier that watching duck hunting is like witnessing a dawn massacre, and indeed it is. I have been at the duck shoot, on the side of the ducks. At predawn, when the sky is still dark, we sit out in our canoes to collect the dying and
Page 2031
injured ducks, which suffer greatly. From a Christian point of view I am unable to understand how anyone could condone the suffering that these animals endure. I have seen shooters in the water casually swinging ducks around to break their necks then sticking them in their belts, but leaving dying ducks in the water to suffer for hours and sometimes days because they cannot catch them.

That is the reality of duck shooting in this State. So far as honourable members of the National Party are concerned, a duck is a duck. The duck hunters shoot anything in the dark - swans, freckled ducks, endangered species, the whole lot - because they cannot see them before dawn breaks. Shots are fired with a cacophony of noise in the dark of the early morning. That has been happening at organised duck shoots, and so far as I am concerned it is a crime against nature and a crime against any concept of Christian conscience. I am unable to understand how anyone could support such blood sport killing. It is absolutely hypocritical. The duck is a gentle creature that does not have the wherewithal to bite, even when wounded. It is one of the most harmless animals on the face of this planet; yet people dressed in fatigues, with their Bandido-style 12-gauge shotgun cartridge holders, stand in the wetlands in their greenery. They have blown it for the Hon. J. S. Tingle.

If these shooters were acting in a professional manner and taking species that were not endangered, I may not be happy about it but I might not oppose it. On the day that I was out in the water picking up wounded animals I found one person in a canoe who seemed to be a responsible shooter, but the others were shooting at anything that flew by. People come to the front of Parliament House on a regular basis to lay those animals down - black swans, endangered species, the whole lot - to show the result of duck shooting. The shooters and supporters of the Shooters Party have blown it. They are not being responsible. They are not killing common species - although the National Party regards a duck as a duck and that is the end of it - they are killing endangered species. The most brilliant aspect of this continent is its megadiversity. But National Party members and supporters of the Shooters Party are not looking at the issue with any regard for the future, for maintaining what we have.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle spoke about the great Australian cringe, 1066 and the European invasion against our species. The mentality that exists in the old world in Europe might have been considered to be good, but look at what is happening to Europe. There has been talk about traditional ideas and ideals, but we are living in Australia. We look at the future with a new set of ideals. In some parts of the world people shot ducks until the species was extinct; in other parts of the world they practise genital mutilation. That type of practise does not belong in Australia. In the culture that I come from they stoned people to death. Today women are still stoned to death in some countries; flogging is practised. Many things happen in other countries, but Australia must develop an ethos that has future planning, a civilised balance and respect for the species that exist on this planet, rather than the anthropocentric concept that we have a right to destroy everything, to change the environment, and to create a situation whereby human beings have hegemony over everything. Those ducks and other species have every right to exist. I agree with the Hon. J. S. Tingle that those ducks are dying anyway from poisoning, loss of habitat, loss of wetlands, and particularly the chemicals and pesticides used by industries in those areas. We could lose some duck species. That is not an either-or situation; it is part of the agricultural industry -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about the common species?

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. D. F. Moppett would not be able to identify the common species. There are National Party supporters who would not know a freckled duck from a common brown duck. Are the duck shooters out there with night glasses identifying the various species of duck? They would not have the faintest idea which species of duck they were shooting. Because of the mismanagement of this sport, the wholesale slaughter and cruel treatment of these birds - I have seen ducks with broken wings flapping around in the water - I support the bill introduced by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.31]: Call to Australia is concerned about the whole of this debate, as I said when the Hon. R. S. L. Jones moved his contingency motion. This is legislation by ambush. Today's speakers' list makes no reference to this bill. Honourable members have not had any time to consider the legislation or understand its ramifications. The Hon. J. S. Tingle made the alarming statement that this bill will have no effect on duck shooting in this State. That simply means a lot of people will not have licences and the shooting will continue but in a more haphazard way and without any control. I am sure that the Hon. J. S. Tingle, who represents the Shooters Party, is more of an authority on this subject than is the Hon. R. S. L. Jones or the Hon. I. Cohen. We must determine whether or not this bill will have a negative or a positive effect and whether at the end of the day the same number of ducks will be shot.

Legislation such as this will impact dramatically on the small percentage of people involved in this activity. It might also impact on shooters in other areas who have a feeling of solidarity with duck shooters. The Hon. J. S. Tingle said that the hundreds of thousands of shooters in this State see this as an attack on them as a group, as a community with similar interests. This is a serious matter. Honourable members should have been given notice of this legislation to enable them to prepare for debate and to enable them to obtain information on it. I have no information on the legislation and I have received no submissions in regard to it. In a sense, we are debating this bill in the dark. Reference was made to people shooting ducks in the dark, but we are being kept in the dark by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. He told members of the crossbenches that there would be a new form of open government; that we would trust
Page 2032
one another; and that we would all disclose what we wanted to do in order to obtain a degree of cooperation.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones blew us out of the water at the first opportunity with the strategy he has adopted today: legislation by ambush. I have been critical in the past of the Labor Party and coalition parties using this strategy. Members of the crossbenches strongly oppose this sort of tactic as governments, when they have the numbers, can use it to their advantage to push bills through this House. The Leader of the Government in this House and the Minister for Police in the other place have assured us that this Government will take a new approach - one of open government and consultation. That should apply to all parties in both Houses and, in particular, to the Australian Democrats. What the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has done today goes against the professed policy of the Democrats of keeping all politicians honest - and I shall not use the descriptive word usually included in that expression.

We have witnessed dishonesty in the approach taken by the Australian Democrats today and we have seen the same dishonesty in the Federal Parliament. That has become an accepted fact of life. It is a pity that members of the major parties who talk about high ideals move so quickly away from them and become political pragmatists. Call to Australia will not stoop to that level. Even though we may have views for or against duck shooting, we oppose in principle what has been done today. We have no choice other than to vote against this legislation. If there had been a degree of consultation and cooperation our position might have been different, but that is our position at this moment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.35], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate, including those who were so passionately opposed to the bill. In particular I thank the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and the Hon. I. Cohen. The Hon. I. Cohen and I have visited these wetlands on many occasions. On my first visit about 10 years ago, my partner, Wendy, and I confronted about 1,000 duck shooters on the evening before the duck hunt. More and more people throughout Australia are gradually becoming aware of the appalling nature of duck hunting, how barbarous it is, and they now realise that it should be ended in this country. It is one of those old blood sports from medieval times that nobody in this House should support. I have rescued various birds from the wetlands by going out in a canoe or wading into the water. I have seen many non-target species killed and injured, such as pelicans - I have a photograph in my office of me actually nursing a pelican - galahs, ibises and swans. On one occasion at Lake Cowal when I warned duck shooters about a particular breeding area they said, "Don't worry, we will go in there next." They went into that area and shot everything that moved.

Every time I visit that area the period before the dawn - and before the shooting - is magnificent. Half an hour before dawn breaks the shooting commences, but the shooters cannot possibly see what they are shooting at. They just shoot at every dark shape they see in the sky. The birds, which are scattered throughout the sky, go wheeling in different directions not knowing what to do or where to go. This is taking place at Lake Cowal and Barren Box swamp - the State's key breeding areas for endangered species. Shooters are desecrating a most magnificent area and, as is the case in the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict, they are leaving behind a wasteland. We should not support that kind of activity in this day and age; there is no excuse for it. The Hon. I. Cohen pointed out that female genital mutilation is practised on the Horn of Africa - it has been part of African culture for many years - but we have banned it as we do not believe it should be practised in this country.

In Italy even foxes are endangered. The Hon. Franca Arena told me that people in Italy shoot at sparrows and at everything that moves. That does not mean to say that people from those countries should be allowed to come to Australia and shoot all our wildlife. We have a different and more caring culture; generally, we care more about wildlife. I regret that members of the National Party do not care about wildlife, but certainly the Carr Government does. It has shown today, by supporting this legislation, that it is a green and caring Government. It is bringing in reforms which the rednecks in the National Party are screaming about. They will continue to scream but they will not make any headway because the majority of people in New South Wales support this legislation. That is quite clear from the opinion polls. They do not approve of the barbarity that is occurring in the wetlands every year. That will end now.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle suggested we should have rolling closed and open seasons, which is nonsense. He wants these areas opened at lunchtime on Tuesday so that people who have jobs and who visit those areas on Saturday to try to prevent these ducks from being killed and to rescue injured ducks will not be able to go there. This is a media stunt to stop media coverage of the duck hunt. It will not work. The Hon. J. S. Tingle wants to be able to kill ducks for most of the year. He says that we should have freedom. Does that mean that we should have freedom to rape, maim, murder and invade homes? I do not believe we need that sort of freedom in our society.

There are some things in society that we are not free to do. We do not have freedom to abuse people or to be racially abusive to them. We are not free to be abusive to members of the gay and lesbian community. There are some freedoms that we should not have. We should not be free to abuse other living creatures, whether they be humans or ducks. Some freedoms need to be curtailed, such as the freedom to continue the barbaric shooting of these ducks. I thank the Government for its support for this legislation. It has been difficult, especially because of threats by the Hon. J. S. Tingle to vote against every piece of legislation. He told Bob Carr that he would do this, but I knew it was a bluff. He said to me, "It is only a bluff". I knew that.

Page 2033

The Carr Government has bent over backwards to support the Hon. J. S. Tingle. I am sure that support will continue. It will be most inappropriate for the Hon. J. S. Tingle to vote against every piece of legislation, based on this one bill. This bill will not cause a ripple in the community; most people already understand that duck shooting should end. The Western Australian Liberal Government will not end its ban. It knows that once a ban is imposed, it will never be removed. I doubt that when this bill is passed through both Houses it will ever be repealed, because it is beyond its time. I commend the bill.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Cohen Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Staunton
Mr Egan Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan
Mr Johnson
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mr Corbett
Miss Kirkby Mr Macdonald

Mr Bull Rev. Nile
Mrs Chadwick Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jobling Mr Tingle
Mr Kersten
Mr Moppett Tellers,
Mr Mutch Dr Goldsmith
Mrs Nile Dr Pezzutti

Mr O'Grady Mr Hannaford

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: With the concurrence of the House I seek leave to move the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Leave not granted.


Debate resumed from 21 September.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.50]: I resume my discussion of nuclear testing and the recent participation by Australians and Australian parliamentarians in travelling to Tahiti to express their opposition to it. On arrival there, 102 parliamentarians from 16 different nations participated in a most effective action to highlight French nuclear testing. Members of this House, including the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. Janelle Saffin, and the Hon. J. F. Ryan participated in that action. I am mindful that when this debate last adjourned I was midway through my speech; I do not wish to reiterate what I said then. A number of issues have emerged strongly as a result of the recent protests about nuclear testing.

There is new awareness in the world, a new way of thinking about the long-term effects of uranium, from beginning to end, from its mining to its use in the nuclear armaments industry and in weapons testing. Uranium, in one of its states that could last hundreds of thousands of years just sitting on the earth, in a state could destroy all life forms on the planet either through nuclear explosion or poisoning, is a far greater danger than any other threatening our world. Australia is part of that system of uranium use. The Australian people, and the Australian Government to a lesser extent, protested vigorously against the French testing, but uranium mining and nuclear testing have not ended. Major nations of the world, by mining and selling uranium, are accomplices in a cycle of death for which there is no practical solution that is threatening to destroy all life systems. At best that is inappropriate, and at worst it is unsustainable and unsurviveable.

I am thankful that parliamentarians went to Tahiti to protest against nuclear testing. A number of issues built up during the campaign that other members of this House and I ran to organise a ship to take politicians to Mururoa to protest. Out of the initial protest grew the international boycott, involving personalities and parliamentarians. Launched in Sydney, the boycott spread world wide. We thought that from Australia and New Zealand we could have only limited impact. What happened shows how small ideas can develop. From a small beginning in the inner suburbs of Sydney we developed a campaign that went international. Japanese industry stated it would boycott French products. That was a great development. The Japanese finance Minister, one of the parliamentarians who joined us in Mururoa, said that Japan was pursuing a boycott option.

These days the hip pocket is more effective than any philosophical debate. The boycott had effect, and is continuing to bite throughout the world. We have learnt that as individual participants, in cooperation with others opposing French nuclear testing, we can have an effect. The boycott is growing slowly, yet strongly, and is putting pressure on the French to abide by international law. Nuclear testing is still legal under the nonproliferation treaty, but we are pressuring the Australia Government to argue at the World Court for a ruling on the illegality of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the Foreign Minister is slow in keeping up with the feelings and aspirations of the Australian people. Leading anti-nuclear activists are calling on the Australian Government, if it is serious
Page 2034
about stopping nuclear testing, to make a strong submission to the World Court on the illegality of nuclear weapons. This move is under way and is supported by eminent legal organisations and groups throughout the world. An article in Australian Lawyer of September 1995, entitled "Asia Pacific lawyers Condemn French tests", stated:

The campaign by the Law Council of Australia to persuade the French Government to comply with its international law obligations in regard to nuclear testing has received strong support from LAWASIA.

Meeting in Beijing, the council of LAWASIA unanimously supported a resolution submitted by the Law Council, calling on France to abandon its proposed nuclear test because of the likelihood that the tests could lead to breaches of Frances' commitments and obligations under international law.

"The resolution endorsed by LAWASIA is a powerful condemnation of the French Government's decision to carry out nuclear testing in the Pacific," Law Council President-elect, Michael Phelps said.

"It is an important step in the Law Council's campaign to raise international awareness of the French Government's apparent disregard for its obligations under international law.

"We will be seeking a show of similar condemnation for the French Government's South Pacific nuclear testing program at the conferences of the International Bar Association (IBA) and the Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA)," Mr Phelps said.

The international legal community is moving slowly but surely against nuclear testing. The French Government's time is running out. A letter from the President of the Law Council of Australia, addressed to the President of the Association Francaise des Avocats, and published in the article "Mind your own business say French lawyers" in the Australian Lawyer of September 1995, stated:

The Law Council of Australia has resolved to condemn the French Government's decision to resume nuclear testing in the Pacific and to oppose implementation of the decision on the grounds that it would breach obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention for the Protection of Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region, the Rio Declaration, and the Euratom Treaty.

The French Government is out of touch with the rest of the international community and is also at odds with international law. What happened at Mururoa, despite the dire consequences for the local people, may have thrust further into world view the suppression of their right to self-determination. I am proud to be part of an organisation of parliamentarians who have worked toward this protest for some time. In upholding the Greens' concepts of non-violence and ecological sustainability, Australia and Australians are leading the world, though the Government drags far behind.

We had planned to have a large boat to take politicians, including myself, to Mururoa. Unfortunately, that did not work out, and I found myself on a vessel far smaller and less salubrious than the ship I had anticipated travelling on in the South Seas. The vessel was about 80 feet long and had a complement of international parliamentarians only 12 strong. However, collectively we represented millions of people. Amongst those parliamentarians were myself and Tom Wheelwright, Federal Australian Labor Party Senator. We were six days on that vessel. Everyone but Tom Wheelwright became very sick as a result of high seas and rough swell conditions. He had a stomach of iron, which says something for the right-wing of the Australian Labor Party. He was the only one who did not fall foul of the inclement weather. It is to his distinction that he survived well under the circumstances. With us were parliamentarians from Japan, one from Luxembourg, one from Sweden, two Italians, and members of Survival International from Austria.

It was a great adventure, albeit a most uncomfortable one. We eventually entered the 12-mile territory with a group of media on board and were arrested by the French marines. We were treated in a reasonable way. We sent a strong message. We were able to show that lawyers, ordinary people and parliamentarians were able to express themselves in a cogent manner and send a strong statement to the French Government. The Hon. Janelle Saffin also accompanied us on this journey. She reported back to her child's local primary school. She was interviewed by young people, sending an important message that we represent the aspirations of the next generation. We are making the world a better place for the next generation and allowing them to question us - a generation that has undertaken so much destruction. An issue of the "Year Six Express", a magazine for the children, contained a report of that interview. In answer to the question, "What do you think we as a school can do to help the situation?" the Hon. Janelle Saffin said:

Keep protesting to anyone in powerful positions.
- Get others involved in your protests.
- Form a Youth Anti-Nuclear Organisation.
- Tell adults they are wrong.
- Maintain strong anti-nuclear views and eventually go into powerful positions, government, United Nations, etc.
- Remain optimistic and act powerfully, but peacefully.

That is the message we want to take to the world. It is the message the Hon. Janelle Saffin took to schoolchildren in the north of the State, and that is the effective message that we undertook both as representatives of Parliament and as citizens of Australia and the world. With pride I say thanks to all who participated and assisted. Overall, it was a most successful campaign to highlight an issue of utmost importance.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [4.01]: I join honourable members of this House in supporting the motion. I congratulate the Hon. Franca Arena on moving the motion, and I particularly congratulate her and the Hon. I. Cohen on their important work in steering the protest. I became involved some years ago -

The Hon. Franca Arena: And you helped us a lot.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Thank you. When I became involved several years ago I was the only member of the conservative parties to put his or her
Page 2035
name to a protest about the previous nuclear testing. It is amazing how times change. As a member of the National Party - whom one would not normally expect to be associated with these matters - I was the only conservative member of Parliament at the last testing to protest. There is widespread support for the protest, which I described elsewhere as a rainbow alliance. Members of Parliament from all parties joined in the protest.

The Mururoa protest was carried out with dignity, and I congratulate those who were involved in it. Many people were not in a position to go to Tahiti and to take their protest to Mururoa. I instigated a "fax the French" program designed for those who were not in a position to make their protests personally. Schoolchildren wrote letters. I totally disagree with the French Ambassador, who said that teachers in Australia were trying to influence the children. Families in Australia were concerned about their children, and children themselves were concerned. It was not a push from above, the way Chirac operates. There is nothing in the motion that I do not support. I totally support every word of it and I support its whole philosophy. However, there is a difference of opinion when it comes to the boycott on French goods.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You drink French wine, do you?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No, I have never drunk French wine.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Why not?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I just have not done it. I am a farmer. Apart from anything else, I have not been able to afford it. I was tempted to buy a French car.

The Hon. Franca Arena: They are getting cheaper now.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: They are a bit cheaper, which is sad. I do not believe that this part of the protest - which is not included in the motion - is legitimate. We are hurting people who are not party to this outrage. The French Government, not the French people, has perpetrated this outrage.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Hear! Hear!

The Hon. D. J. GAY: As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones readily accepts, many French people are against this outrage. Most of those who are dependent on the sale of French goods in Australia are Australian-owned companies and Australian workers. Many of them - perhaps the great majority - are as much against French testing as we are. That is why I do not believe that the boycott should continue. It is my only concern about the anti-French protest. I reiterate my hearty congratulations to those who were involved in this terrific protest. This is a sad situation. I do not understand why the French are persisting with this round of testing. I do not know why they need a better bomb, and I do not know what they will do with a better bomb if they make one. What was wrong with the old ones? Who is threatening the borders of European France? Who is worrying the French? Are the Belgians lined up ready to attack, or are the English again trying to cross the English Channel?

The Hon. Franca Arena: Would they use it?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I wonder. What is the reason behind it? Are they trying to make the bombs more efficient? How do we measure efficiency in a bomb - by how many people it kills, how much of Mururoa can be destroyed, or how much of our part of the Pacific can be polluted? These are sensible questions, not silly questions. Perhaps they are emotional questions, but they deserve to be emotional when considering the subject under discussion. We are moving away from so much silliness with the falling of the Iron Curtain and the decline in the arms race. Even the French are talking about signing pacts against nuclear testing. But they continue in their attempt to make a better bomb. It does not make sense. With those few words, I once again support the motion of the Hon. Franca Arena.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.08]: I support the motion and congratulate the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. I. Cohen and all of our colleagues who were involved in the organisation of the International Politicians for a Nuclear-free World on the venture to Tahiti and to Mururoa. We received an enormous bagging in the press, in particular in the Daily Telegraph Mirror. Journalists were ordered to write bad stories about us, and one has left the newspaper as a result. One journalist told me that the Daily Telegraph Mirror is front-line in print. We should all be very proud of the venture, which lifted the profile of French testing around the globe. As a result of the initiative of the Hon. Franca Arena and the Hon. I. Cohen, parliamentarians from 16 countries joined the protest, and the issue was then covered in those 16 countries as never before. As a result, enormous pressure was placed, and is still being placed, on the French to resist testing. I understand what the Hon. D. J. Gay said about not boycotting French products. I, too, have a predilection for French products. I have enjoyed many a bottle of fine French champagne - but not lately because I cannot afford it on a parliamentary salary. In the good old days I used to drink quite a bit of it. It is wonderful. I now find the best Australian champagne and drink that occasionally.

Consumer boycotts have an enormous impact on government. It is tragic that there is collateral damage in the process. For example, German pressure stopped Shell's program to sink its oil rig in the North Sea, and Shell will have to dismantle it on land. Consumer boycotts can have an enormous impact. They had an enormous impact on the whaling industries, which closed down one by one, and on the killing of baby seals. The best way to stop testing is a consumer boycott - it is regrettable that it affects French companies and the French people. Honourable members have heard how sales of French wine to Germany, Sweden and, indeed, Australia have dropped dramatically. Undoubtedly, sales of other French products have also dropped dramatically.

Page 2036

The consumer boycott is unquestionably having a major impact on the French economy. Therefore President Chirac must be under pressure to desist from carrying out nuclear tests. I did not think that we would stop the testing altogether. I felt that our contribution to raising the profile of the issue would possibly cut the number of tests by half, and that may well be possible. I never thought that we would stop one or two tests; I thought our best achievement would be to reduce the number to four. Perhaps I should not say that because that will give President Chirac the green light to go ahead with four tests. I felt that we would have a maximum of four tests, which is probably more than enough to get the necessary results.

I am disappointed that we received no support from John Major and the United Kingdom or President Clinton and the United States. The team of Australian, Japanese and other members of Parliament arrived at about 3.00 a.m. on Saturday, 2 September, to a tense atmosphere. Oscar Temaru had already been arrested and, as a result, many Tahitians, including his supporters, were blockading the streets. The tension persisted throughout the time we were there. I shall cut my speech short. I thank the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. I. Cohen and all the other parliamentarians, who used their own money for the trip, which cost some people a lot. We made an impact. The protest raised the issue of nuclear testing globally and put enormous pressure on the French. I believe that it will help to end the nuclear arms race and put an end to further testing, including Chinese testing, which we also oppose.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [4.13], in reply: I thank all honourable members who took part in this debate in support of my motion: the Hon. J. F. Ryan, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. D. J. Gay and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Most of them travelled to Papeete with the 35 members of Parliament; others, including the Hon. D. J. Gay, supported the cause all the way. I thank them all. Opposition to French and Chinese nuclear testing is a just cause. We should all stand in solidarity with the people of the Pacific and other nations such as China where nuclear testing is taking place. Opposition is growing in all parts of the world. Recently I was in Sri Lanka attending a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting. We prepared a petition to be circulated among all the participants. I am happy to say that everyone signed the petition, except the British conservatives. I am pleased that the Australian Liberals have a much better attitude.

I am a little disappointed by the New Zealand attitude. It appears that New Zealand intends to back out of opposing French nuclear testing because of a deal it has made with the British conservatives. It is disappointing if the report in today's newspaper is correct. We intend to form a committee of parliamentarians for a nuclear weapons free world, and I invite all members of Parliament to attend our first meeting on Thursday, 25 October, at 9.00 a.m. Once again I thank honourable members from all sides of the House. Not all of them were able to come with us, but I know they were with us in spirit. This issue has unified us all. No-one in the delegation felt that it was Labor, Liberals, Democrats or whatever; we were Australians together fighting for a just cause - opposing French and Chinese nuclear testing. We should join together more often.

Motion agreed to.

[Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted at 4.15 p.m. The House continued to sit.]


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, 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) [4.16]: I move:

That the Standing Committee on Law and Justice have leave to sit during the sittings of the House for its inquiry into the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL [4.17]: The Opposition does not oppose the motion. The House has given the committee only until 16 November to complete its inquiry into the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill and to report to the House. I assume that honourable members will still be obliged to attend divisions in the House. I ask the Treasurer to confirm that.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Honourable members are never obliged to attend divisions of the House.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I have received an assurance from the Minister, so the Opposition supports the motion.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.19], in reply: It is the fervent wish of the Government that Opposition members do not attend divisions of the House.

Motion agreed to.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.19]: 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.

Mr President

The bill before the House is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation affecting the environment of this State that this Parliament will ever debate.

The legislation will facilitate the most far reaching and important conservation gains in the State's history.

Page 2037

It's about passing on to future generations of Australians the legacy of a world class reserve system, protecting bio-diversity and endangered species while providing recreational opportunities for people of this City and the State.

In short the legislation allows the Government to deliver on its vision to save our ancient forests and wilderness areas for all time.

And we have the mandate from the people to do it - using Environmental Trust moneys to fund this historic opportunity.

This is in line with the financially responsible approach the Government has taken to the State's finances. Today we can achieve this breakthrough for conservation in New South Wales without impacting on budgets for schools, hospitals or police.

Mr President this Bill is the crucial step in fulfilling the Carr Government's commitment to fund programs for forestry industry restructuring and land acquisition for national parks and related nature conservation works.

The Bill allows the income and capital of the Trust Funds under the three Environmental Trust Acts (the Environmental Education Trust Act 1990, the Environmental Research Trust Act 1990 and the Environmental Restoration and Rehabilitation Trust Act 1990) to be accessed to meet this important commitment.

Over the next four years, $50 million will be made available from the Trust Funds for obtaining land for reservation as new national parks and implementing related nature conservation strategies ("nature conservation expenditure").

$60 million dollars will be made available over the next five years from the Trust Funds for the purpose of implementing our historic program of forestry industry restructuring, to provide long term ecologically sustainable jobs in the timber industry while protecting high conservation old growth forests and wilderness.

Access to the Funds will occur by way of reimbursement of the Consolidated Fund to offset amounts paid from the Consolidated Fund for these purposes.

The Bill also provides for the funding of 13 other environmental initiatives, to a maximum of $20.025 million, to which the Carr Government is committed.

These initiatives involve various schemes and programs for environment protection or nature conservation, including the acquisition of land to be dedicated as nature reserves, the management of wild and scenic rivers and the management of biodiversity surveys across government agencies.

This delivers on a variety of commitments made by the Government prior to the election.

The majority of the listed items were contained in Labor's March 22 costings document which clearly nominated the Environmental Trusts as the revenue source for these commitments.

However, expenditure on forestry restructuring and nature conservation takes priority over payments towards these additional initiatives.

Making the funds available will not require the abolition of the Trusts which were established to fund important environmental purposes.

Instead, the majority of the grant making functions of the Trusts will be temporarily suspended to allow high priority environmental initiatives of the Government to be implemented, principally, the expansion of the State's national parks and the restructuring of the forestry industry to protect NSW forests.

This action is being taken against the background of strict fiscal restraint imposed by the Government - there is no other way to fund these initiatives than from the Trusts.

This is a cogent point which should not be lost on Members in this place.

If this Bill is not passed we will not have the money to establish 24 new national parks.

It means there is no money for timber industry restructuring.

No money to ensure timber workers have long term, viable jobs in what can become a high tech industry.

And no finances to save our high conservation old growth and wilderness forests.

Failure to address these issues will result in the continuation of the current situation - no value adding or investment in the industry, just archaic technology, outdated logging techniques and industrial accidents.

This goes to the very heart of our forestry reforms and the need for the legislation to refund restructure. The responsible sectors of the industry want the shonky industries out of the forest.

This will allow them to get on with the job of providing investment and value adding to timber products so the industry can flourish.

It makes more sense for workers to be retained and accommodated in timber mills or factories with better pay and working conditions producing high quality timber products for domestic consumption and export, than for resources to be squandered on ecologically unsustainable logging operations.

This is the only way we can guarantee a bright future for timber workers and their families in an industry in which employment levels have declined quite sharply over the past decade - largely as a result of the failure to invest and value add.

Mr President, I turn now to the source of the funds which will be made available for these major initiatives.

The Environmental Trusts are funded from the Trade Waste levy. It is a fee levied on industry to work as an incentive to force them to reduce the amount of pollution they emit.

Fees and charges are a time-honoured method for Government to receive income. The Trade Waste Levy is one such charge.

The Trade Waste Levy is a legitimate charge raised for a legitimate environmental purpose. The previous Government left the funds for the levy to leave income in Trust Funds.

This was a reasonable approach - reasonable particularly given their lack of interest in environmental protection.

However, this Government is determined to pursue a policy of major environmental initiatives which the previous Government ignored. Two of these major initiatives are the creation of twenty four new National parks and the Forestry Industry Restructuring Package.

These landmark environmental initiatives will be funded from the revenue collected by the Government for bona fide environmental purposes - to reduce industry pollution.

Funds collected to protect the environment will be spent on environmental initiatives.

And the Trust will revert to their original grant making functions after the five year sunset clauses have been reached

In order to preserve the original concept of the Environmental Trusts the Government has moved to ensure as part of the legislation that the program of payments under the Bill sunsets in five years' time, when it is expected that the three Trusts will resume their normal functions.

During the five years, grants may still be made under the Environmental Restoration and Rehabilitation Trust Act to community organisations and schools.

These payments have been guaranteed in recognition of the extremely important work undertaken by these groups and following consultations with conservation groups and members of the cross-benches in the Legislative Council.

Page 2038

The legislation will make available a total of $0.85m a year for rehabilitation and restoration projects run by non-Government community organisations.

This is the same level of support that community groups received from the Environmental Trusts last year.

This Bill will allow the continuation of the very successful "Greening of Schools" program with grants to local schools, maintained at the current level of $80,000 a year.

The Bill also allows the continuation of the emergency pollution clean-up program by providing access to the capital funds if insufficient income is available. This scheme remains intact in order to avoid a major gap in the State's emergency response structure.

This ensures we have the financial flexibility to respond quickly and effectively with measures for the removal, dispersal or mitigation of serious pollution, when accidents occur.

Retaining this Emergency Clean up capability answers the concerns of the Hon John Tingle about the continuation of funding for emergency clean-ups.

The present structure of each Trust will be retained to accumulate the necessary capital and interest to fund these commitments over the next five years and the Trusts will be able to meet the financial commitments of grants already made prior to the commencement of the Bill.

When determining whether payments are to be made, the Bill requires the Minister to be mindful of the need for the Funds to earn enough income to meet all of the Government's commitments in this package during the next five years.

The Government has gone to great pains to ensure that the draw down of Trust Funds occurs in a transparent and publicly accountable fashion.

The Minister responsible for the agency spending the funds must report to Parliament twice yearly giving details of the expenditure.

In addition, the Auditor-General must audit annually all accounts relating to the Funds, including an audit of the payments made from the Funds. This will ensure that there is independent public accountability for the expenditure from the funds.

Mr President, Members of this Parliament have a momentous decision to make over the coming weeks on this legislation.

The legislation can be voted down and with it the hopes and aspirations of the conservation movement, timber families across New South Wales and our grandchildren.

Or as legislators we can support this bill and give New South Wales its greatest leap forward in nature conservation and timber industry reform.

In the early 1980's Neville Wran and his Labor Cabinet made the landmark Rainforest decision which resulted in the establishment of two new National Parks, one new nature reserve and the extension of five existing National Parks.

This was seen as the most significant conservation initiative of its time.

Wran was rightly applauded for this visionary move.

Yet let's compare this with the conservation plans we are considering through this legislation.

•24 new National Parks in the first year for Government alone conserving a range of ecosystems including sensitive coastal lands, rainforest and habitat for endangered species

AND

•Our forestry reforms meeting community expectations to move beyond the preservation of just one forest value such a rainforest to old growth, wilderness and other high conservation values.

It would be shortsighted and naive for members to vote against this Bill and pretend that this will in some absurd way help the timber industry.

The Coalition have demonstrated that loud voices and grandstanding alone are not sufficient to help this important industry restructure and move into the 21st century.

They require financial support - support that can only be provided by the Environmental Trusts as part of a coherent and responsible strategy that has at last been able to balance industry and conservation needs.

Mr President this is our last chance to get it right on the protection of forests

If we falter these grand remnants for our forest past will be lost forever.

I urge all Members to support this rational and reasonable resolution to conflict in the forests.

Mr President, I understand the Opposition in the other place has moved a series of amendments to this bill.

The Opposition's amendments are intended to derail forestry reform in this State.

Mr President, one thing is sure about the Opposition's amendments.

They certainly haven't consulted the conservation movement. Their amendments, if carried, would mean there is no money to save the State's wilderness areas and the State's high conservation old growth forests.

And Mr President, they certainly haven't consulted the industry and unions. I just wish Col Dorber from the Forests Products Association and Gavin Hillier from the Timber Workers Union were all here to see how the Opposition are ratting on the timber industry.

We have adopted this plan to restructure forestry with a $60 million rescue package so that we do not have to do what the Coalition did when they were in office.

They sat on their hands for seven years Mr President.

They were prepared to let the industry decline and they never bothered to provide a financial safety net for the workforce.

Let me issue this warning.

If we do not restructure the decline in the industry will continue unabated.

That means job losses across the State without new jobs being created, without retraining, without redundancy.

Our plan delivers all of these things plus the conservation of our most precious and ancient forests.

The Opposition's amendments are a recipe for the death of isolated rural communities and the industry.

Mr President the main thrust of the Oppositions amendments is intended to alienate both the conservation movement and the timber industry.

It can only lead to the further conflict in the forests, blockades and disruption to industry.

The Opposition has another amendment to make so that national parks can be established under the legislation. But the Opposition wants to make it so there is no money to run them.

By stopping recurrent funding in amendments the Opposition will halt the employment of workers to manage these parks.

In other words, parks will be established but the Coalition will stop money to fund the employment of people to kill feral species like foxes, rabbits, dogs and cats making park havens for feral animals.

And with no recurrent funding it means every one of the State's 24 new National Parks will become a tinder box.

The Opposition is effectively preventing any on-going fire management of these areas.

Page 2039

The NPWS is at its highest level of preparedness for the coming bushfire season.

The Opposition's amendment can only set back this process and tie our hands when we want to fight these real threats to communities.

Mr President, the Government has moved this legislation and the last chance for the Forest Industry and for our ancient forests.

It has been moved by the Government with a mandate from the people and in good faith.

The Opposition wants it both ways.

They scream when the Government allegedly breaks a promise but when we move to satisfy a major commitment to both the industry and the conservation movement they have to white ant it with unprecedented vigour.

This House cannot afford to condemn future generations of Australians to a scorched earth policy when we have it in our power to save the areas of high conservation while giving the industry the injection it has needed for years.

I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [4.19]: I lead for the Opposition in the debate on this bill. I say at the outset that the Opposition believes that it is a shame that the Government has created the circumstances which have made the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill a necessity. It should be well-known to honourable members that the National and Liberal parties believe that forest and timber industries have an important place in New South Wales. Within those industries the harvesting of the renewable resources of native species in the forests of this State has an important part to play. The Opposition deplores the commitment of the present Government to effectively close down the native timber industry. That commitment has been pursued with almost ruthless zeal. The closing off of timber compartments and forestry reserves that have sustained a number of timber mills and timber communities has seriously threatened the viability of those communities. The principles of natural justice require that an appropriate restructuring and compensation package be offered to those most seriously affected.

The amount that has been set aside is miserable. The sum of $200 million would be more appropriate to compensate for the acute economic and financial disruption that has been wrought by the closing off of access to timber stands and timber resources that were available to a number of sawmills up and down the coast and on the adjacent tablelands of this State. Honourable member will know that in another place the Opposition argued strongly against the passage of this bill in any way, shape or form. In this Chamber the Opposition will not seek to prevent the passage of the bill, because with access to the timber no longer being available it is important to ensure the passage of the bill so that the compensation offered by the Government, inadequate and miserable as it is, flows through to its needy recipients.

The manner in which the Government has packaged this initiative to offer compensation is unworthy. I certainly do not welcome the bill in its present form. The bill seeks to tie together the proposal for compensation and a number of other measures. The bill ties the source of compensation to particular funds, basically the environmental protection funds. The bill seeks not only to provide the compensation to which I have referred from the environmental trust funds, but it also sets out other expenditure that will come, in a technical sense, from consolidated revenue. It authorises the compensation of the consolidated revenue account by equivalent withdrawals from the environmental trust funds.

As I have said, that is an unworthy way to present these measures. In my view the argument about the extent and appropriateness of the compensation should have stood alone. The Government is intent on carrying out its stated policy. I acknowledge that the Government made a commitment during the election campaign and received a mandate to proceed with a complete restructuring of the timber industry - although I would refer to it as a destruction of the timber industry. To that extent I believe the Government should have presented that measure and let it stand alone. It would then perhaps have been appropriate to include in another bill the proposal that the environmental trusts funds could be disbursed in ways that are not at present authorised.

The Government is developing a reputation for being good at ringcraft. It has packaged the two measures together, and those who want to express more directly their opposition to the way in which the Government is managing the forests of New South Wales are left with no option. The Opposition's policy is to develop and manage those hardwood resources so that they are a sustainable and renewable resource. The Opposition believes that with appropriate policies that industry could be expanded for the credit and enrichment of all people in New South Wales and at no cost to the environmental and conservation values that we all hold dear.

The Opposition is left with Hobson's choice. The Opposition must accept the package or the Government will say it offered compensation but the Opposition blocked its proposals. In Committee I shall refer to a number of matters in even greater detail. The Government has provided that some funds from the environmental trusts funds- are to be directed to the implementation of a program for purchasing land for reservation in various categories in pursuit of conservation programs. That is to be known as nature conservation expenditure. Planning instruments have already designated a large area of land for this purpose, and the former land-holders have been offered no compensation. They have been left in limbo. Freehold land to the value of $40 million is subject to section 8(b) planning restrictions and has become virtually unsaleable. In many cases landowners have sought the cooperation of the Government in determining the fate of their land. Some have sought to have their land purchased outright.

This matter has been outstanding for more than 15 years. The land falls outside the purview of the just terms compensation legislation, because the blight
Page 2040
on that land is the result of planning instruments. I think all honourable members will understand what I am saying. In this day and age most people would regard that as an outrageous state of affairs. Most of the land that the Government has in mind for nature conservation expenditure is land that is no longer proposed as core nature reserves or core areas for conservation programs, but rather as land that is proposed as additional or buffer areas, so continued usage may be regarded as desirable. It is not proposed that such land necessarily be upgraded to the same status as the core area to which it is adjacent, but it has a tremendous effect on the commercial value of the land. Many people up and down the coast have been left in an invidious position. I hope that the provision of these funds and the instrument that will be available as a result of the passage of this legislation will be a prompt and a sympathetic response to the predicament in which those people have found themselves.

The bill offers compensation to an industry that has flourished virtually since settlement of the colony in New South Wales, an industry that has been vital to the development of our infrastructure and has the potential not only to earn export income, but to diminish greatly the huge import bill for timber products. It is a sad reflection on the state of affairs throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, which is supposed to have a broad forest policy, that a New South Wales industry based around the manufacture of sawmilling equipment flourished for the past 10 years, but all of the equipment was shipped to other States, particularly Victoria and Tasmania, where the timber industry was growing. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, I will make some comments about the various parts of the bill during the Committee stage.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.34]: 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.

In 1943 when the Disorderly Houses Act was proclaimed, its main purpose was to keep American servicemen out of sly grog shops and unlicensed nightclubs. The government of the day was concerned that nearby residents may be disturbed by drunken or indecent behaviour by servicemen visiting such premises.

Although the connection with American servicemen is a historical anachronism, the Act provides that where drunken or indecent behaviour or entertainment occurs, where liquor or drugs are sold unlawfully or where criminals consort, police may apply to the Supreme Court to have the premises declared a disorderly house.

The effect of such a declaration is that thereafter any person entering the premises is guilty of an offence under the Act. The occupier and the owner may also be guilty of an offence if the occupier allows the disorderly behaviour to continue or if the owner fails to evict the occupier. Police may enter the premises at any time without a warrant to seize liquor, drugs, or related items found on the premises.

In 1968 the Act was amended to add "premises habitually used for prostitution" to the classes of premises which may be declared disorderly.

However in 1988 the Court of Appeal held, in Sibuse v Shaw that a brothel is a disorderly house regardless of whether it is disorderly in the usual meaning of the word. This being the case, police may seek an order from the Supreme Court that any premises operating as a brothel be closed down merely because the premises are being used for that purpose.

If police took this action with every brothel that came to their attention, it would mean that even orderly, well-run, brothels would be closed and the prostitutes would be forced back on to the streets. Thus, many more city and suburban streets would be used by prostitutes to ply their trade. This is unsuitable and undesirable for a number of reasons:

•Street prostitution is generally offensive and undesirable.

•Health and social workers have more difficulty reaching street prostitutes with their health and safe sex practices education programmes.

•Street prostitutes are at greater risk of HIV infection than those who work in brothels where some medical supervision exists and where the use of condoms may be enforced.

Therefore, this bill is designed to overcome the effect of the decision in the case of Sibuse v Shaw.

It is not the intention of the bill that brothels be permitted to operate unregulated. To this end, it also provides an avenue for the community to make complaints to local councils where a brothel is having a significant detrimental effect on the neighbourhood. Councils are empowered under these provisions, to apply to the Land and Environment Court to have a brothel closed down.

Neither is it our intention, with the introduction of these provisions, to limit those applications appropriately based on planning controls vested under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The only change to existing law affected by this proposal is to the basis for, and the jurisdiction of, applications under the Disorderly Houses Act to close a brothel which is not otherwise disorderly. Thus police will still be able to apply to the Supreme Court for a declaration under the Disorderly Houses Act where it is disorderly in the usual sense of the word.

By amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1988 and the Crimes Act 1900, the bill abolishes the common law misdemeanour of keeping a common bawdy house or brothel; provides that those persons who are in a legitimate commercial relationship with a prostitute are not guilty of the offence of living off the earnings of prostitution; and ensures that women, particularly young women are not exploited as a result of the recognition of brothels as a legitimate commercial enterprise.

In 1983 a select committee of the Legislative Assembly was formed to inquire into prostitution in New South Wales. Between 1983 and 1986 the committee met on 76 occasions taking evidence from a cross section of the community including prostitutes, their clients, social and health workers, police, ministers of religion and representatives of numerous interest groups. The report of the committee is comprehensive and thorough.

The recommendations in the select committee's report have been taken into account in the drafting of this bill.

I turn now to the details of the bill:

Page 2041

Clause 16 provides that brothels may not be closed down, under the Disorderly Houses Act, solely on the grounds that they are being used as brothels or that a person controlling or managing the premises has been concerned in the control or management of other premises which have been declared a disorderly house solely because those premises were a brothel.

If no steps were taken to overcome the decision in Sibuse v Shaw, the effect would be to force prostitutes out of brothels and on to the streets.

In order to provide for the closure of brothels which are having a significant detrimental effect on the local community, clause 17 of the bill provides for residents or occupiers to make complaints to their local councils which in turn may take action in the Land and Environment Court to have the brothel closed.

Councils may only make an application under these provisions if sufficient complaints have been received from:

Residents living in the vicinity of the brothel or

Residents of the area in which the brothel is situated who use or whose children use, facilities in the vicinity of the brothel or

Occupiers of premises in the vicinity of the brothel.

An application must be based on one or more of the following criteria:

(A) Whether the brothel is operating near or within view from a church, hospital, school, or any place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural purposes.

(B) Whether the operation of the brothel causes a disturbance in the neighbourhood when taking into account other brothels operating in the neighbourhood or other land use within the neighbourhood involving similar hours of operation and creating similar amounts of noise and vehicular and pedestrian traffic,

(C) Whether sufficient off-street parking has been provided, if appropriate in the circumstances,

(D) Whether suitable access has been provided to the brothel,

(E) Whether the operation of the brothel causes a disturbance in the neighbourhood because of its size and the number of people working in it,

(F) Whether the operation of the brothel interferes with the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Unlike local councils, the Land and Environment Court is not restricted to the consideration of these criteria alone, but may also take into account any other environmental planning matter which it considers relevant.

The criteria are wide enough for particular characteristics of the local government areas to be taken into account. The overriding consideration is that the brothel operates in a discreet manner consistent with the amenity of the neighbourhood.

A right of appeal already exists from the Land and Environment Court to the Supreme Court, and provisions already exist for orders for costs to be made at the court's discretion. These provisions should discourage spurious actions by local councils, but also allow them to recover costs, where appropriate, in both the Land and Environment Court and the Supreme Court.

Recent publicity given to the alleged nexus between police corruption and the operation of brothels has sparked considerable public debate regarding the merits or otherwise of legalising prostitution. This proposal will go a considerable way towards removing the opportunity for corrupt conduct on the part of police. It will not, however, prevent police from pursuing legitimate inquiries in relation to child prostitution, drug possession or supply, or any other serious criminal offence reasonably suspected of being committed within a brothel.

Under schedule 2 of the bill:

The Crimes Act 1900 will be amended by the insertion of section 580C, which abolishes the common law offence of keeping a common bawdy house or brothel.

The Summary Offences Act 1988 will be amended by inserting sections 15(3) and 15(4) to provide that a person living wholly or in part on earnings derived from a brothel, if the person owns, manages or is employed in the brothel, does not commit the offence of living off the earnings of prostitution; and that premises may constitute a brothel even if only one prostitute uses the premises for the purpose of prostitution.

It is also amended by inserting section 15A which creates an offence of inducing a person to commit an act of prostitution. This would include, for example, the offering of heroin to a heroin addict so that he or she engages in an act of prostitution.

This provision is also capable of ensuring that the exploitation of young women in particular does not result from the recognition of brothels as legitimate commercial enterprises. The section provides that a person must not induce another person to commit an act of prostitution or surrender the proceeds of prostitution. This is distinguishable from living off the earnings of prostitution which requires a continuous association with the "industry" and habitual receipt of money from the earnings of prostitution.

The provisions relating to child prostitution in the Crimes Act 1900, are not affected.

The Land and Environment Court Act 1979 is amended to include applications under clause 17 of the Disorderly Houses Act 1943 in class 4 of the jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court, which deals with environmental planning protection amongst other things. This jurisdiction is also used for applications to close brothels which are based on planning controls under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Government cannot legislate to control the moral values of the community, and prostitution per se is not illegal. However the Government can and should legislate to reduce public health risks to both the prostitutes and their clients and to protect the community, particularly its young people, from the more undesirable aspects of prostitution. This bill does all those things, and in so doing has the support of a wide cross section of the community.

I will closely monitor the effects of this legislation and will then review the laws pertaining to street prostitution at an appropriate time.

I commend the bill to the House.

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


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [4.34]: 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.

Mr President, this Government is committed to providing support for our elite athletes. In the Budget a number of new initiatives were announced that will provide even greater opportunities for our elite athletes to perform to their highest ability.

Page 2042

With the upcoming Olympics in 2000 our State's top competitors will be working even harder to represent Australia on their home turf.

As the Games get closer the pressure to perform will be immense. I don't think people outside sport can really appreciate the psychological strain athletes and their coaches, family and friends find themselves under to achieve maximum performance.

Unfortunately, the pressure to perform and the pressure of coaches and parents can sometimes lead to athletes taking illegal drugs to attempt to enhance their performance.

Mr President, taking illegal drugs to enhance one's sporting performance is not acceptable.

The purpose of the Sports Drug Testing Bill is to enable the Australian Sports Drug Agency to test State level competitors for the presence of performance-enhancing drugs.

We define State competitors to be essentially elite athletes and athletes who are in receipt of State funding or are participating in State-funded programs to assist with the development of high performance athletes.

Each year approximately 300 random drug tests of elite sports people will take place and will be conducted by the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA). Mr President, there are age restrictions for this testing process.

Any athlete over 18 years of age, fulfilling the criteria I have already mentioned, is eligible to be drug tested at any time. For athletes aged between 12 and 18 years, parental consent will be required. No athlete under 12 can be tested at all.

Only a very small percentage of those athletes who will be tested will be under 18.

It is well documented that in some sports elite athletes can be as young as 12 - indeed sometimes younger.

It is an unfortunate fact that illegal performance-enhancing drugs are used by even very young athletes. A report conducted by the Australian Customs Services detailed an extensive black market for steroids that are sold to high school students when they work out at gymnasiums.

In April, a 14-year-old South African female athlete tested positive to banned substances. This week she again tested positive for anabolic steroids during her four-year suspension period.

Mr President, unfortunate as it is, there is evidence of children taking performance-enhancing drugs.

To ensure the highest level of compliance with the legislation, no distinction has been made as to when an athlete may be tested.

Athletes can be required to submit themselves for drug testing, notwithstanding that they may not be currently involved in competition.

Should an athlete test positive or refuse to undergo a drug test, the athlete's name will be entered on a register maintained by ASDA, and the national sporting organisation with which the athlete is affiliated will be advised.

If a parent or guardian of a child aged between 12 and 18 refuses consent for the child to be tested, Department of Sport and Recreation elite funding to that child will cease.

Mr President, this Government will not fund the development of athletes who resort to the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

The drug testing of minors was raised by the President of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Association, Ros Brennan.

Mr President, drug testing is a fact of life in elite sport. The test is non-intrusive and will be done through the use of urine samples. Children of any age competing under Federal Government funding or in national elite programs are already eligible to be tested by ASDA.

Here in New South Wales, the Director General of the Department of Sport and Recreation will also be advised whenever a positive test is recorded on the register by an athlete in receipt of State Government support.

When a State competitor's name is entered on the register, the relevant State sporting association will be required to advise the Director General of the Department of Sport and Recreation of the entry and the action taken, or to be taken.

Penalties for athletes named on the register are not imposed by the bill, but by the national sporting organisation.

Athletes banned from competition will be denied any State support for the period of their suspension.

The Government has allocated $100,000 per annum for drug testing.

It is important that the Government's approach to performance-enhancing drugs is not limited to random testing.

The Department of Sport and Recreation has established a sports drug education unit and has recently entered into a new joint funding agreement with the ASDA for the unit.

Mr President, that point is a key feature of this bill. This Government has introduced drug testing for New South Wales athletes in the hope that the education process will be enhanced and the warnings about the use of banned substances will be heeded.

The Sports Drug Education Unit will be responsible for developing consistent policies with the various sports and establishing education programs aimed at athletes, coaches and parents and pointing out the dangers and risks associated with the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Mr President, all eyes will be on Sydney for the 2000 Olympics. There is no better time to send a strong message that drugs in sport are not acceptable.

This Government is committed to organising the best Olympics the world has seen. It is also committed to ensuring all New South Wales athletes are clean.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [4.35]: In 1988-1989, shortly after the completion of the Olympic Games in Seoul, Korea, the Hunter Academy of Sport, led by Professor Saxon White and Professor Laura, initiated a seminar to discuss all aspects of drugs in sport. At that time I was Minister for Sport and Recreation. They contacted me and I agreed wholeheartedly to support their initiative. At the completion of this important seminar a book was written entitled Drug Controversy in Sport. I wrote a foreword to the book in which I stated:

It is not only the ideals of sport that are being harmed by drugs, but also the athletes themselves. There are serious and potentially lethal health risks associated with the use of drugs. Our athletes put more than their careers at risk when they resort to their use.

Prior to and during the Olympic Games, drug testing had been conducted on a random basis, but with the fall from grace of the outstanding athlete Ben Johnson and the controversy surrounding our own athlete, Alex Watson, it was decided that a more thorough investigation should be undertaken into drugs in sport. Previously competitors in elite sports had been tested when they were over the age of 18. However, research has shown that drugs are used by children as young as 10, 11 and 12 years of age. These drugs are mainly confined to anabolic steroids.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Who gives them the drugs?

Page 2043

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: They get them from coaches, and their parents seem to agree with it. They have to get them from somewhere, and I believe the coaches are the ones at fault. This legislation seeks to weed out children aged 12 years and over for testing for the presence of performance-enhancing substances. I am pleased to note that the tests will not take place immediately after an event. No time is specified as to when an athlete may be tested. Athletes may be required to submit themselves for drug testing, notwithstanding that they may not be currently involved in competition. Should an athlete test positive or refuse to undergo a drug test under this legislation, that athlete's name will be entered in a register maintained by the Australian Sports Drug Agency. Although the legislation permits the testing of minors, I stress that such testing will only be carried out with parental consent. However, it is the Government's policy that competitors whose parents withhold consent will have their State funding withdrawn. That is an important point. I should like to refer again briefly to this very important book, Drug Controversy in Sport. Under the heading "Why Doping Persists in Sport" at the beginning, the book states:

In 1988 Dr Forest Tenant estimated that as many as one million athletes in the United States alone are using anabolic steroids and current estimates indicate that Tenants figures are conservative. The statistics are in any case horrifying, and since Tenants analysis of the situation, the revelation of unbridled steroid usage among teenagers has shocked the world. Researchers from Pennsylvania State University under the direction of Dr William Buckley in 1988 carried out a study of 3,403 senior boys at 46 United States' high schools in which it was shown that 6.6 per cent had taken steroids. Extrapolating these figures Buckley suggests that somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 adolescents in the United States are taking or have taken steroids.

It is disconcerting to discover that two-thirds of adolescents who have used steroids started doing so at the age 16 years or younger. Given the young age of steroid users and the massive doses that are being taken, the health risks are all the more serious. It has been suggested by some practitioners that young athletes who take heavy doses of anabolic steroids for 60 to 90 days should expect to die in their thirties or forties. Dr Robert Goldman, Chairman of the United States Amateur Athletic Union's Medical Committee laments:

The scary part is, here we have the finest product of this country - our young people - and we're going to have an entire patient population developing diseases they never should have had in the next five or ten years. Nor is it the case that athletes are simply ignorant of the health risks involved. In a survey recently conducted by Goldman 198 world-class athletes were asked whether they would take a "magic drug" which would guarantee them victory in any competition for the next five years.

Dr Goldman reports that more than half said "Yes" to that question. Legislation may help. It is not simply the letter of the law but the spirit of the law that needs to be enshrined. While our athletes need to be educated on an international scale about the dangers associated with doping, the extent to which our current lifestyle covertly encourages the drug problem in sport must also be recognised. The real task is to articulate in educational terms a social philosophy and ethics for sport in which winning at any price is ultimately too high a price to be paid. It is terribly important for younger children aged 12 years or more to be educated about the problems associated with drugs, particularly anabolic steroids, which are used to increase their strength. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 October stated:

The president of the Federation of Parents' and Citizens Associations, Ms Ros Brennan, recently described urine tests on elite junior athletes for performance-enhancing drugs "an ill-founded invasion of children's privacy".

The article continued:

This is, in fact, an ill-founded attack on legislation that will help to protect young athletes . . .

The article then stated:

There is a fear in Australia that young gymnasts may be exposed to the sort of drug regimes that were used in East European countries to stunt growth and stop puberty. It has been claimed, for instance, by the chief executive of the Australian Sport Drug Agency, Mr Steve Haynes, that some coaches have moved out of the national and State government systems in an attempt to get away from the testing authorities.

The real question, therefore, is not whether there should be testing but whether the regime being put in place is adequate.

A Senate committee that was established some years ago had this to say:

The ready availability of anabolic steroids is one reason why they, along with other performance enhancing drugs, are being abused by children. The committee heard of weight-lifters as young as 10 who were taking anabolic steroids and Dr. Gavin Dawson described the situation in body building where: "This sad situation has descended to junior levels where, because of peer competition, pills are being popped as if they were competing against the communist countries". The abuse of performance enhancing drugs by children is a matter of particular concern to the committee and we will follow up this issue in some depth.

One of the real problems with younger children, particularly gymnasts, is size. Anabolic steroids build up muscles and strength, whereas other drugs prevent this from happening. In other words, they continue to stunt the growth of gymnasts. That is a worrying situation and one that should be addressed, through this legislation, at the earliest opportunity. The third recommendations made at the seminar held at the Hunter Academy states:

In the case of children the primary goal should aim at prevention through education. This recommendation incorporates education in the first instance of sporting organisations and in particular their administrators and coaches. In the second instance the children themselves should be targeted by educational strategies brought to bear through schools and communities, sporting organisations, clubs, commercial sporting organisations, State departments of sport and recreation; the educational strategy should include the school curriculum and the assessment of these curriculum and incorporated learning about personal development; supposed performance boosting aids themselves; the risk to health; the possible advantages for example in the case of diet and alternative performance boosting strategies; the philosophy of sport in relation to fair play; winning and losing; how to compete; the history of Australian international support and the philosophy of the

Page 2044
I.O.C. and national and international sporting networks; the role of information networks such as newspapers, radio, magazine and television as communication process; and the use of role models for determining behaviour.

This timely legislation is in the best interests of our young people. Education is extremely vital to make our young people understand and appreciate that drugs are not the answer to the search for better performance in their respective sports. The Opposition supports the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.47]: Call to Australia is pleased to support the Sports Drug Testing Bill, which has as its object:

. . . to confer functions and powers with respect to State competitors on the Australian Sports Drug Agency . . . established by the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990 of the Commonwealth . . . The proposed Act contains provisions conferring functions and powers on the agency with respect to State competitors that are (with some minor adjustments) the same as those the Agency has under the Commonwealth Act. These functions and powers include testing competitors for the use of drugs and notifying and recording positive test results and failures to provide test samples.

The bill has received a certain amount of criticism from those who do not fully understand its purpose and the serious situation facing societies around the world. People involved in athletic contests are tempted to take illegal drugs in an attempt to enhance their performance. As a larger range of drugs becomes more readily available, athletes are more tempted to improve their performance by the taking of drugs such as steroids. The use of performance-enhancing drugs has become widespread in China. That will have a major impact on China when its athletes participate in international events such as the Olympic Games. China will have to take strong action to prevent this from happening. I do not believe there is any evidence of the Chinese Government encouraging the use of these drugs, but it has been occurring because of loopholes in the system. Coaches and others seek to improve the performance of the athletes under their control. I am pleased that the Government has not reacted to some of the negative criticisms made by parents and citizens associations and by other groups. I am pleased that the Government has not withdrawn this important legislation, which ties in with Commonwealth legislation and legislation in other States.

As Sydney is to host the 2000 Olympic Games there will be increased competition among young athletes to gain a placing in the Australian Olympic team. Consequently they could be pressured, even by well-meaning people, to think that it is not illegal to take performance-enhancing drugs. This type of legislation makes it clear not only that it is illegal to use these drugs, but there is a good chance that anyone taking them will be caught. The testing procedure will be systematic and not simply spot or random testing. People taking drugs will be caught and, more importantly, other athletes will be discouraged from attempting to take them. If the education program promised by the Government supports this testing procedure, it will ensure that those involved with athletic competitions will not yield to the temptation to take illegal drugs.

Part 3 contains provisions regarding the protection of the age groups involved in the testing procedure. Athletes over 18 years fulfilling the criteria set out in the definition of competitor in the bill will be eligible to be drug tested at any time. Clause 12 states that drug testing of athletes between 12 and 18 years must not be carried out without parental consent. No athlete under 12 years of age can be tested. Therefore, only a small percentage of athletes under 18 years of age will be subject to this drug testing. There have been cases, mainly overseas, of athletes as young as 14 years of age being tested and found positive to the presence of anabolic steroids. That certainly is sufficient warning and justifies the introduction of this bill, which Call to Australia is pleased to support.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.51]: My comments on this bill will be along the same lines as those I made about the use of drugs by young people and by any athlete. This bill is a positive step by the Government to ensure that New South Wales sets its house in order for the 2000 Olympics. Our young athletes presently between 12 and 18 years of age who hope to represent Australia in the 2000 Olympics will know from the start of their training that the use of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs will not be allowed. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile hit the nail on the head when he said that a major education program must be introduced to counter the glittering lights that attract young people - the television and the adulation of the media for good performances, even at junior levels. Some young people are attracted to the idea of gaining an advantage in a sport by the use of illegal drugs. They forget they have 70 or 80 years of life left and that the aim of sport is to compete for the value of the competition: the Olympic spirit.

This bill is a positive step that should be followed by a major educational campaign. A couple of matters cause me concern. I remember the history of Alex Watson, one of our famous athletes, who was disqualified from competing because high caffeine levels were found in his blood. This was subsequently proved not to be true and he was allowed to return to the sport. The Minister must ensure that the best equipment and tests are available and that a checking process is introduced using standard laboratories in Australia and elsewhere to analyse any positive tests. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile also commented that samples should be taken regularly and rigorously, rather than on a hit-and-miss basis, so that as many cheats as possible are caught as early as possible.

I reject the argument put forward by a prominent sports doctor in Australia that since the use of these performance-enhancing drugs is widespread, they should be legalised so that those who use them will have the benefit of supervision. My view on that is the same as it is on legalising marijuana and heroin: these drugs are illegal for very good reasons. To legalise them just because it is the lesser of two evils is not the way to go. I support the Government's approach of acting in a positive, strong and powerful
Page 2045
way. The Government is telling the drug-taking community - not just those taking illegal and performance-enhancing drugs - that it will not go down this track. I strongly support that approach. The bill has a good sting in its tail, namely, that athletes who test positive will lose any State funding they receive and they will not be able to compete any more. However, I am concerned that many sports are not necessarily State funded and they will not be caught in this net. Those sports include body building, which is a major sport, and other sports that might not be included in the sports institute being established by the Minister.

The Government should give consideration to recreational activity and sports, because many young people are getting involved with illegal drugs to help them look a bit neater and a bit more like Baywatch characters. Young people generally have a bad view of themselves if they do not have the beautiful pecs, the nice torso and the tight butt. This bill puts New South Wales at the leading edge in ensuring good sporting competition. I am sure other States will follow, as they should. I am most concerned that early in their careers young people are encouraged to consider the problems associated with the use of these drugs. I strongly support this bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.56]: The Australian Democrats support the Sports Drug Testing Bill. I also support the remarks of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti who, as honourable members are aware, holds medical qualifications. It is not that I am afraid our young athletes may be encouraged very early in the piece to use anabolic steroids, which are prepared for human medical use, but Mims Annual does not give one single indication that they should be used for any body building purpose. Pharmaceutical companies overseas and in Australia have tested them for use in certain types of anaemia and osteoporosis. The drugs are valuable in that sense. Except for the opinion of one or two doctors who have written to me, no-one has confirmed that those drugs have a medical use for body building for athletes.

The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: They are being used widely.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: They are used widely and illegally. Introducing this bill was the correct procedure taken by the Minister for Sport and Recreation. New South Wales made a commitment that the 2000 Olympics will be drug free. How can that be ensured if young athletes, in their early teens, are being encouraged by those who should know better that their performance will be enhanced and they may reach Olympic standard if they use a drug which is illegal for that purpose? Honourable members will remember that a few weeks ago I brought to the attention of the House that I had discovered that not only were anabolic steroids for human use being used, but some people were stupid enough to be using animal steroids for that same purpose.

I issued a press release at that time and brought the matter to the attention of the Premier, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Sport and Recreation. I have received much information about the use of these particular animal steroids, even photographs from an officer of the Australian Customs Service who, in the course of investigatory duties, had observed people buying them. I must point out that these animal steroids have only ever been tested for use on animals. The customs officer entered the kitchen of the house he was investigating and saw people breaking down the animal steroids, which come in a large pack and are very cheap at $35 per pack, and putting them in little 10-millilitre phials for sale at $80 each.

Such ridiculous and terrible financial rip-offs juggle with young people's health. On further inquiries I found that the people using these addictive animal steroids - many of whom are body builders attending recognised body building establishments - were hitting themselves two or three times a day because they got the same hit, the same high, as from injecting other drugs. Anabolic steroids taken by young athletes can be detected by urine analysis. The Minister is suggesting only that young athletes should be subject to urine analysis. Testing should be done randomly and regularly so that young people have no way of knowing whether or not they will be caught. I wish to put on record a letter I received from the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health and also the most recent letter I received from the Premier on the matter. The Premier's letter, dated 10 October, states, in part:

I have received advice on this matter from the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health, and Aboriginal Affairs the Hon A J Refshauge, MP, the Attorney General, the Hon J W Shaw, MLC, the Minister for Agriculture, the Hon R S Amery, MP, and the Minister for Police, the Hon P F Whelan, MP. The Minister for Health has advised that the classification of these substances is determined on a national level following the recommendation of the National Drugs and Poisons Scheduling Committee (NDPSC), a subcommittee of the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC), and implemented by each State under their separate poisons legislation.

The Government is mindful of the public health concerns associated with the misuse of steroid preparations by some sportspersons. I am advised that the NDPSC is to consider the scheduling of these preparations at its next meeting.

I hope at the next meeting of the NDPSC our Minister for Health will demand that these drugs are rescheduled. On 4 September I received from the Hon. Andrew Refshauge, Deputy Premier and Minister for Health, a letter dated 31 August. His letter states, in part:

I have also been advised that there has been considerable debate as to whether the prescribing of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) for non-medical indications is medically appropriate.

From a clinical perspective this argument is complex. Following wide consultation involving medical professional bodies in New South Wales and Australia, it was considered that it is unacceptable for medical practitioners to prescribe AAS for non-medical indications. This includes for example, use for performance enhancement or enhancement of physical appearance.

The primary reason for this decision was that the long-term effects of AAS are unknown and that a "safe" or "effective" dose has not been established for non-medical indications.

Page 2046
In addition, there is no proven method of monitoring the effects of AAS function tests prescribed by medical practitioners. I understand that the presence of normal liver function tests cannot be considered to be evidence that a user is not being adversely affected by the use of the drugs in either the short or long term.

These views were accepted in a recent Professional Standards Committee hearing of the New South Wales Medical Board which concluded that the prescribing of AAS by medical practitioners for non-medical indications constitutes professional misconduct.

I have been receiving correspondence from a medical practitioner who has rooms on Macquarie Street. I shall not name him in this debate, but I have his correspondence in front of me. I also have papers that he has written to Modern Medicine putting his point of view. He makes no bones about it. He says quite plainly:

For some years I have been prescribing human steroids for body-builders . . . I do not see any likelihood of their use being abandoned in any country.

His view is that there should be a panel of interested doctors who would have a register of patients, and the patients would be assigned to a specific doctor so that medical prescription and review would be possible. I do not support that view, and the writer is well aware that I do not support it, as I have made clear in correspondence with him. It is just as wrong to establish a register of young people or even of older athletes to be prescribed steroids when all medical evidence shows that in the long term the effects are unknown. There is evidence that already two young athletes in Australia have died as a result of misuse of animal steroids. People using such dangerous substances have to be extremely careful.

I am delighted that the Minister for Health has made clear to the medical profession in this State that the prescribing of AAS for non-medical indications is professional misconduct. I hope that the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, other royal colleges and the Australian Medical Association take that on board. It is dangerous and confusing for young people to believe that if one doctor refuses they need only find another to prescribe a substance which has no non-medical use, a substance that might, if used over a period of time, harm them personally and physically, and rule them out from being considered for Olympic competition or for other major sporting events internationally and in Australia. For all those reasons, I support the bill. I hope it will cause young people to think twice before taking these substances. I hope it makes the trainers think twice, three times or four times about the dangers to which they may be exposing young people who rely on them for guidance and help when training for their chosen sport.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.09], in reply: I thank the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for supporting the bill. I say in response to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti that the Australian Sports Drug Agency, having had samples taken, will send them to laboratories for analysis. I can give the House an assurance that only the best equipment will be used to analyse the samples taken. The purpose of the bill is to enable the Australian Sports Drug Agency to test State-level performers for the presence of performance-enhancing drugs. State competitors are understood to be and are defined as being elite athletes and athletes in receipt of State funding or who are participating in State-funded programs to assist with the development of high- performance athletes. That is the objective and the catchment area of the proposed legislation. It is anticipated, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, that each year 300 random drug tests of elite sportspeople will take place and will be conducted by the Australian Sports Drug Agency. With those few words I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


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 table my second reading speech for incorporation into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales is a quasi-judicial body with a specialist jurisdiction. It is increasingly called upon to exercise alternative dispute resolution functions in addition to its role in licensing and disciplinary matters involving business and occupational groups. The Tribunal is constituted by the Commercial Tribunal Act, which sets up the administrative infrastructure for the Tribunal and prescribes the general powers, procedures and functions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction by 12 other statutes. These include the Credit Act 1984 and cognate legislation; licensing laws such as the Building Services Corporation Act 1989, the Motor Dealers Act 1974, the Registration of Interests in Goods Act 1986, the Fair Trading Act 1987 and, most recently, the Retail Leases Act 1994. The Bill inserts an informative note to section 18 so that the Acts which confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal are identified.

The object of the Bill is to make a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Commercial Tribunal Act 1984 and related Acts to revise the composition and the practice and procedure of the Tribunal. I will deal first with the major amendments. Section 7(1) of the Act provides that the criterion for appointing part-time members is if they are qualified to represent the interests of a specific industry or the consumers who deal with the industry. Part-time members bring special expertise to the decision-making processes of the Tribunal so that decisions are reached with an understanding of business practices and consumer expectations relating to the relevant industries. The Act requires members to make determinations impartially. The wording of section 7(1) implies that a person is appointed to represent a group and thus creates an impression of partiality.

Page 2047

Schedule 1(3) to the Bill amends section 7(1) to remove this inference by stating that persons may be appointed as part-time members if they have knowledge of, or experience in conducting, the business or activity that is regulated by the Act under which they are appointed or they have knowledge of, or experience in dealing with, consumer issues concerning that business or activity.

Tribunal hearings are normally heard before a panel of three, the presiding member being the chairman or a deputy chairman; and two part-time members, one from a business background and one from a consumer background. Section 19(3) permits the chairman or deputy chairman to hear certain matters sitting alone. Schedule 1(13) to the Bill inserts new paragraph (b1) in section 19(3) so that the chairman or deputy chairman can hear the following matters sitting alone:

•the determination of a question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal;

•an application to amend an application or other document;

•an application for the setting aside of a summons;

•an application to strike out proceedings; or

•an application under section 86A of the Credit Act 1984.

These are interlocutory matters, which are generally limited to questions of law, which must be determined by the chairman or deputy chairman. This amendment will remove the need to constitute the full Tribunal for purely legal technical decisions. This will reduce time delays and save costs for the Tribunal and the parties appearing before it.

Schedule 1(19) inserts a new section 19A, which allows the Tribunal to continue proceedings if a member of the Tribunal vacates office or is unavailable for an extended period of time. Under current law, in the absence of a power to substitute a member, the proceedings must be delayed until the member becomes available or the Tribunal must be reconstituted and proceedings reheard. The effect of the amendment is to permit other options. If any one of the members is absent, he or she may be replaced with the consent of the parties. Replacement is also possible if the parties do not consent, as long as three conditions are satisfied: that is, the Tribunal has not heard evidence which is vital to the determination of the proceedings prior to the member becoming unavailable; a delay in proceedings would cause the parties financial hardship; and the interests of the parties would not be detrimentally affected.

If one of the part-time members is absent the proceedings may be continued before the remaining two members with the consent of the parties. If the two members cannot agree on a decision, the view of the presiding member prevails. All options must be clearly explained to the parties so they give informed consent.

The principal Act provides that in all proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal:

•is not bound by the rules of evidence and can inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit; and

•shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms. An exception is made in the case of prescribed proceedings. The prescribed proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply are those involving the licensing and disciplining of credit providers and finance brokers which the Tribunal hears at first instance.

Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Credit (Administration) Act 1984 to ensure that the technical rules of evidence no longer apply in these proceedings.

The Tribunal hears appeals on licensing and disciplinary matters involving builders, travel agents and motor dealers with similar powers to cancel or suspend licences and impose fines without applying the rules of evidence.

The broad objectives of the Tribunal are to hear matters fairly quickly and in a cost-effective manner. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure that all proceedings before the Tribunal are conducted in the same manner, consistent with the broad objective.

The Tribunal does not possess the power to extend an appeal period when conducting its appellate functions. The Tribunal has identified appeals which lapsed due to being lodged outside the appeal period, causing injustice to the parties. The area where this has proved to be a problem is under the Building Services Corporation Act 1989.

Schedule 3 amends the Building Services Corporation Act to allow the Tribunal to extend beyond 30 days the period in which an appeal may be lodged against a decision of the Building Services Corporation. The Tribunal must be satisfied that there is sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging an appeal, and that other persons would not be prejudicially affected.

The Bill makes a number of other amendments which streamline the procedures of the Tribunal and reflect current Tribunal practices.

Schedule 1(1), (4) and (9) makes the appointment of a deputy registrar discretionary rather than obligatory.

Schedule 1(11) moves the onus for making arrangements for proceedings from the chairman to the registrar. Schedule 1(15) provides the Tribunal with a general power to hear similar matters together.

Schedule 1(22) makes it clear that a summons to give evidence or produce documents may require either or both of those things.

Schedule 1(23) and (24) makes it clear that counsel assisting the Tribunal are appointed, not employed.

Schedule 1(25) gives the chairman or deputy chairman express power to dismiss proceedings for want of jurisdiction or want of prosecution.

Schedule 1(26) extends from 14 days to 28 days the period within which the Tribunal must give written reasons for its decision after an application for reasons has been lodged. Schedule 1(27) allows the period within which an appeal is lodged with the Supreme Court to commence when reasons are handed down, if they were requested in accordance with the Act.

Schedule 1(5), (6), (7), (8), (20) and (21) makes changes by way of statute law revision.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.12]: I have pleasure in leading for the Opposition in supporting the bill. The object of the bill is to make a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Commercial Tribunal Act 1984 and related Acts, to revise the composition and the practice and procedure of the Tribunal. Essentially these changes are commonsense in nature and will streamline the functions of the Tribunal by providing greater clarity of jurisdiction and more flexibility. The changes proposed by the Government were prepared under the previous coalition Government but were not legislated before the March election. I am pleased that the Government sees fit to pick up this legislation.

I remind honourable members that the creation of the Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales was based largely upon recommendations outlined in the Molomby report in 1972. The Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body with specialist jurisdiction extending across 12 State statutes. It is increasingly called upon to exercise alternative dispute resolution functions in
Page 2048
addition to its role in licensing and disciplining in any matters involving business and occupational groups. This modern administrative State is awash with the expertise of specialist agencies like the Tribunal. The proliferation of administrative Tribunals operating alongside the courts, such as the Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales, has been in response to the need for informal, inexpensive, non-technical and speedy justice. I support the development of these types of administrative tribunals.

The proposed legislation is important as it will instil confidence in consumers, not only in this tribunal but in similar tribunals operating throughout the State. Tribunals have often been chosen in preference to existing courts because they provide a less formal forum, customer-friendly services, and greater speed in determining matters, no doubt because the tribunal does not have the cumbersome rules of evidence of a court and is much more cost-effective. A key measure in the bill will provide for increased flexibility of the tribunal. Experience has shown that discretionary appointment of the deputy-registrar is needed, and that the tribunal will be allowed to proceed with two out of three members present.

In the past, if a member had to retire on grounds of ill health part way through a hearing, the tribunal had to restart proceedings. This incident showed that streamlining and more effective mechanisms were necessary to resolve matters more appropriately and expeditiously. Proposed section 19A avoids delaying proceedings until a new member becomes available. It is an excellent provision and will not only save time but will save costs as well. In the democratic society in which we live we must ensure that there will be fair, appropriate and impartial hearings of disputes. This legislation changes the criteria for selecting part-time members.

Under proposed section 7(1) people who have knowledge or experience of a certain industry - though they may not necessarily be drawn from that industry - will be able to be appointed part-time members of the tribunal. This measure improves the perception of the tribunal. It is important to have a pool of expertise to draw from, but it is equally important that people inspire confidence in fairness and impartiality. Consumers must be assured that members are appointed, not employed as in the current situation, and that they are chosen by merit of their expertise and knowledge, not because they are mates to the industry they represent.

The tribunal will be given the power to dismiss proceedings for want of jurisdiction or prosecution. Although many people come to tribunals with legitimate concerns, there comes a time, especially in licensing and disciplinary matters, when the tribunal has to deal with frivolous claims, or where cases are wanting in jurisdiction or when prosecution is unlikely. In those cases there is no need to take up the time of the tribunal or courts. These changes will give power to the tribunal to dismiss the proceedings, if necessary. Alternative dispute resolutions are effective and are superior to using the court system. They are often less expensive and less time consuming. I was one of the original members of the community justice centre established by the Hon. Frank Walker. That was an effective forum for alternative dispute resolution for people involved in neighbourhood disputes.

It is important that disciplinary or commercial matters under various Acts are resolved in such arenas, saving the formality of the court system. The creation of dispute resolution and rights-determining institutions are entrenched and respected in our society, and we must ensure that people feel confident that justice will be served. I am happy that these measures, which were developed by the coalition, have come to fruition and that the Government has seen fit to legislate. It is important to have bipartisan support for such measures so that consumers can quickly benefit from more efficient, less formal and less intimidating tribunals. The bill will enhance the philosophy of the tribunal to hear matters quickly and cheaply and more efficiently, effectively and sensibly. No-one will be disadvantaged. This is a beneficial package of reforms. The Opposition supports the legislation.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.18], in reply: I thank the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho for her support for the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The PRESIDENT: I shall now leave the chair. The business of the House will be suspended during the joint sitting. The House will resume at the conclusion of the joint sitting following the ringing of the bells.

[The President left the chair at 5.20 p.m. The House resumed at 5.48 p.m.]

The President reported that at a joint sitting this day Charlie John Stuart Lynn had been elected to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Edward Phillip Pickering.

The President laid upon the table the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting.

Ordered to be printed.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Page 2049

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

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 24 October 1995 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.52]: 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.

Mr President.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 as follows: first, to provide for a Court of Disputed Returns which shall resolve disputes about electoral matters which may arise from the elections of Councillors to the NSW Aboriginal Land Council; and secondly to provide for members of Aboriginal Land Councils to have only one vote in elections for the NSW Aboriginal Land Council. These amendments are sought by the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, which initiated discussions with both the former and current Governments to bring them about.

Schedule 1[1] of the Bill amends section 26 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, 1983 to provide for one vote per person, meaning that persons who are members of more than one Local Aboriginal Land Council are to vote for a Councillor to the NSW Aboriginal Land Council to represent the region in which they reside.

However, the Act when amended will continue to allow persons to be members of more than one Local Aboriginal Land Council in either the same region or different regions.

This provision in the existing Act takes into account the fact that many Aboriginal people do not reside in their place of traditional affiliation, and may therefore have a legitimate interest in the operation of the Local Aboriginal Land Council in that area, as well as in the area in which they reside or may reside from time to time.

This Bill seeks to ensure that the principle of `one person one vote' applies not only within a single Regional Land Council Area but between regions. The Bill provides for a person who is a member of more than one Aboriginal Land Council to cast a vote in the area in which the person resides.

The amendment seeks to eliminate the opportunity for voting twice for representation at the NSW Aboriginal Land Council.

The existing legislative arrangements on the one hand prevent members of more than one Local Aboriginal Land Council in the same region from voting twice in the election of a council representative for that region, while on the other hand Aborigines who are dual members of Local Aboriginal Land Councils in different regions may vote for representation in each region. This Bill seeks to eliminate this discrepancy.

Schedule 1[2] of the Bill provides for a Court of Disputed Returns.

The Land and Environment Court will be provided with jurisdiction to deal with electoral disputes pertaining to the election of Councillors to the NSW Aboriginal Land Council. The Land and Environment Court has been chosen because it already deals with other matters concerning disputes between members of Councils or between Councils themselves under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. It is also the Court of Appeal to which Aboriginal Land Councils turn in respect of land claims refused by Government.

Mr President.

There can be no doubt about the need for a Court of Disputed Returns. In the past, disputes concerning the validity of elections have been heard under the general law of Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions. This has resulted in very significant delays in the election of Councillors and the incurring of considerable expense in litigation. The following events have occurred as a direct result of the lack of a Court of Disputed Returns:

(1) after the first election of the Councillors to the NSW Aboriginal Land Council in 1991, the Returning Officer refused to declare two candidates elected because litigation disputing the election results for the Regional Aboriginal Land Council Areas of Sydney/Newcastle and the South Coast had commenced;

(2) the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act correctly refused to call the first meeting of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council as all 13 Councillors were not declared elected by the Returning Officer;

(3) Councillors who were declared elected commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court seeking declaratory relief and the Court determined that the former Councillors of NSW Aboriginal Land Council should continue to serve until all of the popularly elected Councillors were declared elected;

(4) the Court's decision necessitated a further amendment to the Act which took effect on 12 December 1991. The amendment provided for the Registrar to call the first meeting of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council after the Returning Officer for the election had publicly declared candidates elected in at least 10 Regional Aboriginal Land Council Areas;

(5) the Court declared the election for the disputed Regional Aboriginal Land Council Areas void and ordered the Electoral Commissioner of NSW to conduct new elections for those areas;

(6) in February, March and April of 1992 written submissions were made to the Government on behalf of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council to further amend the Act to provide for a Court of Disputed Returns before the election of 11 April 1992. However, there was insufficient Parliamentary time available prior to the election for this to occur;

(7) the election of the two represented regional areas was held on 11 April 1992. As a result of that election only one candidate was declared elected. The results of the election for the South Coast Regional Aboriginal Land Council Area was disputed and subject to further litigation in the Land and Environment Court. That Court declared the election for the South Coast area void and ordered a further election. The Court's decision was subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal;

(8) the appeal was dismissed and consequently the further election for the South Coast region was finally held in June 1994.

Mr President.

If the legislation had provided for a Court of Disputed Returns, the disputes arising from the election would have been dealt with expeditiously, cheaply and with minimum formality.

Mr President.

This Bill inserts two new Divisions into Part 4 of the Act. Proposed Division 2A provides that if the validity of the election of a Councillor is disputed, the returning officer

Page 2050
must nevertheless declare the candidate elected, and the candidate is to hold office as a Councillor until the Land and Environment Court has settled the disputed return.

The Bill provides that the Land and Environment Court is the sole forum for the resolution of disputes concerning the election of a Councillor. Application to the Court can be made by any person within 28 days of the returning officer publicly declaring the result of the disputed election. In determining such applications the Land and Environment Court is to have the same powers as the Court of Disputed Returns under the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912, including the power to make declarations:

1. that any person who was returned as elected was not duly elected; and

2. that any candidate who was not returned as elected was duly elected; and

3. that an election is absolutely void.

The decision of the Land and Environment Court in determining a disputed return is final.

The procedure of the Land and Environment Court on an application under the amended Act is to be flexible, and the Court is only to make orders for costs in "exceptional circumstances".

Mr President.

It should be noted that the original Bill presented to the Legislative Assembly proposed that the Court was not to make orders for costs with respect to applications disputing election results.

It was subsequently suggested that the Bill should provide that the Court should have the power to award costs. This was suggested on the basis that most successful challenges to decisions are the result of errors made by electoral officials, through no fault of the parties or candidates and that it would be discriminatory not to provide Aboriginal persons with the right to access orders for costs in these disputes.

The Government then, acting on advice from the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, amended the Bill in the Legislative Assembly to give the Court limited discretion to award costs in "exceptional circumstances". This means that costs will not be awarded unless the circumstances and conduct of the parties warrant it.

The rule giving the Court the discretion to award costs in such circumstances is already applied with good effect to disputes regarding s.36(6) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in Class Three of the Court's jurisdiction.

The limited discretion to award costs provided for in the Bill serves to act as a deterrent to vexatious litigants, without unfairly restricting access to the Court as would a general power to award costs. Aboriginal affairs is one of this Government's key priorities. The amendment of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act implements this Government's pre-election promise to create a Court of Disputed Returns to determine election disputes under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

Mr President

An election of Councillors to the NSW Aboriginal Land Council is to be held on 16 December 1995. The amendment appointing the Land and Environment Court as the Court of Disputed Returns is intended to apply to any disputes arising out of this election as the election was called prior to the Bill being enacted, the "one vote per person" provisions will not apply to the 16 December 1995 election.

The inclusion of the amendment providing for people who are members of more than one Local Aboriginal Land Council to vote in the region in which they reside, rather than in the region of their choice, prevents such people from shopping for an electoral region where their vote counts the most.

The new criteria included in the Bill before the House will eliminate the practice of electorate shopping.
This government recognises the importance and value of traditional country to Aboriginal people, and the amendments to the Act have been drafted to retain the capacity of Aboriginal people to participate in, and vote for, Local Land Councils in their traditional areas.

Mr President.

The amendments included in the Bill have been drafted at the request of, and in consultation with, the NSW Aboriginal Land Council. The Government has consulted with the Land Council on the amendment to the Bill as proposed by Burnum Burnum as outlined by the member for Pittwater in the other place. The NSW Aboriginal land council has recommended that the Government proceed with the Bill as presently drafted.

The Government is committed to conducting, in consultation with, the NSW Aboriginal land council, a general review of the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Such a review would be aimed at improving the system for processing land claims and embracing sites of Aboriginal significance. Proposals such as the amendments suggested by Burnum Burnum will be considered as part of that review.

Mr President.

The provisions in the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill are intended to safeguard the principle of "one person one vote". They are also intended to safeguard the rights of those involved in an election to the NSW Aboriginal Land Council to speedy relief in the event of a challenge to the results of any election.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.52]: I am delighted to lead for the Opposition in this House in the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill. The Opposition supports the bill. I wish to acknowledge the ministerial statement made in the other place by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding the inaccuracies in his second reading speech. I am aware that the second reading speech in this House has already corrected the inaccuracies. However, I will briefly reiterate the corrections to the second reading speech in the other place. Firstly, any person may make an application to the Court of Disputed Returns within 28 days of the returning officer publicly declaring the result of the election.

Secondly, no deposit is needed as security for costs. Thirdly, the Minister is not entitled to enter an appearance at proceedings. Fourthly, the court powers are incorporated by reference and not specified in the bill. Fifthly, the bill is silent on legal representation of a party to an election petition. And, finally, the court can be flexible on rules of evidence. I would also like to inform honourable members that an amendment was made to the bill in the other place at the Committee stage in regard to courts making orders for costs. In the bill as originally drafted, proposed section 27AF(3) stated, "The Court is not to make orders for costs in respect of an application under section 27AC." However, that subsection was amended in the other place and now provides:

(3) Despite section 27AD, the Court may make an order for costs in respect of an application under section 27AC only if the Court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the making of such an order.

Page 2051
The Opposition recognises the input of the Minister in providing accurate information to Parliament. Aboriginal affairs is now a particularly important aspect of government and Australian society. The Interpretation Act makes the second reading speech by the Minister very important. The bill before the House today contains a number of key elements. Firstly, it prevents members of local Aboriginal Land Councils from voting more than once in the election of councillors to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. Secondly, it provides that disputes concerning the validity of an election of councillors may be settled by the Land and Environment Court, which acts as a court of disputed returns.

The bill is essential, as it seeks to ensure fair and democratic elections and to avoid complications which have occurred in the past by dealing with disputes expeditiously and appropriately. I support such commendable intentions. There is no doubt that a court of disputed returns is necessary. I was concerned to hear of the events that transpired after the first popular election of councillors to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council in November 1991. As a consequence of electoral disputes over two of the 13 seats, not only were the newly elected members of the disputed seats not declared but the registrar refused to call the first meeting of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council until all 13 councillors were declared.

At the determination of the Land and Environment Court, the council was still comprised of those members prior to the date of the election. This was a regrettable incident and an unforeseen consequence of the election process. It was clearly seen to be unjust and unfair, as I am sure all honourable members would agree. Aboriginal Australians will not tolerate the removal of powers from representatives who have been declared elected and then usurped by those who had just been voted out of office. It was a totally unacceptable situation. As I mentioned earlier, in the other place the Minister made an amendment at the Committee stage in regard to courts making orders for costs. The amendment was supported by the Opposition as a fair and reasonable measure to provide for errors made by electoral officials through no fault of the parties or candidates involved. It was a laudable amendment. It would be discriminatory not to provide to Aboriginal persons the right to access orders for costs in such electoral disputes.

I would now like to discuss in more detail provisions regarding voting entitlements in the election of councillors to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. Section 26 of the Act attempts to prevent members of more than one Aboriginal Land Council in the same regional area from voting twice in the election of councillors to the Aboriginal Land Council. However, individuals who are members of land councils in different regional areas are not currently prohibited from voting twice. The bill will rectify that situation and also provides for a person who is a member of more than one local Aboriginal land council to cast his or her vote in the local Aboriginal land council in which that person ordinarily resides. The key function of that provision is to prevent multiple voting, as I said before.

The principle of one person one vote has universal support, and I totally agree with it. It is the basic tenet of our democracy that a person's vote carries the same weight as another person's vote. Electoral systems based on the principle of one person one vote are seen as the fairest possible means to achieving our democratic objective of equality of representation through an equal number of electors in electoral districts, each represented by a single number. This principle of fairness of outcome should be reinforced in any electoral system to provide the most equitable system for Aboriginal Australians to elect their leaders and representatives. Democracy and open government are important parts of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, and any adult Aboriginal person has a statutory right to be a member of an Aboriginal Land Council. This means that every adult Aboriginal person in New South Wales can have a say in the policies and programs of Aboriginal land councils.

It is democratically wrong for a person to have his or her vote counted twice, three times or more. A matter which has been brought to my attention and which was raised in the other place by the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the Hon Jim Longley, is a letter from Burnum Burnum, a highly respected Australian Aboriginal. I do not wish to repeat exactly what Burnum Burnum said because the shadow Minister has already tabled his letter. However, he raised some matters of concern to him. A major concern was that Aboriginal people have a great spiritual affinity with the land. Restricting their voting entitlements to the places where they normally reside does not compensate for this fact. Burnum Burnum stated:

Aboriginal people who have left the land frequently return to their mother country to recharge their land connection batteries. One-half of each person resides where he or she now lives and the other half resides at home where land affinity is infinity for Aboriginal people.

Burnum Burnum said that this provision, which will enable people to vote only where they reside, will "murder the spirit of Aboriginal people in Australia". Proposed section 26(3) will restrict persons from casting a vote in a local Aboriginal land council area when they are only an associate member of that council. Members will vote only where they reside, which may not be where their spiritual affinity is. The shadow minister suggested appropriate legislative amendments which might reconcile this matter, which included amending paragraph (b) of proposed section 26(3) in the following terms:

(b) in different Regional Aboriginal Land Council areas, is only entitled to cast his or her vote once.

As a matter of urgency a consultation was arranged with Ms Neita Scott, a councillor in the central region of the New South Wales Land Council, Mr Stephen Wright from the New South Wales Aboriginal land rights unit, the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs
Page 2052
and me regarding the issue of legislative amendments. Our meeting, which was very productive, clarified many concerns that I had regarding this legislation. Because of time constraints, the Opposition will not be moving any amendments. My experience on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has heightened my awareness of the concept of Aboriginal people's association with the land. I am sympathetic to the special connection an Aboriginal person may have with the land. This spiritual and emotional affinity is important as a mark of respect, of generic affirmation and in the maintenance of a cultural heritage. I am pleased that the Government will be conducting a review of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act to address this concern. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council has strongly advised against any amendment to proposed section 26(3). I will read to the House from a briefing document that was sent by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council to the shadow minister and me on 12 October. That document states:

The concerns raised about Clause 26(3) are, as the NSWALC understands it, that a member of more than one LALC should be able to nominate whether they wish to vote as a residential member or an associate member of one LALC in the NSWALC election.

For the following reasons the NSWALC does not support an amendment being made to the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill 1995 which includes the ability to cast a vote as an associate member:

1. Without the advice of the Electoral Commissioner there is an unknown financial and administrative burden if the election allows for people to nominate to vote either by residence or association.

2. Any financial burden will be born by the NSWALC and this is unacceptable to the Council.

3. Any administrative burden will be born by both the NSWALC and the Electoral Commissioner.

4. By restricting LALC members to voting by residence the opportunity to "stack" LALCs is negligible.

5. The principle concern of the NSWALC is to see the election occur on the date now set, (16 December 1995) and that no action occur which may postpone the polling day.

6. The potential disadvantage to individual Aboriginal people by enacting the Bill as it now stands is greatly outweighed by the potential problems if the election is postponed.

If the Opposition is of a mind to pursue this issue as a matter of principle the NSWALC would advise as follows:

1. The question of no delay in the election is critical.

2. The issue could be dealt with following the current election without placing pressure on the current timetable . . .

3. If the issue is to be considered as a matter of principle it will require careful analysis and extensive consultation which is not possible given the advanced stage of the current election.

The NSWALC would strongly advise the Opposition not to amend Clause 26(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Act.

Irrespective of the strong arguments regarding the procedural and financial difficulties that would be encountered in implementing such a matter, I remain unconvinced at the arguments that provision should be made for Aboriginal council members with multiple voting to nominate their places to vote. In my mind there is no substantial benefit for a person to vote for a councillor for the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council in an area other than that in which that person ordinarily resides. I believe that the major reason would be to stack the voting process to get a particular councillor elected, which is undemocratic and unjust. Allegations have been made that 43 people have already registered to vote in areas outside their places of residence, which is very unfair.

As a future safeguard to avoid unnecessary disputes regarding voting entitlements the current list of persons enrolled by association, which is used to determine who is eligible to vote at local Aboriginal land councils, should be removed by the Australian Electoral Commission for future elections. This legislation will make the list redundant. As the Opposition has accepted the advice of the central region of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, it will not move amendments or cause the House to divide on the issue of where a person is allowed to vote. This view was presented to induce further debate. After consultation with representatives from the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, the matter has been resolved to my satisfaction. It is regrettable that the provisions regarding one vote one value will not be in place soon enough to affect elections this year. If the passage of this legislation is not delayed, the legislation will ensure that the Court of Disputed Returns is in place by 16 December. I remind honourable members that the first Aboriginal Land Rights Act was introduced in 1976 in the Northern Territory by a coalition government. This landmark legislation officially recognised the importance of land rights to Aboriginal Australians and of achieving social justice for the indigenous people of Australia.

The Labor Party does not have a monopoly with this issue. In New South Wales the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 was enacted after a select committee of the Legislative Assembly, established in 1978, inquired into land rights and other matters. The committee was chaired by Mr Keane, and released its report on 13 August 1980. The report was unanimously endorsed by all political parties. This broad consensus by the Government and the Opposition demonstrated the bipartisan nature on the land rights issue then, as it does now. The coalition has always been prepared to listen to the views of Aboriginal Australians and I assure the House that for as long as I am a member of this House it will continue to do so. That is crucial to ensure that Aboriginal Australians reach great socioeconomic independence.

Honourable members will agree that land rights are now generally recognised as a key part of a strategy to improve the conditions of indigenous Australians spiritually, economically and culturally. The Minister in the other place said, "We need to ensure progress and must not use Aborigines as a political football." I wholeheartedly endorse those comments and look forward to a continuing bipartisan
Page 2053
approach to matters concerning Aboriginal affairs in New South Wales. It is vital that a genuine commitment is made for the resolution and reconciliation of Aboriginal affairs issues. Reconciliation does not only mean establishing economic independence, recognition and encouragement of Aboriginal cultural vitality and an understanding of the Aboriginal community; it also means the Government, the Opposition and the community must listen to what Aboriginal Australians have to say, and act on their advice.

The consultation process is crucial to real reconciliation. I know that the Government was advised at a late stage to amend the legislation regarding provisions to enable courts to award costs. The legislation was improved at the committee stage to incorporate that advice. Part of the reconciliation process is listening to advice from Aboriginal people to help produce the most fair and equitable legislation. I look forward to the outcome of the forthcoming elections for positions on the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council in December and to working with the newly-elected councillors for the betterment of Aboriginal Australians in the same spirit of cooperation that has clearly been evident over the past few years. The Opposition wholeheartedly supports the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.12]: The Australian Democrats support the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill. I also received the letter from Burnum Burnum. On one occasion he was a candidate for the Australian Democrats. Therefore, I take what he said in his letter very seriously. However, I received this letter rather late, and I had not received representations from any other member of the New South Wales Aboriginal community indicating that the community was anything but satisfied with the bill prepared by the Government. Presumably, the bill was prepared in consultation with leading Aboriginal groups in New South Wales. I appreciate the philosophy behind Burnum Burnum's letter, as does the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, but it did not seem possible to change the legislation at such short notice, particularly with the Aboriginal Land Council elections being held in December. It is now almost the end of October and election rolls have to be drawn up and the necessary formalities carried out. The best I can do is to place Burnum Burnum's concerns on the public record so that everyone will be aware why a leading member of the Aboriginal community was concerned about proposed section 26(3). I do not wish to delay the House, so rather than reading this letter into the record, I seek leave of the House to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.
______

If your an Aboriginal in N.S.W. you can vote in the fourthcoming Federal elections, the last State elections, the next Land Council elections, the fourthcoming Local Aboriginals Land Council election, the last A.T.S.I.C. elections and the next Aboriginal Legal Service elections - 150 votes per Aboriginal person. If you're a non Aboriginal person, like my wife, you get three votes (Federal, State and Local Government).

Our next round of elections comes up on the 16th December 1995, for the N.S.W. Aboriginal Land Council (N.S.W.A.L.C.) elections. Of the 40,000 Aboriginal people in N.S.W. eligible to vote, 12,412 were enrolled electors in the last N.S.W.A.L.C. elections held on the 16th November 1991.

Of these 5,559 cast formal votes at a cost to the taxpayer of $7,000,000 through the Electoral Commission of N.S.W. The lowest number of first preference votes was 71 and the highest number was 539 votes which put our politicians into power on the N.S.W.A.L.C. These people are vested with the responsibility of putting ticks and crosses against $100,000,000 annually (7.5% Land Tax plus near Government arrangements).

Currently the Government is rushing through amendments to the Land Rights Act (section 26) unwittingly designed to further erode the formal vote without any proper consultation with each one of the 117 Local Aboriginal Land Councils.

Three decades ago the Government unwisely forced Aboriginal people from their traditional homelands in resettlement programmes to regional growth areas like Albury, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Bathurst, Newcastle and Sydney for employment potential purposes. Their bodies moved but their spirits and emotional earth attachments remained in their homelands.

For the same reasons, others have followed since and all of these people see themselves as foreigners in a strange land when they migrate. Frequently they all return to their mother's country to recharge their land connection batteries. One half of each person resides where they now live. The other half reside back home where land affinity is infinity for Aboriginal people.

One vote, one person under Section 26(2) is correct but Section 26(3) is very doubtful for the above stated reasons. The emotional effect of Section 26(3) is to murder the spirit of Aboriginal people in N.S.W.

A white person living on Lord Howe Island can choose to vote Federally in any electorate on the Australian mainland and Tasman for "emotional" and "association" purposes so why can't Aboriginals do the same for the identical reasons.

______


I shall inform Burnum Burnum that the Parliament has discussed his concerns. If the result of the Aboriginal Land Council election proves that what he was trying to do was vitally necessary, amendments can be proposed at a later time. I believe, as the Opposition does, that this year's council election must proceed speedily. The result of that election will determine whether the bill needs further finetuning. I thank the House for granting leave to incorporate that correspondence in Hansard.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.15]: Call to Australia is pleased to support the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 to make further provision with respect to the election of councillors of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and amends the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to confer jurisdiction on the court to settle disputed returns in such elections. Honourable members know that Call to Australia has consistently supported the Aboriginal land rights legislation since its introduction to this House. Call to Australia believes the Aboriginal community has suffered various degrees of discrimination since white settlement and it is important to rectify those injustices.

Page 2054

Call to Australia has received briefings on the bill from representatives of the Aboriginal community. Submissions were not received from anyone opposing the bill. In fact, I understand that the bill is a consequence of concerns of the Aboriginal community and its leaders that were presented to the Government to enable effective elections for positions on the Aboriginal Land Rights Council. Proposed section 26 is an important part of the bill because it outlines who may vote. Problems have occurred in the past with some Aboriginal people casting more than one vote because they lived in different areas and voted in those areas where they had some association. They may be members of a particular tribe but live with another tribe. Clause 26 will clarify that problem.

For various reasons many disputes have arisen over the Aboriginal Land Council elections. It may be that Aboriginal people have not had the opportunity to be involved in election procedures as they were not eligible to vote until recent years. This bill will help clarify any disputes about those elections. Perhaps the provisions in the bill will help reduce the number of disputes. Clause 27AB relates to the role of office holders pending determination of a disputed return. This is an important clause because it allows the land councils to function while election results are being considered. Clause 27AC relates to the method of disputing elections and returns. This clause may also help to smooth out the election process. Finally, in an attempt to reduce disputes where disputed returns have eliminated some areas that are purely administrative and do not affect the outcome of the election, clause 27AG refers to immaterial errors that will not invalidate the election. That clause states:

(1) An election of councillors of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, or any return or statement showing the voting in an election, is not invalid because of:

(a) any delay in taking the votes of the electors or in making any statement or return, or

(b) the absence of any officer, or

(c) the error or omission of any officer,

that could not have affected the result of the election.

(2) If a person was prevented from voting in an election because of the absence of any officer, or the error or omission of any officer, the Court must not admit any evidence of the way the person intended to vote in order to determine whether or not the absence, error or omission could have affected the results of the election.

The decision of the court will be final. Call to Australia is pleased to support the bill. We congratulate the Government on helping to resolve some of the tensions that have arisen in the Aboriginal community in the past.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.21], in reply: I thank the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for their support for the bill. Aboriginal affairs is one of the government's keen priorities. Amendment of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act implements the Australian Labor Party's pre-election promise to create a court of disputed returns to determine elected disputes under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The purpose of the amendment to the Act is twofold. Firstly, it provides for members of local Aboriginal land councils to have only one vote in an election for the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. Secondly, it provides for the Land and Environment Court to serve as the court of disputed returns and to resolve disputes about electoral matters.

Most comparable electoral systems have the equivalent of a court of disputed returns. By creating a court of disputed returns and instituting one vote per person, these amendments bring the system for electing councillors to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council into line with other electoral systems, reducing delays and creating a fairer, more efficient system of representation. An election of councillors to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council is to be held on 16 December 1995. The amendment appointing the Land and Environment Court as the court of disputed returns is intended to apply to any disputes arising out of this election. As the election was called prior to the bill being enacted, the one vote per person provision will not apply to the 16 December 1995 election.

The amendments included in the bill have been drafted at the request of and in consultation with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. The Government has consulted with the land council on the amendment to the bill as proposed by Burnum Burnum, as outlined by the honourable member for Pittwater in the other place. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council has recommended that the Government proceed with the bill as presently drafted. The Government is committed to conducting, in consultation with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, a general review of the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Such a review would be aimed at improving the system for processing land claims and embracing sites of Aboriginal significance. Proposals such as the amendment suggested by Burnum Burnum will be considered as part of that review. The provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill are intended to safeguard the principle of one person, one vote. They are also intended to safeguard the rights of those involved in an election to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council to speedy relief in the event of a challenge to the results of an election.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.25]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

Page 2055

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [6.25]: Tonight I want to bring to the attention of the House the importance of women in politics. Last night the Minister for the Environment spoke in the other place on the important topic of women in politics. I thank her for her remarks, although I thought that the Minister for Local Government was less than gracious in his follow-up comments. This weekend the National Liberal Women's Forum, as part of its ongoing work to promote women into politics, is conducting a major seminar in Queensland that will bring together candidates for the next federal election from New South Wales and Queensland, and State members of Parliament from Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. I look forward to being joined at that seminar by my colleagues the Hon. Jillian Skinner, and the Hon. Ron Phillips who will present an interesting perspective on the progress of women in politics.

I also look forward to being joined by my colleague, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who always shows an interest in the subject of women in politics and a willingness to support women in the Liberal Party who are promoting this important issue. In addition, many Federal members of Parliament from throughout Australia, with the exception of Tasmania, will be joining us. It is an important seminar. The Hon. John Howard will address the Sunday session. The keynote address will be given by Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, the patron of the National Liberal Women's Forum. The forum arises out of a motion passed at our 1993 federal council, and it was given unanimous support at the 1994 council. Chris McDiven, chairman of the New South Wales women's council of the Liberal Party and president of the party's federal women's committee, has done much to encourage the Liberal Party of Australia to understand issues, to focus on problems, and to raise general awareness in the community about this vital issue.

The aims of the forum are to encourage women to join and be active in the Liberal Party, and to encourage Liberal women to seek positions of responsibility and decision-making in the party. To get to a position where they can run for preselection, women must first take up other positions in as wide a cross-section of the party as possible. The aim of the forum is to raise the profile of women candidates as legitimate choices in preselection, to assist women to establish credibility and build winning campaigns for preselection in both safe electorates and winnable marginal electorates, and to gain support from Liberal men and women in the parliamentary party and in the party organisation to achieve these objectives. This week the subject of women in Parliament has attracted much media attention. Each party approaches the subject of women in politics from different perspectives. The quota system of the Labor Party has not attracted support in the Liberal Party.

I do not intend to criticise the Labor Party about how it goes about achieving that goal, except to say that we have a shared objective of increasing the percentage of women in Parliament. By whatever means we choose, we should support each other in expressing the ethos that underpins that common aim. It is important for the Liberal Party to change attitudes at the grassroots so that members are willing to support women, but more importantly so that women first put themselves forward. I have participated in four preselections as a candidate. In one preselection I was the only woman, and in the other three I was one of only two women, whereas there were 10 men in one preselection and 13 or 14 in another.

Against those odds, only a small percentage of women will be successful candidates for preselection. The most important function of the forum at the weekend is to raise issues for women and by women. The topics to be discussed at the seminar include "Women Who Have Won", "Campaigning: The Key to Success", and "Raising the Barriers". Other topics deal with the way women are treated in Parliament, the way we respond, and the way women raise issues of concern in the community. I wish the seminar well. Chris McDiven and others in the Liberal Party, under Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's patronage, have done much to encourage debate within the Liberal Party. I congratulate all involved in the seminar.


The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [6.30]: In the last couple of weeks a number of prominent media commentators - Jim McClelland, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 October; Phillip Adams, in the Australian Weekend Review of 7 and 8 October; and Chris Murphy, in the Sun-Herald of 8 October - have called upon politicians to take a stand on drug law reform. Jim McClelland, in drawing attention to his own commitment to decriminalisation of drugs, stated:

Some years ago I, along with a handful of others publicly advocated the decriminalisation of these drugs.

Predictably, this advocacy gained no converts among the only people who can make it possible, the politicians.

He suggested that the reason for this supposed lack of action arises out of fear of public disapproval. I would modify Mr McClelland's statement and repeat a comment I made in 1993:

Parliament contains many closet reformers who fear . . . being lampooned in the press if their attitude becomes known.

All three journalists are inaccurate in reporting politicians as being disinterested in a more reformist approach to drug laws. A number of politicians at both State and Federal levels have a commitment to drug law reform. The formation of groups such as the Australian parliamentary group for drug law reform is indicative of the growing support for change. Over 80 politicians have now signed the charter at State and Federal levels. The capacity for Australian politicians to direct controversial reform is evidenced by the changes to legislation which have already occurred in both South Australia and the
Page 2056
Australian Capital Territory. In 1987 South Australia introduced the cannabis expiation notice, which changed the legal status of cannabis by making a distinction between personal users and large scale traffickers. In 1992 the Australian Capital Territory, on the recommendations of an Australian Capital Territory select committee, amended legislation relating to personal use of cannabis. In the Australian Capital Territory possession of small amounts of cannabis is equal in status to a traffic infringement. Those in possession of not more than 25 grams are fined $100, and no criminal conviction is recorded against offenders who are fined.

The opinion that prohibition is simply not working is common to all the recent media articles. I have argued this point for many years, both within Parliament and through the media. Peter Baume, Professor of Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales, pointed out that approximately 13 per cent of Australians use cannabis at least monthly. Despite it being illegal, more than two million Australians are regular users of cannabis. Phillip Adams correctly shows that drug use is a social and cultural issue. I agree with Mr Adams. During a debate in the House in 1992 on marijuana laws, initiated by the Hon. Ted Pickering as Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I said:

. . . no drug - legal or illegal - has as one of its pharmaceutical properties the capacity to turn people into criminals. Crime is a social construct. Drugs, like crime, are socially defined.

The connection between police corruption and drugs was made by both Mr Murphy and Mr McClelland. Mr Murphy told of a young man, Sean Robey, a drug addict who received some abusive treatment from several Kings Cross police. The potential for corruption is highlighted when drug use is seen as a criminal offence instead of a health issue. Mr McClelland points to evidence given to the recent Wood royal commission of a police force that is seriously infiltrated with corruption. According to Dr Robert Marx, the cost of drug law enforcement expenditure for 1991-92 is estimated at $450.4 million. Dr Marx based this figure on data from the Yearbook Australia 1994 published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The McClelland committee estimated that if Commonwealth and State governments introduced a policy of regulating drug use rather than enforcing prohibition, most of the costs would disappear. Those media commentators are right in urging politicians to take a stand on drug reform. It is up to honourable members to take the advice of professionals and take the lead in making changes to laws that obviously do not work. It is now 10 years since the completion of the Kerr report into drug and alcohol services in New South Wales. Members of the committee included high-profile community leaders such as Professor Charles Kerr, Dr Sue Morey and Ms Freda Whitlam.

The committee recommended a partial prohibition of cannabis. Under that prohibition personal use of cannabis by adults, and possession of reasonable quantities and cultivation for personal use would not be offences. Still no action has been taken in this State on the recommendations of that report. While Messrs. McClelland, Adams and Murphy are not right in suggesting that politicians have been silent and inactive on drug reform, they are right to demand a serious rethink of current New South Wales drug laws. It is time to change laws that are ineffectual and in contradiction of the actions and behaviour of many New South Wales citizens. I urge all honourable members to take the matter seriously.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN [6.34]: I come to the House this evening in a state of shock. Yesterday morning I raised a number of matters of great importance on behalf of a constituent, former Sergeant Bill Pinkerton. His life has been literally wrecked by the actions of an investigator from the Independent Commission Against Corruption and by court actions. He is no longer able to serve as a police officer. The Attorney General chided me for being premature in raising the matter in the House. He said the Government was considering the matter carefully. He went on to say:

In due course it is hoped a decision will be made that is defensible, reasonable and just.

He said the matters would be considered carefully in a detailed and painstaking manner. Later he said, "The Government is considering the matter in a careful, thorough and fair way. Who can complain about that?" Only an hour ago a letter was faxed to me. That letter was sent by the Attorney General to solicitors representing Mr Bill Pinkerton. The letter reads as follows:

Dear Partners,

I refer to your representations on behalf of your client Mr W J Pinkerton in which a request has been made for ex gratia compensation for Mr Pinkerton.

I have considered the issues which have been put to me, however, this is not a matter in which I can make an ex gratia payment to your client.

I have noted the response to your client from the former Premier, however, I regret that there is nothing further that I can add in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

JW Shaw QC, MLC
ATTORNEY GENERAL

One of two things happened. The first possibility is that the Attorney General was not telling the truth when he told the Parliament he was considering the matter and would make a fair decision in due course. He lied to the Parliament because he had already signed this letter; the letter is dated the same day as the debate occurred. It arrived in the Campbelltown office of the law firm this morning by the DX mail service, which means it must have been posted some time before five o'clock yesterday. The second possibility is that the careful, fair and painstaking consideration that the Attorney General was giving this matter lasted all of an hour or two, then he signed
Page 2057
it off and gave absolutely no details as to why he made that decision. He listened to the 30 minutes of submissions I made to him in this Parliament and completely walked away and ignored them.

I cannot believe that a Minister would behave in this manner. I cannot believe that a person who has already been wronged by the legal process in New South Wales would be wronged in this manner by the first law officer of the State. The Attorney walked from the Parliament and signed a three-sentence letter, with no apology, despite the fact that the Premier told Alan Jones that this man deserves an apology. This man has been dealt a great wrong, but he was given no consideration. This very day the Labor Party tabled a bill in another House calling for compensation for Michael Black and providing for a fair hearing for that man, who was wronged by the legal system.

Surely Bill Pinkerton, who served this State as a police officer for 25 years with corruption-free service and had allegations made against him by two convicted drug felons - an attempted murderer and an armed robber, who confessed to having concocted the story in order to get more lenient sentences - deserves better than this. Even in political terms it is unbelievably stupid of the Attorney to walk from the Chamber and sign a letter like that. If it is not stupid, it is certainly a despicable act. I expected a great deal better from the Attorney General. I have regarded his contributions to this Parliament as thoughtful, sensitive and - by and large - reasonable. I cannot believe he has acted in this way. I can only appeal to him through the Parliament to change his mind. I see shocked faces on both sides of the Chamber and I can only ask that the Government reconsider the matter and give Mr Pinkerton the fair hearing he surely deserves.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [6.39]: Before his death last year, my father, C. V. Herbert, had been a life member of the Returned

Services League of Australia. That membership reflected the high regard of the RSL for my father, and he certainly had a high regard for the RSL. He had worked very hard for the organisation most of his life, ever since his active service overseas in World War II. It was with great concern that I received today a communication from Rusty Priest, New South Wales State President of the Returned Services League of Australia. As one can imagine, I looked at the communication seriously and carefully. The letter stated:

It is the RSL National policy that the Constitutional Monarchy be retained and that any move to change Australia into a Republic be opposed.

I draw the attention of honourable members to the fax from Mr Priest. The letter further stated:

An issue such as this affects all citizens of New South Wales and is seen to be tampering with our Constitution by politicians without even waiting until the people have decided whether they wish to retain our Constitutional Monarchy or not.

Mr Priest stated:

I write to you on a matter of extreme urgency. The Returned Services League of Australia (New South Wales Branch) views with the utmost concern the current attempts by the Government to pass through the Legislative Council the "Oaths and Crown References Bill" . . .

The PRESIDENT: Order! I warn the honourable member that if she seeks to canvass that particular piece of legislation, I will rule her out of order as anticipating debate on a bill before the House.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I do not intend to canvass the matter. I am simply drawing this communication to the attention of honourable members in advance of the debate. The RSL sees the legislation as an attempt to introduce republicanism by stealth.

Motion agreed to.


Page 2058

The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Badgerys Creek in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Badgerys Creek for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Badgerys Creek area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Badgerys Creek area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Western Sydney orbital route at Cecil Park.
(ii) East facing ramps on the M4 Motorway at St Clair.
(iii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iv) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(v) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $2.8 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $100,000.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Bathurst in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Bathurst for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Bathurst area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Bathurst area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Realignment of the Great Western Highway from Mount Lambie to Lawsons Creek.
(ii) Provision of overtaking lanes on the Mitchell Highway at Vittoria.
(iii) Widening and provision of overtaking lanes on the Mid Western Highway between Bathurst and Evans Plains.
(iv) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(v) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(vi) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $26.9 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $11.6 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Blue Mountains in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Blue Mountains for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Blue Mountains area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Blue Mountains area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Reconstruction and widening of the Great Western Highway through Linden.
(ii) Widening of the Great Western Highway between Linden and Woodford.
(iii) Reconstruction and widening of the Great Western Highway between Baden Place, Blaxland and Warrimoo.

Page 2059
(iv) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(v) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(vi) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $13.9 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $4.7 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Camden in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Camden for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Camden area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Camden area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Rehabilitation of bridges over the Nepean River at Pheasants Nest.
(ii) Minor rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(iv) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $6.5 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $300,000.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Coogee in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Coogee for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Coogee area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Coogee area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Minor rehabilitation works at various locations.
(ii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(iii) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $600,000.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) Nil.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Drummoyne in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Drummoyne for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Drummoyne area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Drummoyne area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Construction of dual carriageways on Homebush Bay Drive between Homebush West and Rhodes.
(ii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(iv) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $6.2 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $2.6 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive
Page 2060
Council, representing the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Gladesville in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Gladesville for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Gladesville area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Gladesville area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Property acquisitions for the construction of the North West Transport Link.
(ii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(iv) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $16.2 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $2 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Kogarah in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Kogarah for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Kogarah area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Kogarah area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Minor rehabilitation works at various locations.
(ii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
Program expenditure: $900,000.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) Nil.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Maitland in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Maitland for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Maitland area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Maitland area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Construction of a deviation of Taylor Avenue at East Lynne.
(ii) Provision of traffic control facilities from Aberglassyn Road to Race Course Road at Rutherford.
(iii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iv) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(v) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $10.3 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $1.2 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Manly in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Manly for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Manly area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Manly area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Page 2061

Answer -

(1) (i) Minor rehabilitation works at various locations.
(ii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(iii) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $1 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $100,000.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Marrickville in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Marrickville for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Marrickville area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Marrickville area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Reconstruction of the northern approach to the bridge on Illawarra Road over the Cooks River at Undercliffe.
(ii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(iv) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $3.4 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $400,000.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Murwillumbah in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Murwillumbah for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Murwillumbah area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Murwillumbah area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Progressive construction of the Chinderah Bypass.
(ii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(iv) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $12.3 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $300,000.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Penrith in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Penrith for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Penrith area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Penrith area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Widening of Mulgoa Road from Jamison Road, Jamison Town to the M4 Motorway.
(ii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iii) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(iv) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $6.3 million.

Page 2062
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $3.9 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of South Coast in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of South Coast for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the South Coast area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the South Coast area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Progressive construction of a deviation of the Princes Highway at Myrtle Gully, south of Nowra.
(ii) Progressive construction of the Tomerong Bypass.
(iii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iv) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(v) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $17 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $12.1 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of Strathfield in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of Strathfield for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the Strathfield area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the Strathfield area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Reconstruction of the Hume Highway-Roberts Road intersection, South Strathfield.
(ii) Provision of east facing bus ramps on the M4 Motorway at Homebush Bay Drive.
(iii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iv) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(v) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $2.8 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) Nil.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of The Entrance in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of The Entrance for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the The Entrance area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the The Entrance area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Progressive reconstruction and widening of Wyong Road from Tuggerah to Long Jetty.
(ii) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(iii) General maintenance works on classified roads.

Page 2063
(iv) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $4.7 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $1.9 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.

Mr Gay asked 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 -

(1) What was the Roads and Traffic Authority priority works program for road construction and maintenance for the electorate of The Hills in the 1994/95 financial year?
(2) What future program of road construction work does the RTA have for the electorate of The Hills for the 1995/96 and the 1996/97 financial years?
(3) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money was spent in the The Hills area in the 1994/95 financial year?
(4) What amount of 3x3 petrol tax money will be spent in the The Hills area in the 1995/96 financial year?

Answer -

(1) (i) Property acquisitions for the construction of the North West Transport Link.
(ii) Widening of Pennant Hills Road from south of Mahers Road to Boundary Road, and tunnel construction at Thompsons Corner.
(iii) Upgrading New Line Road-David Road intersection at Castle Hill, and link to James Henty Drive, Dural.
(iv) Upgrading the Old Windsor Road-Sunnyholt Road-Burns Road intersection at Parklea.
(v) Pavement rehabilitation works at various locations.
(vi) General maintenance works on classified roads.
(vii) Regional road grants to councils.
Program expenditure: $30.9 million.
(2) Details of works to be carried out in 1995/96 will be announced in the forthcoming State Budget. The 1996/97 program has not yet been formulated.
(3) $3.9 million.
(4) This will be announced in the 1995/96 Budget.