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

The President offered the Prayers.


Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Gaming and Betting Amendment (Racing) Bill
Institute of Sport Bill

Petition praying that the House legislate to ban open season on ducks and quail in all areas of the State, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition praying that the advertisement of alcoholic beverages has an adverse effect upon youth, and that the House support the prompt passage of the Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that the National Parks and Wildlife Act not be amended, and that any attempt to ban open season and the sport of hunting game birds for recreational and environmental purposes be opposed, received from the Hon. J. S. Tingle.

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


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [2.41]: I move:

That under section 41(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows clause 7 of the Residential Tenancies (Residential Premises) Regulation 1995, published in Government Gazette No. 102, dated 25 August 1995, page 4716, tabled on 19 September 1995.

This motion is to disallow clause 7 which states:

Provision of information to tenant

7. (1) At or before the time of entering into a residential tenancy agreement, the landlord must provide the tenant with a copy of the publication entitled "The Renting Guide: A guide for landlords and tenants" prepared by the Office of Real Estate Services, dated September 1995 and available from the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Maximum penalty: 1 penalty unit.

(2) It is sufficient compliance with this clause if the landlord's agent provides the tenant with a copy of that publication.

Under clause 7 of the regulation landlords are liable to incur one penalty unit, or $100, for failing to provide tenants with a copy of "The Renting Guide: A guide for landlords and tenants". I strongly believe that this regulation is both unnecessary and highly discriminatory. It is clearly another of the Government's ploys to enlist the support of the many tenants who are supposedly working class. This is not social justice! By passing the buck of responsibility onto landlords the Government is once again trying to portray itself as a representative of the working class, opposing the property owners and providers of premises. I am opposed to the regulation on two counts: first, I do not believe that it is the landlord's responsibility to provide tenants with information about their rights and obligations; second, I do not believe that landlords should incur a penalty of $100 for failing to provide tenants with information regarding their rights and obligations.

The booklet has a wide circulation and is freely available from government sources such as the Department of Consumer Affairs and also from real estate agents. There is absolutely nothing to stop tenants who are genuinely interested from finding out more about their rights and obligations. It is ridiculous to impose upon landlords a legal obligation to provide tenants with the information when it is both readily and easily obtainable. Why must it be a landlord's obligation to look after tenants' rights? Tenants should look after their own rights, if they want to protect themselves. They can find the information themselves. Why must the Government foster dependency? It is important to remember that in a democracy citizens are endowed with certain rights and responsibilities. If an individual wishes to know more about his rights, it is his responsibility to make inquiries. Individuals who lack the initiative or ability to do so, for whatever reason, are themselves responsible for the consequences of their ignorance and neglect. It is their problem.

It is, therefore, inappropriate for an incompetent, lazy or apathetic individual to point the finger and penalise another for his incompetence, laziness or apathy. Even more ludicrous than expecting landlords to provide a copy of the booklet is the imposition of a $100 penalty on landlords who fail to do so. The penalty seems overly severe as there is evidence to suggest that many tenants to whom the booklet is provided do not read it. This is demonstrated by the poor return rate of the condition report. In many instances tenants of non-English speaking background do not understand the contents of the booklet, which defeats the purpose of providing it. We live in a
Page 3521
multicultural society, and I ask the Minister to consider the translation of the booklet into different languages.

The double standard inherent in the regulation has angered both the Opposition and the Property Owners Association of New South Wales Incorporated. Whilst landlords face the imposition of a penalty of $100 for failing to fulfil their obligation to provide tenants with the information booklet, tenants do not face similar penalties for failing to fulfil their obligation to complete and return the condition report. The report is important as it may provide evidence in the event of a dispute about the condition of the premises. An awareness amongst property owners of this inequity exacerbates their subjective sense of inequality. I agree with providers of residential rental accommodation who justifiably feel that they are being treated unfairly. Tenants who do not abide by their obligations do not incur a financial penalty, but landlords have to pay for digressing from their designated path.

The regulation seems to serve no apparent purpose other than to foster an environment conducive to overprotection and laziness - things we are trying to move away from in the increasingly competitive world of the 1990s. We have to foster self-reliance and independence and encourage people to take more initiative. The Government is fostering an environment that discourages people from actively learning about their rights and standing up for themselves. It should take a pro-active approach and actively encourage people to fend for themselves, not encourage them to hide behind the banner of an overprotective and unfair regulation that shelters them from the consequences of their own incompetence. Those are my reasons for moving this disallowance motion. The Opposition hopes that the crossbenchers will understand and join with the Opposition to disallow the regulation.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.50]: I oppose this disallowance motion. I am at a loss to understand how anyone could oppose such a regulation, which is clearly an advantage to all concerned, including landlords, tenants and real estate agents. The residential tenancies regulation operates in support of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, which is the major residential landlord-tenant law in New South Wales. Clause 7 of the regulation, to which the motion refers, was introduced in the interests of educating both landlords and tenants about their rights and responsibilities. It was welcomed by all concerned, including real estate agents, landlords and, in particular, tenants' organisations.

As I indicated, I am amazed that the honourable member could have any objections to clause 7 of the regulation, especially in view of the extensive consultation that was carried out by the residential tenancies consultative committee. The committee includes tenant and landlord representatives and meets regularly to oversee the effectiveness of the residential tenancies legislation and to recommend changes where appropriate. The committee considered the majority of the regulatory proposals at its meeting on 21 February 1995 - which, for good measure, coincidentally, was my birthday.

The organisations and bodies represented on the consultative committee at that meeting included the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, the Property Owners Association of New South Wales, the combined community legal centres group, the Department of Housing, public tenants councils, the Tenants' Union of New South Wales, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal Registry and many others. A regulatory impact statement was carried out and both that RIS and the draft regulations were open for comment by interested individuals and organisations for a full four weeks, one week longer than was required.

It is interesting to note that not one submission was received from the honourable member who moved this motion of disallowance. Submissions were received, however, from many other sources, and following the assessment of all submissions the new regulations were put in place. The publication referred to in this regulation entitled "The Renting Book: A guide for landlords and tenants" has been a great success. There has been an overwhelming demand for the publication. The Office of Real Estate Services in the Department of Fair Trading has supplied more than 200,000 copies of the publication, at no cost, to real estate agents, landlords and tenants.

I believe it is a major step forward to be able advise all parties of their rights in advance of an agreement being reached. This avoids misunderstandings and negates the need for extensive dispute resolution after the event. I commend the office of real estate services and all those concerned for this publication; it has been an outstanding success. If the honourable member's concern is primarily for those who flout the law and do not supply a copy of this book, I am perplexed, once again, as to whom she is representing. The requirement for landlords to provide a booklet about tenants' rights at or before the tenancy begins was regarded as an important consumer protection. Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia have had that requirement for some time, and a similar provision has been recommended for the Australian Capital Territory.

It is essential that people entering into contracts have as much advance information as possible about the terms and conditions to which they will be subject. Though no penalty was originally proposed, on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel - and I emphasise that - it was decided to include the penalty of $100, which is the lowest available penalty, to encourage compliance with the requirement. There was no significant objection to the penalty when it was discussed at the meeting of the residential tenancies consultative committee on 25 July. It was considered
Page 3522
that it would assist in gaining the wide distribution of the booklets intended. The penalty in Victoria is $200. If any delay occurred in the distribution of the booklet and the landlord did not have access to it, of course the Department of Fair Trading would not prosecute the person concerned.

Every effort has been made to distribute the book as widely as possible. There may have been some initial delay in its distribution. The publication is distributed, on behalf of the Department of Fair Trading, by Beehive Industries Co-operative Limited, a sheltered workshop at East Sydney. Due to the overwhelming demand there was an initial backlog. That backlog is now resolved, and I understand there is no delay in delivery. The booklet is also available from the office of real estate services. It is expected that the booklets will help to foster positive landlord-tenant relationships as the respective rights and obligations will be more widely understood. It is considered that they will assist in reducing the incidence of later disputes. There are no benefits to be gained from repealing this clause of the regulation; indeed, consumers would be greatly disadvantaged. I urge honourable members not to support the motion.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.54]: I have been a landlord for 28 years in one form or another. I wonder where the word landlord originated, for it is a strange word. It may have arisen from the lords of the manor in the old days who collected rents from half the village and handed out baskets of rotten apples at Christmas time. As a landlord, I have no problem with the regulation that requires landlords to provide tenants with "The Renting Book: A guide for landlords and tenants". I think it is important to retain the regulation, particularly at the present time. There are insufficient rental properties on the north shore, and a number of vulnerable people rent properties, including people of non-English speaking background, the disabled and pensioners. I should like to know if the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales put the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho up to this.

I recall that some years ago, when Joe Schipp was the Minister for Housing, it took about eight months for the Residential Tenancies Act to be passed by this House. That was basically because the Minister refused to accept an amendment I had proposed on behalf of the tenants' groups that would have allowed a tenant to fall behind with the rent for two weeks before being given notice of eviction. The Real Estate Institute wanted the tenant to be given a notice of eviction after falling behind for only one week. In the meantime the tribunal was set up, and I was blamed for no-one being able to do any work. Finally, the Minister, Joe Schipp, said to me, "Go and talk to the Real Estate Institute about this amendment, will you." I said, "I have to go and talk to the Real Estate Institute about a Government amendment? Who is running the Government? Who is running your department - the Real Estate Institute?" I suspect that this motion by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho was initiated by the Real Estate Institute. It is not a good idea to support this disallowance motion. I hope the majority of crossbench members do not support it.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [2.57], in reply: The Leader of the Government has missed the point. I am not attacking the worthiness of the booklet. I assure the House that I fully support and welcome the publication of the booklet. It will be of benefit to consumers. I agree with the Leader of the Government that it is a great success. I also applaud the fact that the booklet was produced in a sheltered workshop. These are very worthy causes. I am not concerned about the booklet per se but about the penalty of $100. I believe it is too stringent for the landlords, because we are talking about equity and about being fair to both the tenants and the landlords.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the House and in my gallery.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: The Leader of the Government said there had been wide consultation, and I have no doubt that that is so. However, the Property Owners Association of New South Wales is opposed to the regulation, and I have to acknowledge its opposition. I call on the Government to reconsider the decision. I endorse the distribution of the booklet and I applaud the consumer protection it provides. I endorse the sheltered workshop production of this booklet but I object to the unfair and discriminatory penalty of $100.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: The landlord can afford it.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: It is not a matter of whether the landlord can afford it; in principle the payment of $100 should not be a legal obligation of landlords. I urge crossbenchers to think about the equity principle of the matter and not to discriminate unfairly against landlords.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Kersten
Mrs Chadwick Mr Mutch
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Dr Goldsmith Tellers,
Mr Hannaford Mr Lynn
Mr Jobling Dr Pezzutti

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

Page 3523

Mr Moppett Mr Obeid
Mr Samios Mr O'Grady

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.08]: I move:

That under section 41(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows clause 6(1) and 6(2) of the Consumer Claims Tribunals Regulation 1995, published in Government Gazette No. 105, dated 1 September 1995, page 5243, tabled on 19 September 1995.

I move this motion of disallowance because I believe that increasing the jurisdiction of the Consumer Claims Tribunal from $10,000 to $25,000 is both dangerous and unnecessary. Despite attempts by the Government to portray the increase as a minor and ineffectual change, the truth is that a 150 per cent increase in jurisdiction is a major change worthy of careful consideration. Within the Consumer Claims Tribunal there is no appeal mechanism and $25,000 is a lot of money to lose without a right of appeal. In effect, the increase in jurisdiction moves the Consumer Claims Tribunal into the broader realm of the courts. The danger is that the Consumer Claims Tribunal is not designed to deal with cases on the basis of technical rules of evidence and legal representation. It is a simple alternative dispute resolution mechanism. To fully appreciate the consequences of the increase in jurisdiction, one must consider the original intention behind establishing the tribunal, as well as the manner in which it functions.

The Consumer Claims Tribunal was originally established in 1974, from memory, to provide a forum where consumers could obtain quick, informal and inexpensive redress against traders for faulty goods or services purchased. It is a mechanism through which consumers are able to avoid the lengthy processes of the traditional adversarial legal system, where often the resolution of a problem costs more than the dispute is worth. The monetary jurisdiction placed on the tribunal is one of its most fundamental features. Clearly, claims which exceed $10,000 are not small claims. Increasing the jurisdictional limit from $10,000 to $25,000 is a matter of grave concern because the tribunal is not designed to deal with such large sums.

Even at $10,000 the jurisdictional limit in New South Wales was much higher than those in other States. The increase to $25,000 in New South Wales represents a limit that is 317 per cent higher than its closest counterpart in Western Australia, which has a limit of only $6,000; the lowest limit is $2,000 in Tasmania. One wonders why the New South Wales Government suddenly feels compelled to increase the limit by 150 per cent. No evidence has been given to support the increase, nor have consumers made any push for it. Are the costs to consumers in New South Wales so much more than in other parts of the country to warrant such a large increase?

In any case, the average claim in the Consumer Claims Tribunal is under $500. If the jurisdiction is increased to $25,000, there will be an increase in claims splitting, where consumers with claims too large for the Consumer Claims Tribunal to handle will be split into a series of smaller separate claims in order to avoid the costs associated with going to court. In fact, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones discussed this matter with me and I would like him to understand that this regulation is dangerous because a $50,000 claim will be split into two $25,000 claims. The increase in jurisdiction will provide an incentive to the consumer to continue to take advantage of and exploit the tribunal in the process of claims splitting.

Only limited legal representation is allowed in the tribunal. Clearly claims that exceed a limit of $10,000 are of sufficient magnitude for consumers to engage in professional advocacy. It is in the consumers' best interest to use formal legal channels, especially when one considers that small claims tribunals are mitigated by referees who are not required to have any legal training and are not subject to the technical rules of evidence. I have every respect for those referees, who show great commonsense, but are not required to have any legal training.

While the process of conciliation and arbitration may be appropriate for the settlement of small consumer disputes, it is questionable whether it is appropriate for the settlement of disputes involving larger sums of money. Increasing the jurisdictional limit for the Consumer Claims Tribunal may provide some relief to an overloaded court system. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones argued that there are too many delays within the court system. However, that is not the point. The issue of quality control remains a real concern. Both the Law Society of New South Wales and the Motor Traders Association have come out in strong opposition to this regulation, that is, increasing the jurisdictional limit from $10,000 to $25,000. They too believe that an increase in the jurisdictional limit undermines the very nature and purpose of the Consumer Claims Tribunal. There is absolutely no need to increase the jurisdictional limit from $10,000 to $25,000. The Consumer Claims Tribunal should remain a small claims tribunal. It should not be similar to other tribunals that have sprung up. There is also a danger that many consumers will shop around different tribunals in order to have their cases heard. I urge the House to disallow this regulation.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [3.15]: The Government opposes the motion of disallowance. This regulation was introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that more people could make use of the Consumer Claims Tribunal to seek resolution of their disputes in the marketplace at the lowest possible cost and with the greatest degree of speed and
Page 3524
fairness. In pursuing this election commitment, the Government was demonstrating its commitment to social justice, and I would have to say that the figures for September and October indicate that the Government was spot on with these changes. In this period of time 47 people have availed themselves of the regulation's increased jurisdiction, that is, within a period of only two months.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: Forty-seven?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, 47, within a period of only two months. The basis for the increased jurisdiction is that many consumer goods, for example, boats, weddings, travel and computers are worth more than $10,000.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: Weddings?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, weddings are very expensive as well. It should be remembered, however, that the monetary jurisdiction refers to the value of the order that can be made, rather than the value of the goods. This regulation has been through the normal regulatory process under the Subordinate Regulation Act. A regulatory impact statement was published outlining costs and benefits for various options. The regulation was published and submissions were received from numerous agencies and groups, including the former Building Services Corporation, the New South Wales Treasury, the Consumer Credit Legal Centre, the New South Wales Law Society, the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Manufactures, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Financial Counsellors Association and the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission.

The majority of these agencies supported the legislation. Those who did not were generally opposed on the following grounds: first, that there was a lack of appeal procedures and, second, that the regulation did not afford the appropriate representation to the parties. In relation to the former, the Minister has asked her department to give further consideration to the manner in which a low-cost review process could be put in place. However, this could not be provided for in this regulation. It would require a change to the Act itself. Those most opposed to this regulation were the Law Society, the Motor Traders Association and the Chamber of Manufactures.

The primary purpose of the regulation was to increase the monetary limit to a uniform $25,000, regardless of whether a claim is a consumer or a building claim. Undoubtedly, this has led to an increase in the activity of the Consumer Claims Tribunal. However the extent of this increase is somewhat difficult to measure. No doubt those certain to benefit are those who are least likely to be able to afford to go to court. Given that of consumer claims before the tribunal, 54 per cent of current claims are for $1,000 or less and 87 per cent are for $5,000 or less, only a small increase is likely - somewhere in the order of 10 per cent of claims. Based on an average cost per claim of $430, the additional administrative cost of dealing with an additional 567 claims, that is, the possible anticipated number, would be $243,810. However, economies of scale may reduce the average cost per claim. In other words, it is possible that all or part of these costs could be absorbed.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: I didn't ask for the scale.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: No, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho might well not have taken her research as far as looking at the scale, but I am entitled, on behalf of the Government, to respond and to say what the practical consequences might be if the regulation were to be disallowed as sought. The revenue from the additional 567 claims, to which I have just referred - based on a fee of $100 under the new fee structure and given that approximately 50 per cent of claimants pay only a $5 concessional fee - would be $29,768. If, say, 50 per cent of the additional administrative costs - that is, $121,905 - were absorbed, the net increase of the monetary limit would be only $92,137. The Government regards this as a small price to pay for greater fairness and social justice for the community as a whole.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Social justice?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, social justice is a matter of concern to this Government. The public benefit of increasing the monetary limit to $25,000 is to significantly increase accessibility to a low-cost, informal and speedy forum for obtaining justice in relation to a wider range of consumer claims. This benefit is hard to quantify but is consistent with the social goals of both State Government and Commonwealth Government policies to enhance access to justice generally and the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms specifically. The introduction of a sliding scale of fees will reduce total revenue from $267,030 - that is, $127,530 for the Consumer Claims Tribunal plus $139,500 for the Building Disputes Tribunal - to an estimated $113,079, or $82,309 for the CCT plus -

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: On a point of order: the remarks of the Minister for Community Services are irrelevant. I did not move a motion in relation to section 13 about the sliding scale; I moved a motion in relation to the $10,000 to $25,000 change.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On the point of order: the Government is entitled to detail briefly the basic background and consequences of the matter sought to be achieved by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. The honourable member is clearly attempting to disallow part of the regulation in question.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: On the point of order: the notice of motion is for disallowance of clause 6 of the regulation, which relates to the limitation of the amount of an order. The matter to which the Minister is now adverting relates to part 4 of the regulation, which is section 11 onwards, relating to sliding scales. The issue of sliding scales is not before the House and there is no proposal to disallow that clause. Therefore, the contribution of the Minister is not relevant to the debate.

Page 3525

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! There is no point of order. If the Minister for Community Services were tempted to stray from the motion, I would request him to return to it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is most uncharacteristic of me to stray from the point, if I might say so; I strictly adhere to the standing orders of the House. I shall forgo any further reference to the matter to which I was referring. The reduced fees for both smaller consumer claims and building claims may well result in increased numbers of applications. The availability, for the first time, of concessions for eligible applicants to the Building Disputes Tribunal may also encourage lower income earners with disputes about routine maintenance - for example, plumbing and electrical repairs - to lodge claims. The wider eligibility criteria for obtaining concessions generally may also have an impact on application levels; that is conceded.

The tribunal can give approval for the parties to be represented if it is satisfied that it is necessary or that a party would be placed at a disadvantage if it was not approved. This representation does not necessarily need to be legal representation. As long as the representative has authority to bind the applicant, a lawyer or a non-lawyer may act in this role. The benefits of this regulation far outweigh any of the costs. There are no benefits to be gained from repealing the regulation, or any part of it, as, according to the Government's advice, it would effectively make the tribunals inoperative. Given that the tribunals provide the community with an important alternative dispute resolution mechanism, the significant social and economic costs of denying accessible justice to affected parties, while they cannot be quantified, certainly must not be overlooked.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.25]: I support the motion for the disallowance of this regulation. I thank the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services for his contribution to this debate. His contribution identified why the regulation should be disallowed. The Minister said that a large number of submissions had been received by the Government in relation to this regulation, and that a large number of those submissions complained about a lack of appeal procedures and representation before the tribunal. The Minister for Community Services went on to acknowledge that the Minister for Consumer Affairs recognised that these were problems that could not be dealt with by way of regulation and that the Act would have to be changed.

Why would these organisations be concerned about a lack of appeal procedures? They are concerned because the amount which is now to be the subject of the tribunal's consideration has been increased from $10,000 to $25,000. The Minister adverted to the reason that these organisations are concerned about this increase. The tribunal's jurisdiction is determined by the amount of the order sought, not by the value of the product the subject of the complaint. It is therefore possible in a building industry dispute that a compensation claim for $25,000 could be lodged in relation to a building worth $250,000. A building project of that size is quite substantial. A dispute involving that type of product can also be substantial. However, this tribunal is being given the power to determine that sizeable dispute in a way which is totally inconsistent with what would be our traditional standards of justice.

Under our standards of justice disputes are meant to be heard in open court. Will this tribunal deal with cases in the form of an open court? No, it will not because the Act says that this tribunal must sit in private. Will the rules of evidence apply to the operations of this tribunal? No, they will not. Is there an automatic right to legal representation before this tribunal? No, there is not. Will the parties before this tribunal have a right to appeal to anybody against a decision? No, they will not. If this tribunal acts in excess of its jurisdiction, is there an opportunity to seek an order from any other court ensuring that the tribunal operates within its jurisdiction? No, there is not. It is natural that people will be concerned about increasing the jurisdiction of this tribunal from $10,000 to $25,000.

Honourable members may recall that in recent times the jurisdiction of magistrates courts was increased from $25,000 to $40,000. This tribunal is now being asked to deal with claims up to $25,000, while claims brought before magistrates courts are limited to $40,000. At least the magistrates court procedure maintains the right to legal representation, to have matters dealt with according to the rules of evidence and to appeal. The Minister advocates this change on the grounds that issues can be dealt with speedily under the regulation. Members will recall that the budget papers - with which this House is dealing - identify that delays in magistrates courts in New South Wales are shorter than ever; matters are being dealt with in a matter of only a few weeks.

Claims of $25,000 are not small matters. They are substantial areas of dispute, and people are entitled to the protection of their rights in disputes involving amounts of that size. Rights can be protected appropriately only before courts, not before an organisation such as the Consumer Claims Tribunal. I place the Government on notice that if the disallowance motion is not passed, it will be arguable that such a regulation goes beyond the power of the statute which was established to deal with only small claims. The tribunal was initially given jurisdiction to deal with claims of only $500. The limit was later increased to a few thousand dollars and then to $10,000. I have no doubt that at some stage a challenge will be made to this regulation on the basis that it increases the jurisdiction of the tribunal way beyond the original intention, and that this regulation is a breach of the ambit of the statute.

I should be interested to know whether Cabinet ever addressed this matter. A change of this dimension should have been appropriately dealt with by Cabinet and by way of statute, which did not
Page 3526
occur. In conclusion, it is interesting to note that when the Minister promulgated the regulation he said that a minor change was made to some parts of the regulation. It is an interesting reflection on the attitude of this Government that it is prepared to treat an increase in the limit of the jurisdiction for small claims from $10,000 to $25,000 as a minor matter. In fact, that is the greatest hyperbole for which the Government should be condemned.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.33]: I speak against this motion. Undoubtedly, this regulation will benefit consumers. Firstly, the new fee structure obviously allows claims for small amounts of, say, up to $100 to be heard for a fee which is commensurate with the amount being claimed. This in itself is a major advance as it allows access to justice that previously was not viable for the fee charged. For example, it was not feasible to pay a $40 lodgment fee to make a claim for $50 or $60. These small claims affect many low income consumers, and a loss of $50 or $60 can be quite devastating for some consumers.

Secondly, although I understand the concerns about the lack of appeal mechanisms from the Consumer Claims Tribunal, the increased claim jurisdiction is surely a matter of establishing a balance between quick, effective justice with limited appeal grounds or, in many cases, no justice at all. A claim to a higher court is financially impossible for many consumers and waiting times for a court hearing can be very lengthy. We have just heard that in the first two months of the operation of these regulations 47 matters involving claims between $10,000 and $25,000 have been heard in the Consumer Claims Tribunal. Most likely, these 47 consumers would not have even received a hearing because the court system costs are so restrictive. This increased accessibility to low-cost justice should be applauded.

Admittedly, an additional cost to the taxpayer is involved in administering the Consumer Claims Tribunal, but this is surely offset by the advantages I have outlined. Another concern is that the larger amounts of money involved in the claims increase the need for consumer representation. However, the Act already contains a relevant provision: consumers may seek approval to be represented by a lawyer or have an interpreter or some other person act on their behalf if they feel that they would be at a serious disadvantage without such representation. It is then up to the tribunal to look at each case individually and to make a decision on the request. However, it must be remembered that the Consumer Claims Tribunal is meant to be a low-cost alternative to the court system, not a substitution, and cases are usually dealt with by a single referee acting as an adjudicator with only the parties concerned.

Honourable members should also remember that the choice is available for the claimant to lodge a claim with the tribunal or the court, not only with the tribunal. The tribunal is an alternative for those who can afford neither the cost nor the time delays involved in bringing a matter before a court. I am stunned that the Consumer Claims Tribunal has been singled out for this attack on its increased jurisdiction when the Building Disputes Tribunal - part of the same system, and very often with the same referees - has had a $25,000 claims jurisdiction for many years. Do honourable members believe that a consumer claim against a builder for shoddy work is any different from a consumer claim against a motor trader for a vehicle with major problems?

Why should we differentiate? In fact, some could argue a greater need for legal representation and access to an appeals mechanism in building dispute cases, yet everyone seems quite happy with the $25,000 limit on claims before the Building Disputes Tribunal. It seems only sensible to have the same limit apply to both the Consumer Claims Tribunal and the Building Disputes Tribunal. I admit that this is not a perfect system, but it is an alternative, low-cost system for those who wish to use it. I have had lengthy discussions with the Minister for Consumer Affairs and her advisers on this matter, particularly regarding an appeals mechanism. Members will be familiar with section 12(2) of the Consumer Claims Tribunal Act, which reads:

A court is not precluded from granting relief or a remedy of a kind referred to in subsection (1) if, in respect of a consumer claim . . .

(i) the ruling was erroneous; or

(ii) the tribunal erred in refusing or failing to give the ruling after its jurisdiction was disputed; or

(b) a tribunal has made an order under section 30 and the ground on which the relief or remedy is sought is that:

(i) the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the order; or

(ii) in relation to the hearing or determination of the claim, a party to the claim had been denied natural justice.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs has indicated the possibility of a merits review of a claim decision being made by the losing party. I spoke to a lawyer friend of mine today who was concerned that if a full merits appeal could be made, the wealthy companies claimed against by a small consumer would be able to appeal automatically on each occasion. This could cost the person against whom the appeal is made between $8,000 to $15,000, and the impact of the regulation would be negated by the appeals process. This would make it virtually impossible for a person to go to the tribunal in the knowledge that he may have to appeal to the Supreme Court with a cost of $8,000 to $15,000, and that he may lose the case the second time around. The legal advice I have been given is that it is possible to include in section 12 an additional ground for appeal, namely, that there was no evidence for the decision on a question of fact. I received a letter from the Minister for Consumer Affairs just before I came into the Chamber, page 2 of which read:

There is at present no mechanism to assess whether the actual decision made by a referee is correct. An option which has considerable merit is to provide for a rehearing which would allow for the facts of the case to be reheard

Page 3527
and for a fresh assessment to be made, not just on the law, but also on the relevant facts. The ground for rehearing could be that the decision was not fair and equitable or was made against the weight of evidence. If leave for a rehearing was granted, the case could be heard before a single referee or a panel of referees.

The letter of the Minister for Consumer Affairs went on:

If the prime concern is the lack of an appeal for claims over $10,000, an alternative might be to institute new procedures at first instance for those matters, such as the establishment of a panel to hear them.

It is obvious that these matters cannot be addressed today or by regulation. As the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services says, there would have to be a change to the Act. On a few occasions when I have said that the Democrats would trust the Government there has been laughter from the Opposition. Opposition members state that one cannot trust the Government. The Democrats trusted the Fahey Government and the Greiner Government. Those governments did not let us down. In this House there used to be agreement before a debate or a vote took place, and governments stuck by their agreements. I am certain that this Government also will stick by its agreements and will be just as honourable as the governments of Nick Greiner and John Fahey. There is also the small matter of holding the balance of power in the upper House.

I am perfectly happy with the Minister's assurance that there will be a review and allowance for a rehearing of a matter. That is important. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is right in saying that $25,000 is a fair amount of money - depending on how much wealth one has, of course; some of us are more wealthy than others. To the owner of a corner store $25,000 could represent virtually an entire life savings. The loss of a sum of $25,000 could send a small company broke. The Democrats acknowledge that that is the case. Nevertheless, the disallowance of the regulation today would have a devastating impact. I do not believe that there is any need to disallow the regulation now that the Minister has agreed that the mechanism for a rehearing will be reviewed.

I point out that the regulation was supported by the former Building Services Corporation, Treasury, the Consumer Credit Legal Centre, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the financial counsellors association and the Legal Aid Commission. It also has broad community support. Obviously, it has more support from those who support social justice, as it allows those who have been hard done by - those who have been sold a lemon of a car or were involved with a wedding that went terribly wrong through no fault of their own - to seek redress in a cost-effective, affordable way. People will now be able to claim up to $25,000, rather than have to wait for ever for a matter to go through the court system. Certainly a court case would involve a delay of some months and would cost probably $6,000, $8,000, $10,000 or even the entire amount claimed. It would be true to say that sometimes people do not bother to appeal because they know that a case will take for ever and will cost too much. Having had extensive discussions with the Minister for Consumer Affairs and her advisers - and I thank the Minister for her time - I do not recognise any grounds for supporting the disallowance motion of the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.43]: Call to Australia will support the disallowance motion. Our decision is based on submissions received from persons who would be affected by the regulation. I was very interested in some of the background material that has been made available, of which I was unaware. The limit for matters heard by the Consumer Claims Tribunal is $10,000. If this disallowance motion does not proceed, that limit will jump to $25,000. Some people may not consider that to be a great deal of money; the Hon. R. S. L. Jones seemed to believe it was only peanuts. It is interesting that when the tribunal first came into effect, under the Askin Government, the limit was set at $500. We all know that one of the main claims of the Keating Government has been that it has been able to keep down inflation, and no-one could argue that inflation has jumped so dramatically that in 1995 we should be allowing for a $25,000 claim.

Members should also consider the relationship of the proposed $25,000 limit with the limit pertaining in other States. All States have similar problems and all States have small businesses - car dealers and others. The limit for the small claims tribunals are: Western Australia, $6,000; Victoria, $5,000; Queensland, $5,000; South Australia, $5,000; the Northern Territory, $5,000; the Australian Capital Territory, $5,000; and Tasmania, $2,000. It would appear that New South Wales has some great insight or wisdom not held by other States. Call to Australia has a gut reaction to tribunals per se. Our party feels that tribunals are often set up by governments, and by Labor governments in particular, in a deliberate attempt to move matters away from the jurisdiction of the courts. A government appoints and gives great power to the person in charge of a tribunal. That person is not a judge, and people who appear before a tribunal do not have the same rights as they would have in a court trial. The judge of a court case is neutral. His job is to hear the evidence and to make a decision.

Often tribunals seem to have a vested interest and take an attitude that companies are determined to take advantage of the consumer. I imagine that is the point being made by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. All the organisations he quoted as being in favour of the increased judicial limit are consumer organisations. Many consumer groups have a left-wing ideology and regard business - small business, medium business and especially big business - as the enemy which is out to exploit people. I thought we had gone past that point, in aiming for a fair society in which consumers and business people work together in cooperation. Many employees become small businessmen. They move up the scale, start a small business and are then suddenly hit for six by regulations, costs and charges that can
Page 3528
easily send them bankrupt. They then become bankrupt employees - although they are not usually employees at all, but bankrupts living off the State, in receipt of welfare. At present too many people are going bankrupt.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs has expressed great concern and has given assurances. I respect her position and I note that she has given the assurance that she will try to rectify some of these matters. In my opinion, and I have sought advice on this, even though passage of this motion would disallow the regulation, the Government, with its well-known efficiency, could rapidly - even tomorrow - present a new regulation that would fill any gap and retain the present limit of $10,000, which is still almost twice the limit pertaining to small claims tribunals in other States. Along with other members, I have received correspondence from organisations such as the Law Society. I shall not take the time of the House in going through that correspondence as I believe that I have made sufficient points that all fair-minded members will recognise that the regulation should be disallowed.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.48], in reply: I thank all members who have made a contribution to the debate. I should first like to clarify a point made by the Minister. I am asking only that clause 6 of the regulation be disallowed. I do not seek the disallowance of clause 11, the scaling fee. I agree that a low claim should have a low application fee. That is social justice. Pensioners, for example, should be required to pay only a low application fee. I am asking for disallowance of the clause that raises the limit of $10,000. The Minister said that the measure is designed to assist the resolution of more claims at the lowest possible cost. That is correct. However, I am arguing against the increase from $10,000 to $25,000. As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, $25,000 is not a small sum; it can bankrupt a small business, particularly if there is a split cross-claim. I point out to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones that he is absolutely correct - there is no appeal mechanism.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Yes, there is already in the Act.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: No. The Minister said that the Government will change the Act to have a low-cost review process. Until that low-cost review process is put in place and the Act has been changed, I urge the crossbenchers to accept this motion. A jurisdictional limit of $25,000 is a lot of money for a tribunal which has no rules of evidence and does not allow for appropriate legal representation. The Leader of the Opposition spelled out clearly the points I sought to make about the appeal mechanism and legal representation, so I will not reiterate them. The Minister talked about building claims, consumer claims and motor repair claims. These are all different levels of claims and if the Minister wanted to make a uniform standard limit of $25,000 for the various tribunals, there would not be a need for different tribunals; there might as well be one tribunal to decide all small claims.

Consumer claims are usually for low amounts. For instance, last year my daughter was married and the cost was just over $9,000. The jurisdiction for the Consumer Claims Tribunal need not be $25,000. Claims for the cost of motor repairs and building or extending a house are in a different category; extensions to a house usually cost more than $10,000. It is appropriate that the limit for a motor car or building claim be $25,000; but consumer claims, such as for a wedding or dry cleaning, would not be for large sums. I urge the crossbenchers to think about this. The last point I seek to make is in relation to referees. It is important to have quality control. Even if a referee is not legally trained, natural justice requires that he be allowed to hear an application. But why should that be so? A referee may not be competent enough to understand points of law, but may be competent to determine questions of fact. A matter involving legal questions should go before a court. For those reasons the limit should be retained at $10,000. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile questioned why New South Wales should be so different from other States. This is most inequitable. For the Labor Party to increase this limit is hardly in keeping with its policy of social justice. I urge the House to disallow the clause in the Consumer Claims Tribunal Regulation.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Jobling Mr Obeid
Mr Moppett Mr O'Grady

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted.

Page 3529


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Is it a fact that the Fox organisation is prepared to proceed with the signing of agreements relating to the showground? Is it further a fact that the delay in signing the agreements has been caused by the Government? Why is the Government delaying the signing of all appropriate agreements?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think the honourable member's question is based on an incorrect premise. The lawyers representing both Fox and the Government are continuing to meet, and I imagine that most of the documentation would be in final shape ready for signature in the very near future. As I understand it there has been no untoward delay on either side.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Leader of the House. In response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition last week regarding rent determination of the showground by Fox and whether the rental would be based on the consumer price index or renegotiated, the Minister indicated that he would ascertain the information and get back to the House. Is the Minister now in a position to answer the question?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is CPI-based. I should point out to the House that that relates to floor rental.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: So you can negotiate upwards?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, the rental that the Government anticipates receiving is 5 per cent of gross revenue of the site, and I anticipate that -

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Every four years when the Government renegotiates the agreement it will be CPI-based?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is CPI-based. The point I am making is that that is the guaranteed minimal rental. I want the emphasise to the House that the actual rental that the Government will receive will be the 5 per cent, which on my back-of-the-envelope calculations will exceed the floor rental.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Has Australia's economy been hard hit by the industrial conflict surrounding CRA employee contracts at Weipa which involve enterprise bargaining? What effect have the supporting strikes of workers on the wharves and coalmines had on the New South Wales economy? What has it cost New South Wales? What impact has it had on the Treasurer's carefully balanced budget? What impact will the prolonged dispute have on our overseas contracts, especially those with Japan and China? How long does the Treasurer believe it will take Bob Hawke to resolve the conflict?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I think honourable members hope that this matter will be resolved as quickly as possible. At this stage I would not expect it to have any impact on the Government's projected budget outcome, but a prolonged dispute has the potential to damage the Australian economy and, of course, our business reputation around the world. I hope that the matter will be resolved in a satisfactory way as quickly as possible.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Further to a question asked yesterday by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services provide the House with information of the Government's financial contribution to the Lloyd McDermott rugby development team?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am now in a position to inform the House that I have received advice from the Minister for Sport and Recreation in response to the question asked yesterday by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. The Government is committed to supporting sport among our indigenous communities. The activities of the Lloyd McDermott rugby development team are coordinated through a trust, which has been active since 1992. The trust has held a number of camps, which have encouraged boys of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin to participate in rugby and play with distinction in high level competition. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has obviously not done her homework. If she had done so, she would have been aware that the Minister for Sport and Recreation has authorised -

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: But you are the Minister!

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I was not asking the question. The plain fact is that the Minister for Sport and Recreation has authorised a grant of $6,000 to assist the team on its tour to Hong Kong and China later this year. The Government will contribute $6,000 towards the costs of the team's tour, which I believe will take place in December this year and January next year. The Minister in a letter to the foundation of 4 October announcing the grant stated:

You and your colleagues are to be commended for providing such a positive experience in both sporting opportunities and life skills development, which otherwise may not be available to rural Aboriginal youth.

Page 3530

On 13 October the foundation replied stating that the offer of the funds was generous and greatly appreciated. In contrast to this Government's record, the previous Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, the member for Sutherland, Mr Downy, refused to provide a grant to the organisation following representations in 1994. In other words, this Government supports indigenous sport and the previous Government ignored it. The tour is the culmination of years of effort by the Lloyd McDermott rugby development trust, and I am delighted and proud that the Government has got right behind it and allocated this grant. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho should explain to the Lloyd McDermott foundation why the previous Government, of which she was a member, refused to support this important work during 1994.


The Hon. J. KALDIS: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services outline for the House the guarantee he announced today of lifetime care for residents of community services institutions?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I readily acknowledge the close and continuing interest that the Hon. J. Kaldis shows in people with disabilities. I am proud to advise the House that this morning I announced that the Carr Government will guarantee a lifetime of care to all permanent residents of government-operated large residential centres and the residents of many institutions operated by the Department of Community Services, including the 136 residents of Peat Island. This is part of the Government's commitment to continue to implement the Disability Services Act 1993, which requires that centres such as Peat Island be closed and residents moved into group homes in the community. However, let me emphasise that we will not abandon people to fend for themselves when we begin to gradually close the residential centres.

The guarantee will apply in cases in which the institution is required to reconfigure in order to meet the requirements of the legislation. This guarantee will ensure that when these institutions are closed all clients will continue to receive the services and levels of support needed to enable them to make a successful transition to community living. We will develop individual case plans for every client. We will consult before moving someone into a group home. The guarantee of lifetime care will extend until the client not longer requires such care or dies.

As honourable members would realise, people with intellectual disabilities living in institutions cannot achieve the same outcomes available to people living independent lives in group homes in the community. For example, Peat Island is an outdated institution that needs to be closed. However, the wellbeing of its 136 residents will continue to be of utmost importance to the Government. I acknowledge that there is some concern among the parents and families of Peat Island's clients about what will happen to them when the centre is closed. I believe the Carr Government's guarantee of lifetime service will ease those concerns. I can further assure parents and carers that they will continue to be consulted throughout the transition process which will precede the gradual closure of Peat Island and other residential centres. Let me be absolutely clear about this: I guarantee that when the large residential centres are closed down over the next several years we will not desert our responsibility to provide ongoing care and support to clients. Today I call on the Opposition to support the Government's guarantee of lifetime care with the same bipartisan approach Labor gave to the Disability Services Act in 1993.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services may recall his answer to a question in this House on 18 October from the Hon. J. F. Ryan when he informed the House that the Health Promotions Unit for adults with a developmental disability "would be subsumed within the Centre for Developmental Disability Studies". He went on to say, "One is being closed and folded into the other" and "existing services are continuing". Contrary to what the Minister told the House, is it a fact that the unit is scheduled for closure in mid-December, while the new centre is not due to open until July next year? If so, how are existing services to continue during that seven-month gap? How can the unit be subsumed within the centre when the staff of the unit have been given notice of termination and attempts are being made to place the staff in other services of the department?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The use of the expression "subsumed" in the answer I previously gave was intended to convey the notion that there was to be a subsuming of functions. I was not directing my mind or my remarks to a particular timetable to which the honourable member referred in her question. I shall check the timetable regarding the new chair, but the existing Centre for Developmental Disability Studies based at the Royal North Shore Hospital, given its location, services only some of the State's residents and cannot be said to have a wide geographic spread. The chair to which the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith referred, in the Government's view will have a far wider reach than the Centre for Developmental Disability Studies. The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith laid great stress in her question on the expression "subsumed within". It is my understanding that the functions of the new chair will have subsumed within them many of the functions of the previous unit that is in the process of closing later this year.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I ask a supplementary question. The Minister spoke in his answer of subsuming the functions of the unit, but my concern is the minimum seven-month hiatus between the closure of one and the opening of the other. In particular, does the Minister realise, for
Page 3531
instance, that the nutrition assessment and counselling services of the dietitian in the unit are the only such services within the department currently? Does the Minister plan to recruit new staff to take the place of the dietitian, the sports physiologist, the psychologist and the doctor in the new structure?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: In responding to the previous question I referred to an undertaking to ascertain the timetable for the new chair. I adhere to that response.


The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: Does the Attorney General have any further information about the shooting incident at Wyong courthouse today?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Honourable members may be aware from press reports that there was a shooting incident at Wyong courthouse today. The full facts are yet to emerge, but I can inform the House that the preliminary report from the court indicates that a woman involved in court proceedings was shot within the precincts of the court. I am informed that she has suffered injury to the upper left shoulder and arm, forearm and face. Ambulance officers attended the court and stabilised her condition. On the information available at this time, it is hoped that she will recover from this dreadful attack. I am informed that the woman was involved in seeking an apprehended violence order. The respondent to that order is not the person who shot the woman, although I understand that the shooting arose from that case. As charges will undoubtedly be laid as a result of the incident, I do not intend to fully outline the facts of the matter. I can advise the House that the alleged perpetrator of the shooting was apprehended by a corrective services officer and secured until police arrived.

No other person was injured in the incident. The court has been closed for the day and the staff have been relieved of their duties. Three officers from Gosford Local Court have gone to Wyong, and business will resume tomorrow. The department has also arranged for a counsellor to counsel the court staff. Comprehensive security arrangements at Wyong courthouse include duress alarms and a closed-circuit television system. I am advised that these alarms functioned during this morning's incident, ensuring that police were quickly on the scene. The shooting is indeed a tragic and deplorable event. It is indicative of the difficulties in providing absolute protection to persons involved in domestic violence situations.

The Attorney General's Department has recognised the need for improved court security, and a program is presently under way to install duress alarms in courtrooms, chambers and public counters in all courthouses. The program is two-thirds complete. I can confirm to the House that such facilities are included at Wyong, with the alarm being directly connected to the local police station. While there will now be a need to further review court security in this State, it is a sad fact that this incident could have taken place in any location. I will shortly bring before Parliament proposals for legislative change arising out of the review of the apprehended violence order provisions of the Crimes Act.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister seen statements by Heal Incorporated - and it is its statement not mine - that 40 per cent to 60 per cent of HIV tests are falsely positive? Is this information correct? If it is not correct, what response will the Minister make to ensure that these false statements are corrected?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not aware of the merits of the matters alleged in the question of the honourable member. However, I shall refer it to my colleague the Minister for Health for a considered response.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that this group called Heal Incorporated is making suggestions -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order: it was quite clear that the Minister said he would refer the question of the honourable member to his colleague the Minister for Health. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is now asking a supplementary question that he knows the Minister is not in a position at the moment to answer. It sounds very much like he is asking additional questions. His question is not supplementary in any way, shape or form. I suggest that the honourable member is simply wasting the time of the House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: On the point of order: whilst I am aware that I have difficulty obtaining answers to questions without notice because the Minister is in another place, that does not preclude me from asking those questions in this Chamber in the expectation that at some time I will get an answer.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On the point of order: the honourable member has not had an opportunity to ask his supplementary question. How can the Leader of the Government take a point of order when the supplementary question has not been fully asked?

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not in order for a member to ask a supplementary question when a purely formal answer - such as referring the matter to another Minister - has been given. A supplementary question must be based on part of the substantive answer given in response to a question. Therefore, the question is not in order as a supplementary question.

Page 3532

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General. Farm safety is a major problem in rural New South Wales. What initiatives has the Government put in place to address this problem and reduce the high number of fatalities that occur on farms?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The question of the honourable member focuses on an important aspect of work safety in New South Wales. Farm safety is a key priority for WorkCover New South Wales, which is working closely with the farming community to address current problems. In the four years to June 1995, 26.3 per cent of a total of 205 fatalities at work occurred on farms. Fatalities involved tractors and moving parts on other machinery, motorcycle accidents and electrocution. WorkCover New South Wales is addressing the occupational health and safety performance of the rural industry on several fronts through research funding, working directly with the farming community, on-site educational and promotional activities at all major field days and agricultural shows and actively participating in the annual New South Wales Farm Safety Week.

WorkCover supports the work of 17 farm safety action groups spread throughout the State with research funding, backed up with educational and promotional programs and technical advice. WorkCover is also represented on the New South Wales farm safe committee. Several rural safety projects have been funded under the WorkCover New South Wales injury prevention, education and research grants scheme. These include prevention of back injury on farms, the safety role of women on farms, resourcing of the farm security action group network and a health surveillance program for workers in the Hunter Valley wine industry.

A major grant to the Rural Training Council of New South Wales Limited is funding a project aimed at improving farm safety in the key areas of tractor and horse safety and noise-induced hearing loss. The project includes rural training activities, education campaigns, screening of agricultural workers and resourcing the activities of a number of farm safety action groups. WorkCover has expanded its mobile display resources and continues to forge closer links with other safety agencies, including the New South Wales Cancer Council and community health services.

WorkCover publishes a rural safety review in the Land newspaper each quarter. WorkCover has also produced a video entitled Bitter Harvest depicting the results of farm accidents. Greater participation in children's orientated functions has also been encouraged, for example, in schools, the children's expo and high school field days. Resources have been developed, including publications, videos and computerised interactive farm safety games. In addition to these preventative strategies, WorkCover inspectors throughout the State investigate fatal and serious accidents, respond to complaints and participate in a range of activities aimed at improving health and safety in this area.

WorkCover has recently completed a training course for 44 new inspectors. As a result of this, and transfers of inspectors from other areas, there are eight additional inspectors in the country south region and seven additional inspectors in the country north region. Three of the inspectors in the country south region and inspectors in the country north are based in rural areas. When matters arise that require particularly specialised knowledge, assistance is provided by head office in Sydney. The next recruitment of inspectors by WorkCover is planned for early in 1996. I have directed WorkCover to consider the needs of rural New South Wales in its next intake of inspectors.

Because of the nature and diversity of activities in rural industry, it has been difficult to identify definitive solutions to the range of problems in this industry. These problems are compounded by isolation of the workplace - the farm being both the workplace and home - economic constraints and the age of some of the machinery being used. However, by utilising available information and through a range of consultation mechanisms WorkCover is developing a strategy comprised of several initiatives to redress an unacceptable situation. There is no short-term solution to reducing the number of accidents and injuries in rural industry. The answer is one of long-term attitudinal change.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister tell the House the estimated cost of administering the regulation and supply of the stock medicine known as Cylap HVD inactivated rabbit calicivirus disease or Cylap HVD inactivated purified vaccine against haemorrhagic viral disease of rabbits as notified in Government Gazette No. 141 of 17 November 1995? If such an operation can be mounted so speedily to protect rabbits, why cannot the Minister come up with a simple system of identification, such as the production of a driver's licence at the point of sale, to monitor the sale and intended use of liquid testosterone and other hormones that are sold to humans as steroids and abused by body builders and gymnasts? Is the Minister further aware of the report in today's Sydney Morning Herald that stated that it was easy to obtain steroids from veterinary surgeons and that an operative could make about $500,000 a year selling these animal steroids to young gymnasts?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Despite my undoubted status as something of a world authority on rabbit calicivirus disease, I am not in possession of all the matters referred to in the question of the honourable member. However, I can partly respond to the question by saying that some concern has been expressed about the misuse by body builders of sheep medicines containing the male hormone testosterone. Body builders have been claimed to be injecting themselves with various testosterone products that are openly sold to farmers to enable them to treat and prevent sheath and pizzle rot in wethers.

Page 3533

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Tell us what pizzle rot is.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I hope what I have just said is within the standing orders of the House! There is also some reference to castrated male sheep. While misuse of these products is of great concern, it is important to remember that they are essential for animal production and welfare. It is estimated that some four million sheep are treated in this way across Australia each year, a major proportion of them being in New South Wales. The Department of Agriculture has communicated this problem to the registration liaison committee of the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, commonly known as the NRA, at its August meeting. Possible national control over these products to reduce their availability to body builders was discussed. Any control implemented by New South Wales alone would be unlikely to be effective. Veterinary anabolic steroids, which are prescription only, also find their way into the hands of body builders. Body builders who misuse these products do so knowing the health risks associated with their use. The Minister for Agriculture considers it essential that these products continue to be readily available to farmers at a price which will not increase their costs unreasonably.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and ask him to take up with his Cabinet colleague the Minister for Agriculture the matter to which I referred in my original question. Breeders of domestic rabbits have to undergo many stages and follow a protocol in order to get vaccine for rabbits. Why should people with sheep not have to undergo the same procedure when they get necessary veterinary chemicals for their animals?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Perhaps I am venturing into deep water, but it seems to me that wool production is an important primary industry in this country. It might conceivably pose some problem to primary producers if the steps referred to by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby were required. In any event, given my lack of authority in regard to agricultural matters - despite the recent knowledge I have demonstrated in certain directions -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You were hoeing around with this question, so we thought you might be an expert.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am becoming quite learned - I have referred to pizzle rot. I shall be delighted to obtain a further response for the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby from the Minister for Agriculture.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Local Government. Did Randwick City Council recently accept a tender for new carpets as part of its refurbishment of the council chambers? Was more than one tender received but only the details of one tender given to the council by way of mayoral minute? Was the successful tenderer, Universal Carpets, a company owned by Mr Stan Fiszman, the recently appointed Chairman of New South Wales Tourism? Will the Attorney General ask the Minister for Local Government to cause the Department of Local Government to undertake an investigation into the apparently unsatisfactory tendering process by the council?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The question of carpets at Randwick City Council is undoubtedly an interesting one, but I confess that I cannot illuminate the topic without the facts. I shall refer the honourable member's question to the Minister for Local Government for a response.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Given the increasing number of industrial deafness claims being lodged in the District Court of this State, especially in the Hunter, and the delays being experienced by the plaintiffs in having their cases heard - sometimes in the order of a 10-year delay - and in view of an answer given by the Attorney General yesterday, will he advise the House that part of the extra sitting days proposed for the Newcastle area will be allocated to this particular jurisdiction at Muswellbrook? Will he further advise what other action he will take to reduce this huge backlog?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I think the honourable member has raised some legitimate points of concern about delays in cases of this nature. In recent times I have listened to what he has said, both formally and informally, with interest. It must be said that the allocation of judicial resources is always a matter for the head of jurisdiction - that is, the Chief Judge of the District Court. It would be inappropriate for me to interfere in that allocative process. Nevertheless, the honourable member has raised matters of legitimate concern. I shall discuss those matters with the chief judge to see what can be done to alleviate the problem to which the member has drawn attention.


The Hon. I. COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment. What action is the Minister taking to exclude compartments now proposed for logging in contravention of the Government's nature conservation strategy policies, dated February 1995, and areas currently referenced by the National Parks and Wildlife Service? In particular, I point to the proposed logging of compartments in the proposed Richmond Range
Page 3534
National Park, being Yabbra State Forest, compartments 164, 165, 185 and 186; Toonumbar State Forest, compartments 254 and 258; and Donaldson State Forest compartments 48 and 49. I refer also to Khappinghat Nature Reserve additions, being compartments 3, 5, and 6 of Kiwarrak State Forest. I refer to Cudmirrah National Park, with additional compartments being 1085, 1087 and 1089 of Conjola State Forest. I refer also to proposed Termeil National Park, being compartments 21 and 22 of Termeil State Forest.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The question of the Hon. I. Cohen asks for specific detail. I have great confidence in the capacity of my colleague the Minister for the Environment to deal with the question. I shall refer the question to her for an appropriate answer.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that during the State election campaign the Labor Party promised to boost police numbers in the Bowral patrol and to build a new police station there? Is he further aware that, like many of the Labor Party's pre-election promises, this promise has been broken and there will now be no increase in police numbers in Bowral? In fact, there has been a decline in the numbers. Where is the allocation in the budget for the new police station?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer the question of the Hon. D. J. Gay to the Minister for Police for an answer.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Is the Minister aware of the severe speed restrictions which apply to trains travelling between Cobar and Nyngan, in western New South Wales? Is the Minister aware that expressions of interest were called some 12 months ago for the reconstruction of the line, and for the subsequent leasing and operation of that line? Could the Minister report on progress for that tendering process? If it has been abandoned, what steps is the Government taking to upgrade the line so that an efficient transport corridor can be provided for the product of the mines of Cobar?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I regret that I am unable to provide the Hon. D. F. Moppett with the information he is seeking. I shall be happy to ascertain an answer and forward it to him.


The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Local Government. I draw the attention of the Minister to a spate of recent house fires in Sydney, which have included some incidents where people have died. Does the Minister agree that smoke detectors are a vital lifesaving device which ought to be installed in every dwelling place in New South Wales? What is the current status of the law on the fitting of smoke detectors to all houses and other premises in Sydney? If the law requires the fitting of smoke detectors only in new houses, will the Minister consider amending the law to make the fitting of smoke detectors mandatory in all dwelling houses? Will the Minister consider allowing battery-driven smoke detectors to be installed in existing houses, to encourage their use, on the ground that a requirement to fit hard-wired detectors in an existing house might be a disincentive?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Like all honourable members, I have noticed and am concerned about the recent number of house fires in Sydney. Whether the technology suggested by the honourable member is useful and appropriate as a requirement in all dwellings in the State is no doubt a difficult question, which I will refer to the relevant Minister for an answer.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and the Leader of the House, representing the Minister for Housing. In view of the frequent number of deaths arising from house fires in Department of Housing town houses, will the Minister advise whether the Government has information which might indicate whether anything in the nature of the structure or construction of Department of Housing town houses would make them more vulnerable to fire, or make escape from fire more difficult? Will the Minister provide the House with information as to the schedule for fitting Department of Housing houses in the Claymore, Ambarvale, Airds and other areas in Campbelltown with smoke alarms, as is currently being promoted by the Government?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would be most concerned if the suggestion made by the honourable member is correct; that is, that housing department homes are more prone to fires than other homes.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: A large number of fires have occurred in that particular style of house in Campbelltown.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will certainly refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Housing, and I will try to obtain an answer for the honourable member.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations in his own capacity, as well as that of representing the Minister for Police. Is he aware of the call by one of Australia's most respected jurists, Sir Max Bingham, QC, for a sweeping
Page 3535
overhaul of the criminal justice system because of its failure to cater for Aboriginal cultural differences in language and conventional behaviour? Is it a fact that the Aboriginal community represents only 2 per cent of Australia's total population, but accounts for 14 per cent of the prison population and 28 per cent of people processed through the criminal justice system? Does the Minister agree that this is an over-representation of Aborigines in the criminal justice system and is an appalling scandal? Will the Attorney General and the Minister for Police take some serious action to tackle this problem?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member's question is serious and important. The disproportionate representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system is a tragedy for Australia - that is absolutely undoubted. The size of the Aboriginal population in our gaols is a matter of acute concern, and the Government is conscious of the difficulties in this regard confronting both the nation and the Aboriginal community. We are committed to formulating legislative alternatives to custodial penalties. This is not only in response to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, but also to ensure a more equitable distribution of justice for all citizens.

The 1992 report released by the Institute of Criminology cited an increase of 80 per cent in the New South Wales Aboriginal prison population over the four-year period of 1987 to 1991. In reality, the proportion of Aboriginal imprisonment in New South Wales changed, not substantially, from 8.1 per cent in 1987 to 9.3 per cent in 1991. However, at the same time imprisonment of non-Aboriginal people rose substantially. Furthermore, the imprisonment rate cited in the study failed to differentiate between prisoners actually serving a gaol term and those on periodic detention or on remand awaiting trial. It is beyond doubt that Aboriginal people are over-represented in the prison population. The latest prison census available, taken in June 1995, indicates the number of prisoners as 888 Aboriginal offenders, 6,754 non-Aboriginal offenders and 82 offenders of status unknown. Therefore, Aboriginal prisoners account for 11.5 per cent of the total prison population.

The Government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and it is further committed to ensure that the Aboriginal prison population is reduced. I candidly concede that it is easier to state the problem than it is to answer it. However, I hope that all members of this House would join in a bipartisan spirit to explore avenues by which this tragic situation can at least be alleviated; by which we can endeavour to reduce the proportion of Aboriginal people in our gaols; and by which we can generally assist Aboriginal rights in order to achieve a more equal society.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment. Did the Minister recently state in an answer to one of my questions on notice that the North Parkes mine at Parkes did not breach any conditions of its Environment Protection Authority licence by killing 2,000 birds with cyanide? How is it that the licence is so deficient as to permit the mass poisoning of wildlife?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The question is no doubt important, but as it is specific I will refer it to the relevant Minister for an answer.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: Once again, I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs, a question without notice. The Australian Labor Party promised during the election campaign to build a new high school at Mittagong, yet no allocation seems to have been made in the budget for this work to begin. Will the Attorney seek information for the House as to when this new high school at Mittagong will be built?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: This question seems to be asked every day in this House. I suppose that does not detract from its importance. I thought initially the honourable member had attributed some promise or indication in this regard to the Leader of the Government in this House, but the leader has categorically denied that assertion. It might assist the debate if the honourable member gave us chapter and verse any such promise or indication. He should provide a reference or some degree of specificity about what was apparently said by the then Opposition as this would assist me in referring this matter to the Minister for Education and Training. I will refer the question, but I suggest in an amicable way that the honourable member might gain more satisfaction if he gave a reference or a quotation rather than continue with his tendency to make broad reference, as I understand it, to an editorial in a local newspaper.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Further to his answer to the question asked by me earlier today, in which he stated that he would ascertain the timetable for the establishment of the new chair and Centre for Developmental Disability Studies, how does the Minister's admission that he did not know when the centre was to commence operation fit with his earlier assurances to the House that the service provision would continue, be subsumed and be folded into the new centre? Given his admitted lack of knowledge, is it not a fact that his earlier reassurances to the House were misleading? Is this not a betrayal of the responsibilities of the Minister to the Parliament, and
Page 3536
will the Minister therefore resign?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: That really is a very silly question. I advise the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith that I have no intention of resigning. I have addressed the matter of the services provided through the Centre for Developmental Disability Studies on a past occasion, and again today to a lesser extent. I have also made reference to the new facility that is being established. I do have some doubt as to what the timetable is, and I have indicated that I will ascertain the facts in that regard. There is absolutely no misleading of the House involved.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister confirm whether New South Wales Agriculture intends to increase fees for seed services and make a move to full cost recovery over the next two years? What is the rationale for that decision? Who has the Government consulted prior to making the decision?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall be delighted to refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture so that a suitable response can be furnished to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I ask a question of the Attorney General. Is the Government proposing legislation to permit a review of a decision to remove a witness from the witness protection program? If this is so, why is the Government not proposing to put in place a legislative scheme to ensure an appropriate mechanism to put people into a witness protection program?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not aware of any such proposal.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Is the Minister aware of an article relating to the suburb of Claymore that appeared in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald which reported the fear of the people and the problems of the youth of that suburb? What is the Government doing as far as the policing of that area is concerned? What is the Government doing about the youth there, who say that there is nothing there for them? Would the Minister consider the establishment of a police and community youth club or something similar to give the youth of that suburb an outlet?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I am not aware of the article, but I shall familiarise myself with it and take up the question raised with my appropriate ministerial colleagues.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the actions of Heal Incorporated in trying to discourage people suffering from HIV-AIDS from taking medication? If he is, what is he planning to do about it?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am most disappointed that I have not had a question today from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti about the Andrew "Boy" Charlton pool.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is my next question.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Perhaps the honourable member is still doing laps. In any event, I shall refer that question to the Minister for Health so that a considered and full response can be made.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I draw the attention of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations to the recently released report by this Government on gender and the law, known as the Keys Young report. Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Bar Association subsequent to the release of that report conducted a survey on gender issues, which showed some gender imbalance in the legal profession? Will the Minister do anything to address these issues?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Yes, I am aware of the survey to which the honourable member refers. Obviously, it reveals information of concern about gender imbalance in the legal profession. I shall certainly discuss actively with representatives of the legal profession and other appropriate people what can be done to redress that imbalance. My department is participating in a research project being conducted by the Department for Women on the incidence of gender bias in the legal system. The project is divided into three segments: first, women working in the legal profession; second, women as litigants in the civil legal system; and, third, women in the criminal justice system. The research is being overseen by steering committees which include a representative from my department. The final report on each segment will be received jointly by me and my colleague the Minister for Women, the Hon. Faye Lo Po'.

I was very pleased to announce this process to a breakfast of the Women Lawyers Association addressed by Mrs Lo Po' and me. The attendees at that function were pleased with the active process that was being invoked by the Government. Together with the Minister for Women I will put in place strategies for implementation of the recommendations emerging
Page 3537
from the research. These will include the establishment of implementation committees and my consideration of any legislative action that may be appropriate to the issue. My department is coordinating a response from relevant government agencies on the recommendations of Commonwealth Law Reform Commission report No. 69, "Equality Before the Law; Justice for Women". My department is represented on a committee which is overseeing the implementation of the recommendations of a report commissioned by the Women's Legal Resources Centre called "Quarter Way to Equal; A Report on Barriers to Access to Legal Services for Migrant Women".

The report made 53 recommendations, which included actions for government agencies and community and professional organisations. The committee is currently analysing implementation of the report by New South Wales organisations and will report to me on such implementation. The legal management service division of my department is currently formulating best practice guidelines in respect of the engagement of legal services by government agencies. These guidelines provide that when an agency is negotiating for the provision of legal services by private law firms it should include gender policies in its analysis of performance criteria. That is an important consideration, and I am sure that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho will be interested in that.

I ask the honourable member to observe this Government's practices in supporting women in the legal profession. This Government has not been in office very long yet, but I invite the honourable member to consider appointments made to the magistracy so far and the gender balance of appointments made. I do not have the precise statistics with me, but they are impressive. At least two very able women have been appointed to the magistracy in this Government's short time in office. I ask Opposition members how many female public defenders were appointed by the previous Government. Was it one? No, the previous Government did not appoint any female public defenders. This Government has appointed two female public defenders in its short time in office. Frankly, you ain't seen nothing yet!


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I have a supplementary question. In view of that answer, will the Attorney General provide to the House a list of the various women appointed to the bench?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I would be more than happy to provide details on the appointments of women to the bench. In this Government's short time in office it has only dealt so far with appointments to the magistracy. It has appointed one judge to the Supreme Court, but that appointee was not a woman. Watch this space, however, and you will see an impressive performance from the Government on that score.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I address my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Does the Minister know that several public hospitals, including the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, are breaking the law by using a rapid HIV testing kit to screen some patients without their knowledge? Does the Minister also know that a complaint has now been lodged with the New South Wales Office of the Ombudsman and that these tests were being used in a way contrary to regulation or departmental policy? Will the Minister advise the House what he intends to do in relation to this very serious breach of medical ethics?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I do not have the material needed to respond to that question at this moment. However, I shall obtain a full response from my colleague the Minister for Health.


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, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism, a question without notice. As the showground site will shortly be used intensively 365 days a year, will the Minister consider plans to mitigate the generation of car traffic, with its attendant noise and air pollution, by promoting the reinstatement of a light rail service on the right of way that passes the site and dates from the tram era?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Under the film studio proposal the showground will have more regular use than it does now. Certainly it will never reach the kind of intensive use that it has had for the 12 days of the Royal Easter Show. I would be happy to refer the honourable member's suggestion, for the reinstatement of the light rail service in the vicinity, to my colleague the Minister for Transport. As a layman, in transport terms, I am not sure where the rail would go once it got any distance past Moore Park. I think there would be considerable difficulties finding an appropriate space for it to run along.

I suggest that if honourable members have further questions they put them on notice.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 12 October 1995 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question concerning bushy groundsel. I have now been supplied with the following answer:

(1) The exact number of animals that died as a result of eating bushy groundsel (Senecio cunninghamii) is unknown, but it is estimated by NSW Agriculture that it could be as high as 1,000 head. On one property 400 head died and on a number of other properties losses were as high as 50 head. However the cause of death of these animals was not determined and some may have died from other causes.

Page 3538

Bushy groundsel occurs over a wide region of western NSW, not just in the Hay area. It has rarely been associated with problems because stock only graze it in the absence of more acceptable species. The liver damage it causes is the same as the liver damage caused by Paterson's curse or heliotrope. The damage from all these species is cumulative. The recent drought, by reducing the availability of other vegetation, also contributed to the problem.

(2) Bushy groundsel is a native species and as such is covered by State Environmental Planning Policy No. 46 - Protection and Management of Native Vegetation. SEPP 46 does not prevent farmers from controlling bushy groundsel, but it requires that they obtain a permit before carrying out the control work. The policy is being administered with common sense.

(3) Currently there are no herbicides registered for use on bushy groundsel, so NSW Agriculture officers must inform farmers that they cannot spray it. This advice would be the same even if SEPP 46 did not exist. The reason that there are no registered herbicides is that in the past bushy groundsel has not been a sufficient problem to justify research on control methods. Bushy groundsel is not listed as a weed in the main Australian textbooks on weeds. Also, in the area in which it occurs, it probably would not be economical to carry out a herbicide control program.

(4) The problems that farmers have experienced with bushy groundsel have nothing to do with SEPP 46. They are a consequence of the recent drought and the previous grazing history of the animals. SEPP 46 does not limit the control options available to farmers, but it ensures that they must plan their program and not rush in with a short term response to a plant which is widespread and in general causes little problem.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 24 October 1995 the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question concerning a Commonwealth-State Ministers' conference. I have been supplied with the following answer:

(1) The Minister for Women and Minister for Consumer Affairs supported the decision to postpone the Commonwealth/State Ministers for the Status of Women Conference scheduled for 20 October 1995 when the majority of Ministers were unable to attend the meeting on the planned date.

(2) As NSW was to have been the host state for the Conference planned for October 20, it is the NSW Minister for Women's task to renegotiate an alternate date for the Conference with the other Ministers.

Due to the postponement of the Ministers' Conference, the Minister for Women and Minister for Consumer Affairs has approved the distribution of the NSW report, titled "Politics and Me", to those who participated in the consultations on which the report is based.

Questions without notice concluded.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN [5.04]: I move:

That under section 41(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows in the Sydney Water Corporation Limited (Catchment Management) Regulation 1995, published in Government Gazette No. 102, dated 25 August 1995, page 4858, and tabled in this House on 19 September 1995, the following portions:

1. The words "enter or" in clause 14.

2. Clause 16.

3. The word "swim" in clause 19(a).

4. The words "row, sail or paddle" in clause 19(b).

5. Clause 20.

6. Clause 21.

7. The words "(a) such portions of special areas as the Corporation may determine from time to time and notify by signs erected on the portions concerned;" in Schedule 1, Special Areas.

On behalf of the Opposition I move this disallowance motion today because of representations by groups such as the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, the National Parks Association of New South Wales, the Confederation of Bushwalking Clubs New South Wales Incorporated, the Total Environment Centre, and the Kowmung committee. Those groups raised concerns about a blanket prohibition in the regulation on activities which they support, such as swimming, camping and paddling in areas which are in close proximity to Warragamba Dam. The Opposition understands the attitude of the Government: it is important to protect the catchment areas and the integrity of Sydney's water supply.

This regulation was the subject of an inquiry by the Regulation Review Committee, which heard from witnesses on Thursday 26 October. Recommendations made by the Regulation Review Committee support a thoroughgoing review of the regulation. Many of the clauses which were in dispute are the subject of my motion. One recommendation of the Regulation Review Committee was that clause 8 be referred to the Parliamentary Counsel for review because of its lack of procedural fairness. Further, the committee recommended that clauses 16, 19 and 21 be amended to properly reflect the permissible recreational activities that Sydney Water Corporation Limited agreed during the course of the inquiry should be carried out in schedule 2 areas.

There has been an ongoing dispute about this regulation, and it is important that these matters be reviewed. I am pleased that the Minister for Housing is reviewing this regulation and is likely to make favourable announcements to the groups I named earlier. The Opposition is supporting this motion in order to keep the opportunity for disallowance available to this House. Should the negotiations - which I understand are in hand and proceeding well - break down, the Opposition wants the opportunity at a later date to scrutinise those clauses. Accordingly, I sought the agreement of the crossbenchers and the Government that the matter be adjourned to a later hour of the sitting and be reviewed, perhaps tomorrow, to be put off to another date, or withdrawn altogether. The Opposition is seeking to move disallowance in order to facilitate consultation which I understand is under way and well in hand.

Page 3539

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. F. Ryan.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [5.07]: I move:

That under section 41(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows the words "Standards of Exhibiting Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in New South Wales" in clause 8(2) of the Exhibited Animals Protection Regulation 1995, published in Government Gazette No. 105, dated 1 September 1995, page 5382, and tabled in this House on 19 September 1995.

We have at last arrived at something which has been dubbed in the media as the koala debate.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You are not taking that very seriously.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am indeed taking it very seriously. The first duty of every member elected to the New South Wales Parliament is to put New South Wales interests first. That is all I am asking members to do in the consideration of the motion disallowing this part of the exhibited animals protection regulation. There will be debate concerning standards for exhibiting koalas. I emphasise that the content of the standards is not the issue for the Opposition; the Opposition is concerned about the time frame for the introduction of the standards because the Minister for Agriculture has announced that as of 1 January 1997 New South Wales will introduce standards relating to the exhibiting of koalas which will make New South Wales unique among the States of the Commonwealth.

The problem with making New South Wales unique is that it will have an adverse impact on the tourist industry. The Opposition is concerned about that impact on an important industry. The Opposition is concerned with the impact it will have on tourism. I am also concerned about the impact it will have on employment in the amusement parks which operate in Eastern Creek and in western Sydney, the area that I represent in this Chamber. I emphasise to honourable members that the Opposition is not so much concerned with the contents of the standards; the New South Wales tourism industry should be our first concern. If there are other issues relating to koalas, they should be solved on a national basis.

[Debate interrupted.]


The PRESIDENT: Honourable members, I have the great pleasure to announce the most distinguished presence in my gallery of The Right Honourable the Baroness Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

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

That The Right Honourable the Baroness Thatcher former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom be invited to take a chair on the left of the President.

The Right Honourable the Baroness Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, thereupon entered the Chamber, and took a seat at the left hand of the Chair.

[Debate resumed.]

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I extend a welcome to our honoured guest. Under the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1986 there has recently been a review of the Exhibited Animals Regulation. This revised regulation appears in the Government Gazette issued on 1 September 1995. The regulation contains a provision which allows the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture to prescribe and publish standards from time to time for animals, displays of koalas, dolphins, raptors, macropods, and carnivores in zoos and wildlife parks. Unlike this regulation, which gives power to the director-general to perform this task, the standards themselves are not disallowable by the Parliament, and consequently they escape parliamentary scrutiny.

Recently the Minister for Agriculture announced the Government's plans to introduce new exhibition standards for koalas, to ban a practice he dubbed "passing the koala" by visitors and tourists in New South Wales wildlife parks. Current standards permit visitors at parks to hold and pat a koala while the animal is seated on an object, such as a cushion. The new standard will mean that visitors to parks will only be able to touch koalas while they remain on a fixed perch. The Minister also announced that the new regulations will apply from 1 January 1997.

The Hon Jan Burnswoods: Do you still want to leave them on a cushion and pass them around?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The honourable member should listen because it is very important that we put New South Wales tourism first. I have no hesitation in saying that I put western Sydney jobs first. As I understand it koala passing is permitted and practised principally in two States, Queensland and New South Wales. Tourists from overseas, such as those from Japan, the United Kingdom and Canada, take a special interest in koalas. Allowing tourists to handle animals is considered a major drawcard by the tourist industry in each State. Only two wildlife parks in New South Wales, to my knowledge, allow koalas to be picked up and handled. They are the Featherdale Wildlife Park at Doonside and the nearby Australian Wildlife Park attached to the Australia's Wonderland complex at Eastern Creek.

Their major competitor is a wildlife park in Queensland called Lone Pine, which is situated in Brisbane. There is another wildlife park, the name of which I cannot recall, in Dream World on the Queensland Gold Coast. The introduction of the new koala handling standards in New South Wales, without similar action in Queensland, will severely disadvantage the New South Wales tourism industry's ability to compete with Queensland for these tourists.
Page 3540
The mere announcement of the new policy has already resulted in the cancellation of a contract worth more than $300,000 between the Australian Wildlife Park and a tour company. Already coach tour wholesalers who service the Japanese market are speaking of the transfer of many tours from New South Wales to Queensland.

In recent days the Australia's Wonderland complex announced that it would open on seven days a week and create 350 new jobs in western Sydney. This proposal should proceed. I want the Minister to understand that the Opposition does not object to the standard; it is simply concerned about whether the standard operates in New South Wales or nationally. If the Government goes ahead with its plan and the financial impact on the Australian Wildlife Park continues, it will put at risk the opening of Australia's Wonderland on a seven-day a week basis and it could possibly cost 350 jobs in western Sydney which would mostly involve young people. I do not need to tell the Minister how important it is to address the issue.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Absolute rubbish! You are the victim of a scare campaign.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The honourable member interjects about scare campaigns. I will tell her about scare campaigns shortly and about some of the nonsense that the Minister for Agriculture has peddled in the media recently as to what sort of harm might come to the koalas. In fact, the Minister urged people to boycott a wildlife park in his own electorate! I do not remember in the history of New South Wales any Minister having responsibility for tourism or concerned with tourism asking for the boycott of a particular wildlife park or tourist facility.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: The biggest employer in his own electorate.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Indeed, one of the biggest employers in his own electorate and he has asked people to boycott it. That is an unbelievable shame and the Hon. Jan Burnswoods should be ashamed of referring to scare campaigns. In recent days a very respected tourism association, the Inbound Tourism Organisation of Australia, known as ITOA, indicated that this regulation could potentially mean the loss of $60 million annually in revenue for New South Wales and reduce the number of people employed in wildlife parks. I accept that there will be questions about all of those numbers and figures, but it cannot be argued that the implementation of this regulation in New South Wales, given that it has already resulted in the cancellation of a contract for the Australian Wildlife Park, will have other than an adverse effect on the tourism industry.

One of my concerns is that the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Amery, has been making definitive statements about wildlife management which are erroneous and clearly illustrate that he does not know what he is talking about. On Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio 2BL this morning, in an interview with Philip Clark, the Minister for Agriculture is quoted as saying that the new regulation is aimed at prohibiting the passing of koalas from one tourist to another. The Minister said, with some sort of conviction, that koalas at places such as the Australian Wildlife Park were being passed from one tourist to another. I assure honourable members that that does not happen. Koalas are not passed from one tourist to another; they are passed from a handler, who is trained in the handling of koalas, to a tourist for a photograph and then taken back. The tourists are not allowed to touch the koalas, they simply handle a toy on which the koalas are placed.

The Minister is in error in talking this emotional nonsense about passing koalas from one tourist to another. The Minister saying that merely indicates his ignorance on this issue. The Minister said further that the practice involves feeding the koalas and they are passed from one tourist to another, probably involving a couple of coachloads of tourists in any one day; that the stress this causes the animal has been recognised by the industry; and that the Government had moved, as a proper animal welfare reform, to announce the ending of this practice. Not only are koalas not passed from one person to another, but the koalas are not handled by a couple of coachloads of tourists over the course of a day. At the Australian Wildlife Park, which objects to this regulation, koalas are put on exhibition for handling by tourists, in the manner I have described, for an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon for a single day, and then rested for a full day. This is in excess of the standard which has been recently endorsed by the Queensland Government. It has recently published standards - I emphasise recently - which allow a far greater level of handling than even this moderate proposal. The Minister went on to say in reference to tourist dollars:

. . . I think that argument is absurd and I don't think there are any figures at all to substantiate that it will affect our tourism.

How would he know unless he asked? All the people capable of giving information on the matter have advised that it will have an impact on tourism dollars. Japanese tourism is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the country. Not much change to Japanese visiting habits would be required to result in a substantial decrease in tourism earnings in this State. I do not know what the figure is, but I have no doubt that there will be an impact. I refer to a letter which the Minister for Agriculture sent to the owners of the Australian Wildlife Park. He said:

Other industry members believe that koala handling under the amended standards will be able to be marketed as a superior visitor experience, enabling the visitors to interact with koalas in their own environment.

He said that he felt confident that custom will not be lost, and might increase. There is no evidence that tourism will increase as a result of the increased standards. I have received representations from the Inbound Tourism Organisation of Australia Limited, which has written to the Premier, I understand in the last 24 hours, expressing its concern at the new standards. The letter states in part that -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They are not toys to
Page 3541
be played with.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do not suggest for a moment that koalas are toys. We are not playing around with this motion; we are talking about people's lives and jobs. The managing director of ITOA wrote to the Premier on 20 November expressing disbelief at the way in which the issue has been handled as per the press release of the Minister for Agriculture dated 28 August. He expressed his lack of understanding of the acceptance of the likely damage this decision will do to our industry in New South Wales. He wrote:

There is a sense of disbelief coming from within your Ministry that this is not the case but I can assure you, although many people may not necessarily say so publicly, it will have an effect and could potentially mean the loss of $60 million annually in revenue for this State and will reduce the number of people employed in the various parks.

There is a perception that it will only be a matter of time before all of the States fall into line but indications at this stage are that it will not happen in the foreseeable future and therefore New South Wales are placing themselves at a commercial disadvantage with no real need.

I will deal later with what is likely to happen in Queensland. Honourable members will doubtless hear from the Minister a response which says that the decision is supported by the - I understand there are only 30 and not 33 - members of the New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks. I have spoken to the president of the organisation, Ms Giovanna Pawson, and explained to her that my concern is not about the standard; it is about the rate at which the standard is to be implemented in New South Wales before it applies to other States. It is important to understand what is driving the new standards within the State. Thirty parks are represented on the New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks. Only 12 of those parks - less than a majority - actually keep koalas.

So the decision is not supported, as the Minister in error said on radio, by the industry of koala carers; it is supported by a group of marine parks which keep fauna. This includes dolphin parks which might have no koalas. Only eight of the parks which are represented on the association have in excess of five koalas. So the bulk of the people concerned about the regulation are much larger exhibitors of koalas than the people who are passing judgment on them. To some extent it is not fair to say that the statement by the fauna and marine parks represents the industry's final statement, because the industry exists not only in New South Wales; it exists right across Australia. Whilst the fauna parks in New South Wales may have a view decided by a majority, the majority view may well be different if one were to consult across the country. We are not concerned only about exhibitors but about the greater tourism industry.

I refer members who might have doubts about the regulation to no better authority than Miss Debora Tabart, who is the Executive Director of the Australian Koala Foundation. There is no more prestigious organisation representing the handlers of koalas. She today and yesterday supported this motion, while speaking on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio. She said that in August, not very long ago, the Australian Koala Foundation held a conference on the status of koalas in 1995. The conference was attended by more than 200 people, including distinguished experts on the koala - Professor Ian Hume and Dr David Close, who are well known in New South Wales - and even park owners with a single koala. After debate which she described to me as heated - I provide that detail for the information of the House - the conference resolved the following about koala cuddling:

The current anti-koala cuddling sentiment is economically driven whereas cuddling should be an animal management issue.

A scientific research project by Dr Rosie Booth at Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary showed that properly managed koala cuddling is not stressful to the koala.

A large captive population of koalas is important as a backup population in case wild koalas are diminished.

The three recommendations of the conference were:

1. The wildlife park industry must collectively agree to koala management cuddling standards. The industry must present a united front regarding this issue to the Federal Government. It should be up to the individual institutions to determine whether or not they allow cuddling. Note: the Queensland Wildlife Parks Association has a code of practice that is an excellent guideline.

So they have not criticised koala cuddling. They have not so much endorsed it but suggested that it should be subject to some regulation. The recommendations continued:

2. For parks that allow koala cuddling, it is critical that their conservation/education message is increased dramatically through a variety of means.

3. Because of the large numbers of koalas needed for koala cuddling, NSW must devise and implement a browse plantation plan to prevent the destruction of native eucalypt forests. (Queensland has a plan that should be used as a prototype).

I spoke to Miss Tabart this afternoon and received from her this further explanation. She said that there is no scientific proof that koalas are stressed as a result of being cuddled in the way in which they are being handled in the Australian Wildlife Park. There is no study which defines what the stress is or sets out how it is derived. She told me that the issue of koala cuddling -

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Who are you quoting?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am quoting Miss Debora Tabart, Executive Director of the Australian Koala Foundation, the most distinguished koala organisation in this country. She said that the issue of koala cuddling has nothing to do with animal welfare - it is an economically driven argument about gate takings. Smaller parks that do not allow koala cuddling object to parks that do. They object because a substantial collection of koalas is needed - I understand the number held by the Australian Wildlife Park is in the order of 60 - in order to produce young koalas suitable for handling and a large enough number of koalas to allow safe rotation so that they are not stressed by the experience. For example, I understand that the Queensland competitor has more
Page 3542
than 130 koalas. They are extremely expensive to keep, and the short period of handling of only 15 minutes a day allowed in Queensland is designed to protect the koalas. It is obvious that a large number of koalas is needed.

It does not come as a surprise to me that an organisation such as the New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks has voted against koala handling procedures practised in larger wildlife parks. In my view and in the view of the Australian Koala Foundation they are trying to cut off their competition. That was the very concern I raised when the matter came before the Regulation Review Committee. It is not fair to make regulations based on numbers. Regulations about the management of koalas in exhibition parks should be based on science. My greatest concern about the regulation is that it is based not on science but on an economic concept of whether all parks or only large parks ought to have the opportunity to exhibit koalas. An enormous amount of emotive nonsense has been peddled about how koalas are handled in exhibition parks.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Here today.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I look forward to the response of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I have received one, and only one, representation to my office urging me not to go ahead with the disallowance. That was from the Koala Preservation Society of New South Wales. One would have thought that an organisation with that name would know its facts. The society stated:

If wildlife parks are sedating the animals or filing down their claws for the sake of photo opportunities this is nothing short of cruelty.

Those practices are prohibited in wildlife parks in New South Wales under current standards, and there is no suggestion they are taking place. I cannot seriously take into consideration a representation involving such emotive errors. I am not concerned about the standard for handling koalas in this State.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: That is precisely what you should be concerned about. Probably the first really honest thing the honourable member has said in this debate so far is that he is not concerned about the standard of handling koalas.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The honourable member interjects without listening to all I have said.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I have been listening very carefully.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do not think the honourable member has been listening carefully. I am not concerned about the rigorousness of the content of the standard.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You should be.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: If the honourable member will give me half a minute to complete a sentence -

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The Hon. Jan Burnswoods, who is interjecting, will have an opportunity to contribute to debate at a later time.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: There would be no problem if a national standard were implemented that decreed that the most appropriate way to exhibit koalas was for tourists to see them only in the fork of a tree, to stand 10 metres away and to photograph them without a flash. No wildlife park would have a commercial advantage in those circumstances. Although I have referred to standards, I do not want this debate to be overtaken by undue concern about the standards. Neither I nor any other member is a veterinarian. Therefore, none of us is able to speak definitively on the standards for koala handling.

The Hon. I. Cohen: What is a koala worth?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I know koalas in New South Wales are worth as much as koalas in Queensland.

The Hon. I. Cohen: The honourable member is evading the issue. That is irrelevant.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do not intend to respond to every interjection, but it is interesting that the honourable member raised the issue of a koala's worth as though that were a bad question to ask. Miss Tabart, from the Australian Koala Foundation, to whom I referred earlier, told me that she was pleased that at last the question was being discussed on economic grounds, if for no other reason than it would make Australians aware of how valuable their koala resource is to the country.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: In the wild?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: In the wild or in captivity.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I thought you were talking about the standard.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am talking about the standard. I have responded to the members' interjections as I have responded to those of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. The critical question in the Opposition raising this issue is -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How much money can be made from koalas. That is all.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Is the honourable member finished? I do not think I am likely to interject throughout the honourable member's speech nearly as much as he has interjected throughout mine.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You are quite welcome to if you can find anything worth saying.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! I suggest that members not attempt to interrupt the contribution of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones as often as they have interrupted the contribution of the Hon. J. F. Ryan. The members who are interjecting, most of whom are on the list to speak in this debate, will have an opportunity to contribute at the appropriate time.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The issue that has
Page 3543
generated the Opposition's concern is whether standards are likely to apply on a national basis, whatever those standards are, if they are introduced on a state-by-state basis. One of the things the Minister has been saying that justifies acting in New South Wales in the time frame in which he has outlined is that he is negotiating with the Queensland Government - and I am sure the Minister will include some reference to this in his contribution - to introduce the same standard. I put to the Minister, and his spokesman in this House, that he is being played for a break, because in the past 24 hours I have contacted the office of the Minister for the Environment, a Labor Minister, who is responsible for this matter in Queensland, the Hon. Tom Barton, and I have inquired of his staff what progress is being made in Queensland on the issue.

I was informed by a member of his staff, who I understand is his policy adviser in these matters, that only recently in Queensland had the standard for handling koalas been revised, and it was at the printers. I was supplied with a copy, dated October 1995. I suspect this is not the final copy, but the content is probably accurate. These standards will apply to koala handling in Queensland. First, it will permit body-to-body handling of koalas, which is not permitted in New South Wales. The only means whereby a person may handle a koala in New South Wales is when it is attached to some sort of carpet toy. It will allow keeper-assisted photography, where the koala is held by the keeper and the public stand beside them. It will allow pole photography, which is the proposal of the Minister, and pole photography in the animal enclosure. It is outrageous that tourists are allowed to go into the enclosure where the animals rest. It would hardly be suggested that the Queensland Government is thinking of introducing a standard anything like the rigid standard set in New South Wales if this represents its most recent statement on the subject.

Further standards for the handling of koalas, which are no so bad, are that all time that an individual koala is handled is to be recorded. Handling time includes any time when a koala is removed from its normal place of residence. A record sheet must be maintained and be available for inspection at any time. The maximum period that an individual koala may be handled is 30 minutes a day. The maximum period that an individual koala may be handled is 180 minutes a week. An individual koala may not be used for more than three days consecutively before receiving a rest day. Only trained koala keepers are to place or remove the koala from another person's body or a tree fork. Only captive bred koalas of suitable temperament, which is to be determined by the responsible koala officers, are to be handled. Only fully weaned or independent koalas are to be handled. At absolutely no time is a female koala to be handled when it has pouch young or back young. Finally, sufficient numbers of experienced, identifiable employees must be in attendance where any koala handling occurs to protect the koalas from abuse and harassment to ensure that the koalas are not upset.

I assure honourable members that I was told by the officer from Mr Barton's office that it was highly unlikely that the standard would be changed within the course of the next year owing to the lengthy and arduous consultation that had taken place in Queensland to ratify it. What chance is there of the Queensland Minister for Agriculture agreeing to the request from the Hon. Richard Amery that he change the Queensland standard to the one that applies in New South Wales? I suspect that there is absolutely no chance. The officer also said that the committee that had set out the standard also concluded that there was no strong evidence to suggest that the handling of koalas, picking them up, was stressful to them.

I look forward to responding to the remarks of other honourable members who contribute to the debate. However, I want to say to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, who will be speaking to this issue on behalf of the Government, that the New South Wales Government must not go it alone and introduce more stringent rules for koala handling. If this State goes out on a limb, it will give a large slice of its tourist market to Queensland and other States. I do not believe that koalas will come to any harm under the current standard but, if a new standard is needed to abolish the practice of passing koalas, it should be drawn up out nationally. The coalition has moved this disallowance motion to draw this issue to the attention of the House. I inform the Minister that I will happily withdraw the motion if I receive an assurance from him today that the Government will guarantee that it will introduce new standards, whatever they are, only on the condition that Queensland introduces the same standards at the same time.

The manner in which the regulation is promulgated is also unfair. It is able to be promulgated by the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture from time to time. That means that the regulation will never come under the scrutiny of this Parliament, but for this fleeting moment. If the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. I. Cohen or the Hon. Jan Burnswoods are not satisfied with the stringent standards set down in the code, they will not be able to make any reference to disallowing it at all. Because of the manner in which it will be promulgated, they probably will not even know about it.

I am most concerned that a standard that can have a huge impact on our tourist industry can be introduced by a faceless bureaucrat at an unknown time. I would prefer that the regulation was disallowed and immediately redrafted by the Government according to the current standard so that it can be scrutinised. However, I am prepared to overcome that concern in order to gain a Government guarantee that, for the benefit of our tourist industry, we will not do this alone. I will be happy if the Minister says, "This is the standard we want; this is
Page 3544
how we are going forward. I shall raise this issue at the Australian and New Zealand Environment Ministers Council and the Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, which represents Ministers for agriculture, and have it decided on a national basis and imposed across the country."

I would be perfectly happy if the Minister made representations to Senator Faulkner and asked him to introduce legislation at the Federal level. As I have said, I do not care how rigorous those standards are. As a representative of New South Wales I will stand up every time jobs are put at risk and to protect the New South Wales tourism industry, which has been phenomenally successful. I will be the first to move that this motion be adjourned and eventually withdrawn if the Minister gives the House that guarantee. I have no desire to have honourable members take sides in relation to the tourist industry.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK [5.44]: I support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. J. F. Ryan. He has given a detailed and professional enunciation of the concerns of the Opposition. I endorse what he has said, and I do not intend to repeat his remarks. However, I shall briefly add a slightly different perspective to the issue, which I think will highlight and illuminate the concern of the Opposition. A proposal to ban the handling of koalas was put to a number of members of the former Government 12 or 18 months ago. At that time it was suggested that the matter had the support of all Australian Ministers for agriculture and that New South Wales had to move quickly to endorse the proposal or it would be left behind and would be regarded as uncaring about koalas.

A number of members of the former Government - I was the Minister for Tourism - thought they should find out how serious other States were about their prohibition on handling. Some States do not have wildlife parks, so they do not need regulations or prohibitions. New South Wales and Queensland are the only States relevant to this debate. The same work that has been done by my friend and colleague the Hon. J. F. Ryan in recent days was done more than a year ago to try to determine what was happening in Queensland. That State was playing us off a break. Some honourable members have made emotive interjections about the care of koalas.

There is undisputedly a commercial war going on between New South Wales and Queensland for the tourist dollar. Let us not kid ourselves: money and jobs are at stake. They are important for the economy of New South Wales. The previous Government did not move ahead with the proposal because it feared that if it moved the Queensland tourist operators or the Queensland tourism commission would actively advertise that Queensland allowed, and made available, the cuddling of koalas. If the Queensland department of agriculture, the Queensland Minister for agriculture or Mr Goss were fair dinkum, they would have moved in the past 12 or 18 months. That is when New South Wales was told that Queensland would move and if New South Wales did not move in step it would look bad.

Queensland has not moved, nor does it intend to do so. Recently I was watching television and during the commercial break I saw a visually beautiful advertisement promoting Hamilton Island that encouraged tourists to visit Hamilton Island and cuddle a koala. That is exactly what will happen if the Government is duchessed on this issue. The same people are putting up the same proposal for the same zealot-like and ridiculous reasons. At the bottom of the regulation is a commercial war between New South Wales and Queensland. If the Government proceeds down this path, it will lose the war.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.50]: The Government opposes the motion for disallowance and supports the regulation proposed by my colleague in another place the Minister for Agriculture. By way of preliminary comment, I should inform honourable members that the Minister for Agriculture has advised me that the Queensland Government has indicated at this stage that it will reconsider the koala handling issue at a meeting of agriculture Ministers to be held in March next year.

The current standard prescribed by the exhibited animals protection regulations allows fauna park visitors to hold and pat koalas while the animal sits on an object, such as a cushion, under the supervision of park staff. A majority of New South Wales fauna park industry members have indicated that they believe this activity causes unacceptable stress to the koalas. The New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks has lobbied the previous Minister and Premier to upgrade legislation to prevent koalas from being held by visitors, but to allow koala cuddling to the extent of putting an arm around the animal while it remains on a fixed perch. As of 1 January 1997, my colleague the Hon. Richard Amery, Minister for Agriculture, intends to implement the following standard:

Each operator exhibiting koalas to the public shall:

(a) Provide a sufficient number of experienced, identifiable staff in attendance at any session allowing visitors to handle koalas to protect koalas from abuse and harassment where koala handling occurs and to ensure that stress on the koalas does not occur.

(b) Ensure that koalas are not placed directly on any visitor or directly held by any visitor for any purpose. Handling of koalas by members of the public shall be restricted to patting, stroking and cuddling to the extent of putting an arm around the koala while the animal remains on a fixed perch.

(c) Ensure that koalas are not repeatedly removed from objects to which they are clinging.

Featherdale Wildlife Park, along with 33 other parks in New South Wales, is keen for the draft regulation to become practice. The proposal has the full support
Page 3545
of both the Exhibited Animals Advisory Committee and the New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks, and I shall quote a letter shortly from the latter body stating exactly that the Australian Wildlife Park is the one dissenting voice.

The Hon. Franca Arena: In Tokyo, where our koalas are kept, no-one is allowed to touch the koalas.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: That is a very interesting observation, for which I thank the Hon. Franca Arena. If this disallowance motion is successful, koalas may be exhibited with disregard to existing standards, which were specifically designed to ensure acceptable welfare regarding the display of koalas. These koala standards were compiled after Australia-wide consultation with koala exhibitors, biologists and animal welfare groups, and many States have used these standards as the basis for their own State standards.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: They have not.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My advice is that that is so. The New South Wales koala standards have been in existence, with minor modifications, since July 1989.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: I have just read the new Queensland standard, which does not even resemble that standard.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I know that the Hon. J. F. Ryan thinks that he is a world authority on many things, but I am telling the House the advice I have received. If the motion were passed, Parliament would effectively be placing pressure on koala exhibitors to exploit koalas in the manner desired by the Australian Wildlife Park in order to maintain market share. The intensity of such exploitation on a statewide basis would be detrimental to the individual animals and the captive koala population as a whole. The Regulation Review Committee has not recommended that the regulation be amended. That committee, after all, is the appropriate parliamentary body to consider the appropriateness of regulations against established criteria.

The current standard allows visitors at parks to hold and pat koalas while the animal sits on an object such as a cushion. In future, operators exhibiting koalas will need to provide experienced staff to ensure that the animals are not harassed or placed directly on visitors. Members of the public will be restricted to patting, stroking and cuddling to the extent of putting an arm around the koala while the animal remains on a fixed perch. Park operators will also be required to prevent the repeated removal of koalas from objects to which they are clinging. The New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks, to its credit, fully supports the ban, and I believe it is in line with community expectations. I now refer the House to a letter dated 18 November - as recently as last Saturday - to the Hon. J. F. Ryan, which reads:

Dear Mr Ryan

We have been advised that you are intending to put a motion to the Legislative Council on November 20th, which will effectively disallow any legally required standards to govern the handling of koalas in NSW wildlife parks and zoos.

We also understand your arguments will be primarily based on the needs of the NSW tourist industry.

We believe that you may have been grossly misinformed as to the precise facts governing this tourist animal welfare issue. In apparently accepting the opinions of one park and the tourist operators who are currently visiting that one park, you are in the grave position of ignoring the collective and unanimous voice of all other koala parks in NSW and their interactive tourist operators.

Accordingly may we ask you to consider and table the following facts:

1. It has been stated that tourists will no longer be able to _cuddle', `touch' or `handle' koalas in NSW. This is not correct. Tourists will be allowed to cuddle, touch and handle koalas to their hearts content - but not remove them from the branch on which they are sitting or hold their body weight; (a slight but significantly pleasing change to overseas visitors in particular).

2. The recommendation governing the handling of koalas in NSW was made after in depth consultation with the industry as a whole and its interactive tourist associates.

3. The recommendation not only was unanimous in NSW (with the 1 exception who incidentally agreed in principle!) but was further endorsed by every one of the State zoos in Australia who are totally opposed to koala holding.

4. The recommendation was underpinned by the publicly stated and undisputed fact, that not only the WA, SA, Victorian and NSW State zoos but the largest established parks in NSW i.e. Koala Park and all other koala parks in NSW state "not only is there no loss of customers" (due to non holding), but "there is a positive plus being gained in reputation and credibility."

May we, with respect, suggest that instead of supporting such a backward step in the way a zoo presents an endangered animal, the park concerned and your good self consider the marketing platform on which this decision is mounted and reconsider, before doing irreparable damage to Australia's tourism reputation.

Finally and perhaps most worthy of consideration is the fact that in the (we sincerely trust) unlikely event of this motion being supported, it will only harden the resolve of the NSW industry opposed to koala holding (not handling) and lead to the unbelievable result of the Australian Wildlife Park being totally isolated within NSW as the only park pursuing this exploitative practice; for it's own inevitable vulnerability, this would be as undesirable for the park as for the industry.

As a footnote may we leave you with this fact:

•there are currently 300 koalas in NSW zoos. Only young non breeding animals can be used for koala holding. They number at most 100.

•can it be seriously considered that 100 endangered and vulnerable animals can be used to service a touring `holding' visitation of 3.3 million this year, rising to 6 million by the year 2000?

We trust the foregoing will illuminate what has been a cloudy (and at times miasma of misinformation) issue.

Yours sincerely

Giovanna Pawson
President
NSW Association of Fauna and Marine Parks
Member Exhibited Animals Advisory Committee

That letter says it all. It expresses the view of the industry in New South Wales, with one exception. This Government supports the regulation as proposed
Page 3546
and opposes the motion for disallowance put to the House by the Hon. J. F. Ryan.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.00]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I oppose the motion to disallow the regulation. I should like to follow on from the Minister's comments. Giovanna Pawson, President of the New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks, also said that the association considered that pass-the-parcel koala holding projected entirely the wrong image of care for this endangered animal. A few nights ago I made a speech concerning this issue, so I shall not go to great lengths on it this evening. It is interesting that coalition members protest so strongly about regulations to protect koalas from being held and stressed out by a thousand visitors a day at the Australian Wildlife Park when during its seven years in office it lifted not a finger to stop koalas from being killed in the wild.

I asked many questions in the House and often mentioned the plight of koalas in the wild, yet the previous Government did absolutely nothing to protect koalas in the wild - it was more interested in protecting the profits of the Australian Wildlife Park. I remember asking a question in the House following a logging operation near Coffs Harbour after which koalas were found bleeding and injured, but nothing was done about that. Koalas are still dying after logging operations. After a recent logging operation up north I found a dead koala. Coalition members protest so much about whether or not a visitor should hold a koala or just pat it, and spend an hour's debating time in the House on behalf of a single wildlife park out of 34 such parks in this State. I suspect that the Hon. J. F. Ryan lives close to that particular park. Apparently 1,000 visitors a day visit the park. They handle approximately 51 koalas, that being about 20 persons per koala per day.

That would be pretty stressful to the koalas. As the Hon. Franca Arena pointed out, in Japan people are not allowed even to tap on the glass of a koala compound, so that the koalas will not get stressed. Koalas have been treated appallingly over the past 200 years by Europeans who came to colonise this State, and they are still being treated badly, unwittingly by visitors who love koalas, particularly Japanese tourists who love koalas and are not allowed to touch them in Tokyo, and by those who have cleared their habitat without any thought of the koalas in the trees. On a recent occasion Boral reported that there were no koalas in a particular area, because the company wanted to carry out logging, but a member of the news media found a koala in that very place. After having spent seven years in government and doing nothing for koalas in the wild, coalition members now protest about a move that will slightly increase protection for the 51 koalas in the Australian Wildlife Park. The Australian Democrats cannot possibly support this disallowance motion, which is ill advised and to the disadvantage of koalas.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.03]: Government members who have spoken in the debate and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones have completely missed the point of this disallowance motion. That is quite convenient for them, because they cannot sustain their argument otherwise. The Hon. J. F. Ryan in his motion laboured the point that the position of the Opposition on this issue is not the handling of koalas per se but the adoption of a national approach to deal with regulations concerning the handling of koalas. The Minister avoided the challenge issued by the Hon. J. F. Ryan to defer bringing down the regulation until consensus is reached with Queensland. I might add that we are talking about this Government's Labor Party mates in Queensland, and it would be thought that the Government would have some dialogue with them. If consultation is undertaken expeditiously, the Government might still be able to implement the regulation by 1 January 1997.

That is not a difficult proposal for the Government to come to terms with, and I would have expected the Government to jump at the opportunity to acknowledge the importance of adopting a national approach, so that New South Wales would be able to compete with Queensland on this issue. The Minister would be well aware of the priority Queensland accords its tourism industry. It is a pity that the Labor Government in this State does not take tourism a little more seriously also, so that this State might be a little more competitive. The New South Wales tourism industry returns $8.2 billion per annum to the economy, as the Treasurer would know, yet this House is passing up an opportunity to improve this State's competitiveness.

The Minister could well defer implementation of the regulation and take this issue to the next meeting of the Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and have the matter resolved amicably. As I understand the position, implementation of the regulation will mean that Japanese tourists stay less time in this State. If they stay one day less, working on the basis of one in five of them spending a day at the wildlife parks, the result will be an annual cost of $60 million to this State's tourism. Surely that should ring bells for the Treasurer, if not for anyone else. It is important that New South Wales does not give away hard-won opportunities to Queensland and pass up the chance to retain tourists in this State. Surely Queensland already has enough advantages - that State has more sunshine hours per day than other States, and it is driven towards tourism. At every opportunity we should try to retain tourists in New South Wales. If that means delaying the implementation of a regulation for a short time, so be it. Clearly, the Government has not responded to that challenge.

I understand that there is only one more Government speaker scheduled to speak in the debate, and I hope that she has the courage to face up to the issues raised by the Opposition. It is important to consider deferral of implementation of the regulation, rather than just to quote letters ad nauseam. Opposition members also could quote letters ad nauseam - the Hon. J. F. Ryan could still be
Page 3547
speaking for another hour and a half if he were to do that. But that is not what the issue is about. The issue is about making sure that Queensland does not get a break on this State in the retention of tourists. One would have thought that the cancellation of a $300,000 contract to the one park that supports the regulation would be enough to attract the interest of members from the west, in particular the local member, who is the Minister for Agriculture.

Surely the Minister for Agriculture would be interested in something that is happening in his electorate. I guess that he is on such a steep learning curve, going around the country trying to understand a little about agriculture, that he would not have time to visit his own electorate and find out about the needs of a major employer in that electorate. There is a challenge for the Minister to consult not only his own electorate but also his Labor Party colleagues in Queensland as soon as he can, to aim for a national approach towards this issue. A great deal of nonsense has been spoken about the Australian Wildlife Park. Members should realise that the park breeds all of its own koalas - animals are not plucked out of the wilderness, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would have us believe. They are not picked up from underneath bulldozers, taken to the park and then thrust into the arms of a tourist.

The park has a very successful breeding operation. Last year some 18 breeding females produced 17 progeny. The young animals are brought up in that environment, they are used to people and to tourists, and I would not have thought that there would be too much stress on those koalas compared with animals in zoos and in the wild. A lot of nonsense has been spoken in this debate. I challenge the Government to get back to the real issue: will it defer the implementation of this regulation until after the Minister has had time to consult with Queensland? Hopefully Queensland will then fall into line and we will have a national approach which will give no special commercial advantage to our neighbouring State.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.10]: I speak against the proposal to disallow the standard relating to exhibiting koalas in New South Wales. I support the remarks of the Hon. R. D. Dyer, the Minister for Community Services, and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for the Australian Democrats. I express my deep regret at the motion moved by the Hon. J. F. Ryan and some of the things he said. It seems clear that either one of two things has happened. In the past I found the Hon. J. F. Ryan a sincere member with deep commitments I cannot believe that the person I have known him to be in the past could possibly have had his heart in moving this motion. Earlier I said to him that if he had his heart in this then I cannot believe that he has so little concern for the koala as a representative of endangered native animals in Australia. I fear that his heart is not in this issue at all but that he has moved a motion surrounded by a lot of misleading, if not quite inaccurate, material solely because of pressure placed on him and the Liberal Party by one wildlife park in New South Wales.

As has been said many times in this debate, with 34 fauna and marine parks in New South Wales supporting this regulation, only one, the Australian Wildlife Park, has dissented. Despite what has been said by Opposition members about what is happening in other States, and despite their scare tactics and the nonsense we heard from them, the fact remains that only one wildlife park in New South Wales is seeking to have this regulation disallowed. Honourable members could be forgiven for wondering whether the relationship between the Liberal Party, particularly the Hon. J. F. Ryan, the people of western Sydney and the wildlife park may not leave something to be imagined about the financial basis of that relationship. The hysteria - and that is the only way it can be described - of the speech by the Hon. J. F. Ryan and the interjections now from members opposite seem to reflect entirely partisan support for one wildlife park against the advice of literally everybody involved in the care of koalas, and the operation of wildlife parks and zoos in all States of this country.

The opinion in support of this regulation is nearly unanimous and fits in with the long-term trend in this country, and elsewhere, to have zoos and other places where wildlife is exhibited move away from the horrible old exploitative, uncaring and cruel presentation of animals for public exhibition, towards the model we see at Taronga Park and Dubbo and other zoos. This regulation fits in with the move towards treating animals with dignity - not treating them cruelly, not placing koalas under the degree of stress that scientific evidence suggests they are exposed to when passed from person to person, or placed on cushions or furry imitation koalas. The evidence of the stress suffered by koalas under that situation is obvious.

The move in zoos, wildlife parks, fauna and marine parks and reserves is all in the other direction - towards protecting animals, turning those places into refuges and breeding species for endangered species, and away from the crass, commercial, for-profit exploitation that the Hon. J. F. Ryan appears to be supporting. I will not take up the time of the House by going through the enormous range of support for this regulation. Both the Minister for Community Services and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones have gone through some of that. I have pointed out that of the 34 parks in New South Wales all but one support this regulation. The Minister read the letter by Ms Pawson from the New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks in which she spells out her support at considerable length. He read also from various statements by the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Amery, in which he refers to the discussions which have taken place over the last couple of years.

In that context I mention how disappointed I was to hear the remarks made by the Hon. Virginia Chadwick in supporting the motion. I have a letter of October 1993 from the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, at a time when she was the Minister for Tourism,
Page 3548
addressed to Ms Pawson of the Association of Fauna and Marine Parks in which the Hon. Virginia Chadwick refused to meet with Ms Pawson to discuss this matter. It seems that in 1993 the coalition Government was totally dependent on the advice of one wildlife park in relation to this matter. The Hon. J. F. Ryan made much of the comments from Miss Debora Tabart of the Australian Koala Foundation. Without going into detail about the Australian Koala Foundation I point out that many members of this House, and elsewhere, do not hold the Australian Koala Foundation in anything like the regard the Hon. J. F. Ryan has suggested. Indeed, the Australian Koala Foundation is widely regarded as a tool of Boral in the timber industry and is drawing the majority of its funding from Boral. It is in many cases an apologist for the destruction of the koala habitat in the wild.

If the Hon. J. F. Ryan wants to find strong reasons for supporting his motion to disallow this regulation, he should find bodies that are far more reputable than the Australian Koala Foundation. I refer to the Koala Preservation Society of New South Wales Incorporated and a letter written by its president Emilie Cooper. I point out that the Koala Preservation Society does a fantastic job in the Port Macquarie area by trying to preserve the habitat of koalas and to operate the koala hospital to save the lives of koalas damaged on the roads and elsewhere. The letter from the Koala Preservation Society very strongly urges this House not to support the motion moved by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. Similarly the New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks and most zoos in Australia, with the exception of Lone Pine Sanctuary and Dreamworld in Queensland, refuse to indulge in the so-called "pass the teddy" practice that the Hon. J. F. Ryan is trying to support.

This regulation has been promulgated after a long period of consideration. Despite all the scare tactics proposed by the Hon. J. F. Ryan and other Opposition members who have spoken, this regulation does not come into effect immediately. It is due to come into effect in January 1997, well over a year away. This date has been set deliberately to allow wildlife parks that put out brochures and other advertising material relating to this "pass the teddy" practice will have time to change that information. The regulation reflects the advice of Australian zoos and wildlife parks. Obviously they have an economic interest in this matter but they are prepared to support this far-reaching reform. It also fits in with the national koala strategy being prepared under the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council and in which New South Wales is participating. It has the strong support of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and of other organisations in New South Wales, except the Australian Wildlife Park and some - I hope not all - of the more short-sighted and hypocritical members of the Opposition in this House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.20]: I wish to speak briefly to the disallowance motion moved by the Hon. J. F. Ryan, which was in the following terms:

That under section 41(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows the words "Standards of Exhibiting Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in New South Wales" in clause 8(2) of the Exhibited Animals Protection Regulations 1995, published in Government Gazette No. 105, dated 1 September 1995, page 5382, and tabled in this House on 19 September 1995.

I share the concern of other speakers about the effect of the regulation and about the principle that there must be uniform legislation in Australia. As in previous years, a great deal of uniform legislation dealing with a whole range of issues was introduced this year. On occasion honourable members have been told that the House had no choice but to pass a bill because it was part of a national scheme that had been adopted by various State health Ministers or Attorneys General. This legislation is something which directly affects New South Wales and puts New South Wales at a disadvantage compared with Queensland.

Honourable members are aware, from information the Treasurer has put before this House regarding the showground deal and other strategic projects, that unless New South Wales is quick off the mark it will be beaten by Queensland. Even though we are all part of Australia and supposed to be Australians, there is no doubt that a vicious battle is raging between the States, particularly Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, and in many ways New South Wales is suffering. In other words, Queensland and Victoria are attacking New South Wales, changing tax laws, encouraging companies to move to those States, and bestowing extravagant gifts, if you like, on Mr Murdoch in an effort to entice him to those States, far in excess of anything that New South Wales has talked about in its agreement with the Fox organisation.

Some might say that this is a minor matter, but it is a strategic matter because it is tied to tourism. Tourism is one of the main growth areas for New South Wales. It has been in the past, and no doubt will be in the future, perhaps the most significant area of growth because of the decline in secondary industry. Honourable members will recall the Federal Government's attacks during the pilots dispute that almost wrecked our State; not to mention the no-noise campaign that has wrecked the whole approach to the airport at Mascot, upsetting the tourists travelling into or out of Sydney. It is not necessary for someone to sit down with a scheme about how to wreck New South Wales - that is going very well at the moment! It is a miracle that New South Wales is still prospering, because it has been sabotaged. There must be uniform policy throughout the country in relation to koalas. Of the groups to which reference has been made today, how many have been in touch with Mr Goss? How many have lobbied the Queensland Government? What agreements have been made with the Queensland Government? I would dare to say none; I would say Queensland is going its own way. Honourable members heard a confession from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones recently. I too must make a confession.


Page 3549
The Hon. M. R. Egan: Please don't, no.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It has nothing to do with brothels. When I was a young man I went to Queensland and visited a koala park where I nursed and cuddled a koala. I am on the side of loving and cuddling koalas and my layman's knowledge would indicate that koalas like to be cuddled. Some animals do not like being handled, but I believe that koalas like to be cuddled and nursed. They do not like being thrown around or treated roughly; they are very peaceful animals and must be treated with loving care. I believe they can be supervised by animal park staff and that arrangements could be made for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to play a supervisory role, where necessary, to ensure that koalas are not being abused.

From what I have seen on television, my impression is that Japanese tourists, particularly the girls, are more frightened of the koala than it is of them. There is no rough handling. The girls squeal and appear quite nervous about holding the koala for the purposes of a photograph. It is not an aggressive action of someone grabbing a koala and treating it in a harsh manner. There may be some who do that, but I have not noted that on the television reports I have seen. I do not want to go off on a tangent, but it is interesting to note that people can become very emotional and passionate about this matter. It reminds me of the animal liberation movement and the campaigns to prevent dolphins being kept in captivity in marine parks, even though they brought so much enjoyment to families and to children.

Only a few weeks ago I read about a man who controls the fox hunts in Britain - I think he was called the master of the hunt. The animal liberationists have terrorised him, made death threats and bomb threats, and have threatened his wife and children. He was merely the master of the hunt. It shows the level of the fanaticism, what I refer to as animal terrorism or ecoterrorism. It is all part of the big brother syndrome, of being politically correct, evidenced especially by vocal members of the Labor Party. I wonder what the next big campaign will be. Perhaps it will be to ban people riding elephants because that might hurt the elephants. Perhaps it will be to ban people riding horses because the horses might not like it.

Of course, were the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to have his way, there would eventually be a ban on the eating of meat. I would not be surprised to see a private member's bill introduced in this House along those lines. Let us get things back into perspective. Let us be sensible and seek a national policy on this issue so that New South Wales is not disadvantaged and also so that it may be possible to nurse koalas in a supervised, caring atmosphere. For that reason Call to Australia supports the disallowance motion.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. D. J. Gay) left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [8.00], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate, regardless of their points of view. I accept that the matter has been debated vigorously and in some instances intelligently. I thank members for at least having an opinion on the matter. People have questioned whether I care about koalas and the standards. To the world it really does not matter whether I care. I accept that koalas are a robust species that will continue long after I am gone.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: There is considerable doubt about that, depending on how soon you are likely to die. How many years would you put on New South Wales koalas?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: It is irritating that I cannot say a sentence without you chipping in.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. J. F. Ryan will speak to the matter before the Chair.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do care about this issue and the survival of a vulnerable species, the koala. Fauna parks and wildlife parks have a role to play in providing a backup population should there be any threat to species in the wild. They also provide valuable public education and foster an appreciation of how wonderful our wildlife are. I shall deal in reply with the points made by speakers in the debate. I was disappointed at the response of the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. It was a fairly pedestrian response from the Government which did not even refer to the tourism industry. Not a line in the Minister's speech referred to the controversy over the last two or three days. The tourism industry has been commenting in the press and I understand that tour operators have written dozens of letters to the Premier, the Minister for Tourism and the Minister for Agriculture. The Government has not responded to those representations, except for the ignorant - in the technical sense - comments of the Hon. Richard Amery saying that the regulation will make no difference at all; it could even enhance New South Wales tourism.

Nobody in the industry holds the view that implementation of the regulation will do anything to enhance New South Wales tourism in comparison with the industry in Queensland. I am disappointed - this was the whole reason for the exercise over the last two or three days - that the Government did not say that it would put New South Wales first, that it believes in the standards but will wait until they are implemented nationally. The speech by the Minister for Community Services essentially said that the Government supports the regulation and the majority of fauna park operators support the Government's attitude. I explained earlier that that regulation does not have integrity just because the Government has the numbers within the fauna parks association. There is a conflict of interest among people in the fauna parks association who are being driven by commercial considerations. It was explained by the Australian Koala Foundation that this is an argument largely
Page 3550
about gate takings; it has nothing to do with the welfare of the koala.

Members speaking against the motion presented not one scintilla of scientific evidence. It was claimed that there was such evidence, but no member referred to any study or any expert in the field who said categorically that the regulation was needed because there was scientific evidence that the responsible handling of koalas in wildlife parks was endangering or stressful to the koala. Of course, there are fairly compelling observations by people in the industry who believe that in certain circumstances the handling of koalas causes stress. I do not ignore that and I accept that the Government should take that into consideration when it sets regulations, but regulations ought to be based on scientific merit and on performance based standards after consultation within the relevant industry. We should not be consulting dolphin parks about what to do with koalas, which is what has happened.

More than half the members of the fauna association are wildlife parks which do not have koalas. Yet they are passing judgment on how best to manage koalas. It is not fair and it is not the right way to decide these matters. The Minister said that the Regulation Review Committee was the appropriate body to comment on the regulation and that it had not recommended that the regulation be disallowed. It is true that the committee did not recommend to the Parliament that the regulation be disallowed, but it has written to the Minister criticising certain aspects of how the regulation operates and asked him to consider redrafting the regulation in such a way that the standards themselves are disallowable by the Parliament. Every person on the committee accepted that it was not fair that the director-general of agriculture was able to introduce a standard dealing with something that has enormous commercial impact on people and which is not able to be disallowed. The Minister read a letter, which I referred to, from the New South Wales Association of Fauna and Marine Parks.

The most cogent point in the letter, which I accept, is that tourists will still be able to touch and cuddle koalas under the new standard. But tour wholesalers have to sell the New South Wales product overseas to foreign tourists, and those tourists will have been subjected to claims from Queensland that Queensland is the only place where koalas may be handled. It is probably already being said. New South Wales will not be able to compete because the regulation does not give freedom to do so. I accept that when tourists come to Australia, visit Sydney and see koalas on display at the zoo or in wildlife parks, the finer details of difference can be explained to them, and more often than not they accept them. I even accept that when the difference is explained to them many would prefer not to handle the koalas.

However, when they are reading their tourism brochures in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan or Korea they do not understand the difference. All they understand when they leave their home country is that they will get to see koalas in the closest possible way in Queensland; they will not have that opportunity in New South Wales. They prebook tours in their native country. It is said jokingly that Japanese tourists come to Australia, spend money fairly wildly and because they tend to deal with Japanese tour wholesalers or Japanese operated tour guide companies in this country, stay at Japanese owned hotels, and go to Japanese souvenir shops, the money they spend in Australia arrives in Japan before they do. They do not understand the subtleties of these issues when they are reading brochures in their home country.

I do not want to be xenophobic about this issue, but the major park to compete with New South Wales for interest in the koala exhibiting industry will be the Lone Pine Wildlife Park in Brisbane, which is owned by a Japanese company. Therefore, New South Wales is going to allow a foreign company to exhibit our koalas in this country and make a profit from allowing people to pass the koala - as the Minister puts it - but we will not allow an Australian-owned company operating in New South Wales the same opportunity to compete. That does not say very much for the loyalty this Government has to its own industry. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones made reference to koalas in the wild; in fact, the bulk of his speech referred to protecting koalas in the wild. I support his comments. We do need to be careful about protecting koala habitat.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Your Government did absolutely nothing to protect koalas in the wild.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: In fact, one of the comments made to me -

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: The whole point is that you come from a party and a coalition that did nothing to protect koalas.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I have difficulty speaking over the honourable member's voice. I am not going to respond to every inane interjection. If she wants to interject I will stop and when she has finished I will go on. The point the Hon. R. S. L. Jones made about protecting koalas in the wild was quite cogent, but it has absolutely nothing to do with koalas held in captivity in wildlife parks. In fact, the Australian Koala Foundation made the point that if one wanted to show credentials about protecting koalas, this is a tenth order issue; the more important issues concern habitat. However, this debate has very little to do with protecting and responding to the welfare of koalas.

I do not mean to be in any way hurtful but we must take a firm stand on this matter. I could not believe the Hon. Jan Burnswoods when she questioned my sincerity on this issue and suggested that either I or my political party was benefiting from donations from the Australian Wildlife Park and this was in some way motivating me to respond. If a constituent seeks my representation in relation to a problem, and I believe in the integrity of the case - though in some cases I have not necessarily supported everything put to me by a constituent - I will forever be proud to
Page 3551
make those representations to any government, regardless of its political colour. That is how I conduct myself as an elected representative of New South Wales.

I am receiving nothing from the wildlife park. I have visited the park on a couple of occasions, and on an occasion or two have even paid the fee to go in. I regard what I am doing as simply representing the interests of the park, because I see it as an important employer of young people and others in the community I serve. It is as important to put before the Parliament the interests of the wildlife park as it is to put the interests of anyone else. I put on the record that I find it offensive that someone would question my sincerity, when there are few things I have done with more sincerity. I am completely genuine about this issue. I am not uncaring about koalas but I am caring about the effects of red tape on businesses that operate in western Sydney.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Is this a filibuster?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: If honourable members are bored with me making representations to the Parliament on behalf of constituents, I am sorry, but I am going to represent their interests as strongly and as firmly as I can. I stated earlier that there was no scientific basis for this regulation and that it would adversely affect New South Wales. Not one member of this House laid a glove on that argument; there was not one word from the Government. I argued cogently that there might be another agenda driving this matter, that is, the difference between smaller wildlife parks and larger wildlife parks. No response was made to that argument. I gave details, as best I could from my research, as to the situation pertaining in Queensland. That State has recently fixed a new standard and has no intention of resiling from that standard in the near future.

I regret the fact that the Government cares so little about jobs and tourism in New South Wales that it was not prepared to give the assurance that I sought. I asked the Government to give an undertaking that it would not implement this regulation until it had finished consultations with Queensland and ensured that Queensland and New South Wales would act simultaneously. That undertaking has not been given. I am able to count and am aware that this motion will be negatived. Nevertheless, I believe I have won the debate on the basis of merit, in that I have argued a case to which the Government has barely responded. I have won it because of the support I have received. I have been sent all of three letters against this motion.

I have been supported by the Sydney Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inbound Tourism Organisation of Australia, Tourism Council of New South Wales, New South Wales Tourist Attraction Association, Thomas Cook Limited, Inbound Division, AAT Kings Tours Proprietary Limited, Australian Pacific Tours International Proprietary Limited, Captain Cook Cruises Proprietary Limited, and numerous other companies involved in the tourism industry that have made representations to the Government on this issue. But it has regrettably ignored them all. The Opposition has kept faith with New South Wales industry, not because it believes in the almighty buck but because it believes it is as important to protect jobs, if that can be done responsibly, as it is to protect the koala species. It is with some regret that I have to conclude and put this matter to the vote. It was never my intention to do that and I regret that the Government has not been able to give the assurance sought by the Opposition in the first place.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mrs Chadwick Mr Obeid
Mr Hannaford Mr O'Grady

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [8.27]: I move:

That the following important matter of public interest should be discussed forthwith:

The breakdown in law and order in Bourke.

This matter is of extreme urgency to the people of Bourke. They are literally at the other end of the telephone line waiting to hear whether this House, led by the Government, will hear their plea of anguish and their appeal for help in this time of great trial. I
Page 3552
have been moved to bring forward this matter because of a significant build-up in community concerns over recent months. Those concerns were exemplified by the citizens of Bourke in August. They marched in the streets, protested about the breakdown of law and order in their community and called upon the Government to come to their aid to normalise life in Bourke.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [8.29]: I have asked the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question about a letter sent by the Bourke Chamber of Commerce following the march which took place in August. A sense of great frustration was communicated to me. The people of Bourke failed to get a prompt reply from the Attorney General; they felt that the Government was washing its hands of the problem. When I raised this issue with the Attorney General it was not my intention to proceed with it as a matter of public interest. Just prior to giving notice of this motion in the House, a number of incidents greatly alarmed me and prompted me to take this action. At the bottom of this concern is the belief by the people of Bourke that the resources available to the police have proved inadequate to keep the peace, and keeping the peace in all our communities is the first responsibility of any government. Of all the freedoms we claim and all the rights we have in this country, the reasonable expectation of personal safety and the enjoyment of one's property is the most precious of all. The perception in Bourke is that the township has been abandoned to seek its own salvation, and no honourable member can sit by and treat this matter with indifference.

Also of great concern to me, after my many years of observation, is the emerging element of sustained civil disobedience in the Bourke community. There are examples of brazen, barefaced daylight affront, assaults, robbery, terrorisation and victimisation of the citizens of Bourke. The time has come to make a sustained effort to do something about it. Of equal concern to me is the evidence noticeable to all who live in the western communities that we face a summer of considerable unrest. The members of the Standing Committee on Social Issues who visited Bourke would remember the advice given by a large number of people working in various fields in the area who spoke about the warning signs of high truancy rates and the sense of heightened expectation of further unrest and anxiety in the community. Many long-term residents whom I have known for almost all my life have displayed immense fortitude over the years. They are now losing confidence in the power of the authorities to improve their lot.

It is also important for the House to note that further progress to overcome socioeconomic disadvantages that Aboriginal people endure depends on the goodwill of the entire community of Bourke. However, that goodwill is being seriously eroded. The people of Bourke have borne their sorrow and suffering phlegmatically over many years and have stoically turned their faces to the horizon seeking a brighter dawn of mutual understanding and compassion within the community. This motion is designed not to criticise the Labor Government, but to call on it and all my colleagues in this House to redouble their efforts to find a solution to these great problems.

I faced a dilemma. I have moved this motion only after careful consideration of its possible adverse consequences. Since I have been a member of this House - and most honourable members would acknowledge this if they give it some thought - I have worked diligently to try to effect solutions to problems experienced not only in Bourke but also in many other western towns in which community confrontation and civil disruption are all too common. On many occasions previously I thought it would be wise not to mention the name of a town involved, but on this occasion it is essential to be frank and mention the incidents that are occurring, the predisposing causes, and name the town involved. On this occasion Bourke is the focus of our attention.

I now briefly allude to some areas in which I have worked to try to effect solutions to contribute to better outcomes in all of those communities. Not only was I a member of the social issues committee and spoke on many occasions about the reforms to juvenile justice - which the committee advocated and the previous Government implemented - but also I made a tour at my expense with the former Attorney General's Aboriginal justice advisory committee to many towns, including Bourke, with the chairman, Bob Bellear. In all those efforts I have avoided sensationalism because I believe that that is what the people of Bourke wanted me to do over the years. Nevertheless, we are facing a new and greater crisis, which requires a more frank and direct approach.

Our desk diaries in recent days have contained a quotation from Dean Inge: "The proper time to influence the character of a child is about a hundred years before he is born". The predisposing circumstances that have brought about the civil unrest in Bourke, which is particularly centred in the Aboriginal youth of that town, has its roots in the history of settlement of this country and the dispossession of Aboriginal people over those years. If we do not do something about normalising life in Bourke, what will children in 100 years time look back upon? What cultural roots will guide them?

The history of the troubles in Bourke go back to the 1970s when a step forward was made for Aboriginal people; namely, by referendum, they were afforded full citizen rights in the Commonwealth of Australia. But as many honourable members would realise, that brought with it the challenge of unrestricted access to alcohol. Few people in this Chamber or in Bourke would argue that alcohol is not the biggest single factor that has dissolved the social bond that held together the Aboriginal communities and has led to a tremendous amount of family dysfunction and juvenile lawlessness among young adults.

Page 3553

To the great credit of the people of Bourke - I emphasise this aspect - we went through a decade of cooperation in seeking community-based solutions to the problems. A great number of initiatives resulted from government and community group cooperation. I will refer to that aspect further in a moment, but I first complete the history of this problem. Over the last 18 months or couple of years new elements in the Bourke society and other communities have displayed almost a zeal for antisocial behaviour, and everyone is completely perplexed about how to deal with the problem. Part of the problem has been the acknowledgment by well-meaning people that Aborigines were invaded in Australia. In many cases young people confronted with their misdemeanours display simply say, "You stole the land from us, so we don't accept your laws." Whatever one's philosophical approach to such statements may be, such an attitude is completely counterproductive for young people and the adult Aboriginal communities involved, who suffer the greatest damage from the antisocial behaviour to which they are so often subject.

I now mention some of the government and community initiatives of which Bourke can be very proud. A policing community consultation committee established in Bourke which was abandoned at one stage because of its lack of success has been latterly reactivated. Both male and female Aboriginal community liaison officers have been appointed who have been particularly valuable in operating what is known colloquially as the booze bus. This is operated on a no culpability basis. It is a service that offers to take people home without any charges or consequences arising from their behaviour.

We must dwell on policing and ask whether enough resources are allocated to the police. Although Bourke has an authorised police officer strength in the mid-twenties, at least one-third of the officers are on holiday at any one time. If one takes into account the need to spread the staff over three shifts, sickness and other duties such as court appearances, rarely more than two officers are available to attend any incident. In many cases, that is inadequate to deal with the incident. Residents have telephoned the police in fear of their personal safety, and the police have had to report that they cannot attend the incident, even though, in some cases, the incident may be no more than two blocks away from the police station.

The shire and the community have made other efforts. The shire has set aside time at each meeting for community relations discussions. All sections of the community discuss problems that have taken place over the month. A "towards the future" committee was formed, involving government agencies and interested citizens. That committee eventually merged into the Bourke community network, which operates with the youth support task force initiative, the work of former Premier John Fahey. The Bourke development committee has a wide agenda but is particularly interested in law and order and in normalising societal life in Bourke. The Chamber of Commerce has been active. Honourable members have seen a foolscap sheet that the Chamber of Commerce has distributed, outlining the crisis meeting it held and advocating the use of apprehended violence orders as a means of controlling some of the antisocial behaviour in front of its establishment.

A remarkable establishment has been that of an Aboriginal women's group in Bourke which has attempted to operate night patrols to pick up children who appear to be wandering around without any proper home to go to. The group has been provided with a vehicle through community resources, but, sadly, the Department of Community Services has recently advised the group that its activity places it in legal jeopardy and that it should not try to apprehend or in any way to put pressure on children who come into their custody. That is a sad reflection on the state of the laws in New South Wales.

In the field of justice, Bourke was one of the first communities to establish a community aid panel. That panel failed, due to lack of confidence in its operation. Bourke has, however, become a site for a pilot scheme of family group conferencing, which was strongly advocated after the visit to New Zealand of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. There is some dismay that the courts are administering that initiative, as it was hoped that the administration of the initiative could remain with the Department of Juvenile Justice. I hope to have time to say more about that later. Land was purchased in the Bourke area for a training centre, but that initiative lapsed because no real plan could be developed. That has been a matter of great sadness to everybody involved.

The Children (Parental Responsibility) Act was proclaimed earlier this year and a safe house was offered by the Department of Housing. Doubts are now being raised as to whether that initiative will proceed. The Minister for Community Services certainly raised doubts in the House about the future of that initiative overall, let alone in Bourke. In education, there has been the appointment of home liaison officers. Aboriginals have been appointed, but they have found the going too stressful and there are many vacancies. That is very sad because truancy is a big problem. An alternative school has been established for children who cannot fit into normal school life. That program is being run by nuns of the Roman Catholic Church in Bourke. Breakfast is being provided for kids who turn up to school not having had breakfast, and curriculum adjustments are made.

In Bourke there is a very active Aboriginal health service that caters for the needs of the community. There is also a substantial input of drug and alcohol services from this Government. In the matter of culture, the previous Government purchased properties around Mount Gunderbooka, an area of great cultural significance to the Aboriginal community, to establish a national park. It is hoped that that move will provide the Aboriginal community with the inspiration to get hold of and reinstitute some order within its society. The Aboriginal community,
Page 3554
particularly its older members, has been consulted on all issues and many suggestions of traditional punishments have been made. Those suggestions have been considered, but basically they are held by the majority of the Aboriginal people as well as by white people to be inappropriate. [Time expired.]

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [8.44]: I assure honourable members that this Government is firmly committed to an orderly society and to crime prevention. The Government views the protection of the community from crime and the deterrence of potential offenders as being of great importance. In particular, this Government recognises that the law is about protecting the vulnerable and making people safe in the streets and in their homes. I responded to the concerns of the Bourke Shire Council by letter dated 23 October 1995, which was forwarded to the General Manager of the Bourke Shire Council, Mr Dorrington.

I also recently met the Deputy Mayor, Mr Charlie Mitchell; the General Manager of the Walgett Shire Council, Mr Kevin Ryan; and the local member of the Legislative Assembly, the honourable member for Broken Hill, Mr Bill Beckroge. This Government is concerned by the issues of criminal justice that were raised with me at that time and is addressing the concerns. Many of the issues raised by the Bourke Shire Council relate to homes being broken into, as well as acts of vandalism. There are certainly matters which are cause for concern. I am advised that the police at Bourke have been notified of, and are concerned at, the past frequency of such incidents. I understand that the police have indicated to the Bourke Shire Council that they will continue in their efforts to curb the elements of antisocial behaviour in the Bourke township. The patrol commander at Bourke has also initiated several operations that have been directed at unlawful behaviour.

It should, of course, be borne in mind that offenders can be brought to justice and dealt with by the criminal justice system only if identified and arrested. The police, at times, will be hampered in their efforts to bring offenders to justice. For instance, an offence may be committed in the absence of witnesses or it may not be possible to identify an offender or offenders. Honourable members will be aware that as part of the Government's concern for criminal justice policy the Government only recently introduced the Criminal Legislation Amendment Act. The Act, which commenced on 1 July 1995, contains a number of reforms concerning the criminal justice system. The Crimes Act 1900 has been amended so that police are now empowered to take blood and other bodily samples from persons in lawful custody without their consent. This amendment will assist police in the effective investigation of crime.

The Crimes Act has also been amended so that when an offender breaks into a house, either knowing or reckless as to whether there are persons present in the premises, the offender will automatically face a heavier penalty of a maximum term of 20 years imprisonment as opposed to 14 years. In other words, when an offender enters a home and the residents are at home, this circumstance alone will mean that the offender is automatically subject to a higher maximum penalty. The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 has been amended to make it an offence for any person who is 18 years of age or older to supply prohibited drugs to a person who is under 16 years of age. In relation to such an offence, the maximum penalty is increased by about one-fifth of the previous penalty. This amendment aims to serve as a strong deterrent against the supply of drugs to young persons.

The Bail Act has been amended to remove the presumption in favour of the grant of bail when the accused is charged with attempted murder or threatening bodily harm or death by means of a document. The amendment seeks to ensure the continued safety of victims of alleged crimes while the accused person is awaiting trial. A central concern of any criminal justice system is, of course, its sentencing laws. This Government is concerned that the criminal justice system must operate fairly for both victims and accused persons, and, in particular, that persons who are convicted of crimes receive appropriate punishment. The community, too, has a right to expect that convicted persons are dealt with according to law. In this respect, the Government recognises that sentencing laws must be effective.

The Government has recently forwarded a reference to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of sentencing laws in this State. A number of experienced and prominent members of the judiciary and the profession have been appointed to work on the review. It is hoped that the review will provide invaluable guidance on the operation of our sentencing laws and make appropriate suggestions for reform. From time to time there are concerns that prisoners are not serving the full term of their prison sentence. In this regard, I should make it clear that New South Wales no longer has a system of remissions and early release. The Sentencing Act, which commenced in 1989, abolished that system. The effect of the Sentencing Act is that a person now serves the whole of the minimum term or fixed term imposed and cannot be released until that term is completed.

From time to time there are also concerns expressed that offenders receive lenient punishment for violent offences. I should therefore emphasise that substantial penalties exist under the Crimes Act 1900 for violent offences. For example, robbery with wounding carries a maximum penalty of 25 years gaol. In particular, there exists a "life meaning life" provision for those persons convicted of the offence of murder. Under the Crimes Act a person convicted of murder can, of course, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for less than life and receive a minimum and additional term of imprisonment. However, a court also has a discretion to impose a life sentence. This sentence has been imposed in certain cases.


Page 3555
While legislation ensures that offenders may be punished according to their criminality, it should ultimately be borne in mind that the actual term of any sentence imposed is a matter for the judiciary. It is a well-established sentencing principle that the type and duration of a sentence is a matter solely for the judiciary to determine on the individual facts of each case in accordance with the law and absence of some legislative direction or mandate upon a consideration of any mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The Court of Criminal Appeal would constitute the appropriate avenue for correction of inconsistent penalties by the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. The Director of Public Prosecutions has the statutory authority to lodge an appeal against a sentence that he considers lenient. Another important aspect of legal policy relates to crime prevention. This issue is, perhaps, of particular concern to young people. There are a number of policies in place which aim to prevent crime amongst young people.

The Children (Parental Responsibility) Act 1994 commenced late last year. Section 16 of that Act provides that as soon as possible after the period of one year after the date of assent to the Act, the responsible Minister will conduct a review to ascertain whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives. The juvenile crime prevention unit in the Attorney General's Department is also responsible for establishing a coordinated and integrated approach to juvenile crime prevention between government, community and private sector agencies. Part of the unit's function is the development of specific crime prevention strategies in relation to areas such as car theft, burglary, violence, shoplifting, vandalism and arson, substance abuse, racial harassment, sexual assault and juvenile crime in schools, shops, public transport and housing.

Further, my colleague the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, has taken a number of initiatives to protect the citizens of the Bourke area from crime committed by juveniles. For instance, the Bourke-Walgett community youth task force was established in response to community concerns about juvenile lawlessness and street disruption. Representatives from Commonwealth, State and local government agencies are working with local community representatives. The task force has, for example, established an Aboriginal women action group, which seeks to support juveniles in Bourke who wander the streets at night. The women patrol the streets and assist juveniles with food and accommodation and, if required, return the juveniles to their homes, if it is appropriate. The Department of Juvenile Justice has also recently appointed three program development officers to the western regions of New South Wales to work with local communities like that in Bourke.

Funds have also been provided to the Bourke Aboriginal health services, under the local offender program, for the service to conduct a course on cultural identity and the effects of alcohol and other drugs. I am pleased to note that 16 Aboriginal juveniles under this program have formed a local dance group and visit Brewarrina once a week for tuition. I am aware that crime in rural areas is a particular concern. It is encouraging to note that my department's juvenile crime prevention division is currently working with the Local Government and Shires Association to develop a seminar program for local government and shire councillors in rural New South Wales. The seminar program will provide an opportunity for local government and shire councillors to examine factors that influence juvenile crime and discuss approaches that can assist to reduce juvenile crime. Criminal law is not only concerned with very serious crimes, but also with lesser offences that may disturb order in the streets.

There are a number of offences in the Summary Offences Act 1988 which seek to ensure that all citizens have the right to enjoy public places and public facilities without harassment or interference. For example, the Act provides that a person shall not conduct himself or herself in an offensive manner or use offensive language in or near or within hearing from a public place or a school. There are also offences which aim to prevent public violence or disorder. The Act provides that if three or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence, and their conduct taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness, present at the scene, to fear his or her personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of an offence. A person must intend to use or threaten violence, or be aware that his or her conduct may be violent, or threaten violence. The penalty is a fine of $1,000 or six months imprisonment. Essentially, this offence gives police the power to take preventive action and arrest persons where unlawful violence is threatened prior to any actual violence occurring.

The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has been monitoring the type and incidence of offences committed in Bourke in recent times. The bureau has identified some salient features, namely, that offending predominates in the summer months and is related, primarily with regard to juvenile offending, to loss of employment opportunities and limited recreational facilities. These are factors that the community, the police and the Government must address by working cooperatively towards real long-term solutions that reduce the incidence of crime rather than solely punish the individual offender after the event. Again, I indicate to honourable members that this Government takes seriously issues regarding law and crime prevention. Residents of Bourke can be assured that this Government is genuinely seeking to address the problem of crime in the community. It is also my intention to request my department to liaise closely with the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, and his department, to ensure that the concerns of local communities in country New South Wales are addressed and, wherever practicable, the issues are resolved.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.55]: It gives me great pleasure to support the motion of the Hon.
Page 3556
D. F. Moppett, who moved that the breakdown of law and order in Bourke should be discussed forthwith as a matter of public interest. I support the honourable member's concern, which I and many other honourable members share, but I take no pleasure in speaking about the matters occurring in Bourke and the distress that the people of that town are experiencing. The matters I bring to the attention of the House are relevant, factual and current. I have always felt deeply for the people of Bourke. I endeavour to spend time in Bourke every year, visiting the community and my good friends associated with the various churches. Ron Stone has helped to support the work of Call to Australia, as have farmers involved in cotton growing and those who have set up small Christian schools.

That is not a passing interest because Call to Australia has a number of policies, two of which do not receive the prominent publicity that they should. One is decentralisation. There is no future for Australia if it does not have a strong policy of decentralisation. We will finish up with large populations congregated in the coastal cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. Thousands of people are moving south of Brisbane and north of New South Wales into the Gold Coast, which has almost become a city. Honourable members should not be surprised that people move away from country areas experiencing an increase of violence and a breakdown of law and order. They have had enough. The Government must develop basic policies of providing law and order if people are to live in normal, safe, comfortable conditions in the country, notwithstanding the heat, the flies and weather extremes of the outback. They should not have to live in constant fear for their own safety from violence, break-ins, home invasions, smashed shop windows and shoplifting. When the ability of families to deal with those dangers reaches breaking point they pack up and leave.

Country towns will die, and that will be Australia's loss. I saw some photographs of Bourke, which were taken in the past week. They depict iron bars and metal screens protecting the shop windows in the main street of Bourke. At one stage shops in Redfern also had bars and metal screens but that problem seems to have been cleared up. In Lebanon and places where civil war is taking place the shopkeepers have to put metal grilles over the shop windows. It is not done for fun; it is not just newspaper talk that makes people put up metal screens. They do it because they have had windows smashed time and time again and they have no choice but to erect some measure of protection.

It is not a media beat-up. I know that some honourable members almost blame the local shopkeepers for the problem, but these people are suffering and wonder what is the point of trying to operate a small business in that community when problems are thrown at them all the time. Some recent television reports depicted gangs of young hoods standing outside homes and throwing rocks at those homes, disturbing the sleep of the occupants all through the night. When there is a husband, a wife and children in the house, what do they do? How do they protect themselves? What action can they take? Even with their great love of the outback, having lived there all their lives and their parents and grandparents having lived there before them, people have no solution but to leave. What follows, of course, is economic breakdown. Who will buy the shop? What brave person would decide to spend the money involved to move from a prosperous suburb in Sydney to open a clothing shop in Bourke? If the premises lose their value and a complete economic collapse occurs in the community it is a very serious issue.

The second principle under which Call to Australia operates is called devolution of power; not revolution. In some ways Bourke is experiencing a violent revolution. Devolution of power means return the power to people to control their own lives, not leaving that power with Canberra, Macquarie Street or even the Bourke City Council. Devolution involves empowering the people to enable them to control their lives, and supporting the families of Bourke so that they can live in safe, happy communities. Families should be the lowest level of government. Those families do not want welfare. They do not want handouts. They need support; they need backup; and they need sufficient police on duty and not tied up with administrative work, transferring prisoners to Sydney, or undertaking other jobs that take them away from the work they are supposed to do, that is, ensuring the safety of the streets and the community of Bourke.

The strength and family life of both the Aboriginal and European communities are important, because Aboriginal families suffer just as much as European families. This is not a racist issue. We need to do all we can to restore the stability of both the Aboriginal and European families. The breakdown in family life leads to a breakdown in discipline and the control of teenagers and finally to a breakdown in discipline of children as young as eight, nine, 10 and 11 years of age. A lot of care has to be taken to ensure that the authority of parents is not undermined and that children are not taken from their parents. The authority of the leaders of the Aboriginal community at Bourke, who are often ridiculed and neglected by European authorities, must be restored. In my opinion that is one of the best ways of restoring law and order in that community. The Standing Committee on Social Issues visited Bourke on a number of occasions inquiring into juvenile justice and youth violence. The Mayor, Wal Mitchell - I believe he is now the Deputy Mayor - took members of the committee around the streets to visit the Aboriginal communities and I was pleased to note the friendly reception he received from the members of those communities.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I believe he is still the mayor.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I thought that following the most recent election he had been elected deputy mayor. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH
Page 3557
[9.05]: I am pleased to speak to this debate in support of my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett and I commend him for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. Those who have been involved with the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquiry into youth violence have some concerns about this issue, particularly as the committee visited Bourke during the course of the inquiry and heard evidence from the local people about the situation in that community. I want to draw to the attention of honourable members some of the conclusions in the committee's report on youth violence and violence generally. The committee discovered that violence is predominantly a young person's activity. Overwhelmingly, the people who commit violence are young males between the ages of about 14 and 24 years of age.

The committee was informed that the causes of violence are multiple: family breakdown may expose a child to abuse or physical violence; a lifestyle which includes drug and alcohol abuse may lead to crime and violence; and racial tension in the community may cause fights among some groups. Violent behaviour in an individual, therefore, may very well be the result of a complex pattern of interaction: socioeconomic, in the sense of poverty; familial, in the sense of child abuse and neglect of various kinds, and a lack of support that would enable the child to grow up to feel safe and loved; and racism.

As for the level of violence in the community as a whole the committee learned that it was far less than community perceptions would have us believe. However, it is important to note that although the committee reached that conclusion the pattern is different in different areas of the State. For example, the rate per 100,000 age-specific population of alleged violent offenders aged 10 to 17 years, when broken down into New South Wales statistical divisions, shows a very interesting situation. The far west of the State, which of course includes Bourke, had a rate that appears from the graph to be about four times as great as the Sydney area. People tend to assume that most of the violence in our community occurs in Sydney. Statistical information such as this shows very definitely that the rate can be far higher elsewhere. In a similar population of violent offenders aged between 18 and 24 years there is an even greater discrepancy.

The rate in the far west is almost five times as high as the Sydney rate and is far higher than the rate of all other areas of the State. The rate in the north-west of the State is high but not nearly as high as that in the far west. To find the reason for the violence we could look at issues such as racism and the family. Research material shown to the social issues committee made us realise the importance of the family and of family support in preventing violence. Overwhelmingly young people in our juvenile justice institutions have damaged backgrounds with a lot of personal suffering. They were victims long before being offenders. To solve the problem of violence we have to address the issue of families. Families must be supported. I for one cannot believe that parents do not want the best for their children. But how do they parent other than in the way in which they were parented? If their parenting was not positive they should be given specific information, education and support so they may learn better ways of parenting.

Cycles of abuse are replicated generation after generation unless the cycle is broken. I commend to honourable members and the Government the parents as teachers program repeatedly recommended by the social issues committee in various of its reports into young people and violence. It is the best program I have found to support new parents in the crucial first three years of the life of their child. The Greiner Government introduced it and the Fahey Government extended it to 10 sites in New South Wales. It has since been taken up by the Northern Territory Government and introduced at a number of sites. It is going very well. I would very much like the Government to introduce the program into country areas such as Bourke to help parents develop the skills they need to provide support for their young people so that the community does not reach the stage described to the House this evening.

In a discussion of this nature it is essential to point to the level of poverty and suffering in Aboriginal communities. Ironically, in 1971 the Federal Government spent $24 million on Aboriginal programs and by the 1992-93 financial year the amount had increased to $1.3 billion. But the problems have not gone away. Throwing money at problems does not appear to be solving them. I recently read a book which gave me a great deal of concern. I cannot say that I agree with all of its conclusions but I am still digesting some of its important statistical information. The book has been around for about 10 years but I have only just read it. It is titled Losing Ground and is by Charles Murray. It points out incontrovertibly that the people who suffer most from well-meaning paternalism are the poor themselves. The people who suffer most from increasing crime are the poor. In the Aboriginal community the people who suffer most from violence are Aboriginal people. I refer honourable members who doubt that there are specific problems of violence in the Aboriginal community to page 51 of the social issues committee report into youth violence.

Of course, there are things which skew the statistics but with homicide and manslaughter there is a dead body and it is pretty straightforward. The rate of offences in the non-Aboriginal community is 0.02 per 1,000 people; the rate in the Aboriginal community is 0.24. I do not say this to cast aspersions on the Aboriginal community but to point out that overwhelmingly the victims of crime come from the same social group as the people who commit them. We are talking about people being killed in the Aboriginal community. By ignoring these problems, difficult and painful though they are, by trying to pretend that they are not there, we are not confronting the people who are suffering most as a result of violence. I refer to the poorest people in our society. In the case of Bourke and similar areas it is principally the Aboriginal community. In the
Page 3558
Aboriginal community the rate of rape and sexual assault is six times that in the non-Aboriginal community. The rate of grievous assault and malicious wounding in the non-Aboriginal community is 1.37 per 1,000 of population and 15.48 in the Aboriginal community. That gives me enormous concern. But I would like to finish on a note of hope. I am delighted that the Aboriginal women of Bourke are taking control with their night patrols. Such patrols were awarded a national violence prevention award a couple of years ago. They are a marvellous idea. Whatever the Government can do to support them I thoroughly endorse. [Time expired.]

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [9.15]: This motion should be discussed and discussed seriously. Bourke suffers the poisonous drip of poverty. We cannot analyse the statistics of Bourke without coming back to poverty as the root cause of many of the problems that are being suffered there. The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, in referring to the book by Murray, alerted us to that fact but in reality to some extent that is the sociology of the sixties because we all know -

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: No, it was written in the eighties.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I know, but the sociology of the sixties was that poverty engenders crime and -

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: He is critiquing the sociology of the sixties. Read the book.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I know, but in the sense that he is explaining the problem that exists in terms of poverty and the link with crime, that is the sociology of the sixties, and it is also the current sociology. He might have a perspective that intervention by government does not necessarily solve the problem but in essence the sociology of the sixties is that there is a direct causal relationship between poverty, crime and social breakdown. There is no doubt that there has been a breakdown of family structures, and this is a typical aspect of disadvantaged communities. The employment rates of Aboriginal youths in Bourke, Walgett and other communities with a significant Aboriginal population throughout the western areas of New South Wales show that there are very few jobs for young Aborigines in the community in general. I have walked through the shopping centre and entered some of the shops in Bourke. I was surprised that in a town with such a large Aboriginal population there were so few young Aboriginal people employed in the central business district. One would expect Aborigines to be represented within the economic mainstream of the community.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Were there any?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I did not see any but there may have been some that I did not see. We must look beyond the breakdown of law and order in Bourke to see what has caused it and what we can do about it. Clearly, increasing levels of law and order style intervention in Bourke have failed. In fact, the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Juvenile Justice in New South Wales" stated that statistics clearly show an incredible increase in conviction rates for Aborigines in that area. It recommends that we should be heading more towards the development of cautioning systems and other more sociological attempts to address the problem in Bourke.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett was a signatory to the report, which stated that in the period from 1986-87 the rate of juvenile convictions for New South Wales was 14.9 per 1,000 of 10-year-olds to 19-year-olds - just under 15 per 1,000 - yet conviction rates in Bourke, Walgett and Moree, which have a high concentration of Aboriginal people, were 82 per 1,000 in Bourke, 60.2 per 1,000 in Walgett and 35.9 per 1,000 in Moree. In other words, there was nearly a sixfold increase in convictions of Aboriginal juveniles in Bourke than in the population of New South Wales as a whole. I wish to look constructively at how this problem should be addressed. It cannot be addressed by adopting mindless law and order solutions: clearly they have not worked, they have not worked for 200 years, and they will not work. Most Aboriginal people in that community do not have jobs and do not have employment prospects outside of the family unit.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What are you going to do about that?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I will come to that. In fact, in the main the community live in a very dispossessed situation, although endeavours have been made in the past 10 years to address this. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has ensured survived despite conservative attacks over the past 7½ years, can provide a basis for some of the economic background to survival in that area. I hope that funds available for the purchase of properties, and for economic enterprises can filter into that community. A situation must be developed where jobs are provided for young people in the Aboriginal community at Bourke. There is no other way to approach this issue; it is jobs, jobs and more jobs.

That is not particularly revolutionary because what motivates most people in our community and determines to some extent voting patterns across the board is employment. Unemployment and no prospects of employment create the social disruption to which all honourable members have referred. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile raised the important point of the breakdown of family life. However, in most instances that stems from the fact that of the four or five children in the families, not one has a job or has prospects of going anywhere within mainstream communities. As a consequence, a large number of individuals feel utterly out of place within society. If those problems are not addressed the issue cannot be solved and we will continue to just bleat about the breakdown of law and order. Marches will be conducted calling for safe homes, law and order, asserting that crime affects all people, but the problem
Page 3559
will not be really addressed. Campaigns will be conducted, stimulated by the Hon. M. R. Kersten or people who do not care about the community and who seek to promote these situations.

On several occasions in the past seven years these types of statements have been made, and the community has referred to law and order in Bourke being in disarray. Many articles in the Western Herald point out the problems of law and order in Bourke, the difficulties with crime and justice in that town, and problems experienced by shopkeepers involving theft and so on. However, nowhere do the campaigns being conducted by the National Party refer to how the community can be redeveloped. If I had half an hour I would quote some of these articles. There are articles such as "Teenager breaks into house and attacks woman"; article after article like that, but nowhere is there mention of almost 100 per cent unemployment amongst Aboriginal youth in Bourke, with no prospects of employment.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: What are you doing about it? You are the Government.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: And what did you do about it over the last seven years? You did absolutely nothing. You sat on your backsides and did nothing, and as a consequence these sorts of articles appear. I can show the House many newspaper articles referring to the fact that there are no prospects whatsoever for improving the Aboriginal community in Bourke or anywhere else. [Time expired.]

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [9.25]: I support the matter of public importance moved by the Hon. D. F. Moppett. He said this issue is important to the people of Bourke. I would suggest to honourable members that it is important to all the people of New South Wales. Though it is a matter of public importance it is unseen by most of the public because most people do not know what is going on in Bourke. I know Bourke and the towns of Dubbo and Taree, which have similar problems on a smaller scale. It is time that we as a community, and this place as a parliament, started to address these problems; it is time we understood that it is not something we can leave those communities to solve on their own. I have spent time in Bourke; I have seen the racial tension and I have been in segregated hotels. I know that Bourke is basically a good community; many good things happen there. The town has a great radio station, a great community welder, 2WEB, which started off as a community experiment and has developed into an important factor in welding the community together.

But the problems one strikes in Bourke and other towns with similar difficulties are unemployment and feelings of frustration and hopelessness, that they are going nowhere and have nothing to go to. Therefore, is it surprising that there are unprecedented crime waves and gangs of youths roaming the streets, holding up shopkeepers and mugging people, lying about, as they often are, drunk? Is it surprising that in some towns the vigilante philosophy arises, where people feel that they have to take the law into their own hands to deal with something which they know is a problem in the community but to which they have no real answer?

People in country towns deserve better than this. They have survived economic disasters, drought, high interest rates, repossession of farms and so on. In places like Bourke, Dubbo and Taree, they simply feel that what is happening to them now is the unkindest cut. They feel that they are being ignored, and have been ignored, by successive governments because they have a small voter base. It is my attitude that we have a responsibility to support and to help these people to solve their problems by giving them whatever it is they need to do it. Even though we talk about crime waves in a place like Bourke, it is not the type of crime wave which would call for action that would normally be taken against criminals. This reflects a critical social problem; it is not a problem of lawlessness, not a problem of people simply kicking over the traces because they are not prepared to obey the law. Sure, these are predominantly young people and the focus of attention falls on them because they are young, in gangs and committing crime, and it is assumed that they must be black young people. Many of them are, but it is too facile to blame this on the Koori population entirely.

Neither side is to blame entirely for what is happening in towns such as Bourke, Dubbo and Taree. The Hon. D. F. Moppett talked about dysfunctional families in Bourke. He is right - but surely we are talking about a dysfunctional society; a society which is not working in the way in which it should. Both sides have to take responsibility and work together to fix the problem. As the Hon. D. F. Moppett said, there is no question that many of the Aboriginal people in Bourke feel a resentment. They have a chip on their shoulder. They feel that they have been deprived. I believe that that makes them easy to provoke. I have witnessed incidents when there has been provocation on both sides and where trouble has started which could have been avoided had there been a mechanism to overcome the problem and make both sides see that they were hurting themselves more than those on the other side.

The levels of violence in Bourke can be quite extraordinary, and they are not new. I shall relate a horrific story. I remember going to Bourke early in the morning on New Year's Day in 1982, because I happened to have a property at Coolabah, just down the road from Bourke and on the way to Nyngan. I had a friend from Melbourne with me who had said, "I've never been to Bourke, I would like to see it. It is an amazing place. `Back of Bourke', what is it?" We drove up there and parked in the main street alongside one of the police trawlers, those Fargos. This friend of mine, who is a gregarious fellow, got into a conversation with the local police. He said, "You must be a very conscious town; you must really care about beautification." He asked whether they were having a tree-planting program, because a number of circular, wire tree guards were lined up in the gutter.

Page 3560

The policeman said, "No, last night was New Year's Eve. We use them when people get drunk. We slip them over the people and keep them under control until we can come and pick them up in the trawler and take them to the slammer." What sort of a town needs to use tree guards to control people? At Taree this matter has been settled, to a very large degree, by community consultation. That is a glib thing to say, but it shows that it can be done. The core problem is the breakdown of law and order in a place such as this. Because it is happening in remote towns and seldom reported in the city media - because it is north of Hornsby or west of Parramatta - nobody knows about it. Who in Sydney knew of the march in Bourke on 22 August by 300 people? The march was not reported in the Sydney media; nobody cared about it in Sydney.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The journalists are all living in the city.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: Of course they are - I am one, I know. However, I have spent some time in the country. There is much sensationalist reporting of what happens in places such as Bourke, Taree and Dubbo. However, to an extent, this is about a breakdown of law and order, as the Sydney Morning Herald said. Is it really about the inability of police to control the sort of random crime popping up all over the place? Is it about inadequate resources? Is it about the police having to do other things? Is it about their own confusion and uncertainty about what they can do? Surely to goodness mere law and order is inappropriate for dealing with what is a social problem presenting as a problem of law and order. The police tell me that they are worried about tackling Koori troublemakers because they are accused of picking on them; they are concerned about tackling white troublemakers because it looks like discrimination when they will not tackle the Kooris. We have a town where people are working as two disparate communities; they are not working as a united community.

This is a huge, complex problem which is eroding the social fabric of many country towns - if there is anything left to erode. We do not have any programs in place to fix the problem. What the Hon. D. F. Moppett said is absolutely correct: we are letting it happen; we are not doing anything about it. It must be understood that what is happening in Bourke is a major threat to the stability of the State. It is essential to carry out an urgent review of the social tensions, racial tensions, the frustrations of unemployment and other factors in country towns. There must be a review of the police direction and a new focusing of their resources. Most of all, as the Hon. I. M. Macdonald said, we need to find a way to fix the problem of frustration and hopelessness that arises from rampant unemployment. This problem has been ignored in the city because it is out of sight and out of mind. However, it is boiling away just over the horizon. It is possibly the most urgent, unseen social problem in New South Wales today. What is happening in Bourke is a microcosm of the racial and social tensions that are infesting our society. We ignore it at our peril. Bourke's problem is a problem for every one of us.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.35]: I fully support the remarks of the Hon. J. S. Tingle. I, too, have been to Bourke on two or three occasions. On one occasion I visited Bourke with the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The Hon. D. F. Moppett was on the same visit. I am glad that he has raised this matter because it is of great concern. Unfortunately, it is a delicate matter, which is dividing Bourke in, I believe, four ways: there are poor whites, desperately poor blacks, slightly more affluent blacks, and affluent whites. The community is totally and absolutely divided. Even the black community is not united. Many members of the affluent black community are equally concerned and wish for equally punitive measures to be imposed on the less privileged blacks. This is one of the big problems. However, when one looks at the statistics - and the members of the Standing Committee on Social Issues were looking at the statistics - one sees that the situation is no more volatile in Bourke at the present time than it has been for the last three years.

The law and order campaign has been fuelled by the local council for reasons that I partially understand, but do not fully understand, and with the assistance of the editor of the local newspaper. I believe that the only way we will ever be able to assist the people of Bourke to work towards a solution is across all party lines. This problem cannot be approached on party lines. If there is any truth in the rumour that Bourke Shire Council wants the Department of Community Services to close down and hand over the funding money to the council so that it can, in its opinion, solve the problems it cannot be supported. That is a totally wrong approach which would only exacerbate the problems. I find the whole situation very worrying. Obviously, the starting point is to address the social problems. They are endemic in the whole of society. As a first step it is essential to employ more Aboriginal officers to work with the local community. This is not a problem which will be able to be solved by white people.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You are wrong.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: White people created the problem, but unfortunately we have to bring in members of the Aboriginal community to solve it. The underprivileged in Bourke - and there are underprivileged white people as well as underprivileged black people - need training and employment opportunities to develop self-esteem, to extend family-type support. There is a crying need for education, peer group support and activities. There is also a need for employment training, employment creation and job placement. The creation of employment is not a government problem, it is not a police problem, it is a local problem. What the Hon. I. M. Macdonald said about going around Bourke and finding so few young Kooris employed in the shops is the basis of the problem. For whatever reason, some white employers in Bourke do not wish
Page 3561
to employ Koori workers. Until Kooris are employed there will never be a solution. I do not care what they say about Koori workers being unreliable or why they do not want to employ them, there has to be a community strategy that Kooris are employed in Bourke.

It is perfectly obvious that the high level of adult unemployment causes drinking problems, and this disrupts family life and affects other family members, particularly school children. Children are not attending school, because their parents are alcohol dependent and are simply not capable of supervising those children and getting them to school. It is also obvious that because of this problem children are running away from home, wagging school and allowed to roam the streets at night. Children as young as seven and nine years of age roam the streets like feral kids, but these are not only black children; some of them are white. It must be realised that some white parents in Bourke are just as dysfunctional as some black parents. In those cases where the family unit has broken down, inevitably a feeling of despair is experienced by the parents and the children. Very few parents wish to see their families disintegrate - even parents of a dysfunctional family.

Most of the children are out on the streets because they have nothing else to do, have no home life and have no purpose to their lives. Therefore, they go out on the block and in most cases get into strife. The Hon. D. F. Moppett is well aware of this problem. When the Standing Committee on Social Issues visited some country towns members were told that many of the children were getting into trouble because they had nothing else to do at night except wheelies around the town roundabouts. That is a most depressing and awful indictment of what is happening in some of the far west country towns. These young people may have a motorbike or a banged up old ute, they go into town at night and do wheelies on the roundabout. It is disastrous.

Nevertheless, some good things are happening in Bourke. The statistics for the court outcomes for juvenile residents of the Bourke local government area in 1994-95 were similar to the outcomes in 1993-94. Whatever the local mayor or some local councillors may believe, an increase in crime did not occur. The principal offences for which juvenile offenders in the Bourke local government area appeared before the Children's Court in 1994-95 were only four matters of serious assault; 11 of assault; seven of break and enter; eight of motor vehicle theft; five of stealing theft; five of receiving possession; one of a justice offence; and six involving offences against good order. However, no matters were before the Children's Court in relation to juveniles in the Bourke local government area for sexual, drug, drink-driving and traffic offences. Do members not believe that the people of Cabramatta might be very happy if they had the same statistics in Cabramatta?

I do not deny that there is a problem in Bourke. Nevertheless, it is not as bad as in some inner-city or outer-western areas of Sydney. The Department of Juvenile Justice has only one juvenile justice officer, who is Aboriginal, appointed full time at Bourke. Recently the department appointed three program development officers, two of whom are Aborigines and one generalist, in the western region of New South Wales to work with the local communities, including the Bourke community. That is not sufficient. The entire western region requires more such officers. It is not good enough to appoint only two Aboriginal officers to deal with the whole western division of New South Wales. If honourable members opposite want to change the situation, they should pressure the Government of the day in that area. The number of staff available in this area is totally inadequate.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: [9.45]: On Tuesday, 22 August more than 300 people took to the streets of Bourke while another 200 people looked on. Those people, most of whom had never taken part in a march of any sort, were making one last desperate attempt to bring to the attention of the Government their frightening and desperate plight. The community of Bourke has a long and distinguished history in the annals of western New South Wales. This is not a community prone to exaggeration or hysteria, nor one to take such a step lightly. These decent folk are fearful for their future and, quite frankly, they have had enough.

They are sick of their houses being burgled and vandalised, of being abused and spat on in the streets, and of their cars being broken into, stolen, vandalised and dumped in the river or set on fire. They are tired of having to cover the frontage of their establishments with steel mesh for fear of having their windows broken on a daily basis. These people no longer want to be regarded as untouchables by insurance companies. They are fed up with the gross abuse of alcohol, which they can only sit back and watch in helpless frustration. They are saddened and disillusioned at the sight of gangs of marauding juveniles, some members of which are as young as four or five years of age, who wander the streets all night looking for trouble. The people of Bourke are not asking for much: they simply want the right to feel secure in their environment, which is the right of every Australian.

The majority of citizens in towns such as Bourke and Walgett feel that they are being treated with contempt by the lawmakers of this State. Who can blame them for feeling that way? I wonder how honourable members would like it if they knew that they could never at any time leave their house and property unattended, because if they did the property would be at grave risk. I wonder how honourable members would feel if their homes and families were the constant target of unrelenting harassment, threats and prolonged missile attacks with bottles, stones and anything else that could be thrown their way. How would honourable members like it if those attacks became so bad and threatening that they had no alternative but to close their once thriving business and simply walk away from it, leaving it to its inevitable fate?

I know a family in Bourke which lives under
Page 3562
these conditions every day of their lives. Before I left for Sydney last Sunday I received a telephone call from the Mackey family, who just last Saturday night suffered one of the most prolonged and savage attacks they have endured to date. Even more disturbing is the fact that when Mr Mackey rang the police for help, they were unable to respond because three of their number had been hospitalised as a result of another riot they had just attended. How dreadful it must be to live under those conditions. This is not a fantasy or a joke - I am not making this up. This is documented. Letters have been sent to the Attorney General and to this Government from the Mackey family, who will verify everything that I have said. I have documented proof of the letters which for years have passed to and fro.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Where is the Hon. I. M. Macdonald?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: Studying more theory, I suppose. I have received numerous telephone calls from people in Bourke, Walgett, Brewarrina and many other places in the far west of New South Wales who have witnessed car theft, domestic burglary and assaults but who are too frightened to testify for fear of recrimination - they are frightened for their lives. They see crimes taking place around them every day of the week and they become so accustomed to crime, so blasé about it, that they accept it as part of the daily routine. A normal break and enter would probably go unreported.

I have spoken to people in Bourke who have been woken in the middle of the night to find intruders in the bedroom with them. How would honourable members like that? I am not talking about one-off occurrences. This kind of thing goes on all the time. There are people in Bourke, Walgett, Brewarrina and Wilcannia who have, over the past year, each had more than 40 incidents of malicious damage and theft inflicted on their homes and business premises. One woman in Bourke, the proprietor of the local mini-mart, has been subjected to a prolonged campaign of harassment by three girls aged 15 and 16. The girls initially did not like being told that their behaviour was unacceptable and upon being barred from the premises promptly embarked on a debilitating campaign of revenge. Their plan was simple: to hang around outside the store and hassle the customers as much as possible.

Their method was simple, too: to jostle and manhandle anyone who dared to try to enter the premises, to abuse anyone who came into the shop, to spit on anyone within range, and to write obscenities on the price board and generally make a total nuisance of themselves. The police were powerless, too, because as soon as they were called the girls would simply vanish, only to return once the police had left. Now this poor woman has had to take out an apprehended violence order against the girls in order to protect herself and her business. I ask honourable members where it is going to end. If any of us had to live like that, we would scream blue murder. But there is more.

The aged people in Bourke are so frightened by these events, which are completely alien to them, that they live an almost hermit-like existence. They lock themselves in their houses every day of the week and they dare venture out of their houses only when absolute necessity demands it, like when they get hungry and there is no food in the house so they have to go down to the shop to get some. These aged citizens of Australia - and I emphasise the word Australia; I am not talking about some third world country - dread even going to the supermarket because they know what is likely to occur. If they are very lucky, on a good day they may only get abused.

Simple social events such as a game of night tennis, which most of us, especially the Hon. D. F. Moppett, take for granted, are things of the past in those communities. No-one wants to endure gangs of hoodlums and louts hanging around the perimeter of the tennis court screaming obscenities and throwing bottles and stones over the fence, spitting on the players, and engaging in other obscenities too disgusting to mention here. This is not a joke. This is not a political stunt. I have not been in Bourke stirring up the people, as the Hon. I. M. Macdonald has suggested; I have been in Bourke trying to assist these people and because they asked me to go there. The emotional and mental trauma being experienced by these people has caused many of them to express a desire to leave the townships. It is time we said, "Enough". Law and order must be restored, and it is the responsibility of this Parliament to ensure that it is.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.55]: The saddest thing about this debate is that the Attorney General, this State's senior law officer, who spoke in the debate, missed the point. He missed the point in that the people of Bourke are crying out for help. He re-emphasised what has been done in the past. We know what has been done in the past. Surely it is patently clear, even to the Attorney General, that that has not worked, and that this is a desperate plea from a total community, not sections of a community. That is inherent in the fact that the members who spoke on this matter of public importance today, the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. M. R. Kersten, did so in a deliberative matter, not in an emotional manner and not in a manner that would alienate the community. These are the gentler members of our Parliament, but they are people who have been moved by the particular plight of the communities in which they live.

Country people are gentle people, country people are not easily roused to march in the streets. What the country communities do not need are people who say that they have visited Bourke and know Bourke. I have visited Bourke; I have been there three or four times, but I do not pretend to understand Bourke or the particular problems there. One needs to spend a long time there and one needs to listen to the people. One does not need to be a member of this Parliament lecturing the people of Bourke. It is sad that one of the members of this House, who delivered a lecture on roundabouts, appears not to realise that there is no
Page 3563
roundabout in Bourke. The nearest roundabout to Bourke is at Walgett, and a journey through that roundabout at night is not taken lightly by anyone.

There are things that we take for granted in our communities that, as honourable members have said, the people of Bourke cannot take for granted. As a member of another country community - albeit the people of the western division would consider me an insider - that of the town of Crookwell, I do not have to put up with the particular problems that the people of Bourke and surrounding communities have to face. This is a desperate plea that the local people are putting to us - a desperate plea that has been taken up by the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. M. R. Kersten. It is an honourable plea and it is a plea that we need to address. It is a cry for help. We need to listen to that plea and we need to address the problems.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.58], in reply: I sincerely thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate. Every one of them has come with a sincere desire to contribute towards the solution of the problems of Bourke. With respect, I must say that I think some honourable members missed the point of the motion, perhaps because of a lack of direct contact with Bourke as it is today. Bourke is a community that has acknowledged many of the criticisms that came forward in the debate and is trying to do everything it can to overcome the problems. At the end of the day, if the people about whom the Hon. M. R. Kersten has spoken leave Bourke, there will be no-one left to do something about the problem. Those people are getting to the end of their tether, but I shall talk about that shortly.

In the few minutes I have available to me I want to finish talking about some of the initiatives that have been taken in the area and to refute claims that sections of the community have been neglected. Earlier I was talking about cultural efforts that have been made in the Bourke district. A great deal of notice has been taken of leading members of the Aboriginal community. Some honourable members would have met Councillor Yvonne Howarth of the Bourke Shire Council, an Aboriginal person who has made a great contribution to the formulation of policy to overcome the problems faced.

The Hon. M. R. Kersten earlier spoke about the excellent sporting facilities in Bourke. Many people say that sporting facilities are the answer. Efforts have been made to encourage integrated sport as well as Koori sport so that people can either move into the general community or pursue their own sporting activities. Attempts have been made to organise a separate rugby league competition. Sadly, group 15 in the Australian Rugby League competition was abandoned through an inability to guarantee safety to referees. Efforts have been made to put the game back on its feet by people such as Kevin Ryan, the General Manager of Walgett Shire Council. The Aboriginal community needs the confidence of people living in towns such as Bourke. The crisis that exists today is destroying that confidence.

I refute what has been said tonight about employment. Great efforts have been made by both Bourke Shire Council and other employers to employ Aborigines. Government agencies employ Aborigines specifically in dedicated programs. The Commonwealth Employment Service programs have also been successful. Of course, many are still unemployed. We must stop talking about full employment. It is not available to white people. The best that could be hoped for the people of Bourke is meaningful and gainful occupation, not full-time employment. They are trying to do something about that. A host of services is available through cooperation with the local community. The local people are to be saluted and not criticised as the contributions and interjections of some honourable members implied.

The Hon. Ann Symonds said that one of the things lacking was Christian charity. Many people can speak about the principles of St Francis of Assisi, but few today can live his lifestyle. The people of Bourke are being asked to continually turn their cheeks to the sorts of incidents referred to by the Hon. M. R. Kersten. One of the incidents he mentioned concerned a family that was forced to close its business following a sustained missile attack that took place from about 12.30 p.m. until about 5.45 p.m. - and that family lived about three blocks from the police station. If honourable members lived under those circumstances I doubt that they would turn the other cheek and say, "This is the sort of community to which I want to contribute and give my Christian charity"? We need to give the people of Bourke a lot more support than that.

Another important service to both the Koori community and the general community is health. Bourke has become the centre of the regional health district for the Orana region. As a result, two new administrative officers have been employed. In the last 12 months one administrative officer was robbed and assaulted in his home and the other stood by while his car was incinerated. One, for his personal safety, now lives at the hospital. The nurses who work in Bourke hospital daily experience verbal or physical assault from patients. Yes, many Aborigines are drunk and there are all sorts of reasons for that, but how long can the people be expected to stay there delivering essential services while that continues?

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said that crime rates in that town are not above normal. A motel operator can cite 16 major offences that occurred in his motel over 12 months; that is more than one a month. Cars are broken into, including my car on a Sunday. Somebody took the change out of the car belonging to the motel operator, broke into my car on the street and later took a purse. This is a small town, and people are reaching the stage where they wonder what sort of a future a town like that holds. Many examples can be given of the disruption to normal life. Not only are the perpetrators a threat to the
Page 3564
white community that is delivering the services and a hidden factor in attracting key staff to the town; they are the greatest threat to the future of the Koori community. If that becomes the expectation of normal life, what hope do people have for the future?

Nobody has spoken more eloquently, or with more passion, about the need to come to grips with the underlying causes of crime in Bourke than I have. But the point of this motion is that if the Government, backed by all members of the House, does nothing to normalise life for people in Bourke by at least stopping the major crimes that are being perpetrated, assisting the police, perhaps with the tactical response group at times - because I believe that probably there are no more than 20 ringleaders who are the cause of most of this problem - then the future for employment development, education, or whatever, is hopeless. How can that be delivered? Who will live under that reign of constant terror? I do not believe there is a community anywhere that has tolerated the same level of civil disruption and interference in their life as the people of Bourke, without complaint. Certainly no honourable member sitting on the benches of this Chamber tonight has done so.

They have accepted that it will take a few decades to solve the problems. At the moment they are appealing against a wave that has hit them. Whether it is recorded in the official statistics or not, it is real to them and worrying for the future of Bourke. The Government should take this seriously and meet with the people to discuss the measures it could bring into operation immediately. The previous Government had a comprehensive program that started off with truth in sentencing. The summary offences legislation was amended to bring back the offences of offensive language and offensive behaviour. Street drinking legislation policy was formulated in Bourke. The juvenile justice reform, referred to by a number of speakers, was an issue of which I was a strong advocate. The youth support task force was an initiative of the former Premier, John Fahey, to do something about the tragic circumstance of children aged from five to 10, wandering around, apparently having no home to go to. When an agency officer picked them up, it was found that their homes were not suitable places for them to be given care at that time.

The Children (Parental Responsibility) Act was introduced to enable police to take children into custody, or to a safe house. Those are the types of measures that should receive the full support of the Government. In Bourke the problems are essentially caused by Aboriginal youth. It is no good hiding behind that. Some honourable members have said that white people are also involved. Although the level of crime amongst white youth is worrying, it is no higher than anywhere else. The greater problem, as many honourable members have pointed out, is social dysfunction, lack of employment opportunities and low self-esteem amongst the Aboriginal community. Every effort has to be made to overcome those problems. They cannot be overcome in an atmosphere of heightened anxiety, fear and apprehension. No matter is of greater concern to the people of Bourke. As other honourable members have said, unless we can address the situation in Bourke members of this House are in dereliction of their duty and many other communities and towns will slide into the same abyss if we are unable through lack of will, lack of commitment or lack of resource to do something about this serious problem which exists in Bourke this very night.

Discussion concluded.


Debate resumed from 15 November.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.08]: It is a great pleasure to lead for the Opposition in this debate although my comments will be reasonably brief. The Opposition supports the Adoption Information Amendment Bill because of the extensive level of consultation that has occurred to bring the bill before the House. The shadow Minister has not received any vigorous representations against the bill. The Opposition is impressed with the report of the Law Reform Commission, which reviewed the Adoption Information Act and made a number of sensible recommendations that addressed concerns that adoptive parents or adoptees might have had with the Adoption Information Act 1990. The commission made some sensible fine-tuning to an Act that has worked well until now.

The overwhelming evidence is that the Act has worked well with few exceptions and very few complaints. It has been fine-tuned to ensure that people's rights have been further enhanced; that nobody who wishes not to be contacted through the adoption register - whether they be an adoptive parent or an adoptee - is likely to be harassed, intimidated or confronted with a situation that they wanted to leave in the past. The Law Reform Commission, in order to carry out the review of the Adoption Information Act, distributed 1,500 copies of an issues paper and received more than 700 written and 300 telephone submissions in response. Almost 100 people spoke at eight public meetings conducted by the Law Reform Commission in Sydney, Tamworth, Lismore, Dubbo, Wollongong, Queanbeyan, Wagga Wagga and Newcastle.

Additionally, professional research was commissioned by consultants MSJ Keys Young on public awareness of the Act and its impact. Indeed, it could be said that the review was one of the most extensive programs of consultation conducted by the commission. The conclusions of the Law Reform Commission were that the majority of the public appears to be aware of the essence of the Adoption Information Act; that the implementation of the Act has been accomplished successfully and its administration is working well; and that the vast majority of adopted persons and birth parents welcome the rights to information and exercise them
Page 3565
responsibly. The report also noted that compliance with the contact veto system is very high. Interestingly enough, there was evidence of only one incident that appeared to be a breach of the contact veto. The Law Reform Commission concluded that there was no need to change the basic principles of the Act. I am pleased with that conclusion. No person who reads the report could be other than impressed by the conclusions the Law Reform Commission reached on the success of the Act.

The Act was based on very extensive reporting and consultation which was carried out by the Standing Committee on Social Issues some time ago. It is worth noting that more than 7,000 applications for original or amended birth certificates and 3,432 contact veto registrations have been received from the time the Act came into operation. That would seem to indicate that the people who need to know about the Act know about it and are using responsibly the rights they have under the Act. As I said, the number of complaints about the Act appear to be few. The Law Reform Commission acknowledged that there was considerable evidence that the agencies involved had paid careful attention to the rights and interests of the people affected by the Act. That is not to say that there were not some legitimate criticisms of how the Act operated, and this bill seeks to introduce a number of fine-tuning measures that are worthy of consideration.

First, it establishes an advance notice system to delay release of identifying information under the Act for a fixed period at the request of a person who could be identified by it. That is an extremely sensible measure. It slows up the procedure in case people are frightened about the outcome of access through the contact register and at least allows them to control the process whereby the information is swapped. I think that is a sensible safeguard to any concerns which might have been held about the operation of the Act. Further, the bill makes provision for a reunion and information register that will incorporate the existing reunion information register and facilitate the exchange of messages between persons concerned in or affected by adoption; it clarifies the provisions in relation to the entitlement of birth fathers under the Act; and provides the director-general with discretionary powers in relation to limiting access to information to a person who would otherwise be entitled to it in case there are some extraordinary circumstances in which that information should be withheld.

The Opposition also notes that the bill amends the Guardianship Act 1987 to enable the Guardianship Board to give certain directions relating to the exercise of entitlements under the Adoption Information Act on behalf of disabled persons. The Opposition is impressed with the level of public consultation that has been undertaken by the Law Reform Commission. The Opposition to date has received no representations that suggest it should not support the bill. It is good that this particularly sensitive issue has been supported on a cross-partisan basis and that those who have raised legitimate concerns about this Act have been listened to and had their concerns taken on board, at least in part if not in whole, by the sensible recommendations made by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. The Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the bill.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [10.15]: I too am pleased to support the bill, which is a refinement of the legislation that arose out of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues report called "Accessing Adoption Information". That inquiry revealed the ground swell of feeling for knowing about one's origins. There was overwhelming evidence before the committee of a need to allow people to have access to information about their parents or about their children. The report, which was unanimous, recommended that adoptees and birth mothers be allowed to obtain information that had been denied them. As a result of that report the Adoption Information Act 1990 was introduced. The Law Reform Commission was asked to review the legislation in December 1991 and brought down its report in July 1992. The Law Reform Commission reviewed the Adoption Information Act favourably and suggested only minor amendments. The commission noted that the vast majority of adopted persons and birth parents welcome the rights to information, and exercise them responsibly; and implementation of the Act has been accomplished and its administration is working well.

The commission recommended minor amendments that have been included in this bill. Those amendments included the setting up of an information exchange, the advance notice system, the easing of restrictions preventing birth fathers having access to information about adoptees and the clarification of the rights of siblings to get information about each other. The evidence before the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues on accessing adoption information was extremely moving. That evidence showed that 25 per cent of women who gave up their babies for adoption later married the father of that child. Women were pressured to give up their babies for adoption by the mores of the time, and nurses, doctors and midwives were the agents of society's moral judgment and acted "in the best interests of the mother and her baby".

Most adopted children have a strong desire to know about their biological origins, to learn something of their genetic inheritance and to gain an impression of what their mothers were like. Birth mothers are driven by a desire to know what has happened to their child. Contrary to the often stated myth that women just want to get over the situation and get on with their lives, women never forget the child they have given birth to. They want to know whether the child is healthy, happy and well cared for. Of the three sides to the adoption triangle adopting parents were the most apprehensive about the consequences of the availability of adoption information. However, many adopting parents not only supported the right of their children to have the information, but also actively helped their children find their birth mothers. This is the majority group of
Page 3566
adopting parents.

In New South Wales approximately 100,000 adoptions were affected by the Adoption Information Act, and public response to the new provisions has been enormous. Among that 100,000 are a number of children who were the subject of intra-family adoptions - that is, their birth mother, who may later have married, may have adopted them or another relative may have adopted them. The latest statistics available on adoption information, which is up to 31 October 1995, record more than 14,000 applications for original birth certificates; nearly 20,000 registrations on the contact register from people wanting contact, and 29 registrations of people not wanting contact. How informative statistics can be!

For the months from June to October this year 727 persons applied for original birth certificates and 32 contact vetoes were lodged. The original legislation provided for the protection of privacy of people who wished to retain their anonymity. The bill will do a number of things to complete the effectiveness of the legislation. It will set up an information exchange that will allow photographs and documents to be exchanged when the parties do not want contact but would like information. It will set up an advance warning system whereby parties to adoption can request that they be given up to three months notice of someone applying for information about them. Every effort is being made in legislative arrangements to safeguard the sensibilities and sensitivities of individuals. This provision also allows for people to adjust to the knowledge that information is being sought about them.

The Law Reform Commission was surprised at the number of people who did not know that they were adopted. It must be realised that in some cases adopting parents do not know that their child has learned that he or she is adopted. The child believes the parent will be distressed if that information is divulged. The relief when adoption is acknowledged is overwhelming. The bill will allow birth fathers to have their paternity substantiated by reference to information obtained under any State or Commonwealth law. Information about fathers is included on only 5 per cent of birth certificates of people who have been adopted. Under the present Act fathers could establish paternity only by being shown as the father on the original birth certificate or by being presumed to be the father under the Children (Equality of Status) Act. This amendment, by allowing information held in a variety of sources to be used to substantiate paternity, gives biological fathers improved means of establishing paternity, and so accessing information about their children.

Siblings will also be given a distinct right to information about adoptees, at the discretion of the Director-General of the Department of Community Services. This amendment is an acknowledgment that siblings have a strong desire to find out about each other. Many siblings devote considerable effort in attempting to locate each other, and their desire to do so can be as compelling as the desire of children and parents to find each other. The birth mothers of a significant number of children who were adopted went on to marry the birth father of the child that was adopted and have other children who are the full brothers and sisters of the child who was adopted. In other cases there are half-siblings. In a number of jurisdictions if the birth mother dies children have no chance of locating their other siblings. This is tragic and unnecessary, an obstruction of the law that will now be removed in New South Wales.

The Law Reform Commission noted that there was surprisingly high compliance with the contact veto. The Hon. J. F. Ryan mentioned this. In the four years of its operation there has been only one alleged breach of a contact veto. The evidence before the committee was that birth mothers wanted to know whether their child was all right, happy, healthy and well cared for. They certainly did not want to pursue contact if contact was not welcome. The Law Reform Commission review of the Adoption Information Act 1990 found:

The evidence does clearly indicate that critics of the legislation are wrong if they imply that the Act favours a few at the expense of the majority: nearly all those who initiate searches and the majority of those contacted, are pleased that it happened or at least find it acceptable. All of the available evidence strongly suggests that contact, though it is often initially a shock, does not usually damage individuals or family relationships. Where persons found wish to limit contact . . . this is almost always respected by those who sought contact.

The New South Wales legislation has been closely modelled in Tennessee, which passed adoption information legislation in mid-1995. New Jersey, which is considering accessing adoption information, is looking at the New South Wales model. A number of Canadian provinces are also looking at enacting legislation to enable access to adoption information. Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia are considering the New South Wales model of providing access to adoption information. This is an outstanding demonstration of the success of the operation of the Standing Committee on Social Issues and the unanimity with which the legislative changes to accessing of adoption information were supported by the nine divergent members on the committee. New South Wales has the leading legislation on adoption information, as shown by the extent to which other countries are using it as a model. The amendments incorporated in the bill leave intact the purpose of the original Act. I believe that New South Wales can be justly proud of its adoption information legislation. The exercise of conducting the inquiry provided all committee members with the most harrowing personal stories of separation and loss. I am not alone in expressing pride in being part of the legislative process that has brought happiness and dignity to so many people. I support the amendments.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [10.26]: I also support the amendments to the Adoption Information Act. As previous speakers have mentioned, the Act was the product of the intensive law reform review process that has developed in this House via the establishment of the standing committees - in this case the Standing Committee on
Page 3567
Social Issues, of which the Hon. D. J. Gay and the Hon. Ann Symonds were members. Although I was not a member of Parliament at the time the Adoption Information Bill was passed I followed the debate and, like many people in the community, was deeply impressed by the Parliament's bipartisan support for the initiative of the Liberal-National Government in bringing adoption law out of an unacceptably dark and secretive age and leading the way in reforming the law. As the Hon. Ann Symonds just said, those reforms were later embraced by other jurisdictions.

The whole process of examining the issue through the emergent committee system in this place and the quality of the debate, including its emotional content, led me to take a fresh look at the role of the Legislative Council and its significance in our bicameral system. The Legislative Council was acting not just as a House of review but as a relevant, reforming, courageous and innovating House of Parliament. It was also a source of great significance to me that it was a National Party Minister for Community Services, possibly the only one there has ever been, the Hon. Robert Webster, who shepherded the bill through the Parliament. He also undertook to have the operation of the Act reviewed after a period of operation, hence the reference by the previous Attorney General to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, whose report is the basis of these amendments. The commission noted in report No. 69 "Review of the Adoption Information Act, 1990":

Concerns had been expressed in the course of (parliamentary) debate about the effect of providing access for information and the invasion of privacy this could involve. Opposition to the law had been expressed by some members of the public. Our objection was made to the extent of information available as of right and doubt was cast on the effectiveness of the contact veto system.

So a review of the Act was commissioned after the commencement of the operation of the Act in April 1991. The commission saw its task as examining how the Act actually worked, how it affected people, to see how the hopes and expectations of the Parliament and the Standing Committee on Social Issues compared with the reality. The commission advertised widely. There was considerable media coverage of the inquiry and public consultation. That included public hearings and opportunities for private submissions in seven country centres - Queanbeyan, Wagga Wagga, Lismore, Tamworth, Wollongong, Dubbo and Newcastle. The commission also wrote to members of Parliament about the review and distributed copies of the issues paper.

No doubt assiduous members of Parliament who had received representations from constituents made any concerns they had known to the commission. The commission had access to the Standing Committee on Social Issues and to its non-confidential submissions. The commission reported that it had received over 700 written submissions and there were 300 phone calls and personal submissions in response to its advertising and hearings schedule. The commission very wisely noted that the processes of consultation that occurred on the reference, while of great value, did not necessarily provide reliable quantitative information about the total population affected by the Act. It noted:

Those who choose to make submissions to the commission, or to parliamentarians, may not necessarily be representative of all people in the relevant categories. Those vigorously in favour, or opposed, may be over-represented, and the efforts of groups to encourage submissions may result in disproportionate numbers of responses expressing particular views.

Such was the activity generated by the review that I can recall being stopped and handed a leaflet at a pedestrian crossing in Sydney as part of one interest group's lobbying on this bill. The commission considered but rejected as inappropriate undertaking quantitative research, but it did undertake valuable qualitative research to assist it in its work. This bill provides for administrative arrangements for obtaining access to birth certificates and prescribed information to be rationalised and simplified so that the regulations allow for a person other than the principal registrar to exercise any function under a provision of the Act relating to access to birth certificates and prescribed information that is currently exercised by the principal registrar and to provide for access to birth certificates and prescribed information to be gained without further inquiry by an information source if authorised to do so by the director-general.

The bill also makes provision for a reunion and information register, which will incorporate the reunion information register already established, and which will facilitate the exchange of messages between persons concerned in or affected by an adoption. One of the refinements to the Act that will be brought in by this bill answers some of the serious anxieties expressed by various constituents, and that is the introduction of an advanced notice system. This will mean the delayed release of identifying information under the Act for a fixed period at the request of a person who could be identified by the release of that information.

The amending legislation also repeals that provision of the Act which allowed for the closure, without the matter first being referred back to this Parliament, of the contact veto register. It also expands the discretionary powers of the Director-General of the Department of Community Services in relation to limiting access to information to a person who would otherwise be entitled to it and releasing information to which no entitlement is presently allowed for by the Act. It also clarifies those provisions relating to the entitlement of birth fathers to receive information under the Act, and that is a just improvement to the Act. Another amendment will enable birth parents to obtain non-identifying information under the Act concerning a child under the age of 18 without first obtaining a birth certificate. Again, this is ridding the Act of unnecessary red tape.

The amendments clarify the entitlement that relatives of deceased birth parents and adopted children receive under the Act. It also enables information to be obtained from the Supreme Court without first obtaining information from other sources. Again, this is a means of opening up access to information without putting people through a series of unnecessary hoops. The bill also amends issues
Page 3568
relating to people affected by disabilities, and I support those changes. Since the passage of the Adoption Information Act there have been a number of published, deeply moving accounts of the changes wrought to people's lives - some happy, some sad and some both - which have been reconnected by the passage of that historic legislation. One of the most famous is the account of Suzanne Chick in her book Searching for Charmian. She started off her account of her search for the identity of her mother, courtesy of the new laws, when her husband handed her the day's mail. She wrote:

So at 4.30 pm on that Tuesday in June 1991 I opened the large manilla envelope. The first thing to be pulled out was a flat blue booklet printed in large white type:

Adoption Information Act 1990
Adoptees and Birthparents
Guide to Searching
ADOPTION

And the next thing, oh God, was a bromide of my original birth certificate.

She went on:

It seemed so long ago that I had walked into the country town registrar's office tucked behind the old brick court-house. The leaves were still on the giant plane trees, casting their dappled patterns on the curves of the brick paving. My sandalled feet kicked the spiky seeds over the path as I walked. My stomach was churning rebelliously. In fact I almost didn't walk in at all. Here was I, secure in my identity of forty-eight years, an art teacher, a painter, a wife, a mother . . . a daughter. Did I really want to know the truth?

"Can I help you, Madam?" A polite dark girl in a skirt and blouse came up to the counter.

"Yes, please." I screwed up my courage. "You see I'm adopted and I've decided to apply for my original birth certificate under the new Adoption Information Act. What do I have to do?"

The girl looked at me with eyes that had seen all human conditions, reached into a file and said, "Fill this form in. It will cost you one hundred and seventeen dollars. One hundred for the search, and the package you will receive. Seventeen for the certificate, if they find it."

One form to be filled in, a cheque to be handed over the counter, in exchange for that truth. If the truth could be found.

Only the name, I thought, I need only find out the name and do no more.

With a fluttering, sick-feeling stomach, I read:

Mother's name and maiden surname, age and birthplace:

Charmian Clift

19 years
Kiama
N.S.W.

My eyes seemed to go out of focus; my heart seemed to be bumping around outside my body. My trembling hands belonged to somebody else.

As a young art teacher, I had read George Johnston's My Brother Jack and knew that his wife was the author Charmian Clift. But it surely couldn't be that one. There must have been another girl with the same name. There must.

And so began the story of how Sue Chick came to learn about her much-admired, illustrious mother, the writer and commentator, Charmian Clift. One year after opening that manilla envelope, after meeting and talking with many of her mother's family and friends, Sue Chick was able to write:

What I do understand is her effect on me. My life has changed. Completed. This is the best way to describe it. In finding my natural mother, I have set free a self that had always been there, but has never been certain of its provenances. Charmian Clift has given this part of me permission to exist. To come out. What I do with this self will occupy me the rest of my life.

Curiously and quite unexpectedly, I have also found again the mother who adopted me, loved me and brought me up. I can love her with new understanding. I have found a kind of peace in unravelling the threads of my being and tracking them back to their several sources: my genes, my upbringing, and my own life-choices.

I know some people are still opposed to the original legislation, but thousands of people are directly and indirectly affected in a positive way by the passage of that bill and are eternally grateful for that legislation. I commend the Government for bringing the legislation up to date and I support this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [10.37]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.37]: I wish to place on the record a problem faced by many parents; in particular, a parent of a child with schizophrenia, who wrote to me on 17 November in these terms:

My daughter has suffered from schizophrenia since her late teens (she is now 35). When ill she has no insight into her condition, and when not psychotic she has very little insight and continues to search for a cure for her troubles via such things as alternative therapies. She has been hospitalised many times, always after a long period of continuing deterioration during which health workers say that although she is obviously mentally ill in a medical psychosis sense, she has not reached the depths of psychosis and degradation necessary for a schedule. Apart from it being heartbreaking for me to watch the deterioration (and I have become expert at interpreting her behaviour and knowing whether she is paranoid and psychotic even though when paranoid she has become expert at not "betraying" this), it is inhumane to deny treatment to someone whom health workers know is mentally ill and unable to function, who drifts about in an unkempt state and manages to find people who are ignorant of mental illness to support her paranoia and contention that she is not unwell and who believe that all she needs is their love and gentleness. (Over a long period there has been a succession of such people, but this part in the drama is currently being played by a medically untrained acupuncturist.)

My daughter was doing pretty well on a community treatment order for six months until the middle of this year, when she persuaded the mental health team to let it lapse (and ceased taking medication, although she had said she would take it - she also at times says she is taking it when she is not taking it). I observed some deterioration shortly after, which accelerated during September. Four weeks ago, after a sleepless night during which I worried about my daughter's condition as I had been able to observe it from a

Page 3569
distance, (she stays away from me when not well), and during which I mentally analysed all the little clues about her behaviour that told me her mental condition had been deteriorating, I decided that it was no longer safe to leave her three-year-old daughter in her care. On the morning of Friday 20 October, I went early to my daughter's flat and my daughter said she was just taking her child to the park and that I could come too. It was impossible to reason with her about her need for treatment, but she told me aggressively to take the child (although psychotic, she is not stupid and realised that I had come for the child instead of going to work). I have been caring for the child since then.

On the same day, I contacted the local community health team to inform them what I had done, and they said that they too had been concerned about the deterioration in my daughter's state. If my daughter had still been on a community treatment order, she could legally have been given depot injections from that time (20 October) without hospitalisation. The mental health team notified the Department of Community Services that she was not capable of caring for her child and agreed that she was psychotic, yet they said that they did not have enough evidence to schedule my daughter. She has continued to deteriorate markedly, and with her acupuncturist supporter to speak for her she has even managed to attend appointments and not display her condition.

It is ludicrous that we all know how ill my daughter is, the Department of Community Services has a notification, she has a history which can leave no doubt about the need for involuntary treatment and medical opinion counts for nothing. The system is excessively driven by the need for legal safeguards, to the extent that medical opinion becomes irrelevant. Certainly we need safeguards and second opinions, but where a person with a well documented history of schizophrenia is known to have deteriorated to the extent that she is unreachable by any reasonable approach, it is surely little short of criminal for the state to deny treatment. My daughter will continue to deteriorate until medicated, and I worry about what harm she might come to. By the time my daughter finally reaches hospital (and one hopes she has not been attacked or inadvertently walked under a bus in the meantime) it will need many months and community treatment orders before she returns to the state she was in earlier this year.

[Time expired.]


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.42]: I draw to the attention of honourable members some information passed to me by Wingham Forest Action. I quote from the WFA newsletter dated November 1995. It stated:

Most large areas of old-growth in NSW are currently protected by a moratorium on old-growth logging until an Interim Assessment Process is completed. At the moment it looks like 40% of it could be again available for logging after March 1996. Old-growth within areas of so-called regrowth is not protected unless it is more than 25ha in extent inside the net loggable area.

Two wilderness areas have gone through the public display period and may be declared this year but apart from a few ad-ons of steep and inaccessible country they largely cover the same territory as the current Barrington and Werrikimbe National Parks, although some other areas of old-growth may be added after the Interim Assessment Process.

We are very concerned to see that clear-felling has come to the north-coast. Areas as large as 20-40ha are being clearfelled, windrowed and burnt, "to promote regrowth". New Minister Kim Yeadon has responded by putting a temporary stop to it while the practice is investigated. If Forestry has its way it will be the face of logging for the future.

There have been no organisational changes inside State Forests, and in terms of practices on the ground not a lot has changed. While the change in Government has certainly bought time for the forests it is not yet a reprieve and recent statements from the Minister about the need for "resource security" must be viewed with concern. A Labor Government is obviously not the answer.

With respect to the deferred forest area process, the document stated:

The whole process has been a sham, with areas logged last year, the year before, etc, counted towards the 15% whereas areas with patches of old-growth of those forest types, are

Page 3570

up for logging. New State Forest "protocols" mean that if old-growth is less than 25ha in extent in the net-loggable area, it can be logged. With the steep escarpment country nearly all old-growth can be reduced to areas smaller than this as "net loggable area". Worse, the Fed's claim that State agencies protect endangered species with pre-logging surveys and then mitigating prescriptions while in Wingham, there is no requirement for any kind of pre-logging survey work at all.

WFA responded to the process with a submission identifying 35 compartments that need to come off the logging schedule and made criticisms about the process, its applications etc. We put special emphasis on the 4 compartments bordering Bobin Creek that are due to be logged shortly.

The document continued:

WFA has made submissions to both the State and Federal Governments that this is an important catchment that should not be subjected to further intensive logging operations. If this approach fails then some form of protest action may be needed.

On Monday October 23 we rallied those we could and set off down Padman's Rd near Elands to stop BORAL logging Lot 118 and well known Koala site. Unbeknownst to us, logging on private land down Padman's Rd had been preceding apace. We had checked with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and we knew that BORAL didn't have a Licence to Take and Kill Endangered Species, required if an activity is likely to seriously modify their habitat.

We were on the scene when they and the police arrived at about 6am. We handed the workers a statement explaining they would be personally liable if they breached the NPWS Act. There was much to-ing and fro-ing, with BORAL producing a 1992 letter from the NPWS giving them approval to log without a Licence. Things were just about at a rest stage when one of the journalists present saw something move in a tree. Yes, it was a baby koala. Fortunately, the BORAL head honcho on the scene had just done a TV interview saying there were no koalas in the area, so he looked like a right idiot. BORAL were then forced to notify the NPWS and stop logging there until a fauna assessment has been done.

This type of activity is happening throughout the forests of New South Wales and the koala habitats around the country. We have been telling the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, Kim Yeadon, that State Forests has the same bureaucrats in place, making the same decisions, as the previous Government. Many of these bureaucrats are National Party operatives. Until the Minister realises that he is being fooled by the National Party in State Forests, which is doing the same old thing it has always done, we will not be able to save our koalas or any other endangered species. We will see further devastation of high-conservation, old-growth forests which the Minister believes we are moving out of when, in fact, we are not.

Motion agreed to.