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

The President offered the Prayers.


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

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.


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


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.10]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I thank the Opposition and members of the crossbench for facilitating the treatment of this bill as an urgent bill. The bill will amend the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 to overcome certain legal consequences flowing from the disallowance of the Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation 1996. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation (No. 2) 1996. At present, because of the effects of the disallowance of the 1996 regulation, no centre-based or mobile child-care service in New South Wales holds a current and valid licence. Some 2,593 child-care services are affected in this way. While it would be possible for the Department of Community Services to issue new licences to all of those services, taking such action would be problematic. This is because a new licence can be issued only if a service complies with all of the requirements of the new regulation, unless specific exemptions from specific regulatory requirements are granted.

In order to issue a new licence, especially under these conditions, every service would have to be visited and inspected by a departmental officer before the relevant exemptions could be determined. A licensing inspection takes approximately one working day. If every available child-care field worker did nothing but inspect services and issue licences, it would take an estimated three months to complete this task. It is not acceptable for services to operate without licences for this period of time. The Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation 1996 replaced the Centre Based Child Care Services Regulation 1989 and the Mobile Child Care Services Regulation 1989. The disallowance of the 1996 regulation by resolution of the Legislative Council on 23 October 1996 together with the repeal of the 1989 regulations it replaced, by operation of section 10 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989, had the effect of removing from force any existing licences held by centre-based and mobile child-care providers on 23 October 1996.

The subsequent rescission motion of the disallowance enabled a new regulation, the Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation (No. 2) 1996, to be made. However, the rescission motion did not have the effect of restoring licences. Therefore, the new regulation included provisions in part 6 to temporarily exempt former licensees and authorised supervisors under the licences concerned from the operation of certain offence provisions of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987, so long as they continued to comply with the legislative provisions that would apply to them if the licences were still in force. The proposed amendments to the Act replace those exemptions with a provision that treats the licences as having continued in force and validates any action taken during the period following the disallowance that might have been validly taken if the licences had not been removed from force.

In short, it fully restores the status of such licensees and authorised supervisors to that which they had before the disallowance. Provision is also included in the bill to amend the Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation (No. 2) 1996 to enable new savings and transitional regulations to be made. Part 6 of the Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation (No. 2) 1996 will be superfluous once these amendments take effect.
Page 5803
However, a new part 6 must be inserted in the regulation to preserve the effect of the previous clause 40(2), which ensures that existing licensees of the child-care services concerned are not required to comply with some of the new licensing standards imposed by the regulation so long as they continue to comply with the relevant licensing standards under the Centre Based Child Care Services Regulation 1989 or the Mobile Child Care Services Regulation 1989 that formerly applied to them.

Clause 1 of the bill sets out the name of the proposed Act. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the bill on the day that it is assented to. Clauses 3 and 4 of the bill are formal provisions giving effect to the amendments that will be made to the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 and Centre Based and the Mobile Care Services Regulation (No. 2) 1996, which are set out in schedules 1 and 2. Clause 5 of the bill makes it clear that the amendment to the Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation (No. 2) 1996 does not prevent the subsequent amendment or repeal of that regulation. The amendment of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 is made by schedule 1 to the bill. Schedule 1 makes specific changes to schedule 3 to the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987, which ensures that any licence which was in force prior to the disallowance of the 1996 regulation will remain in force for the period for which it was originally granted, unless it is suspended or revoked in accordance with the Act. Schedule 2 to the bill amends part 6 of the Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation (No. 2) 1996.

At present, part 6 of the regulation contains the provision that allows existing affected services to operate without a licence. This provision will no longer be necessary once this bill is passed. Instead, part 6 will enable services that were licensed prior to the disallowance of the regulation to operate legitimately without being required to comply with the requirements of the new regulation that relate to the size of buildings and playgrounds, compliance with the building code of Australia in terms of glass, kitchens and laundries, or the provision of areas in the building to be set aside for staff meetings, consultation and so on. The amendment also makes it clear that existing services that are not able to meet these new requirements will be required to comply with the relevant provisions of the 1989 regulations as though they were still in force. In summary, the bill overcomes the consequences of the sudden and unintended deregulation of the Centre Based and Mobile Child Care Services Regulation that occurred on 23 October 1996. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.18]: The Opposition does not oppose the bill. As I became aware of the unintended consequences of actions relating to licensing, in particular, and understood the basis of the Minister's bill, it occurred to me that it would be appropriate for the bill to be dealt with as a matter of urgency rather than for debate to be held over for five days. The Opposition is showing its faith in the industry. As the Minister said, 2,593 child-care services in the State are currently unlicensed. I am sure that honourable members would not want such a situation to prevail, particularly as there is a clear nexus between a licence and various Federal Government funding arrangements. It is absolutely essential that the licensing system be preserved. I accept the Minister's advice that the only other way to achieve the desired result would be to undertake a re-examination of each centre in a very short time. The Opposition accepts the Minister's word on that matter. Given that I have only just seen the bill, I have had to accept that it will result in no unintended consequences, which can happen. On this occasion I have to take the advice of the department on this children's services matter, although I have been quite critical of the department's work performance regarding the whole issue of regulations.

In the long term the bill will create a better situation. In schedule 2, part 6 makes clear that premises that were previously licensed under the 1989 regulations will not immediately have to conform to new regulations: so long as they continue to comply with the relevant licensing standards of the 1989 regulation they will be able to continue operating. During the consultation phase the industry was concerned to overcome the uncertainty regarding the position of centres that had been designed under the 1989 regulations. The bill clarifies the position. On the whole the industry will support the bill, although I assure the Minister that there are still many concerns about the regulations. I normally do not speak on a bill without having the opportunity of consulting all sectors of the industry involved but with nearly 2,600 centres without a licence today, and with the implications for Federal funding, the Opposition supports the bill being dealt with urgently and supports the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.22]: I support the introduction of the new regulations. I do not intend to go into great detail in relation to my support because the matter has been well debated in this House at least twice previously. However, when the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services explained in the last sitting week that because of the legal problems arising from reviving the previous regulations it would be necessary for his department to prepare new regulations, I asked whether it was possible for him to change the date of introduction of some of the regulations, particularly the regulation stating that two people have to be on duty at all times while a child-care centre is operating. The Minister's response suggested that to give child-care centres an opportunity to organise to comply with the new arrangements the requirement would not come into force until 1 July 1997.

I believe that it should have been possible to bring the regulation into effect earlier: I suggested by 1 January. I ask the Minister to state in reply
Page 5804
whether that can be organised. Even after consultation with departmental officers there is great confusion within the industry. The correspondence I have received proves that. A number of child-care centres are fully behind the Minister and fully supportive of much stronger new regulations. But, equally, other sections of the industry do not support new regulations. Now they will have to wear the new regulations whether they like them or not. I ask the Minister to clarify how they will be informed of the regulations that will come into force after passage of the bill. Will departmental officers at an area level inform the child-care centres within their area? Will all child-care centres receive the new regulations, perhaps by fax, or will the Minister establish a hotline whereby centres that are still confused about what they will have to do will be able to phone officers of the department to have their queries answered?

After all the confusion that has arisen to date it would be a tragedy if certain child-care centre operators were still claiming that they did not know, they were not consulted and they did not understand what was being enforced by the Government. It would be simple to set up a hotline. Then people could not use the excuse of not knowing or not being consulted. I am delighted that the Minister has been able to prepare new regulations and that the matter has been so fully ventilated. I realise that the lengthy debate on the regulations has probably been unsatisfactory for the Government but having all the problems aired so openly in the long run may be in the best interests of parents, child-care centre operators and particularly the children, who are the most important people involved.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.26], in reply: I thank the Opposition and the crossbench members for their support of the bill and for facilitating the bill being dealt with urgently. It is clearly desirable to cure the legal consequences of the disallowance of the regulation as quickly as possible. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred to the rule requiring that two employees be present at a child-care service at any given time. She said previously that she was keen to have that requirement brought into effect from 1 January next year. The Government and I have every sympathy for her point of view. However, having regard to what has happened and the degree of confusion that has occurred, the Government takes the view that the more prudent course is to bring that provision, which is controversial in some sectors of the industry, into effect from 1 June next year, not from 1 January as proposed by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.

The Government has closely considered the matter but believes it would be better to hasten a little more slowly by bringing the provision into effect on 1 June. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby also asked what steps would be taken to communicate the nature of the new provisions, and in particular the major aspects, to the child-care industry, having regard to the doubts that have arisen. The first action that will be taken is that the Department of Community Services will send a copy of the new regulation to all licensed child-care services. In addition, the Government will prepare a detailed regulatory impact statement regarding the newly made regulation. Also, I have asked my department, having regard to the need to clearly communicate all aspects of the matter - particularly having regard to the events in the recent past - to prepare a form of letter setting out the effect of what has now been done and in particular drawing the attention of licensed child-care providers to key aspects of the new regulation. Those three matters taken together will address the concern mentioned by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I thank honourable members who have spoken during the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Schedule 1

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.32]: By leave, I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1.1, line 9. Omit "desirable that a detainee should be in attendance". Insert instead "necessary that a detainee should attend".

No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1.1, line 11. Insert "and that the absence of the detainee may prejudice the rights of a party" after "pending".

No. 4 Page 14, Schedule 1.7, line 6. Omit "desirable that a prisoner should be in attendance". Insert instead "necessary that a prisoner should attend".

No. 5 Page 14, Schedule 1.7, line 8. Insert "and that the absence of the prisoner may prejudice the rights of a party" after "pending".

Opposition amendments were foreshadowed to various parts of the bill which would have amended the Government's proposals relating to section 44 of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 and section 44 of the Prisons Act 1952. These sections empower an appropriate officer of the court to make an order to the governor of a prison or a child detention centre to produce the detainee or prisoner to the court for the purpose of giving evidence. The legislative proposal is to amend the definition of "appropriate officer" in each Act. The Government's proposals would not have expanded the criteria for the issue of an order or resulted in any increase in the production of prisoners or detainees before the courts.

The Opposition's amendments would have required the appropriate officer to be satisfied that without the attendance of the prisoner or detainee the proceedings in which he or she was required to give evidence could be jeopardised. This would have
Page 5805
required the court to make a pretrial analysis of the proceedings and the merits of the evidence of respective witnesses. The Government took the view that the test would have been too high, although it is happy to have informal and productive discussions with the Opposition about the intent behind the amendments. The Government was concerned that the test proposed could have required the disclosure of a defendant's case in a pretrial context, which is not a usual prerequisite for the issue of a subpoena, and the ventilation of issues which can only be properly ventilated in the substantive matter before the court. In cases where an order was not issued the applicant could have sought a review on the basis that he or she was being denied the opportunity to put his or her case by being deprived of a witness. The amendments that the Government puts to the Committee will have broad support within the House. I acknowledge that the amendments have resulted from discussions with the Leader of the Opposition in an effort to resolve the issue. The proposed new section 44 of the Prisons Act will provide:

(1) If an appropriate person or body is satisfied that it is desirable that a prisoner should be in attendance before it, him or her for the purposes of any legal proceeding, inquest or inquiry then pending, the person or body may make an order directing the superintendent of the prison in which the prisoner is imprisoned to cause the prisoner to be produced at the court or other place at which the proceeding, inquest or inquiry is being held.

Amendments to section 42(1) of the Children (Detention Centres) Act will have a similar result. These amendments will not have the consequence of a test based on jeopardy of proceedings; they will enable the appropriate officer to be satisfied that the prisoner is required to give evidence without ventilating the issues in the proceedings. They will also provide a bar to the practice, to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, of prisoners obtaining orders for the attendance of another prisoner for the purpose of giving that prisoner a break from prison routine.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.36]: I welcome the Government's introduction of these amendments. As the Minister said, they address the concerns which I raised. The Opposition does not oppose the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.37]: I move:

No. 3 Page 7, Schedule 1.3. Insert after line 17:

[3] Section 127 Right of appeal to Supreme Court

Omit "decision of a Judge" from section 127(1). Insert instead "Judge's judgment or order in an action".

This amendment will add a new clause to schedule 1 and will amend section 127 of the District Court Act 1973. Its purpose is to overcome an unintended result of a previous amendment to this section which deals with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The section currently provides that a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of a judge may appeal to the Supreme Court. Subsection (2) provides for circumstances in which appeals lie only by leave of the Supreme Court. The words of section 127(1) were inserted by the Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1995 No. 88. The purpose of that amendment was to rationalise provisions relating to appeals from the District Court and to create essentially uniform provisions with other appeal provisions.

In the second reading speech on the Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1995 it was stated that the now repealed sections 127, 128 and 130 of that Act were unnecessarily complex. The purpose was to replace those sections with one provision without altering the policy underlying the sections. However, previous section 127 dealing with appeals referred to the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of a judgment in an action. Actions are interpreted as proceedings which are causes of action within the District Court. An unintended interpretation of the new section 127 is that it gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from any decision of a judge sitting in the civil jurisdiction of the court except in the circumstances set out in section 127(2). This would include all matters going to the District Court by way of statutory appeal from lower courts and tribunals. Such result was unintentional.

It was not intended to include proceedings in the jurisdiction of the court conferred on the court by another Act or law, such as proceedings in the nature of a review of or an appeal against a decision of some other court or tribunal or some other person. Without the amendment now proposed by the Government, there could be a flood of matters to the Court of Appeal, contrary to the policy underlying courts legislation. The Government moves an amendment to the bill to limit section 127 by replacing "a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of a judge may appeal to the Supreme Court" with "a party who is dissatisfied with a judge's judgment or order in an action may appeal to the Supreme Court". This will reverse an unintended result of the Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1995.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.40]: The Opposition supports the amendment. As the Minister indicated, an unintended consequence arose from the previous amendments. This amendment appropriately closes that loophole.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.41]: By leave, I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 8, Schedule 1.5[2], lines 25 to 29. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2B), an officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or of any other charitable organisation under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, is taken not to be acting in a private capacity if the officer acts as the informant in any proceedings under that Act.

Page 5806

No. 2 Page 9, Schedule 1.5[2], lines 6 and 7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

the RSPCA or of another charitable organisation under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 is taken not to be acting in a private capacity when acting as informant in proceedings under that Act.

No. 3 Page 10, Schedule 1.5[6], lines 11 to 16. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), an officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or of any other charitable organisation under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, is taken not to be acting in a private capacity if the officer acts as the informant or complainant in any proceedings under that Act.

No. 4 Page 10, Schedule 1.5[6], lines 22 to 24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

matters. Item (6) makes it clear that an officer of the RSPCA or of another charitable organisation under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 is taken not to be acting in a private capacity when acting as informant or complainant in proceedings under that Act.

No. 5 Page 11, Schedule 1.5[10], lines 28 to 33. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), an officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or of any other charitable organisation under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, is taken not to be acting in a private capacity if the officer acts as the respondent in any appeal arising from proceedings under that Act.

No. 6 Page 12, Schedule 1.5[10], lines 6 to 8. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

officer of the RSPCA or of any other charitable organisation under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 is taken not to be acting in a private capacity when acting as prosecutor in proceedings under that Act.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made representations to the Attorney General expressing concern about section 41A, section 81 and section 125 of the Justices Act 1902, highlighting a problem in that those sections allow a justice to order an informant to pay a defendant's costs in certain circumstances. The RSPCA wanted the Government to clarify the Act to make it absolutely clear that an informant member of the RSPCA acting on a complaint laid pursuant to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 was not in fact a private person. The RSPCA was successful in having those provisions amended. However, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act the capacity to act is not confined to the RSPCA; members of other charitable organisations, such as the Animal Welfare League, are also covered by the Act. These amendments seek to ensure that informants of the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and any other organisation empowered to act as an informant under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act may do so without fear of having costs awarded against them, for what they are doing is essentially the work of police officers. The amendments seek to extend the coverage of the sections, and I understand that the Government and the Opposition support the amendments.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.43]: The Government has had only relatively short notice of these amendments, but I have been able to get some advice on them, and therefore think they can be supported. Obviously, if the amendments have any unintended consequences or difficulties, they can be reviewed in due course. But, as at present advised, the Government will accept the amendments proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.44]: The Opposition takes a similar point of view, it also having had only short notice of the amendments. It is clear that the intention of the amendments is that those prosecuting under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act receive the same protections as are given to those prosecuting for the RSPCA. I welcome the Minister's comments that if there are unintended consequences of the amendment, that will be addressed by a further amendment.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.


Debate resumed from 30 October.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.46]: The Opposition supports the bill. There have been circumstances in which persons have been imprisoned without their fingerprints being taken. That problem was highlighted to me in the latter part of my administration of the portfolio of Attorney General. I understood that steps were being taken to redress what was clearly an omission in the legislation. This bill obviously emanates from that matter having been brought to the attention of the current Government. Any member of the public would be incredulous that a person gaoled for having committed a criminal offence had never been fingerprinted. This bill will correct that anomaly.

The bill goes further to provide that where a person is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment, or where a court finds such an offence proved against the person but does not proceed to conviction - effectively making a section 556A determination - the court must order that the person submit to the taking of his or her fingerprints before the person leaves the building in which the court is situated. That is, there is a mandatory requirement upon a court to direct that fingerprints be taken from the offender, and that the person not leave the court building until that process has been completed. I understand that the original proposal was to give courts a discretion in relation to the
Page 5807
fingerprinting process, and that the court would exercise that discretion where a section 556A order was made or no good purpose would be achieved by the fingerprinting.

This bill tightens up the original proposal, and the Opposition does not oppose that provision. If a person has been convicted of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment but the court decides to exercise its discretion not to impose such a punishment, there is no reason why, the crime being sufficiently serious to attract a sentence of imprisonment, a record should not be kept of the clear identity of the offender. The Bar Association forwarded to me a submission that argues that the provision should not extend to persons dealt with under section 556A of the Crimes Act. I have considered that submission, but I find the Bar Association's position unsustainable. The Bar Association also raised concerns about the entitlement to detain an offender in the court building for as long as is reasonably necessary to take the offender's fingerprints. My response to that is that fingerprints have to be taken, and if that means that the offender has to be detained in the cells until that occurs, so be it. The courts will operate as effectively and efficiently as possible in their administration of the scheme and I am sure no-one will be held for hours or days at a court whilst the fingerprinting procedure is occurring. Therefore, the Opposition does not have difficulty with that proposal.

Certainly there will be administrative problems for the courts. There will be a need to provide additional resources and I expect that the Government will provide those resources, particularly as the courts budget is strained. Given those budgetary problems, this added burden should not be imposed. It is appropriate that the legislation provide a mechanism by which either the police or prison officers will be able to take fingerprints. When I was Attorney General the custody of prisoners at many courts was administered by prison officers rather than the police. That practice proved to be most efficient. I believe that in all metropolitan courts and in most courts between Newcastle and Wollongong corrective services officers will now undertake that task. In country areas the police are responsible for custody in cells but I hope the Government will review that practice. Though it will require additional resources, there is no reason that in major centres such as Dubbo or even Broken Hill, which I visited over the last few days, the prison service should not take over the management of court cells. The former coalition Government made resources available in its period of administration and I hope that this Government will continue to make those resources available.

The Government intends that the scheme will be put in place as a six-month pilot program. However, it has not stated how quickly the scheme will be introduced elsewhere in the State. I believe that it should be introduced immediately throughout the State. The purpose of the pilot should not be to determine the feasibility of the extension - that should be taken as read - but to look at the administrative problems associated with it to determine the costs of introducing the scheme throughout the State. Resources should be made available to extend it automatically throughout the State. I hope that the Minister in his reply will indicate that that is the intention of the Government. This is not a pilot program with a view to determining whether or not it should be sustained. There should be no question about it. There is a loophole in the law that should be closed. It is a question of how quickly the scheme is applied to every court in the State.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER [11.52]: I also speak in support of the Crimes Amendment (Court Finger-printing Scheme) Bill, which should be adopted across the State as matter of urgency. It is not necessary that the scheme be run as a pilot program. The scheme does address a loophole in the system, an anomaly that should be addressed quickly. Over the years I have experienced problems similar to those that the bill seeks to address where people are arrested and subsequently convicted but as a result of receiving a summons are not subjected to fingerprinting at a police station. I have brought people before the courts for serious offences. I remember one sexual assault case that proceeded by summons because of the unique qualities and relationships between the victim and the offender. Had I not been at court to notify the magistrate on that day that the person had not been fingerprinted at the police station that offender would have walked from the court with a conviction recorded under his name that could never have been married to him personally. There would have been some question about identification of that person because positive identification had not been conducted by taking the person's fingerprints.

It would not surprise honourable members to know that once people are convicted by a court and sentenced to either a term of imprisonment, a section 556A or a community service order or some other sentence, they are free to leave. So far as the court is concerned that is the end of the matter. Neither the police nor the court have the power to detain them further for the purposes of taking their fingerprints. This legislation will take care of that existing anomaly. I raise an issue for the Attorney General to consider which may well be in the back of his mind in putting this bill forward. This legislation provides an opportunity to remove police from the finger-printing process of an arrest altogether, something that I feel is perhaps in the back of the Attorney General's mind or the mind of whoever thought up this piece of legislation whereby a person is fingerprinted not at a police station but upon conviction at a court.

There is a marked difference between the two. Quite often people may be arrested, go to court, be found not guilty and then have to write to the Commissioner of Police or the Minister to have their fingerprint histories destroyed. It may well be the
Page 5808
case that people currently do that. However, many people would not be aware of that right and, although they were not convicted, their fingerprint records would remain on file. Though this piece of legislation presents an opportunity for consideration to be given to removing police from the general fingerprinting process at a police station in future, amendments would be necessary to cover criminal offences where police would have the opportunity to take fingerprints in certain circumstances. I suggest that many junior constables would be pleased to be removed from the fingerprinting process simply because when offenders affected by drugs or alcohol are arrested and charged they often become violent. Often those police are subjected to serious assault and other disturbing incidents. Many police would like the opportunity to be removed from that process and it is worth exploring. However, in relation to this piece of legislation, the scheme should not be run as a pilot program. It should be adopted statewide as a matter of urgency.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [11.57]: Call to Australia supports the Crimes Amendment (Court Finger-printing Scheme) Bill. I have been fingerprinted, though not for committing a criminal offence, and I assure the Leader of the Opposition that the process does not take long at all. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [11.58]: Further to the remarks of my colleague the Hon. M. J. Gallacher, I ask the Minister a question for him to address in his reply. I note that under schedule 1, proposed section 353AC(3), the court will not be required to make an order under this section if it is satisfied that the person's fingerprints were taken while the person was in lawful custody for the offence. The assumption there is clearly that previous methods of taking fingerprints of suspects of offences will be retained. I seek an assurance from the Attorney General that in cases where the taking of fingerprints is essential to gain a conviction it is not anticipated or intended under this legislation to remove those powers.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [12.01], in reply: In response to the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, my understanding of the bill is that police powers will not be removed. The object of the particular provision to which the honourable member referred is to simply avoid duplication. I thank honourable members for their support for the bill. Some members of the Opposition have urged that the matter be dealt with not by way of pilot but by way of immediate implementation. There are some administrative and principal difficulties about this proposal. The Government took the view that a cautious and careful approach was warranted. This idea has been in existence for quite some time. In 1990 the Independent Commission Against Corruption criticised the standard of fingerprint records in New South Wales. In 1993 the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research identified deficiencies in criminal records.

As a result of that criticism and identification, in 1995 the Standing Committee of Criminal Justice System Chief Executive Officers set up a working party to consider various issues. A recommendation of that working party was that fingerprints be taken at court with a minimum of delay and embarrassment to the offender. The recommendation necessitated a trial being undertaken of fingerprints taken at court, particularly with a view to ascertaining the resources required to implement the recommendation statewide. One of the purposes of the trial is to access the feasibility of undertaking the fingerprinting process at court and to give an estimate of the increased volume of work which would be generated if the recommendations were to be adopted throughout New South Wales courts. Although I can understand some members of the Opposition suggesting that the proposal should be implemented in one fell swoop, given that the idea has been out and about since 1980, the Government was of the view that a staged implementation and assessment would be more appropriate. In any event, I thank the House for its general support for the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [12.03]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In late 1995 the community was shocked by an incident in which firefighters who had been called to a rubbish fire in Villawood were set upon by a group of youths who took exception to attempts to extinguish the fire. In the resulting melee one firefighter sustained a minor injury. As a result of this incident the honourable member for Eastwood in another place introduced a bill to amend section 58 of the Crimes Act 1900 to include emergency workers and to increase the maximum penalty from five years to 10 years imprisonment. The Government opposed the bill. At that time the Minister for Emergency Services said:

. . . the Government is very committed to addressing these issues sensibly rather than hastily and to introducing more appropriate legislation . . .

This bill honours that commitment. The major objection to the proposal to amend section 58 of the Crimes Act was that it dealt only with the matter of assault and proposed a maximum custodial penalty which was disproportionate to others in the Act. The bill proposes to amend the penalties of the existing offence of hindering or obstructing emergency workers, which are contained in the following emergency service legislation, to include a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. The Acts to be
Page 5809
amended are the Bush Fires Act 1949, the Fire Brigades Act 1989, the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 and the State Emergency Service Act 1989. During the drafting of the bill the opportunity was also taken to standardise the monetary penalties for the offence of hindering or obstructing emergency service workers at 50 units - the penalty is currently $5,000 - and to create an offence under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 for hindering or obstructing members of accredited rescue units acting in the course of a rescue or responding to an emergency.

The Ambulance Service Act does not include any offence provision for hindering or obstructing an ambulance officer. The Minister for Health has advised that the Ambulance Service does not support the inclusion of such a provision. The reasons for this are: ambulance personnel do not have a public order or control role; incidents of obstruction, apart from road traffic, are uncommon; incidents tend to be related to the health status of patients, for example drug and alcohol, epileptic and psychiatric conditions; and the health care role of ambulance personnel could be compromised by launching criminal proceedings against patients. The Ambulance Service is of the view that personnel who assault ambulance officers can be dealt with adequately under the general offence of assault provisions of the Crimes Act. This also applies in relation to assault of any emergency service worker.

I emphasise that the provisions of the bill relate to the offence of hindering or obstructing emergency service workers. The issue of assault will continue to be dealt with under the provisions of the Crimes Act. Although the offence of assault is dealt with in section 55 of the Bush Fires Act, it is intended to delete that offence as part of the new rural fires bill. Concerns have been expressed that there is potential for these provisions to be used against workers exercising legitimate industrial rights, or against their elected representatives. As I stated previously, these provisions already exist in the appropriate Acts. Since being introduced by the previous Government in 1989 the provisions have never been used in the context of industrial disputation. I do not think that the previous Government intended those provisions to be used in such a context, and I assure the House that it is not the intention of this Government that these provisions would ever be used in such a manner. Any industrial disputation is dealt with in the appropriate industrial relations forum. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that a meaningful deterrent exists to those who would hinder the emergency service workers in the performance of their duties of protecting the community. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [12.07]: The Opposition does not oppose the bill but suggests that the bill does not go far enough; it is simply not tough enough. I suppose the bill is as good as we can expect from a Labor Government that talks tough, but acts soft, on crime. The Attorney General referred to a riot which took place at Villawood in December last year when there was an organised ambush of the Fairfield Fire Brigade as it tried to reach a fire in the area. The Sun-Herald of 31 December reported that the firefighters "were pelted with bricks and bottles and one was kicked by as many as 20 youths when they answered an emergency call to an estate in Villawood." The report continued:

One firefighter was attacked by up to 20 youths. The bloke was set off balance and then he was kicked on the ground. He was taken to Fairfield hospital and later released with some bad bruising and a shocking headache. Another bloke was hurt when his leg was cut by some of the flying bottles and bricks.

This was not an isolated incident involving emergency services. In the same report it was stated that, "Police were pelted with beer bottles and a taxi set alight during an ugly clash in inner Sydney the day before. They were attacked by about a dozen people, who threw bottles and bricks from a distance while leading away a suspected car thief." Members will also recall that last Christmas similar scenes occurred at Bondi Beach, when police officers, who were trying to control the large crowd that traditionally assembles there on Christmas Day every year, were attacked with bottles. An article in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 22 December 1995 reported that Chief Inspector Dick Baker said revellers pelted police with bottles and blocked traffic as Bondi Beach turned into a war zone. About 300 people rocked and attempted to turn over a bus, which was carrying about 30 passengers, as it was driving along Campbell Parade. Chief Inspector Baker said, "Words escape me for this type of behaviour."

As the Attorney General has referred to, these types of attacks on emergency services officers led to the introduction, on 18 April in the other place, of a private member's bill by the honourable member for Eastwood, who is now the shadow minister for police. The honourable member for Eastwood sought to amend section 58 of the Crimes Act to make it a specific offence to assault, resist or wilfully obstruct an ambulance officer, fire brigade officer, or any other emergency services officer, in the execution of his or her duty. Existing penalties were to have been doubled under the provisions of that bill. When introducing the bill, the honourable member for Eastwood made it clear that the Opposition believes that this is fundamentally a life and death matter. People who obstruct fire officers engaged in fire fighting or ambulance officers attending to a seriously injured person are, in effect, damaging property and endangering lives. This is clearly unacceptable behaviour and we need to send a clear and unambiguous message that it will not be tolerated. It is imperative that fire officers and ambulance officers have the same protection under the law that is currently available to police officers.

I understand that ambulance officers are covered only under emergency services legislation when a state of emergency has been declared. The
Page 5810
exclusion of ambulance officers from the provisions of this bill is a matter of concern to the Opposition. The Minister for Emergency Services has sought to justify his position by saying that incidents such as ambulance officers being attacked tend to be related to a patient's health status, with a likely example being a drug-induced patient assaulting an officer. According to the Minister, the health care role of ambulance personnel could be compromised by launching criminal proceedings against its patients. An article in the Daily Telegraph of 16 October highlighted the potential for ambulance officers to be assaulted by members of the public other than patients in their care. In that article it was reported that paramedic Joe Michael was attacked after a short argument with a pedestrian who had jumped in front of his moving ambulance. The ambulance in question had been heading towards Parramatta after receiving an urgent radio message that a woman had fallen unconscious and collapsed. The ambulance service was reported as saying that Mr Michael was only one of 66 officers to be assaulted at work this year.

The article went on to say that in attacks this year officers were punched, kicked and grabbed around the throat while attending to patients, and other officers were assaulted with bodily fluids such as spit, vomit and blood. Officers may well be able to take action under other provisions of the Act, but such incidents involve assault and hinder them in the course of their duty. These incidents are cause for serious concern because, in my view, they represent a breakdown in community discipline, indicate a total lack of respect for the proud traditions of our emergency services and are foreign to our traditional Australian character. People who choose to show their disrespect for emergency personnel who so often risk their lives to save others must be given a clear message that such disgusting behaviour will not be tolerated.

We have a system of justice which has fair and reasonable processes to determine innocence or guilt. Once these processes have been exhausted and guilt has been established, the magistrate or judge should have the means to ensure that an appropriate sentence is imposed. Such a sentence should be one that the community deems to be adequate; a sentence that will act as a suitable deterrent for people who deliberately set out to obstruct New South Wales emergency services officers in the course of their duties. The Opposition believes that a two-year sentence, as proposed by the Minister, does not meet community expectations and will not be a suitable deterrent. The Opposition does not oppose the bill but, as I have said, it is clear that the bill does not go far enough; it is simply not tough enough.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [12.13]: Because I have a particular interest in emergency services, I examined this bill with a degree of care. I accept that the bill in its present form will amend the four key Acts that govern provisions relating to bush fire brigades, fire brigades, State Emergency Service units and Volunteer Rescue Association units in New South Wales. It will amend the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act to create an offence of obstructing members of accredited rescue units in connection with a rescue operation or otherwise in response to an emergency. The offence of obstruction occurs more frequently than is usually acknowledged. In many instances it may be only a small act of obstruction, but if it causes the services to be late or slow in responding, it is a very serious matter.

The Attorney General referred earlier to the outrageous and totally unacceptable incident in 1995 when firefighters who were attending a fire in the Sydney suburb of Villawood were attacked. I am sure every member of this House condemns such behaviour, but it is only one of many such incidences involving the care professionals: police, ambulance, and fire and State Emergency Service personnel. The attacks are unwarranted and dangerous. Members of the public should not be able to obstruct volunteers who are seeking to serve this State and expect to walk away unpunished. There is no doubt that the Government, in another place, has chosen to ignore the opportunity presented by the Crimes Amendment (Emergency Workers) Bill, the private member's bill proposed by the Opposition shadow minister for police, Andrew Tink.

I disagree with the comments made by the Attorney General. He has missed the opportunity to impose penalties that will put a stop to such incidents in the future. The legislation, while it goes some of the way towards that objective, is half-hearted and flawed. The bill does not offer all emergency workers - bush fire volunteers, firefighters, ambulance paramedics or SES volunteers - the level of protection enjoyed by police officers. I do not accept the argument put forward by the Attorney General that police officers play a different role. Emergency volunteers act in emergency situations; they do so in the public interest, and they should be offered the same protection as that offered to police officers. Police officers are protected by the threat of a maximum five-year penalty for those who obstruct them in their duties, whereas other emergency and rescue personnel are protected by penalties that impose only a maximum two-year gaol sentence. We are creating second-class citizens.

This erroneous situation plainly says to the community that a volunteer bush fire officer in the upper Hunter, a fire service officer, say, in Maitland, a State Emergency Service volunteer in Cessnock or an ambulance officer from Gloucester, is worth only 40 cents in the dollar, as it were, when compared with police officers. As a long-term member of the State Emergency Service I find it offensive that volunteers are treated in such cavalier fashion. The penalties provided, be they a $5,000 maximum penalty or a two-year sentence, are a poor response from those in the community who demand enhanced protection for care professionals engaged in stressful emergency, rescue and life-saving situations.

Page 5811

The Government is happy to offer a uniform to both paid and volunteer personnel, but discounts their value to, and the esteem in which they are held by, the community. I remind the House that the Government is quite prepared to introduce a new offence of obstruction rather than achieve a more responsible and reasonable outcome by amending the Crimes Act. The Opposition has taken a fair approach to the bill, but that approach has been rejected by a Government overcome with timidity and tardiness. The 20,400 cardiac medical cases handled by the New South Wales Ambulance Service and the 87,400 incidents handled by the New South Wales Fire Brigades during 1994-95 are testimony to the serious and sensitive nature of the responsibility borne by our care professionals. They must be protected by more significant sanctions. A disturbing feature in the 1994-95 annual report of the New South Wales Fire Brigades was the reference to the investment of valuable time and resources to optimise the health and fitness of firefighters at a time when the Government is prepared to offer firefighters only 40 per cent of the protection enjoyed by police in similar circumstances.

The Opposition will support the bill. However, it is necessary that I put on record the Opposition's criticism of its provisions. The bill does not treat all emergency personnel equally. Its sanctions are too lenient, and it is a lamentable response to the potential risks taken by care professionals and those who rely upon prompt and secure emergency personnel action. Despite the inadequacies of the bill and the fact that it treats volunteers as second-class citizens it is an improvement on the existing provisions, and for that reason the Opposition will support it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [12.19], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading debate. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [12.20]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

•The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement was signed by the Commonwealth and all States and Territories on 14 June 1996. New Zealand signed it on 9 July 1996. The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bills implement the Arrangement.

•The Arrangement builds on the Australian Mutual Recognition Agreement, which commenced operation in March 1993.

•The Mutual Recognition (NSW) Act was passed in 1992 by the NSW Parliament with the support of all Parties.

•The Australian scheme has successfully overcome many of the regulatory differences that exist between the States and Territories to create a more effective national market.

•The Arrangement is designed to extend the Australian scheme to New Zealand.

•The legislative scheme involves the States, the Territories, the Commonwealth and New Zealand. Each of these jurisdictions will enact legislation.

•The legislative scheme has two components: an Australian component and a New Zealand component.

•This Bill is concerned with the Australian component of this larger legislative scheme. The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill 1996 of New Zealand is concerned with the New Zealand component.

•That Bill was introduced into the Parliament of New Zealand on 18 July 1996. However, passage has been delayed by the New Zealand election.

•The Australian component is made up of two Bills:

_The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (New South Wales) Bill (the State Bill): this refers power to the Commonwealth over the matters set out in the Commonwealth Bill; and

_The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill (the Commonwealth Bill): this is attached as a Schedule to the State Bill, and is the Bill the Commonwealth will enact to implement the Arrangement.

•The State Bill makes a limited referral of matters to the Commonwealth to legislate under s.51(xxxvii) of the Constitution for the passage of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition legislation.

•The New South Wales Bill will enable the Commonwealth to pass an Act in the terms, or substantially in the terms of, the Act set out in the Schedule to the New South Wales Bill.

•The mutual recognition scheme is to last initially for five years, after which time the Governor has the power to terminate the reference by proclamation.

•The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill has been drafted to mirror the provisions of the existing Australian Mutual Recognition Act 1992 as closely as possible.

•Similarly, in drafting the New Zealand Bill every effort has been made to closely reflect the Australian legislation, whilst also recognising New Zealand's different legislative conventions.

•This approach is intended to minimise the potential for disputes to arise from differences in the interpretation of the legislation.

•The Bill is drafted to make sure that any amendments to the Commonwealth legislation will also be required to pass through the NSW Parliament.

•The Commonwealth must wait for one State to refer power to it before the Commonwealth can pass its own legislation.

Page 5812

•New South Wales, which drafted both the State and the Commonwealth Bills, is the lead jurisdiction. So today is the first step in the process to give effect to the Arrangement in Australia.

The Benefits of Mutual Recognition

•The idea behind mutual recognition is to overcome problems caused by regulations that deal with the same things in different jurisdictions, yet often differ only in the most pedantic of fashions.

•The concept of mutual recognition is a regulatory model based on the idea that regulations that govern goods and occupations in one participating jurisdiction and meet that community's expectations should be equally acceptable in any other participating jurisdiction.

•Mutual recognition takes into account that there will continue to be differences in the substance of the regulations and regulatory regime used by each jurisdiction.

•It is a very elegant mechanism for overcoming artificial barriers to a more integrated Trans-Tasman economy.

•However, it should be acknowledged that while mutual recognition may also draw the Government's attention to outdated and unnecessarily prescriptive regulations, it does not actually bring about the removal of those regulations.

•In terms of its economic benefits, mutual recognition should rightly be seen as a significant reform.

•It reduces compliance costs for manufacturers, and facilitates the movement of people who work in registered occupations from one State to another.

•From the consumer's point of view, it promotes competition and encourages greater diversity in the marketplace.

•These changes enhance not just the national, but the international, competitiveness of the New South Wales and Australian economy.

Development of the Arrangement

•There is already a high level of integration between the Australian and New Zealand economies. This is both through our historical ties, and more recently as a result of the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (CER).

•The Trans-Tasman mutual recognition proposal can be seen as a natural extension of that already close economic relationship.

•It will effectively increase the coverage of the existing Australian agreement by about 20 per cent in population terms, and will provide a market of about 21 million people.

•With our already strong bilateral trade relationship, and the constant movement of people between our countries, Trans-Tasman mutual recognition represents a logical further step in integrating the regulatory standards and the conditions of occupational registration.

•Beyond that, it is also likely to enhance global market prospects for Australian and New Zealand producers.

•At their April 1995 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting, Heads of Government gave in-principle approval to a Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement. They also agreed to the release of a public discussion paper A Proposal for the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition of Standards for Goods and Occupations.

•The discussion paper was sent to peak industry and professional groups throughout Australia and New Zealand.

•Approximately 60 submissions were received, the majority of which were supportive.

•Officials from the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Queensland Governments also met with representatives of peak industry groups at consultations organised by the NSW Chamber of Commerce and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

•The comments made during the consultation process have been taken into account in deciding upon the lists of exemptions, exclusions, and cooperation programs.

•After further negotiations, the Arrangement was finalised for the June 1996 COAG.

How the scheme operates

•Mr President, I will now explain the main provisions of the legislation in greater detail.

The legislation will apply to all participating jurisdictions.

•A participating Australian jurisdiction is one that:

_refers power to enact the Commonwealth Act or requests enactment of it; or

_adopts the Commonwealth Act afterwards under paragraph 51 (xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution.

•Both the Australian and the Trans-Tasman schemes operate in the same way - on the premise that goods acceptable for sale in one participating jurisdiction should be acceptable in any other.

•Similarly, services provided by a person registered to practise an occupation in one participating jurisdiction should be acceptable in any other.

•The way the mutual recognition principle works in relation to goods is set out in Part 2 of the Commonwealth Bill. Part 3 sets out the same in relation to occupations.

•As with the Australian scheme, the Arrangement will not affect the operation of any laws which regulate:

_the manner of sale of goods or the manner in which sellers are required to conduct their business (eg. registration of sellers, or persons to whom goods may be sold);

_the transportation, storage or handling of goods, if the laws are directed at protecting health, safety or preventing environmental pollution; or

_the inspection of goods, if the inspection is not a prerequisite to sale, and the laws are directed at protecting health, safety or preventing environmental pollution.

•Clause 12 of the Commonwealth Bill deals with these points.

•Naturally, there are some areas where differences in regulatory standards have been identified and require special attention.

•The options for dealing with these areas of difference are harmonisation, or temporary or permanent exemption.

•One difference between the Arrangement and the Australian Mutual Recognition Scheme relates to the laws listed in the Exclusions, Permanent Exemptions and Special Exemption Schedules.

•A number of laws will be excluded from the operation of the Arrangement that might otherwise unintentionally be affected by mutual recognition.

•These laws relate to customs controls and tariffs; intellectual property and trademarks; taxation and other specified international conventions. These laws are set out in Schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Bill.

Page 5813

•In addition, a number of laws will be permanently exempted from the Arrangement where it has been agreed that it would not be desirable for mutual recognition to apply.

•These laws relate to: quarantine and endangered species; firearms; fireworks; gaming machines; indecent or pornographic material; ozone protection; the registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals; and high risk foods.

•With the exception of the last two items, this list is consistent with the exemptions under the Australian scheme. These laws are set out in Schedule 2 of the Commonwealth Bill.

•The parties to the Arrangement have also identified a number of areas of significant health, safety and environmental pollution regulation which will be subject to special exemption (for a period of 12 months at a time) while closer consideration is given to dealing with significant regulatory differences.

•These areas are: therapeutic goods; hazardous substances; industrial chemicals and dangerous goods; electromagnetic compatibility standards and radio communication standards; road vehicles; and gas appliances.

•Regulatory authorities in these areas will undertake Cooperation Programs to consider whether existing regulatory differences would be best addressed by either mutual recognition, harmonisation or permanent exemption. These laws are set out in Schedule 3 of the Commonwealth Bill.

•On the occupations side, it has been agreed that medical practitioners will be exempted from the Arrangement.

•Under an existing reciprocal agreement, New Zealand trained and registered doctors will still gain automatic registration in Australia (and vice versa).

•However, no such advantage will be available to doctors trained in third countries but registered in New Zealand. These laws are set out in Schedule 4 of the Commonwealth Bill.

•A temporary exemption may be invoked by New South Wales to stop a good from entering NSW for a period of 12 months while the relevant Ministerial Council considers whether a harmonised standard should be developed. The procedure for temporary exemptions is set out in clause 46 of the Commonwealth Bill.

•There is also a procedure for extending a temporary exemption for up to 12 months. The purpose of any extension is to allow time to implement the decision of a Ministerial Council that was made during the initial 12 month period.

•I must stress that it is intended that extensions will only be granted to allow time to implement a decision of a Ministerial Council, not to give the Ministerial Council more time, beyond the initial 12 months, to make the decision.

•This procedure is set out in clause 47 of the Commonwealth Bill. Extending a temporary exemption requires the endorsement of at least two thirds of participating jurisdictions.

•The Commonwealth Bill will enable the Governor General to make regulations for the following purposes:

(a) to omit an Act or reduce the scope of an item listed in the Schedule of Exclusions or Permanent Exemptions at the request of a single jurisdiction (clauses 44 and 45);

(b) to grant a 12 month Special Exemption for the continuation of a Cooperation Program, provided this has the support of two thirds of the Heads of Government (clause 48);

(c) to add an item to the Schedule of Permanent Exemptions, provided this has the unanimous support of Heads of Government; and

(d) to add an item to the Schedule of Exemptions relating to Occupations, provided this has the unanimous support of Heads of Government (clause 49).

•One further issue relates to the provisions dealing with the unauthorised disclosure of information.

•New Zealand was concerned about the handling of personal information about New Zealanders by Australian registration bodies. One of the issues is the lack of privacy legislation at the State level in Australia that complemented the New Zealand privacy legislation.

To take account of New Zealand's concerns, clause 39 refers to a set of privacy principles set out in Schedule 5. Local registration authorities must have regard to these principles, but they do not create separately enforceable rights or duties.

•Mr President, the Government is confident that New South Wales will gain great benefits from participating in this legislative scheme.

•The unnecessary costs for producers in accommodating minor differences in regulatory requirements on either side of the Tasman will be removed.

•Australia's international competitiveness will rise as producers capitalise on economies of scale made possible by mutual recognition. This is a process that will occur over the medium to long term.

•More efficient standards brought about by competition among jurisdictions should result in community standards being met at a lower overall cost.

•Wider consumer choice and a greater responsiveness to the needs and demands of consumers among producers and regulators should result.

•At the same time, as I pointed out earlier, the mutual recognition scheme is designed to make sure that there is no compromise on standards in the important areas of health and safety and environmental protection.

•Mr President, this legislative scheme is an historic initiative aimed at overcoming the regulatory impediments to creating a single Trans-Tasman market in goods and services.

•I am pleased to acknowledge the substantial contribution made by New South Wales officials in developing the Trans-Tasman mutual recognition scheme.

•The Government would also like to acknowledge the positive contribution made by all heads of government from different political parties in fostering and promoting this important development.

•It is a fine example of what can be achieved when all governments work together in the national interest.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [12.20]: The coalition supports this legislation, but with some qualifications. The purpose of the bill is to enable the enactment of legislation applying uniformly throughout Australia for the recognition of regulatory standards adopted in New Zealand regarding goods and occupations. The Trans-Tasman mutual recognition arrangement will allow the implementation of mutual recognition principles between this State and New Zealand relating to the sale of goods and the registration of occupations. It will mean that if goods may be legally sold in New Zealand they may be sold in an Australian
Page 5814
jurisdiction, and vice versa. It will also mean that if a person is registered to practise an occupation in New Zealand, he or she will be entitled to practise an equivalent occupation in an Australian jurisdiction, and vice versa. Hence, the objective is to remove regulatory barriers to the movement of goods and service providers between Australia and New Zealand.

The concept of mutual recognition of regulatory standards for goods and occupations has operated in Australia since 1992. This was initiated in New South Wales by the Greiner Government and implemented under the Premiership of John Fahey. The principal aim of mutual recognition was to remove needless artificial barriers to interstate trade and goods and the mobility of labour caused by regulatory differences among the Australian States and Territories. The legislation that gave effect to mutual recognition within Australia was introduced into this Parliament in June 1992 and was based on two simple principles. The first of those principles was that goods that could be sold lawfully in one State or Territory ought to be sold freely in any other State or Territory, even though the goods may not comply with all of the details of regulatory standards in the place where they are sold. The second principle was that if a person was registered to carry out an occupation in one State or Territory then he or she should be able to be registered to carry on the equivalent occupation in any other State or Territory.

In 1992 Premier Fahey gave an assurance that, "on implementation of mutual recognition, no jurisdiction will suddenly be flooded with products that are inherently dangerous, unsafe or unhealthy, nor will there be an influx of inadequately qualified practitioners". With the benefit of more than four years of operation, most honourable members will agree that the prediction turned out to be quite accurate. The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (New South Wales) Bill seeks to extend the principle to include New Zealand goods and occupations. Trans-Tasman mutual recognition has been talked about in Australia and New Zealand for a number of years. Many discussions have taken place on the issue between Ministers, officials, bureaucrats and interested parties. Recognition of the need to address barriers created by differences in standards between the two countries is by no means a new concept.

In 1988, as part of the review of the Closer Economic Relations Agreement, Australia and New Zealand concluded a memorandum of understanding on technical barriers to trade, which included a commitment to work towards harmonisation of standards, technical specifications and testing procedures. The Trans-Tasman mutual recognition arrangement is a significant step towards achieving these objectives. Currently many occupations in Australia have close cooperation with their New Zealand counterparts, reflecting the similarities in education and training of people on both sides of the Tasman. Indeed, in some cases mutual recognition already exists. At the same time, some professional organisations may have concerns about Trans-Tasman mutual recognition because they believe that qualifications for registration in New Zealand do not meet the level expected in Australia.

It might interest the House to know that the arrangement focuses on the equivalence of the tasks being carried out when registered occupations exist on both sides of the Tasman. It does not focus on the qualifications that underlie those occupations. Therefore, the question for the local registration authority will be a simple one of whether or not the practice in New Zealand is substantially the same as that in New South Wales; if so, the mutual recognition principle applies. It needs to be remembered that the Trans-Tasman mutual recognition arrangement is based on each country's underlying trust and confidence in the other's regulatory system. There will no doubt be issues that arise as the arrangement is implemented. Some practices in registering occupations may need to be examined on both sides of the Tasman.

The proposals outlined in the schedule to the bill will have implications for a number of peak industry and professional groups. The Opposition has approached a number of those organisations, and I know that my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who would normally be handling the bill, has talked to a number of people in this regard to seek their views on the adoption of Trans-Tasman mutual recognition. As my colleague the Leader of the National Party in the other place has mentioned, most of the organisations contacted by the Opposition were surprised to learn that the legislation had been introduced and were eager to comment on it. Subsequent to the comments made by the Leader of the National Party in the other place yesterday, the Opposition has had further contact from some of the organisations consulted.

The Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants was concerned that the legislation does not appear to require a knowledge or understanding of Australian or New South Wales law. The society is concerned that the legislation does not necessarily assist its objectives of regular quality reviews and the maintenance of knowledge and behavioural standards of professionals admitted to the society. I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government to those concerns and request that the Government be watchful of the concerns and, if they become a real problem, give an undertaking that it is prepared to consider amendments to correct such problems. The Retail Traders Association is generally supportive of the arrangement, as is Australian Business Limited, formerly known as the Chamber of Manufactures.

Australian Business Limited, however, did ask why we are allowing such easy access to New Zealand imports when that country imposes tariffs on categories of our exports. That is a fair question. Once again it seems that Australia is the first to knock down its tariff walls, only to find that other
Page 5815
countries have left theirs standing. At the end of the day, rather than viewing the legislation as allowing extra goods and services into this State, the legislation should be viewed as opening access to an additional market of some 3.5 million people. I believe that this is a positive step for business. The Government has claimed that the bill will reduce compliance costs for manufacturers and facilitate the movement of people who work in registered occupations from one country to another. Once again that is a positive step for business. From the consumer's point of view, the bill promotes competition and encourages greater diversity in the marketplace and it may exert some downwards pressure on the price of goods, as New Zealand's deregulated labour market has led to the more efficient production of goods.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [12.30]: I realise that this is most important legislation that in the long term the Government was bound to introduce and which we cannot oppose. A few moments ago it was pointed out by the Hon. J. H. Jobling that there are concerns about the legislation, particularly among primary producers in New South Wales. The main difficulty is allowing open access for primary produce from New Zealand into Australia at a time when our quarantine services are being run down by the Federal Government. The matter has already been taken up by my colleague Senator John Woodley, the Australian Democrats senator for Queensland, who is our spokesperson for rural affairs and agriculture. On behalf of the Australian Democrats he called for an inquiry into a proposal to import apples that may threaten the domestic apple and pear industry with fire blight disease. He said that farmers around Australia are worried that lifting the import ban on New Zealand apples would place domestic produce at risk of this devastating disease.

The proposal is being investigated by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service but Senator Woodley has said that he has concerns about AQIS's ability to screen the disease. After the outbreak of papaya fruit fly and Japanese encephalitis in the north many farmers are already questioning the competence of AQIS. On top of these disasters in the August budget the Federal Government slashed $20 million from AQIS funding as part of the transition to user pays. It should be remembered that it would take only one diseased apple import to threaten the entire multimillion dollar apple and pear industry in Australia. The Australian Democrats do not believe that this is a risk worth taking without proper preliminary investigation. Senator Woodley made it known that he would use the next sitting of the Senate to refer the matter to the rural and regional affairs committee, of which he is the chair. Senator Woodley stated:

I am mystified at the determination of this government to dismantle trade and quarantine barriers protecting Australian primary industries while simultaneously weakening quarantine and inspection services.

AQIS is being threatened by a cut in Federal funding. It has also been threatened by the State Government's dismantling of the Biological and Chemical Research Institute at Rydalmere. The AQIS station which is next door to that establishment has been told that it can no longer use the facilities of the BCRI, which are under the aegis of New South Wales Agriculture.

So AQIS is being hamstrung not only by the Federal Government but by the State Government as well. Senator Woodley talked about the introduction of fire blight disease affecting pears and apples and mentioned the papaya fruit fly and Japanese encephalitis in north Queensland. We should remember the problem New South Wales suffers from parthenium weed which came from Queensland. The lupin forage crop in New South Wales is now threatened by a disease which affected horticultural lupins and which originated in Western Australia. It has put this year's lupin crop in New South Wales at risk. These are incalculable dangers. We are facing overseas competition in regard to wheat and other grains and we have to protect our own industries. Therefore it is only proper that we have further time to consider the concerns of New South Wales farmers and discuss them with the Treasurer and the Minister for Agriculture.

The Opposition has decided to request that the debate be adjourned to allow that consideration to take place before the bill is dealt with in Committee. To protect New South Wales agriculture the Government will have to introduce safeguards into the bill. On the surface the bill appears to be quite simple and to carry out an initiative which is supported by the majority of Australians. However, as the Hon. J. H. Jobling asked, why are we allowing the open importation of primary produce into New South Wales when this State does not have equal export opportunities? We have to satisfy very stringent requirements in regard to blights and diseases which could be a danger to other countries before any of our primary produce can be exported. There is not a level playing field. We are allowing the world to export to Australia but we are not allowed the same ability to export to other countries. We should not put our agriculture at risk.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [12.37]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, the second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

Page 5816

The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 is a package of seventeen separate measures, affecting a number of public sector superannuation schemes. These measures are substantially of an administrative or corrective nature.

As a number of these measures are purely what I may term `good housekeeping' in scheme administration, I do not propose to repeat all the detail of those amendments. However, I would like to highlight particular measures which will have a significant impact.

The amendments to the various affected Acts are set out in a schedule to the bill. Schedule 1.1 deals with two amendments affecting coal and oil shale mine workers superannuation. These relate to audit certification of employer contributions to meet the requirements of the Act and Commonwealth superannuation guarantee, and correction of an error in 1992 amending legislation.

Schedule 1.2 makes important amendments to the First State Superannuation Act 1992. This Act provides the on-going New South Wales superannuation scheme for public sector employees - it already covers well over 300,000 employees. It is important for its structure and administration to continue to be reviewed and refined to provide for State employees. The measures are also aimed, substantially, at protecting members' accounts against erosion by excessive cost imposts of one sort or another.

A series of changes is proposed for the provision of what is called `basic death or invalidity' cover. On death or invalidity the benefit entitlement is the accumulated balance of the member's account. Recognising that this may be an inadequate benefit where death or invalidity occurs early, the scheme structure also provides a two-tiered insured benefit paid for by the members. The first or `basic' level of insured cover is automatic and free of medical qualification.

Strong objections have been made to the trustee and the scheme administrator by several thousands of affected members protesting the charging to their accounts of premiums for the automatic cover. Particularly affected were employees with small accounts of $1,000 or less.

The trustee acted to protect small accounts of $1,000 or less, by not providing automatic cover. The trustee has alternatively implemented a system requiring these members to elect if they require the basic cover.

The amendments proposed will restructure the basic death and invalidity benefits and will validate board actions since 1 March 1996.

Other amendments will limit the member to being covered once only for `basic death or invalidity' benefits, and will exclude from cover the person who has already received a benefit from a State scheme for invalidity.

In conjunction with these changes, steps are taken to ensure that the administrative costs associated with the provision of this form of cover will not be debited to accounts where no cover is provided. At the same time, costs for reprocessing arising from employer error will in future be met by the employer.

Finally, there are two measures that will permit greater flexibility in this scheme in the payment of benefits. First State Super members can choose at any time to accrue their superannuation in an industry or other non-public sector superannuation scheme.

Roll-over and consolidation of accounts where the member elects cover elsewhere will be possible under the new provisions. This will also give added protection of small accounts against duplicated administration expenses.

Amendments proposed will also allow part payment of benefit where the part that is to be paid is not subject to compulsory preservation under Commonwealth law.

Schedule 1.3 to the bill deals with amendments to the Local Government and Other Authorities (Superannuation) Act 1927. These amendments update references to gratuities payable under the Local Government Act that are offset against superannuation benefits.

In schedule 1.4 the bill introduces amendments to the parliamentary superannuation scheme that extend the spouse pension benefit to de facto spouses. This will bring the scheme in line with similar provisions that have been in existence in the principal New South Wales public sector employee superannuation schemes for some time, and will remove a significant area of discrimination. The extended benefits will also cover children of a de facto spouse who are dependent on a member or former member.

The amendments will include provisions similar to the other State schemes establishing equal priority for de facto and de jure spouses, and for determining competing claims for a benefit.

Proposed new provisions will enable the payment of a rolled-over benefit from the Commonwealth parliamentary scheme into the New South Wales parliamentary scheme. Allowance is made for the calculation of benefit credits in the New South Wales scheme to reflect the amount rolled in. These amendments are proposed to commence on 1 January 1996.

Schedules 1.5 and 1.6 amend the police superannuation to remove discriminatory widower benefit dependency provisions. The amendments also extend the right to preserve a benefit on resignation or dismissal to former police covered under the Police Association Employees (Superannuation) Act 1969.

Schedule 1.6 also amends the rights of police executive appointees to access benefits preserved under special arrangements for these appointees. I will speak in more detail concerning this proposal when I come to amendments to the State superannuation fund.

The public sector executives superannuation scheme is amended by schedule 1.7. The amendments proposed add provisions to enable the determination of competing claims for a spouse benefit, and remove certain trustee discretions in provisions for additional death or invalidity benefits. The trustees believe these discretions, to accept members for cover and determine claims for benefits, are inappropriate where these benefits are insured with an external insurer.

Retention of the discretions is necessary where the trustee acts as self-insurer. The amendments proposed address this position.

Schedule 1.8 to the bill amends the State Authorities Superannuation Act 1987 in relation to the payment of preserved benefits to senior executive appointees. As I mentioned in relation to police, this proposal will be discussed in more detail later.

Schedule 1.9 to this bill deals with amendments to the State Superannuation Fund. There are three proposed amendments to the State Superannuation Fund.

The first is probably the most important amendment in this bill, affecting a major funding and financial provision in the scheme's legislation. The proposal is to adjust the allocation that was made to the contributors' and employers' reserves in 1990. This measure is important not only because it affects the distribution of funds between employers' and contributors' reserves in the scheme, but because it affects other reserve adjustments, and involves re-allocation of almost a billion dollars of public funds.

When employer contributions became subject to tax in 1988, the decision was taken to allocate the fund between one reserve for contributors and separate reserves for each employer. This was because the exact amounts paid and held for each participating employer had to be known, to calculate the tax.

Page 5817

A publicly disclosed and legislated procedure, in accordance with the advice of the Government Actuary, guided the assessment and allocation of several billions of dollars of public and individuals' funds to the new reserves. This was made legally binding on the employers and contributors.

It has now been demonstrated that an error was made in the assessment. It has been estimated, at 1 July 1992, that $621.9 million too much was credited to the contributors' reserve in the fund. This has since grown to almost one billion dollars. This amount must now be redistributed to the employers' reserves in accordance with a new assessment carried out by the Government Actuary.

In much the same way as the earlier legislation provided for a transparent and publicly disclosed process, the proposed amendments make similar requirements for assessment by the actuary, the trustees and the Minister, and for publication in the Government Gazette.

The second amendment affecting the State Superannuation Fund also affects police superannuation and the State authorities superannuation scheme. This relates to the superannuation rights of executive appointees.

Following recent reforms the Government has made to the senior executive service, it has come to light that, without a break in employment, some appointees under executive contracts have been able to access a superannuation benefit while still on salary.

They have been able to do this by exploiting a provision designed to give choice in coverage by way of `preservation'. Ordinarily, preservation is not available until a period of employment has ended. At that point a preserved benefit can be accessed as soon as the former member reaches the early retirement age.

To correct this `loophole', the special provisions for preservation for executive appointees in the three schemes affected will be limited so that a payout directly to the former member can only occur where the employment has ended.

A third amendment affecting the State Superannuation Fund relates to its closure to new members in 1985. It is proposed that a residual trustee discretion to allow late entry will be narrowed to apply only to those who have already commenced action to gain admission.

The only amendment in this package that involves any substantial cost is that extending spouse benefits to de facto spouses in the parliamentary scheme. It is estimated that increased pension payments in the scheme will amount to approximately $67,000 per annum. In present value terms total costs are expected to increase by $1m over 25 years.

As I said at the outset, this package of amendments represents, substantially, `good housekeeping' in superannuation. However, the amendments to the ongoing public sector employee scheme, First State Super, are important as protective measures.

It is also important to amend the State Superannuation Fund to correct the error in the allocation of funds to the contributors' and employers' reserves that has occurred.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [12.37]: The Opposition does not oppose the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. It is good housekeeping legislation which will streamline 17 separate measures affecting a number of schemes and Acts. Key amendments include, first, the changes to the parliamentary scheme, extending the definition of beneficiaries to include de facto spouses. This change does not extend to same sex partners. Were that to be the case, New South Wales would be out of line with Commonwealth Government requirements. The second major amendment relates to changes to the parliamentary scheme to allow members to transfer between State and Commonwealth parliamentary schemes. There has been a history of State members moving to Federal Parliament and recently Mr Woods, previously a Federal member, transferred to the State Parliament. To avoid discrimination an appropriate amendment is being made to the legislation to enable members to transfer equitably from the Commonwealth to the State parliamentary scheme.

The third amendment relates to changes to the First State Super scheme, the FSS, which protects small accounts of $1,000 or less by giving people the choice of an automatic disability cover. At the moment people have no choice and that can be seen as an imposition. Approximately 10,000 people have a balance of less than $1,000 in their accounts and over 4,000 of those people have complained. The fourth amendment closes a loophole which allows some appointees under senior executive service contracts to access their superannuation benefits while still on salary and without a break in employment. Of course, that is a somewhat unusual approach to superannuation; all superannuation tends to operate on the basis of benefits being paid after retirement. A reinstatement in the Local Government and Other Authorities (Superannuation) Act 1927 provides for the offset of certain gratuities under the Local Government Act. The amendments will provide for a streamlining in relation to superannuation across a variety of Acts and are in the interests of good administration and good government. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.42]: I support the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill with the proviso that two sections be amended. The first amendment I shall propose is to schedule 1.4, to allow de facto spouses to receive superannuation benefits. Many members of Parliament have problems with their marital relationships, which often break up because of the stress of parliamentary life and the hours and days that members are away from their spouses. This happened to me; I have a de facto spouse, and I am sure many other members are in the same situation. A number of members of Parliament have partners who are not covered by this amending clause; they are the gay and lesbian members of Parliament, of whom there are a large number - obviously I will not name a single one of them. However, a number of members of both Houses of this Parliament have same sex, live-in partners, who effectively are de facto partners.

In Committee I will move an amendment to allow that when members of Parliament who have same sex partners die their same sex partners will receive the same superannuation benefits as those that are now to be made payable to de facto spouses. I will move a further amendment to allow the de facto spouse of John Newman to receive
Page 5818
benefits. I am sure that all honourable members are still badly affected by the way John Newman was murdered and still mourn for him. I am sure that honourable members are still in shock that his murderer has not been brought to account.

All honourable members are aware of the tragic scenes involving his fiancée, effectively his wife; she received no superannuation benefit and subsequently had to move out of the family home. That was an absolute tragedy. Effectively the amendment to allow de facto spouses to receive benefits came as a result of the de facto spouse of John Newman, Lucy Wang, not being covered for benefits. I propose to move in Committee an amendment specifically aimed at making provision for Lucy Wang as a consequence of the death of John Newman. The amendment will allow Lucy Wang to benefit, even though a portion of John newman's superannuation has been paid out. Apart from those foreshadowed amendments I support the legislation.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [12.45], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.47]: I move:

No. 1 Pages 9 and 10, Schedule 1.4[1], line 26 on page 9 to line 4 on page 10. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(b) if the member or former member was, at the time of his or her death, living with a person (including a person of the same sex) as his or her partner on a bona fide domestic basis - the person with whom he or she was so living.

This amendment is designed to allow same sex partners of members of Parliament, of whom there are a number, to receive the same benefits as opposite sex partners. The amendment to page 9 is designed to allow de facto spouses to receive benefits. We are moving away from this strict definition of the person allowed to receive superannuation benefits: from the spouse, the widower or widow, to the de facto spouse. This will benefit a number of partners of members - including me - who may die before they expect to. A number of members of Parliament have same sex partners. Those members have not necessarily revealed that they have same sex partners, but there are a number of such members from the Liberal Party, National Party and Labor Party. Approximately 10 or 12 members of Parliament have same sex de facto spouses, either male or female. Now that it is intended to recognise that non-married partners are entitled to superannuation benefits, it is time that other non-married same sex partners were entitled to receive the same benefits. I hope that the Treasurer will support this amendment; it is time to move to cover all partners.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [12.50]: The Government opposes the amendments, which will entitle same sex partners to benefits under the parliamentary contributory superannuation scheme, for three principal reasons. These relate to, firstly, the cost of recognition in the parliamentary scheme and the flow-on costs in other public sector schemes which already provide generous and costly benefits; second, the position at general law regarding recognition of same sex partners in Australia; and third, the resultant breach of Commonwealth law, as it stands, applying to superannuation if such relationships are recognised before the general law changes.

It is important to realise that any changes affecting the parliamentary scheme will have spill-over effects in the other public sector superannuation schemes, principally the State Superannuation Fund and the police superannuation scheme. Both schemes have been closed to new entrants primarily because of the high cost of the generous benefits. The aim of the schemes was to provide employees and their dependants with incomes during retirement. Amendments have been made over the years to remove discrimination, particularly in respect of spouse benefits for widowers and, more lately, de facto spouses. To change these schemes and the parliamentary scheme in order to offer pension and reversionary benefits to an even wider class of beneficiary would be costly and at odds with the current Commonwealth and State laws.

In 1991 advice was sought from the Government Actuary about the cost of extending spouse reversionary benefits to same sex partners in the State Superannuation Fund. The Government Actuary advised that no statistical data or empirical evidence was available on which to base an estimate of this cost. But there can be no question that the extension of pension and reversionary benefits in the way proposed would increase costs. Those increased costs could be met either by increasing the contribution rates of existing members or by reducing their benefits. However, as neither option would be acceptable to the members, the additional costs would have to be funded by the Government.

The second major consideration is the question of the general position at law affecting recognition of same sex partners' rights. The Government does not intend to amend the spouse pension and reversionary benefit provisions of any of its public sector employee superannuation schemes while the general position at law affecting same sex partners remains unresolved. The legislation governing the State Superannuation Fund and other schemes, and now proposed for the parliamentary scheme, adopts
Page 5819
a definition of spouse that is in accord with all other relevant Commonwealth and State statutes. More significantly, to change provisions in the State's superannuation statutes in the way sought would conflict with Commonwealth regulatory provisions under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, or SIS as it is commonly known.

SIS lays down what is called the "sole purpose" test for superannuation. Thus a superannuation fund cannot benefit persons other than the member and dependants. Certain classes of person are defined as dependent. Others, including same sex partners, are excluded. Under a heads of government agreement that the Premier executed on behalf of New South Wales in May of this year, the State's statutory superannuation schemes are bound to observe the Commonwealth standards or risk loss of concessional taxation treatment for fund employer contributions, earnings and benefits. I am informed that the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee is inquiring into sexuality discrimination and will report by the first sitting day in March 1997. The terms of reference for that inquiry include "measures which need to be taken to remove any legislative and administrative provisions which are currently discriminatory on the grounds of a person's sexuality".

Relevant to this reference is the Commonwealth Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995, which currently is tabled in the Senate. At present, to amend the proposed definition of spouse in the legislation before the House in the way put forward would put at risk very substantial taxation concessions affecting government employers, superannuation funds, and individual beneficiaries. Accordingly, until there is a change, in particular in the Commonwealth regulatory provisions relating to recognition for spouse benefits in superannuation, this Government is not prepared to consider an amendment to favour same sex partners. Even when that point is reached it will be necessary to give the most careful consideration in each affected scheme as to the likely costs of such provisions for extended coverage of spouse benefits, and how they are to be funded.

Governments have taken steps so that new schemes introduced to deal with future members and employees do not directly or indirectly discriminate against any category of employee. The recently introduced First State Super scheme for New South Wales public sector employees is such a scheme. However, it is not proposed by this Government that unplanned costs should be incurred to provide benefits in superannuation when to do so would clearly place the schemes in conflict with Commonwealth standards and would risk withdrawal of taxation concessions. The Government therefore rejects the proposed amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.55]: I accept that there is some conflict between the proposed amendment and the Commonwealth position. I would hope that the general position at law will be resolved within the next few months so that there will then be no conflict between the Commonwealth and the State positions on this matter. I reject entirely the Treasurer's view about the extra cost of this amendment. One might well ask why we are extending the provision to de facto spouses if the Government is concerned about the cost. I am sure there are many more de facto spouses within the Parliament than there are same sex partners. There may be only eight to 10 same sex partners in the Parliament, so the actual increase in cost would be about 5 per cent or 6 per cent. If it is the case that there are only eight to 10 same sex partners who are missing out on the benefits of the scheme, obviously that is discrimination against a small minority. I hope that the Committee will reject the argument on cost and rather will look at the question of the conflict with a view to ensuring that that anomaly is resolved in the next couple of years so that all partners - de facto partners, married partners and same sex partners - will receive the same benefits and we will not have a small minority being discriminated against.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [12.57]: The Opposition opposes the amendment on the two relevant legal grounds mentioned by the Minister. One relates to the general law, which has not yet resolved the position in relation to same sex partners. The second relates to the Commonwealth law requirements and the fact that should New South Wales become out of line with Commonwealth requirements substantial tax deductions could be put at risk, with consequential impacts on superannuation contributions.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.58]: By leave, I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 2 Page 17, Schedule 1.4[19], line 15. Insert ", except as provided by subsection (2)" after "this section".

No. 3 Page 17, Schedule 1.4[19]. Insert after line 15:

(2) The amendments made by that Schedule to section 23 (Pension for spouses) extend to apply in relation to the death of Mr John Newman, MP, on 5 September 1994 but otherwise commence as provided by this Act.

(3) If any liability for benefit payments arising out of subsection (2) is not expected to be covered as referred to in section 10(3B)(b), the liability is to be paid for out of money to be provided by Parliament for that purpose.

This is an amendment which the Treasurer may well find easy to support. It relates to only one person, so the cost will be small. Honourable members will note that my amendment proposes that the liability for benefit payments arising out of subsection (2) not expected to be covered as referred to in section 10(3B)(b) is to be paid for out of money to be provided by Parliament for that purpose. The amount of superannuation due to John Newman's de facto spouse was paid out. I believe there may well be a pension which could be paid to Lucy Wang, the
Page 5820
person the amendments attempt to cover. But, even if there are complications, those are covered by the second part of my amendment.

I am endeavouring to repair the tragedy that took place. Lucy Wang suffered a double tragedy. She and her fiancé, John Newman, were living together as man and wife. She lost her fiancé. She would have been covered by the amendment contained in the bill if it had been passed two years ago and would have been receiving the benefit of it. The second tragedy was that this woman was left entirely on her own. I believe she was so badly affected by the double tragedy of losing the man she loved and was about to marry, then being thrown out of the family home, that she has now gone interstate. I hope that the Treasurer will be able to accept these amendments so that we can pay compensation to the de facto spouse of John Newman. I suggest the amendments will also help to relieve the pain we feel in the loss of John Newman.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [12.59]: This is an amendment I would very much like to accept but I do not think it would be proper for the Government to accept it. The current provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act allow for the payment of a pension on the death of a serving member to a legal widow or widower. In the event of there being no legal widow, widower or dependent child, a lump sum amount is payable to the personal representative of the deceased member. Legal advice provided by the Crown Solicitor to the trustees in respect of the late John Newman was that they could make no decision other than to pay a benefit in accordance with the Act as it stood, and the trustees determined that the normal administrative arrangements in respect of deceased estates should be implemented. A lump sum benefit has now been paid from the parliamentary scheme to the estate of the late John Newman.

Certainly the amendments currently before the Chamber will remove the discriminatory elements of the parliamentary scheme to make it consistent with the treatment of de facto spouses in the principal New South Wales Public sector superannuation schemes. There would be great difficulty if these amendments were made retrospective to a date before Mr Newman's untimely death, as the trustees would then be placed in a difficult position because the superannuation benefit relating to Mr Newman's parliamentary service has already been paid. The difficulty that the Government has with the amendment proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is that not only is it retrospective but it is also specific to one member. If this amendment were to be accepted by the Government and carried by the Parliament other situations could arise, going back over the length of the scheme, in relation to other members and their de facto spouses who might similarly have been disadvantaged. In any event, even if this amendment were to be passed in Committee and incorporated in the legislation it would still be necessary for any one payment to have been made for a de facto spouse to establish that as the factual situation. But that is not the primary reason that I oppose the amendment. The primary reason is the element of retrospectivity and its specific application to one particular case.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Mr Jones

Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald
Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Dr Burgmann Mrs Nile
Ms Burnswoods Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Chadwick Mr Primrose
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Mr Samios
Mrs Forsythe Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Jobling Mr Tingle
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Ms Kirkby Mr Gallacher
Mr Lynn Rev. Nile

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. D. J. Gay) left the chair at 1.13 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.32]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

Page 5821

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

The Taxation Administration Bill is the first major legislative step in the Government's program of micro-economic reform of State taxes and is the outcome of work commenced with the express approval of the Opposition during their time in Government.

In coming months, Honourable Members can expect to see a Bill completely rewriting stamp duties legislation introduced, along with substantial Financial institutions duty reform proposals.

While the product of a cross jurisdictional project involving Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, the Bill will not be identical to legislation being introduced in those States because of the need for jurisdictional-specific policies to be reflected and because different degrees of public consultation have been undertaken in each place.

This Bill is the outcome of extensive consultation with large and small business representatives and tax professionals who have endorsed it as a major step forward in the development of uniform State and Territory taxation legislation. Most of the changes from current provisions in the taxing Acts contained in the Bill have come about as a result of this detailed consultation.

Nothing in the Bill is intended to abrogate the right of confidentiality arising out of the solicitor/client relationships or to abrogate legal professional privilege.

I will now outline the provisions of the Bill.

The Bill introduces legislation which will standardise administrative provisions applying to revenue Acts imposing Debits Tax, Land Tax, Pay-roll Tax, Parking Space Levies and Health Insurance Levies. It will also be extended to stamp duties and FID legislation when the cross jurisdictional Stamp Duties Rewrite has been completed.

The administrative provisions currently contained in various tax statutes are inconsistent, creating inequity for taxpayers and uncertainty for their advisers. However, by applying the same administrative provisions across these statutes, the Bill will significantly reduce compliance costs for the taxpayers of New South Wales.

ASSESSMENTS

The Bill provides for:

•an estimated assessment to be made where the chief commissioner does not have access to all relevant information;
•a reassessment within 5 years of the original assessment, except if there has not been a full and true disclosure of facts, in which case no time limit applies;
•a compromise assessment, if agreed between Chief Commissioner and taxpayer, where it is difficult or impractical for the Chief Commissioner to determine a person's exact liability due to the complexity or uncertainty of the facts.

REFUNDS

Under the provisions of the Bill, the Chief Commissioner is required to refund any amount paid in excess of any tax liability shown on a notice of assessment.

The Bill provides for the Chief Commissioner to offset a refund against an existing tax liability and, with the approval of the taxpayer, to credit a refund against a future tax liability.

The Bill also provides that, where tax has been passed on to another person, a refund can be withheld until the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that arrangements have been made to pass it back to the rightful recipients.

INTEREST

The Bill provides for interest to be applied to the late payment of taxes, at the same rate as is applied under Federal income tax legislation. These provisions will not only standardise the approach across the various tax bases but will bring the imposition of interest for late payment into line with accepted commercial practice.

The Bill also provides for interest to be remitted by the Chief Commissioner if warranted by special circumstances.

PENALTY TAX

In addition to the interest payable, the Bill provides for penalty tax to apply where a degree of culpability can be established on the part of the taxpayer in relation to any underpayment. The standard penalty rate will be 25% of the tax concerned. This may be increased to 75% for intentional disregard of the law. If the underpayment was outside the taxpayer's control, or the taxpayer took reasonable care, no penalty will apply.

This regime is similar to the income tax regime, although simplified considerably.

The Bill provides a discretion for the Chief Commissioner to reduce any penalty amount imposed by these provisions.

RETURNS

The Bill contains general returns provisions and also provides for special return arrangements to be made.

COLLECTION OF TAX

The Bill provides the Chief Commissioner with the power to recover moneys from defaulting taxpayers. In addition, a third party may have moneys owing to or held on behalf of a taxpayer garnisheed by the Chief Commissioner. In genuine cases of hardship, the Chief Commissioner will be able to extend the time for payment or enter into an arrangement to pay by instalments.

RECORD KEEPING

The Bill provides that records to enable the Chief Commissioner to determine a person's tax liability must be kept for 5 years after the records were prepared, or obtained, or the transaction or activity to which they relate occurred, whichever is the later.

OFFENCES

The general offences created by the bill include:

•knowingly giving false or misleading information or omitting information;
•deliberately omitting information;
•wilfully destroying records;
•falsifying or concealing identity; and
•failure to lodge documents, statements or returns.

These offences will replace similar offences currently specified in each of the taxation Acts.

Under the provisions of the Bill, an offence committed by a corporation may attract a maximum penalty five times that imposed against a natural person for the same offence.

TAX OFFICERS

The Bill replaces the offices of the Chief Commissioner, Deputy Chief Commissioner and Commissioner of specified taxes with a Chief Commissioner and Commissioner of State Revenue. The Bill enables all powers and functions held by the Chief Commissioner (except the power of delegation itself) to be delegated to tax officers appointed by the Chief Commissioner.

INVESTIGATIONS

The "investigatory powers" of the Bill are consistent with those Powers in existing New South Wales tax statutes which provide powers of investigation and rights of access to premises and records.

Page 5822

The Bill requires a person to provide information or evidence or to attend the chief commissioner and give evidence, as set out in a notice.

The Bill also provides authority for obtaining a warrant to enter and search premises and to seize records, information, equipment or evidence in accordance with the warrant legislation in the relevant jurisdiction. However, consistent with current practice, no search warrant will be executed otherwise than by a police officer.

Access to residential premises may only be obtained with the agreement of the owner.

Secrecy

The Bill restricts the Chief Commissioner from disclosing information which may identify a taxpayer unless there is consent from the taxpayer.

The Bill enables the Chief Commissioner to disclose information for the purposes of administration or execution of a taxation law, or to "authorised recipients" such as the Ombudsman, the Archives Authority and the Auditor-General's Office.

OBJECTIONS

The Bill makes provision for a taxpayer to lodge an objection in writing where the taxpayer is dissatisfied with an assessment or a decision of the Chief Commissioner.

Under the provisions of the Bill, the Chief Commissioner will be required to provide written notice of the decision with reasons where the objection has been disallowed or only allowed in part.

Where the Chief Commissioner has not issued a notice of decision within 90 days after receipt of the objection, the objector may choose to proceed directly with an appeal to the Supreme Court.

This is a new concept placing a discipline on the Chief Commissioner to deal with objections expeditiously.

Where a refund results from a successful objection, the Bill provides for interest to be paid to the taxpayer from the date tax was paid. Interest is not payable in these circumstances under the current objection provisions.

APPEALS

Where a taxpayer is dissatisfied with the Chief Commissioner's decision in relation to an objection the taxpayer may refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

Under the provisions of the Bill, neither the appellant nor the Chief Commissioner will be limited to the grounds of objection in pursuing the appeal.

In the case of amounts refunded as a result of a successful appeal, the Bill provides for interest to be paid to the taxpayer from the date the tax was paid.

The Chief Commissioner may state a case to the Supreme Court on a question of law. Where this power is used, consideration will be given to meeting the costs of any taxpayers who are joined in such an appeal.

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS ON AND BY THE

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

The Bill updates the means by which documents may be served including processes such as facsimile or, where appropriate, other electronic means.

Under the provisions of the Bill the requirements on the Chief Commissioner regarding the service of documents will be consistent with service requirements for taxpayers.

Evidence

The Bill provides that a notice of assessment, or a copy signed by the Chief Commissioner is conclusive evidence of the making of the assessment, and that the amount and all particulars of the assessment are correct, except in objection or appeal proceedings where it will be prima facie evidence only.

Mr President, the Bill before the House introduces the most modern concepts of taxation administration.

Its development represents a unique example of cooperation between five State and Territory jurisdictions and the business and professional community.

The savings on compliance costs will significantly benefit the people of New South Wales.

The Taxation Administration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1996 removes provisions from the various tax Acts which are replaced by provisions in the Taxation Administration Bill 1996.

I commend these Bills to the House.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [2.33]: The Opposition strongly supports the bills. The bills deal with a number of important reforms relating to taxation administration. All honourable members know that taxation measures go back to the days of the Pharaohs in Egypt. Although in the minds of all of us that may be a long time ago, the reality is that we are still beset with many of the problems that reared their heads thousands of years ago, including the plethora and proliferation of taxation administration matters that confront the citizen. The initiatives in bills represent a reform initiative that was commenced by the previous coalition Government under the guidance of the Hon. Peter Collins as Treasurer. Whilst the original initiative was to rewrite the Stamp Duties Act, these bills represent the drafts of consultations between community representatives and industry representatives, including lawyers and accountants.

The proposed legislation applies to seven Acts: the Debits Tax Act 1990, Health Insurance Levies Act 1982, Land Tax Act 1956, Land Tax Management Act 1956, Parking Space Levy Act 1992, Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 and the Revenue Laws (Reciprocal Powers) Act 1987. Those are important Acts that deal with a number of important New South Wales taxation laws. The proposed legislation will consolidate the seven administrative provisions of the various taxing Acts into one Act. It is accepted that similar legislation will be passed in Victoria, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania. Consequently, the same benefit of consistency will apply virtually Australia-wide, and the administrative provisions which are currently contained in more than 30 Acts will be found in the Taxation Administration Act, which will be similar across the participating jurisdictions.

I believe that the industry considers this bill to be a fair one as the uniformity results from adopting the same interest rates as those used by the Australian Taxation Office under the Commonwealth Taxation Administration Act. The range of administrative decisions and discretions open to review will also be increased significantly. The time over which reassessments and refunds may be made will be standardised as a result of this, and taxpayers will no longer be limited to raising on appeal arguments and issues raised at the objection stage. The Opposition supports the bill.

Page 5823

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.39], in reply: I thank the Hon. J. M. Samios for his contribution. The honourable member obviously has a great deal of knowledge about the legislation. One can see why his colleagues tout him as the next Leader of the Opposition in this place. Indeed, there is some talk of his going to the lower House to fill the leadership vacuum there.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.40]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr President, the bill now before the House deals with the subject of tenure of non executive commissioned officers in the Police Service.

In summary, this bill abolishes tenure for police above the rank of inspector.

This bill represents one of the first steps for introducing modern management practices in NSW.

All members will be aware from the work of the royal commission and the Ombudsman that the adoption of modern management practices by the Police Service is essential if we are to break the prevailing police culture and fight corruption and inefficiency.

Before going any further, I think it would assist debate if I first explain what a non executive commissioned officer is.

Mr President, all police officers above the rank of senior sergeant are commissioned officers.

This status is achieved when an officer first takes a position at, or above, the rank of inspector.

It is bestowed by the granting of a commission by the Governor.

While not a statutory requirement, the giving of a commission marks an important milestone in the career of a police officer.

A police officer is only ever given one commission.

As he or she advances in their career, promotion to higher rank may be won, but no further commission is issued.

Those commissioned officers who reach above the rank of superintendent find that they occupy executive positions that are listed in schedule 2 of the Police Service Act.

This means that they hold positions within the Police Service Senior Executive Service, or PSSES as it is known, and are therefore employed on contract under part 5 of the Police Service Act.

It is this factor that distinguishes executive commissioned officers from non executive commissioned officers.

Mr President, at this point in time there are approximately 501 positions in the Police Service at the level of non executive commissioned officer rank, that is:

* 326 at the rank of inspector,
* 108 at the rank of chief inspector, and
* 67 at the rank of superintendent.

Mr President, commissioned officers have industrial representation separate from non commissioned officers.

They do not belong to the New South Wales Police Association, but to the Commissioned Police Officers' Association - frequently referred to as the CPOA.

In 1994 the CPOA and the then Commissioner of Police entered into an enterprise agreement that was subsequently registered on 10 March 1995.

Appointment of non executive commissioned officers for fixed terms of appointment was one of the issues agreed to in that enterprise agreement.

It was that agreement which was the genesis for this bill.

For without statutory changes to the Police Service Act, it would not be possible to move non executive commissioned officers to term appointment.

Mr President, as with so many good ideas, the simplicity of the concept belies its potential impact.

The basic principle of term appointment is simple.

Officers will be appointed to positions for a specified period of time.

During that period their performance is monitored, and at the end of the period a decision is made as to whether their term of appointment will be renewed.

Those who measure up are entitled to a renewal of their appointment, those who do not will cease to be part of the Police Service.

Mr President, the impact of this simple scheme will be nothing short of revolutionary for the creaking mechanism that has passed for management in the Police Service in years gone by.

It will introduce modern concepts of management that have so obviously been missing.

However, critical to the effectiveness of term appointments are the criteria that officers will have to meet in order to obtain a renewal.

The bill provides for the commissioner to decline to offer a renewal if an officer has failed to meet required standards of operational competence, integrity or discipline.

Mr President, at this point I would like to emphasise that the non renewal of a term of appointment does not equate to a disciplinary measure.

It is in fact, the end of an employment relationship, and I should note that it can be brought about by either one of the parties.

As I have said, the commissioner decides whether a further term of appointment will be offered, but the officer concerned decides whether or not they want a renewal or would rather retire at the completion of their term.

Mr President, this bill provides for non executive commissioned officers to be appointed for up to a five year fixed term period.

Mr President, the original proposal in the enterprise agreement was for existing non executive commissioner officers to be given an initial term of appointment of 10 years.

This, it was said, would ease the transition to term appointments for officers with tenure.

Mr President, the Government could not accept that this was in any true sense a move to term appointments.

It effectively gave officers a ten year breathing space before they had to account for their performance.

Page 5824

The Government therefore set about renegotiating the proposal with the CPOA.

The result is a much more satisfactory arrangement that will see existing non executive commissioned officers offered term appointments of five years, the same as future officers.

This is reflected in the provisions of the bill that deal with transitional arrangements.

Mr President, because of the time taken to renegotiate an acceptable agreement, it was not possible to introduce this legislation so as to be operative at the date initially contemplated under the enterprise agreement.

So, to be fair and ensure that no one is disadvantaged, the transitional provisions are drafted so as to put officers in the same position as they would have been, had term appointments been introduced on 1st January this year.

Mr President, I might also take a minute to draw attention to the last clause of the bill which some members may find puzzling.

Essentially this clause provides that term appointments do not apply to any officer due to retire before 1st January 1997.

Mr President, the reason for this is to reflect a clause in the enterprise agreement under which it was agreed that the minimum appointment period for existing officers would be 12 months.

Hence, on the basis that transitional appointments will date from 1st January 1996, the minimum appointment period would require an officer to have a projected retirement date after 1st January 1997.

Those with an earlier retirement date will not be entitled to a term appointment and need not be subject to the provisions of the bill.

Mr President, term appointments provide an excellent tool for keeping the police service focussed, vitalised and dynamic and they may well be the way of the future.

They give the commissioner a regular opportunity to review the performance of senior officers, and leave behind those that don't make the grade and can't keep up the momentum.

Introduction of fixed term appointments is supported by both the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service and Police Commissioner Peter Ryan.

I commend to the bill to the House.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER [2.40]: I lead for the Opposition in this debate. At the outset I place on the record the Opposition's support for the Police Service Amendment (Commissioned Officers) Bill. The bill provides non-commissioned police officers with contracts for up to five years, and with entitlement to an extension beyond five years pursuant to their ability, integrity and performance in the job. Current legislation allows for 10-year contracts. However, this bill will put in place a five-year requirement, although, as honourable members would be aware, some members of the Police Service find themselves currently in a position where they are hired on a month-to-month basis. This legislation will rectify that situation once and for all. It is a positive step in returning a degree of stability to the New South Wales Police Service, and the Commissioned Police Officers Association supports the proposed changes.

The bill is a direct result of the work of the royal commission and will bring about a total restructure of the New South Wales Police Service, a restructure that is now under way. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I stand here representing the Opposition, knowing that we are the ones directly responsible for the changes. On 23 May I asked the Attorney General a question regarding integrity testing for commissioned officers and non-commissioned police. He stated, in part, "I am unconvinced that any amendment to the Crimes Act is necessary". The position I took when I raised the issue on 17 June has been vindicated in the second interim report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. The royal commission supports the Coalition's position and it is only a matter of time before the Attorney General changes his mind and legislation is presented to the Parliament in support of the Coalition's position regarding integrity testing.

Another issue that I raised on behalf of the Coalition was referred to before the royal commission as the "Bondi segment". Police came forward and made statements in relation to a drug-dealing police officer. In so doing, those police officers revealed their own use of drugs and most of them have been forced to resign from the police service or have been sacked. The interim report of the royal commission, released yesterday, referred to this problem. It examined the Coalition's position and raised a number of solutions that the Government is now considering. The Coalition is proud of its position on the changes currently under way to the New South Wales Police Service, and takes great pride in the fact that it was involved from the outset.

For the Police Service to be effective in attempting to achieve its goal of making the streets of New South Wales the safest in the country by the year 2000, it needs strong, effective leadership. The bill will bring stability to the leadership of the Police Service at a time when it is most sorely needed - leadership, not at headquarters but at the sharp end of policing, the streets and patrols throughout New South Wales. Police effectiveness at patrol level is largely determined by the support, commitment and knowledge of the patrol commander. Currently patrol commanders are very much in the dark as to their future within the Police Service. Change is being mooted and circulated at a rapidly increasing rate, and very few know what the future holds for them. This bill is a step in the right direction because it guarantees security and support for those police who are prepared to get out and do the work, provided they have the ability and commitment to carry on the job. The Coalition supports the bill and congratulates the Government on a step in the right direction towards ensuring stability within the commissioned ranks of the New South Wales Police Service.

Page 5825

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.45], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.46]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr President, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Crime Commission Act 1985 and by so doing enable the Crime Commission to be even more effective in its fight against serious and organised crime. This is a fight that the commission undertakes on behalf of the citizens of this State.

It is a fight against the most serious types of offending such as drug trafficking and manufacture, extortion, serious fraud and murder. This Government is committed to ensuring that the Crime Commission is not unduly hampered in this vital work for the lack of an adequate legislative base for its operations.

Mr President, the Crime Commission was first established in 1985 as the State Drug Crime Commission by the Wran Labor Government as a part of that Government's attack on the illegal drug trade. The Act was amended in 1988 to enable the commission to investigate organised crime more generally and to review police inquiries into criminal activity.

In 1990 the Act was again amended and the commission was renamed the New South Wales Crime Commission to better reflect its general role in crime fighting.

Whilst these previous amendments went some way to enhancing the operational effectiveness of the commission some difficulties remain with the underlying legislation. When first enacted the Act drew on what were, at the time, the best legislative models available for this type of crime fighting organisation. In the intervening period of more than ten years alternative legislative models have been developed. These include the Police Integrity Commission Act and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act.

In addition, the implications of a number of court decisions have resulted in a need to update the Crime Commission Act to ensure that the organisation operates as effectively as possible.

Mr President, before outlining specific aspects of the bill let me acknowledge that concern has been expressed about the potential effect on civil liberties that organisations such as the commission may have. I have taken note of those concerns and have been very conscious whilst preparing this bill of the need to balance traditionally enjoyed civil liberties against the need for an effective fight against organised crime.

The effectiveness of organisations such as the Crime Commission, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Royal Commission stems in no small part from the powers they are able to use above and beyond conventional investigative methods. This State has seen fit to equip the ICAC and the Police Integrity Commission with coercive powers to be used to investigate corrupt public servants and corrupt police.

There is in my view, Mr President, an even more compelling case to enable such powers to be used, subject to stringent safeguards and limitations, against the bosses of major organised crime. In seeking to protect civil liberties we must be careful that we are not simply protecting the capacity of major criminals to take liberties with the rest of the community.

This government firmly believes that this bill will enable the effective fight against organised crime to be stepped up without unduly compromising the civil liberties of law abiding citizens.

Mr President, this bill will enable the Crime Commission to continue as an effective and efficient crime fighting organisation.

I will now turn to the substantive provisions of the bill:

When originally established the commission consisted of a number of members. The Act currently requires that there shall be a minimum of two, one of whom shall be the chairperson. In fact the commission has operated with just two members for some years now one of whom has been a part time member.

The commission does not need to have two members all the time. The bill therefore alters the structure of the commission so that it shall consist of a full time commissioner. If the work of the commission at any time makes it necessary, Assistant Commissioners may be appointed on either a full time or part time basis for a specified period. This is more efficient and cost effective than having to ensure that two members are appointed at all times.

This change brings the management structure of the commission more closely into line with the structure of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission.

The bill also makes consequential changes to the Act to enable the appointment of an acting commissioner or assistant commissioner if necessary.

Mr President, the Crime Commission undertakes investigations into criminal activity following a reference to it by the management committee. Unlike the ICAC for example, it does not have the power to initiate its own investigations. The Act requires that the management committee is not to refer a matter to the commission for investigation unless it is satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation are unlikely to be effective.

This is an overall limitation on the scope of the commission and is not affected by the provisions of the bill. However, currently the management committee may only refer investigations into "relevant criminal activity" which is in turn defined as circumstances or allegations that a "relevant offence" has been or may be committed.

The Act currently defines "relevant offence" in a complex manner. It imposes a number of thresholds including a requirement that the offence involves "substantial planning and organisation" and that it involves "the use of sophisticated methods and techniques". These are terms of imprecise meaning and a number of persons subject to investigation have attempted technical challenges to the authority of the commission on the basis that the criminal activity under investigation was not sufficiently sophisticated.

Such challenges have invariably been unsuccessful yet have had the effect of significantly delaying and therefore impeding the work of the commission. In such cases the time gained by these delaying tactics is capable of being used to move assets and prejudice the investigation in other ways.

Page 5826

Mr President, the bill simplifies the definition of "relevant offence" to reduce the likelihood of frivolous technical challenges. The definition will include serious drug offences which are in turn further defined. It will include serious fraud offences and it will include other offences where the management committee is satisfied that the investigation of the offence is in the public interest and that the use of the commission's resources are necessary to investigate the offence.

As I have indicated, the power of the management committee to refer will still be limited by the general requirement that it is not to refer matters unless it is satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation are unlikely to be effective. In addition, the definition of relevant offence will still mean that the management committee will not be able to refer in relation to offences which carry a penalty of less than three years imprisonment.

The bill adds fraud to the definition of relevant offences. This is defined as fraud that the management committee is satisfied is sufficiently serious to warrant investigation by the commission. The bill includes matters that the management committee must take into account when making a decision about the seriousness of fraud.

Whilst the commission has not to date been prevented from investigating fraud matters the Government considers that the impact on the community of serious, organised fraud warrants its specific inclusion in the Act.

Mr President, the Government wants to send a clear signal to those who would embark on serious fraudulent activity.

The overall effect of these changes will be to reduce the scope for technical challenges to the commission's investigations whilst still ensuring that the management committee reserves the special powers and resources of the commission for the most serious types of offending where ordinary police methods are unlikely to be effective.

Mr President, the principal functions of the commission under the Act include investigating matters related to relevant criminal activity referred by the management committee and reviewing police inquiries into matters referred by the management committee. The review by the commission of the Leigh Leigh murder investigation is an example of this. The bill amends the definition of investigation to make it clear that the power of the commission to conduct investigations, including the power to hold hearings, extends to the review of police investigations. This will remove a potential ambiguity in the Act in its current form.

Mr President, the bill will amend the provisions of the Act applying to summonses issued by the commission. At present a member of the commission has the power to summons persons to attend at a hearing and the power to require a person to produce documents or things to the commission in relation to an investigation.

Whilst the commission will generally give persons a reasonable period in which to respond to the notice or summons there are in some cases exceptional circumstances where it is necessary that the commission be able to require that the person respond in a very short time.

The bill will enable a member of the commission to require immediate response to a notice or summons where this is necessary to prevent destruction or concealment of evidence, the escape of an offender, the commission of an offence or serious prejudice to the conduct of an investigation.

In addition the bill will give the commissioner power to issue an arrest warrant in certain circumstances. At present the commission has the power to summons persons to attend and failure to attend in response to a summons is an offence under the Act. However, despite this the commission has no means to secure the attendance at a hearing of a person who fails to respond to a summons. This inability on the part of the Commission to enforce its summonses makes the power to issue them somewhat hollow. To prosecute a person, probably after a substantial delay, for failure to attend is a poor substitute for securing attendance at a hearing where evidence is required.

The bill will enable the commissioner to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person who has failed to attend in response to a summons and for the arrest of a person who has indicated by words or actions that they do not intend to comply with a summons. The commissioner will, of course, only be able to issue a warrant in the latter circumstances after receiving evidence on oath that the person who was issued with the summons has made a representation to the effect that they do not intend complying with the summons.

This provision is similar to, although less extensive than, section 36 of the ICAC Act. I am, however, anxious to ensure that the use of this arrest warrant power is closely monitored. Therefore the bill will add to the Act requirements for the commission to report in some detail on the use of this power in its annual report and for the commissioner to report on any warrants issued to each meeting of the management committee.

Mr President, the Crime Commission Act provides for persons appearing before it as witnesses to be legally represented and for persons not giving evidence to be legally represented by consent of the commission. Generally, the latter circumstances may apply where a particular individual's activities are under investigation and that individual seeks to be represented even though he or she may not be appearing as a witness.

A recent Federal Court decision in relation to the NCA Act, on which the relevant provisions of the Crime Commission Act are based, held that the NCA had the power to refuse to permit a particular legal representative to represent a particular witness if it concludes on reasonable grounds and in good faith that to allow that representation by that particular legal representative would prejudice its investigation.

The bill will make clear the capacity of the commission to refuse particular legal representation in the above circumstances. Although this will not extend the power of the commission beyond the common law position it is to be included in the Act for the sake of clarity. It is not a power that will be frequently used. However, there have been cases where lawyers have been adversely identified and their access to hearings as a representative may prejudice an investigation. In addition there are situations where a lawyer will seek to act for more than one witness without being aware that a potential conflict of interest will arise.

Mr President this bill significantly alters the way in which claims of privilege against self incrimination are dealt with in commission hearings. The Crime Commission Act was substantially based on the NCA Act which was, at the time the commission was established, the best model available for an agency with special powers. Since then alternative models have been developed here in NSW. In particular, the ICAC Act and the Police Integrity Commission Act have used a significantly different and simpler approach for dealing with claims of privilege raised by witnesses in hearings or by persons required to produce documents.

These newer models are substantially adopted by the bill. They will significantly simplify the Act and its administration whilst continuing to provide for the practical effect of the privilege against self incrimination to be maintained. Legal professional privilege will, of course, be retained.

The Act currently requires that a person appearing as a witness before the commission shall not, without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer a question or produce a document. It also provides that it shall be a reasonable

Page 5827
excuse if the answer or document tends to incriminate the person. However, this shall not be a reasonable excuse if the person has received an undertaking from the relevant attorney general that any answer given or document produced shall not be used in a prosecution of that person.

There are a number of difficulties with this approach. The first is that if a person claims in the commission that an answer or document might tend to incriminate and the commission requires the answer or document to progress its inquiry it will need to bring a halt to proceedings. An undertaking is then sought from the relevant attorney general (bearing in mind that Commonwealth or interstate offences may be potentially involved). This is a cumbersome and time consuming process.

In addition, a 1993 decision of the Court of Appeal held that the issue when a person refused to answer a question was not whether a witness asserted a reasonable excuse but whether in fact he or she had one even if he or she was not able to express it at the time. The implication of this is that a person could refuse to answer a question, refuse to state a reason for the refusal and only reveal a reason if and when prosecuted for an offence under the Act. Clearly this has the potential to cause significant difficulty for the conduct of hearings.

The primary reason for including provisions of this type is to uphold the common law privilege which prevents a person being required to involuntarily provide evidence which may be later used in a prosecution against the person.

The revised scheme included in the bill is drawn from the provisions of the ICAC Act and the Police Integrity Commission Act. It provides a superior and far more efficient model for dealing with claims of privilege against self incrimination without removing the practical effect of the privilege. Under these provisions a person shall have a clearer obligation to answer questions and produce documents. However, if a person objects to so doing on the basis that it may tend to self incrimination then the information provided or document produced will not be able to be subsequently used against the person in a prosecution.

Mr President, the commission is empowered to serve a notice in writing to require a person to produce documents or things relevant to an investigation to the commission. However, similar cumbersome provisions apply to claims of self incrimination in relation to responses to these notices as apply when a person is required to answer questions in a hearing.

The bill greatly simplifies the provisions applying to these notices to produce by adopting, in a modified form, the equivalent provisions from the ICAC and Police Integrity Commission Acts. The variation reflects the slightly different role that the commission has from these other two bodies.

Under the provisions in the bill the general principle applies that if a person is required to produce material, does in fact produce it but objects to doing so on the grounds that it may tend to self incrimination then that material may not subsequently be used in a prosecution against that person.

However, if a person producing documents intends objecting to production they will be referred to a commission hearing where the provisions I have already outlined relating to claims of self incrimination privilege in a hearing will apply. The bill will enable the commission, if the objection is maintained in the hearing, to withdraw its requirement for production. This will enable the presiding member of the commission to make a decision about whether it is better to insist on production to assist an investigation or to withdraw the requirement so as to not render documents inadmissible.

These procedures will also guard against attempts to produce large quantities of documents under objection in order to quarantine the material from future use in a prosecution; even prosecutions which are not in contemplation at the time.

An additional minor provision in the bill will prevent the Crime Commission from demanding production of Cabinet documents.

Mr President the Crime Commission conducts hearings for the purposes of its investigations using an inquisitorial approach rather than an adversarial approach. In essence, this means that the overriding purpose of a hearing is to get to the truth of a matter rather than to decide on an issue litigated between two parties.

As with other bodies exercising similar functions commission hearings are not conducted in accordance with the formal rules of evidence. The bill makes it clear that the commission may conduct its hearings in this manner.

The bill also changes the composition of the management committee of the commission by removing the chairperson of the Police Board as a committee member. This reflects the change in the role and functions of the Police Board since the creation of the Ministry for Police in 1992. The board is now primarily concerned with the senior appointments and career development and training for members of the Police Service rather than operational matters. The management committee of the commission has an operational and oversight role for which the position of board chairperson is now less relevant.

The bill also extends the secrecy provisions of the Crime Commission Act. At present the commission has the power to disseminate intelligence and information with the approval of the management committee. However, whilst stringent secrecy provisions apply to the commission and its staff about release of information, similar restrictions do not apply to organisations to whom the commission legitimately releases sensitive information. The bill extends secrecy requirements to persons to whom information is given by the commission on the understanding that it will remain confidential.

Mr President, in addition to the more substantive provisions I have already outlined there are a number of minor amendments to the Crime Commission Act made by the bill. These include:

-enabling the commission to appoint counsel assisting rather than the Attorney General being responsible for such appointments.

-enabling the service of documents by the commission by facsimile transmission as well as by prepaid post as the Act currently allows.

-providing for a simpler method, based on the Police Integrity Commission Act, for securing the attendance of a prisoner at a commission hearing.

-extending protection against liability for acting in accordance with the Act to persons summonsed to appear before the commission or to produce documents to the commission.

Mr President, as I indicated earlier, this Government is committed to the fight against major and organised crime. It is committed to maintaining the fight against the barons of the illicit drug trade. The New South Wales Crime Commission is at the forefront of this fight and this Government will ensure that it is given the tools it needs to carry on the fight effectively and efficiently.

Mr President, this bill contains a range of measures which bring the legislative base on which the commission operates up to date, primarily by adopting some of the provisions of more recently created organisations such as the ICAC and the Police Integrity Commission. These operate on a more up to date legislative base than the commission and it will gain efficiency benefits by adopting these provisions.

Page 5828

This bill will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission whilst at the same time ensuring that fundamental civil rights are preserved. An effective Crime Commission is a vital element in the armoury against crime. This bill will keep it that way. Mr President I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER [2.46]: I lead for the Opposition in this debate. The object of the bill is to amend the New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 to help the commission fight organised crime and, by altering its structure, allow for a full-time commissioner and the appointment of assistant commissioners when necessary. It will allow the commission to adopt provisions similar to those of the proposed Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption with respect to fighting organised crime. At this stage I foreshadow that it is my intention to pursue one amendment in relation to the bill at the Committee stage. One of the most effective tools of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service - soon to become the Police Integrity Commission - is the ability to immediately call witnesses and subpoena documents, and to ensure that witnesses must answer the questions that they are asked by the commissioners or counsel assisting the royal commission.

This legislation will overcome a discrepancy in the current legislation relating to the New South Wales Crime Commission. It will also give the Crime Commission power to issue warrants for arrest and powers relating to privilege when there is a claim for privilege on the grounds of self-incrimination. The Independent Commission Against Corruption, of course, has been utilising these powers quite effectively for some time in its pursuit of corruption in the state of New South Wales. The responsibility rests with the New South Wales Parliament to ensure that the New South Wales Crime Commission has similar powers in its pursuit of major organised crime throughout New South Wales, and in its relationship with other jurisdictions. The Opposition believes that it is important to target corruption in the public sector and, as I have already outlined, it is equally important to pursue major organised crime.

The changes foreshadowed in the bill will bring the Crime Commission into line with the Independent Commission Against Corruption, so both the private sector and the public sector will be covered by legislation. The glaring discrepancy in the bill relates to the power of the Crime Commission to demand Cabinet documents. Opposition members have discussed this matter in some depth. I also discussed this matter with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, who told me that if I did not move an amendment to ensure that the bill would not enable the commission to demand Cabinet documents, then he would do so. I intend to move an amendment in Committee relating to the power of the commission to demand Cabinet documents. I have taken the opportunity to circulate to all honourable members a copy of my amendment. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak in the debate.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.51]: The Australian Democrats are pleased to support the New South Wales Crime Commission Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to amend the New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 and by so doing enable the Crime Commission to be even more effective in its fight against serious and organised crime. In the light of recent allegations that have stemmed from the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, I feel that it is particularly important that the role of the Crime Commission as an investigative body be clarified. That may then facilitate the due process that needs to be followed in terms of the investigation and prosecution of serious crime.

The Crime Commission was established in 1985 as the State Drug Crime Commission. The Act was amended in 1988 to enable the commission to investigate organised crime more generally and to review policy inquiries into criminal activity. In 1990 the Act was again amended and the commission was renamed the New South Wales Crime Commission to better reflect its general role in crime fighting. While these previous amendments went some way to enhancing the operational effectiveness of the commission, I am informed that there are still some difficulties that leave the Crime Commission unable to operate at its full potential. Under the Act the principal functions of the commission are to investigate matters related to relevant criminal activity referred by the management committee and to review police inquiries into matters referred by the management committee.

The Crime Commission conducts hearings for the purposes of its investigations using an inquisitorial approach rather than an adversarial approach. I am informed that the commission will soon begin investigations into the currently unsolved murder of Leigh Leigh. The Australian Democrats are pleased to support the bill, as it acknowledges that over the period of time since the commission was established better and more effective models have been developed for the operation of such a crime-fighting organisation. Examples of better models include the Police Integrity Commission Act and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. The Australian Democrats are also pleased to support the alteration of the structure of the commission to appoint a full-time commissioner rather than two part-time members.

The bill will change the composition of the commission's management committee by removing the chairperson of the Police Board as a committee member. With the presumed abolition of the Police Board, that is a necessary amendment. It is pleasing to note that, if the work of the commission necessitates, assistant commissioners may be appointed on either a full-time or a part-time basis for a specified period. The bill also makes consequential changes to the Act to enable the appointment of an acting commissioner or an assistant commissioner if necessary. The Crime
Page 5829
Commission undertakes investigations into criminal activity following a reference to it by the management committee. It does not, however, have the power to initiate its own investigations.

The Act requires that the management committee is not to refer a matter to the commission for investigation unless it is satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation are unlikely to be effective. This is an overall limitation on the scope of the commission, and it is not affected by the provisions of the bill. However, currently the management committee may refer only investigations into relevant criminal activity, which is in turn defined as circumstances or allegations that a relevant offence has been or may be committed. For this reason, the Australian Democrats support the changes to the definition of "relevant offence". The Act currently defines "relevant offence" in a complex manner, which I am informed has recently been the source of several challenges that have resulted in considerable delay and infringement on the operation of the commission. The new definition of "relevant offence" will include serious drug offences and serious fraud offences. It will also include other offences when the management committee is satisfied that investigation of the offence is in the public interest and that the use of the commission's resources is necessary to investigate the offence.

Similarly, the bill will amend the definition of "investigation" to make it clear that the power of the commission to conduct investigations, including the power to hold hearings, extends to the review of police investigations. This most certainly removes a potential ambiguity in the Act in its current form. It is pleasing to note that the bill will amend the provisions of the Act applying to summonses issued by the commission to enable a member of the commission to require immediate response to a notice or summons when that is necessary to prevent destruction or concealment of evidence, the escape of an offender, the commission of an offence, or serious prejudice to the conduct of an investigation. It is interesting to note, in the light of the allegations that are coming from the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, that the bill will significantly alter the way in which claims of privilege against self-incrimination will be dealt with in commission hearings.

I am informed that the New South Wales Crime Commission Act was substantially based on the National Crime Authority Act, which was at the time the commission was established the best model available for an agency with special powers. Since then alternative models have been developed in New South Wales. The revised scheme included in the bill is drawn from the provisions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act and the Police Integrity Commission Act. It provides a superior and much more efficient model for dealing with claims of privilege against self-incrimination without removing the practical effect of the privilege.

The Australian Democrats also support the number of minor amendments to the New South Wales Crime Commission Act. Those amendments include enabling the commission to appoint counsel assisting rather than the Attorney General being responsible for such appointments. This will provide for a simpler method, based on the Police Integrity Commission Act, for securing the attendance of a prisoner at a commission hearing; and extending protection against liability for acting in accordance with the Act to persons summonsed to appear before the commission or to produce documents to the commission. The Hon. M. J. Gallacher in his contribution said that he would on behalf of the Opposition move an amendment to proposed new section 18C in schedule 1 to the bill, relating to Cabinet documents and proceedings. At present the Act does not enable the commission to require any person to produce any Cabinet document or other thing or to give a copy of any document. The Australian Democrats support the amendment, believing it to be a very important amendment indeed. The Executive Government of the day must be compelled, if a body as important as the Crime Commission believes it is necessary, to hand over Cabinet documents. There are matters which can be Cabinet confidential, but other matters should not be hidden, certainly from a body as important as a crime commission.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.00], in reply: I thank members of the House for their support for the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER [3.02]: I move:

Page 14, Schedule 1[24], lines 8-27. Omit all words on those lines.

In 1995 the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party said that it would make all Cabinet documents available to the Auditor-General. The amendment is consistent with that position. It would correlate the Independent Commission Against Corruption legislation and the crime commission legislation. The ICAC can require the production of Cabinet documents, such documents not being exempted from the ICAC legislation. As government business in our society operates in both the private and the public sector, the role of government has become more complicated whilst at the same time more vague, and it is imperative that every aspect of government operating in both the public and the private sector is open to total scrutiny. For these reasons the Opposition has moved the amendment.

Page 5830

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.03]: The Government takes the view that proposed new section 18C is included for more abundant caution. The common law generally prevents courts and tribunals from gaining access to Cabinet documents which need to be kept confidential in the public interest. We will not oppose the amendment, having given it consideration, but that should not be taken as indicating any intention to abrogate common law privilege which operates in respect of Cabinet documents. It simply indicates an acquiescence in the view that the clause is unnecessary in the totality of the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.04]: I am delighted to hear the Attorney say that he will not oppose the amendment, but I believe it should be placed on the public record that the definition of what is a Cabinet document is in the domain of the Executive Government of the day: it has the power to define practically anything it likes as a Cabinet document. I do not believe that many people in the community are aware of that. Were there a set definition of such documents, I would agree with what the Attorney has said, but as there is not a set definition I believe the amendment is vitally necessary. I am delighted that the Opposition has moved it.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendment and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [3.07]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, the second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

The Harness Racing Authority of NSW assumed responsibility for the control and regulation of the harness racing industry in New South Wales on 1 January 1978 following the passage of the Harness Racing Authority Act through the Parliament in the previous year. This responsibility was previously vested with the principal club, namely the NSW Harness Racing Club.

The original legislation provided that the authority consist of eight members, five of whom were appointed as representatives of certain harness racing clubs and industry bodies.

During 1982/83 an inquiry was conducted into the future finances and viability of the harness racing industry in New South Wales. One of the issues addressed by the review team was the membership of the authority.

As a result of the findings of the inquiry, in 1983 the legislation was amended to provide that the authority shall consist of five members appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister of the day.

The amendment was designed to ensure that the Minister has the ability to appoint persons who would best serve the industry as a whole rather than the previous arrangement whereby appointees were more inclined to support the particular groups which they represented.

Mr President, this system has remained in place to the present day and has been generally well received by the industry and has in the main worked well.

At the same time, however, upon attaining office I became aware that certain industry groups were concerned that the present manner of selection and the limitations on membership of the authority does not enable the appointment of a sufficient number of persons with direct involvement in the industry.

In April this year I instigated the holding of a harness racing industry forum at which I listened to and fielded questions from over 400 industry participants.

At that forum I undertook to consider alternative models for the structure of the harness racing authority and for inclusion of industry representation.

I intend over the next 12 months to examine the need for the development of a model for the future composition of the harness racing authority which would serve the harness racing industry into the next century.

The extended time frame for the formation of this model is particularly appropriate given the current implementation of the AJC Principal Club initiative. This initiative includes a statutory advisory committee with direct representation on the AJCPC, a feature which could be incorporated in any new harness racing model.

In the meantime, however, the bill before the House will address my undertaking at the harness racing industry forum in relation to industry representation on the authority.

The proposed legislation will expand the Harness Racing Authority board from five members to seven members. Whilst the bill will retain the appointment of members by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister for Gaming and Racing, I will be inviting nominations from the Harness Racing Industry Advisory Board on the two additional appointments by a formal process.

In this regard, Mr President, it is proposed that six nominees will be sought from the advisory board for the two additional vacancies. It will be made clear to the advisory board that their nominees need not be advisory board members and that they should put forward their "best six".

All members of the advisory board will be entitled to put nominations forward and, if they cannot agree on the six names, they will be asked to conduct a ballot.

It is anticipated that two suitable persons will be able to be selected from the six names, but I will not be bound to do so if none of the nominees is suitable.

I believe that the inclusion of an additional two members on the Harness Racing Authority of NSW will be well received by the industry. I intend to make the appointments in time for the selected persons to take up their duties from 1 February next year.

Mr President, the bill before the House will also change the name of the Harness Racing Authority to "Harness Racing New South Wales".

The name change has been sought by the authority itself and is supported by the industry's advisory board.

In this respect, it is felt that the term "authority" is outmoded and inconsistent with a co-operative and service orientated approach which is provided by the industry controlling body.

Page 5831

This initiative is consistent with action taken by the New Zealand and Victorian harness racing industries which have changed the names of their controlling bodies to Harness Racing New Zealand and Harness Racing Victoria, respectively.

The bill will also give effect to the findings of a review conducted into the Harness Racing Authority Act by my department in conjunction with the Harness Racing Authority.

The review identified and recommended changes to those sections of the Act considered outdated or not accurately reflecting current practices.

In this regard, the bill will confer upon Harness Racing New South Wales the power to appoint an administrator, with the approval of the Minister for Gaming and Racing, to take control of a harness racing club and manage its affairs in the event that a club is unable to satisfactorily manage its operations.

A similar power has been given to the newly established controlling body for thoroughbred racing, the AJC Principal Club, by virtue of legislation which recently passed through the Parliament.

The bill will also increase the maximum fine for a breach of the rules of harness racing from 20 penalty units to 200 penalty units, while the maximum penalty for an offence against the regulations will increase from five penalty units to 20 penalty units.

These increases are designed to bring the penalties into line with current day values and to reflect the serious nature of certain offences.

Whilst the authority presently has powers which allow it to disqualify registered persons such as trainers and drivers from participating in the industry, it has no powers in relation to unregistered persons and cannot take action to prohibit any undesirable persons from attending harness racing meetings.

Accordingly, the bill will provide Harness Racing New South Wales with powers to deal with unregistered persons in a similar fashion to the powers given in legislation to constitute the AJC Principal Club.

Finally, in addition to a number of miscellaneous minor amendments dealing with terminology and procedure, the bill will make it clear that Harness Racing New South Wales is not limited to imposing charges for services provided by the stewards and will ensure that the appointment of an Acting Chairman of Harness Racing New South Wales can remain valid throughout the term of office of that body.

The measures contained in the bill have the support of the present Harness Racing Authority and the industry's advisory board and have been developed in consultation with those bodies.

I believe that the proposed amendments will be well received by the harness racing industry in general as a first step towards a progressive and vibrant future for the industry in this State.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.08]: The Opposition supports the Harness Racing Legislation Amendment Bill, which is long overdue. The two main provisions of the bill change the name of the Harness Racing Authority to Harness Racing New South Wales and increase from five to seven the number of members of the renamed authority. For a long time the harness racing industry has complained and expressed concerns that New South Wales had not achieved the same standards as those that apply in Victoria. An increase in membership from five to seven will allow those who know what the industry is all about - the trainers, the drivers and the owners - to have a say. A meeting on 14 April of more than 400 people at Harold Park expressed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing concern and disquiet about incompetence and mismanagement of the industry. They wanted it run for the good of the spectators and everybody related to the industry.

Frankly the appointees to the former board were not experienced. Harness racing is no different from any other industry; to enable it to go forward it must listen to those who have a knowledge and understanding of the industry. The bill will give Harness Racing New South Wales the power to appoint, with the approval of the Minister, an administrator, and to prohibit persons from attending or taking part in race meetings. The maximum fine that can be imposed under the rules of harness racing will be increased from $2,000 to $20,000. Basically, the bill will bring the harness racing industry into the twenty-first century. I commend the Government for introducing this bill and support the amendments that I have referred to.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [3.11], in reply: I warmly thank the Hon. J. H. Jobling for his support for the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Suspension of standing and sessional orders, by leave, agreed to.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney aware that Mr William Milat incurred no penalty after pleading guilty last week to assaulting a press photographer who had photographed Mr Milat's wife leaving the trial of Mr Ivan Milat last March? Will the Attorney review this case with a view to lodging an appeal against a decision not to impose any penalty?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the first question is yes. I will be happy to refer the second question to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his opinion on the question of an appeal.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture, whether the Minister believes that it is acceptable to house pregnant sows in stalls in
Page 5832
which they can neither turn around nor step backwards or forwards, and where they are forced to wallow in their own excreta? Will the Minister urgently meet with other agricultural ministers in Australia to discuss the introduction of the more humane British system, which will become mandatory in the United Kingdom in 1998? If not, why not?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I like animals and I am concerned to hear the allegations contained in the honourable member's question. I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture to obtain a full, prompt and considered response.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Why has the Minister decided to sell public housing flats in Gladesville, effectively uprooting the lives of 30 war veterans and widows just before Christmas? Is this simply another grab for cash to help fill the budget hole? Where does this sell-off leave the Minister's scare campaign in which he wrongly asserts that under the proposed Federal-State housing agreement public tenants would have no security? Can the Minister give an undertaking that no developers have approached the Government to sell the site?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the issue to which the Hon. Patricia Forsythe referred. Therefore, I request her to place the question on notice.


The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. I note that the final report of the child-care task force of the Economic Planning Advisory Committee was released last night. Could the Minister please advise the House of the Government's initial position on the EPAC report?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Government is disappointed by some of the outmoded views propounded in the EPAC report that suggest that there is a difference between child care and child education. The proposed restriction that less than 14 per cent of child-care benefit can be available for reasons other than work is totally unrelated to client need and should be opposed as contrary to child focus in the child-care system. The task force has not grasped the fact that the current child-care system, especially in New South Wales, is already structured so as to ensure that the developmental needs of all children are met in all centre-based services, regardless of whether the service is a pre-school or a child-care service. It is not possible to offer care to young children without actively offering developmental programs, because children learn from the moment they are born, whether policy makers would like them to or not. The recommendations of the task force in this regard have the potential to fragment the current integrated approach evident in New South Wales.

The task force also recommends that States and Territories maintain a role in regulations only in regard to minimum health and safety standards. Its view is that the Commonwealth should carry a quality assurance role. At present the Commonwealth has no mechanism by which to police its quality assurance system. By contrast the State already has regulatory compliance mechanisms in place. The Government believes that quality services can be achieved only through a regulatory framework that can be constantly monitored and policed rather than a quality assurance system which may be devoid of safeguards for children and families. The task force report further recommends that operating subsidies are to be removed. New South Wales would reinforce its previous position that child care should be reformed generally in line with the Council of Australian Governments principles and that New South Wales will not accept any further Commonwealth reductions in operating subsidies prior to a transfer of responsibilities to the State.

For this reason New South Wales opposes any implementation at all of the report's recommendations in relation to operating subsidies and quality assurance until the COAG direction is clearer. Because child care can have a dramatic effect on the lives of families and children, the New South Wales Government has for many years intervened in the child-care market by both funding a variety of children's services and by regulating service providers. It has done so as a response to community concerns that the consequences of market failure - either failure to provide an appropriate quality of service or to adequately protect the health and safety of children using the services - would be too severe to risk. It is this Government's view that, while the task force report contains some commendable recommendations, it fails to offer the appropriate responses to reshape the industry to meet the key elements I have outlined.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that Ku-ring-gai council submitted its draft residential strategy to his department on 15 April 1996? Is he further aware that this strategy was not approved until 23 July, more than three months later? Is the Minister aware that council put this strategy on exhibition from 18 September until 15 November 1996 and has
Page 5833
now been forced to extend that period until 16 December 1996? Is the Minister also aware that public exhibition of the Government's State environmental planning policy, metropolitan residential development, closed on 8 November 1996? Given those facts, and the large public interest created in this local government area, will the Minister agree to Ku-ring-gai council's quite proper request for an extension of time until March 1997 for the final submission of its residential strategy? Is the Minister also aware that the State Government has issued a requirement that councils should have finalised and on exhibition by 29 November 1996 the statutory provisions to implement their residential strategy or the State Government will impose targeted multi-unit housing areas of council?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I can only assume that the Hon. D. J. Gay is nowhere near as intelligent as he looks, because if he were he would know that I would not have that information and I would not be aware of the issue. Therefore I invite him to put the question upon notice.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I ask the Treasurer, in his own capacity and as representative in this House of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing, a question without notice. Has the HomeFund Commissioner's office paid out only $3.3 million whilst running up $10 million in administrative expenses? Is it a fact that 3,678 borrowers received an average of only $897? What is the explanation for this disgraceful situation? Will the Minister conduct an investigation into this matter to ensure that HomeFund funds are not being used up in administrative expenses?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. Elaine Nile for her question. I did see the newspaper article on which the honourable member based her question. It is the sort of question one should expect from the Opposition members, but we never seem to get any intelligent questions from them. I will certainly refer the question asked by the Hon. Elaine Nile to my colleague the Minister for Housing for what I am sure will be a full and detailed reply.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address a question without notice to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health. What is the Government doing following the finding in Queensland that a new strain of the lyssavirus found in fruit bats has been transmitted to a woman bat handler who is now in a serious condition in Royal Brisbane Hospital? Will the Government immediately put into place an education program for all people who come into contact with fruit bats to warn them of the dangers of handling fruit bats?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am tempted to say this is a batty question, but I am aware that it is a serious matter. I have read press reports about it. It is a matter of serious concern that a disease in the nature of rabies potentially could be transmitted from bats to humans.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is not rabies though.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I said it is a disease in the nature of rabies.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Do not frighten the horses.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The question is about bats, rather than horses. I do not have full details regarding the matter, however I shall refer the question to my colleagues the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and to the Minister for Agriculture if appropriate, for a full and considered reply and furnish appropriate replies to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.


The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask a question of the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware of community concerns that a 400-metre section of the Pacific Highway Raleigh deviation protrudes into the Pine Creek State Forest? Will this section be included in the public consultation process on the upgrade of the highway? Will the Minister delay further works to allow for consultation to provide for the provision of measures for the protection of the koala population in this area, which is probably the most significant population within the public forest estate on the New South Wales north coast?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. I. Cohen has asked a very important question, and I will be pleased to refer it to my colleague for a response.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that some hours after a public meeting on Sunday morning at Robertson Park, Watsons Bay, to discuss inadequate police resources in the Rose Bay patrol area, the proprietor of George's Restaurant, Double Bay, Mr Leo Varvaritis, and his son were brutally bashed in their restaurant by a thief who ran off with the weekend takings? Is the Minister also aware that the Rose Bay patrol is eight understaffed, is still awaiting the appointment of a patrol commander, and there is still no operating dedicated police beat? In view of the increasing number of assaults and thefts in the area, encouraged by the lack of beat police, will the Minister, first, inform the House what urgent initiatives are being taken to provide
Page 5834
adequate beat police to ensure the safety of the citizens of the area; and, second, confirm that the existing dedicated beat police service will not be abolished?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will be happy to raise the concerns expressed in the honourable member's question with my colleague the Minister for Police and obtain a reply.


The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: I ask the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women: is the Minister aware of the imminent disbandment of the Media Council of Australia and the Advertising Standards Council, and that the Advertising Standards Council is no longer taking complaints about advertisements? What action, if any, can the Government take to ensure that there is an independent body with which people can lodge complaints about inaccurate, offensive or demeaning advertisements and promotions, such as Streets' Grave Robber ice-cream?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My colleague the Treasurer yesterday made some brief comments regarding the Grave Robber ice-cream, and I shall not add anything to what my colleague said then. However, dealing with the merits of the question, I am aware of the recent decision by the Media Council of Australia to disband its advertising code system from the end of this year. I am also aware of a consequent decision taken by the Advertising Standards Council, which is funded by the Media Council of Australia to provide a complaint resolution scheme for that system, that it also will close from 31 December 1996. I understand that the Advertising Standards Council ceased accepting all complaints on 31 October of this year.

The Media Council of Australia's code system has formed an umbrella for the self-regulation of the advertising industry in Australia. The participating industry organisations - the Australian Standards Council, the Australian Association of National Advertisers and the Advertising Federation of Australia - have collectively represented all segments of the advertising industry. I am advised that a number of these industry organisations are formulating alternative models of self-regulation for the advertising industry. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, otherwise known as ACCC, has made clear that any such proposals will be distributed to fair trading departments in all States and Territories for comment. In New South Wales there is no change to the management of complaints concerning inaccurate advertisements and promotions. Such complaints fall within the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1987 of this State, for misleading and deceptive advertising. They are being handled by the Department of Fair Trading, as usual.

Complaints about offensive or demeaning advertisements are not regulated by law. Rather, they have been addressed in the Media Council's code of ethics. However, in the absence of the Australian Standards Council's complaint resolution mechanism and pending the establishment of a replacement system, members of the public should direct their complaints to the body responsible for the advertisement. This development disrupts a complex regulatory system which has provided significant consumer protection for many years. Yet it presents an opportunity to review the efficacy of that system and to devise a new one which reflects contemporary community values and the gamut of technological media through which they are represented in advertising. This is a national issue and it requires a national response. The Government will monitor progress of the development of an alternative complaints structure and, if necessary, my colleague the Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Faye Lo Po', will raise the issue at the ministerial council on consumer affairs.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What? Grave Robber ice-cream?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: There is nothing funny about this. I am not talking about Grave Robber ice-cream. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti might be fixated on Grave Robber ice-cream but I am talking about a national system of monitoring and controlling offensive advertisements and advertisements that are not in the public interest. My colleague the Hon. Fay Lo Po' will raise this matter - not Grave Robber ice-cream but the substantive matter - at the ministerial council on consumer affairs. The aim of that will be to bring collective pressure to bear on the advertising industry for the development of an effective, independent body to maintain advertising standards.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General concerned that amounts owing by debtors in respect of victims compensation orders and court fees have increased by $47.4 million to a record $134.1 million as of 30 June 1996? What has caused this blow-out of almost 200 per cent, and what action is the Attorney General taking to lessen the provision for these doubtful debts in the future?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The question of debts sought to be enforced under the victims compensation scheme has been a longstanding issue. I do not think there is any serious suggestion that it is a problem that has suddenly developed. Obviously people who commit acts of violence and the like are difficult people to extract money from. Often they do not have assets that can be seized. Any fair observer would agree that that is a difficult problem for the scheme and it is one that I am concerned about. We ought to extract from those who commit crimes the compensation that the law requires them
Page 5835
to pay, but it would be foolish to suggest that that is an easy task. I am considering strategies that might be employed. If the legislation needs bolstering, then the necessary legislation will be presented to the House in due course.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of a recent juvenile justice report which showed that in excess of 33 per cent of juvenile justice inmates in New South Wales are of Aboriginal descent? What effect will the Government's proposed street safety bill have on the number of Aboriginal young people in detention in New South Wales? What action does the Government intend to take to address this disproportionate level of Aboriginal young people in detention in New South Wales?

The Hon. B. P V. Pezzutti: The question should be directed to the Minister for Community Services.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It might be argued that the question is more within the substantive portfolio of my colleague the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, but as the question was addressed to me I am happy to deal with it. Obviously the honourable member has pinpointed a question of profound social importance, that is, the disparate impact of the criminal law on Aboriginal people, juveniles and adult offenders. That is a profound, social problem to which all people of goodwill should be turning their minds. There is no simple or readily available answer to the problem. The honourable member mentioned a proposal about street safety and the like. No such bill has been approved by the Government and no such bill has been presented to this House. Hence, in so far as the honourable member is referring to such a proposal, it is wholly hypothetical.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Why is it that, despite departmental restructuring over a year ago, Department of Industrial Relations cash is still being held by the Department of Training and Education Coordination in its bank account?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: With the restructuring of the department to which the honourable member referred certain functions have been provided by DTEC to DIR on contract, in particular corporate services. I am unaware of any particular cash being held by DTEC. I will take that up with the departmental head, but it is true that there is still an inter-relationship between those two departments. For example, premises occupied by DTEC are now being used by the Department of Industrial Relations.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask the Attorney General a supplementary question. How is it that the Department of Industrial Relations has exceeded its budget allocation by $1.2 million and has fully depleted its cash reserve? Given concern for the unemployed and the importance of training, how does the Minister justify DIR utilising $980,000 of the cash balances of DTEC?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not believe that the Department of Industrial Relations has exceeded its budget in the way suggested by the honourable member.


The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Further to a question asked on 12 November by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher about the Peat Island hospital management plan, is the Minister able to provide any further information?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Peat Island centre management plan was prepared in February this year to address the changes that were necessary for the centre to improve management practice and the quality of service provided to residents. The plan has been updated on two occasions, in June 1996 and September 1996, to report on the progress achieved at the centre. The initial plan identified issues that arose from inquiries and an internal audit conducted at the centre in late 1995. The plan outlines recommendations regarding each of those issues. It contains well in excess of the 55 recommendations mentioned by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher, and I am advised that its implementation is now well advanced. I am advised also that an update of the plan, completed in September, revealed that either action on approximately 85 per cent of the issues has been finalised or strategies have been implemented to manage those specific issues on an ongoing basis. Some progress has been made towards finalising each of the remaining outstanding issues. I am advised by the Department of Community Services that, notwithstanding any unforeseen difficulties or circumstances, those remaining issues will be resolved very shortly.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Housing. Did the recent coronial inquest into the fatal Department of Housing fire at Claymore find that some houses rented by the Department of
Page 5836
Housing do not conform to more recent fire safety standards for materials and design? Did the coroner say that this situation was "not good enough"? Further, is it a fact that the coroner recommended that the Department of Housing supply and install battery-operated smoke alarms for all public housing as an interim measure until completion by the end of 1998 of the program to fit hard-wired smoke detectors? What action will the Minister take in response to the findings of the coronial inquest?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the matters to which the honourable member has referred. However, I will happily refer them to my colleague the Minister for Housing. I would have thought it would also be the case that most privately owned homes did not meet the more recent fire safety standards.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You told me you were putting one into your place. Did you?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes. I have always had a smoke detector in my home. From memory, I was suggesting that people who did not have smoke detectors in their homes should have them installed. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has misled the House, he has verballed me -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Have you got one?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes. How many members of the Opposition have smoke detectors in their homes? I notice that some Opposition members raised their hands, but I counted nine who did not. What a disgrace! Those members should be ashamed of themselves. Before they leave the House this afternoon, they should get on the telephone and order smoke detectors for their homes.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, representing both his own portfolio and that of the Minister for Police. Is it a fact that the powerful television socio-documentary Whipping Boy, which was shown on Channel 10 last Monday night and concerned a paedophile network in Sydney, exposed a fictional Supreme Court judge, a surgeon, and a headmaster who was murdered by gassing, as secret members of a paedophile network? If the royal commission into police corruption does not have the terms of reference or the powers to conduct a detailed investigation into the paedophile network in Sydney, which special investigative body will do so? Does the Attorney General agree that such an investigation would require a skilled criminal intelligence unit of undercover investigators which is far beyond the capability of the current child mistreatment and protection unit? Will the Government direct the New South Wales Commissioner of Police to set up a permanent special police intelligence unit to identify and charge paedophiles in New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I did not see the television broadcast to which the honourable member has referred. I understand that the terms of reference of the royal commission are adequate for the royal commissioner to deal with matters concerning paedophilia and police corruption. I understand also that the royal commissioner has explicitly commended the specialist unit of the Police Service which is directed to these matters and has given his endorsement to that unit investigating any allegations of that kind. I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister for Police. However, on the face of it, given Justice Wood's endorsement of the capacity and integrity of that specialist unit, I would have thought it was appropriate for that unit to undertake the relevant investigatory tasks.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. Is it a fact that to date only two women barristers have been nominated as Senior Counsel since the rank of Queen's Counsel was abolished? Is it also a fact that there are no women at all on the Bar Council? If so, can the Attorney General explain why? Will the Attorney General also inform the House what measures he will take to address this issue of gender equity in the law, which I have raised repeatedly in the past?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I sympathise with the honourable member's concerns about gender equality within the legal profession. The honourable member might have noticed that recently the Minister for Women and I launched a report about those issues - indeed, it was more than a report; it was a progress report. That progress report detailed tangible steps being taken by the Government to encourage gender equality in the legal profession. I undertake this correction process gently, for I realise that the honourable member is completely sincere in the concerns that she expresses. However, it is not correct to say that there are no women on the Bar Council. In fact, there are many women on the Bar Council. I do not appoint them, although I am an ex-officio member of the Bar Council and have attended its meetings from time to time. For example Ruth McColl, who is a Senior Counsel, Anna Katzmann, and others are members of the Bar Council. I would love to see more women Senior Counsel. The previous Government removed the Attorney General's role in the appointment of Senior Counsel. The previous Government introduced legislation which abolished the rank of Queen's Counsel - which one can understand as a matter of progressive development in the republican debate.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Shame on them!

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Hon. D. J. Gay has interjected to say, "Shame on them." He is perhaps being a little harsh on the previous Government. I think there was a case to be made out that the rank, title and status of Queen's Counsel
Page 5837
were anachronisms, to be fair. Be that as it may, the previous Government abolished that office, and abolished the role of the Attorney General in making appointments to the position of Senior Counsel. The prerogative power to appoint was abolished. Those who are appointed to the rank of Senior Counsel are entirely chosen by the Bar Council. Admittedly there is some formal consultation with the judges, and indeed with me, but essentially it is a matter for the Bar Council to decide who it appoints to that position. I personally would favour more women being appointed as Senior Counsel.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that the Anti-Discrimination Board has advised that it is not discriminatory for customers to refuse to ride with female taxidrivers? Is he aware that according to the Anti- Discrimination Board this is because customers can also request to have a female driver and refuse to have a male driver? Does this mean that customers can refuse to be served by shop assistants who are not of the sex or race of their choice? If not, how are shops different to taxis? Given that the taxi companies will accept an order for a woman driver on request, is this a cause for concern about the safety of female drivers, where the client requesting a female driver is not female?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to the Minister for Transport - although I think it would be rather difficult for a customer to insist on being served by a particular shop assistant.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: What is the difference?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: How would one police such a situation? If you walk into a shop you will be served by whoever chooses to serve you. There is nothing you can do about it.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith's point is: what is the difference between a shop assistant and a taxidriver?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thought the honourable member was saying there was no difference.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: My question was: is it discriminatory for taxi customers to refuse to ride with female taxidrivers?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would think the answer to that is yes. Whether it is a matter that the law should attend to is a different question entirely.


The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. On 23 May I asked the Attorney General a question without notice regarding potential changes to the Crimes Act to enable police to carry out integrity testing, to which he replied in part, "I am unconvinced that any amendment to the Crimes Act is necessary". In light of the second interim report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, released yesterday, in which Mr Justice Wood stated that these changes are needed, has the Attorney General now changed his mind? If so, why?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: In answer to the honourable member's question, I expressed a tentative opinion. I am persuadable in respect of some issues. I can actually be convinced, not necessarily by force majeure but by logic. I reserve the right to be persuaded by appropriate arguments.


The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Premier, after breaking his promise to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5 motorways, advised that additional funds would be made available for major road construction and improvements throughout the western Sydney region? Is it also a fact that the Treasurer told this House on 21 September last year that an additional $73 million will be spent annually on roads in the western suburbs? Is the Treasurer aware of a report in the Sydney Morning Herald which details the Government's plans to partly fund the construction of the toll-free M5 east motorway from the annual $73 million grant announced for improving roads in western Sydney? Does he admit that he misled this House and the people of western Sydney by claiming that the annual $73 million grant would be used for road funding in western Sydney?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition attempted to ask the same question, but got everything horribly messed up and was talking about the Eastern Distributor. I know that his knowledge of Sydney's geography is abysmal - I often find that those who live on the privileged north shore do not know anything about Sydney south of the harbour. We have to have someone living there, but he obviously does not have a clue where the Eastern Distributor is or where the M4 and M5 are. He does not have a clue. Yesterday in this House he asserted that the Minister for Roads had said the day before that the Government proposed to divert money from western and south-western Sydney roads to complete the Eastern Distributor. As I pointed out then, the Minister for Roads was not anywhere to be found in Australia on that day and, of course, the Eastern Distributor is being funded entirely from private sources. I do not know whether the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn knows much about Sydney's road network either, because the M5 east motorway will be of huge benefit to the people who live in western and south-western Sydney. They will be able to drive from Parramatta to Sydney in about five minutes without paying a toll.

Page 5838

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Local Government. What percentage of the load-based licensing scheme fees collected by the Government will be earmarked for the environmental trusts referred to in the Act? Where will the remainder of the fees that are collected go? What guarantee do the people of New South Wales have about the breakdown of fees, or that the moneys will not all go into the Consolidated Fund? Will the fees be backdated to 1 November, when the scheme was due to start? Will he assure this House that this is a true user-pays scheme and not a new Government milch cow?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer the question to the Minister for Local Government and obtain a reply for the Hon. D. J. Gay.


The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Attorney General, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice. Will the Minister explain why the regulatory impact statement for the proposed Waste Minimisation and Management Regulation 1996 fails to provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis with respect to the new responsibilities expected of local government under the regulation? Is it true that the regulation ensures an income of $28.8 million for the State Treasury in 1996-97 and $39 million over the ensuing two years, while only returning amounts of the order of $10 million to $13 million per year to waste minimisation? Is this a clear breach of the Government's election promise which stated that Labor will ensure that section 29 funds are hypothecated to the Environment Protection Authority, subject to supervision by the Auditor-General, for waste minimisation and management initiatives?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I regret that I do not have the precise figures in my head at the moment. I shall refer the question to the Minister for the Environment and obtain a reply.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Police. Is it a fact that police commissioner Ryan will visit Wagga Wagga next Thursday in order to inspect police offices in that city? If that is the case, will the Minister ensure that the commissioner visits the old police station where conditions are so appalling, and not one of the smaller stations where conditions could be borne by the police who have to work there?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On the assumption that the police commissioner proposes to visit Wagga Wagga at the time suggested in the honourable member's question, I will pass on the request to the Minister for Police so that he might suggest that the commissioner undertake that particular visit.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Does the Community Services Commission's latest newsletter show that in the period June to August the commission had its busiest three-month period ever and received 54 per cent more complaints than in the same period last year? If the Government is serious about child protection, why has no announcement been made about enhanced resources for the Community Services Commission?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have said on previous occasions that the Community Services Commission, set up by the previous Government in a legislative sense, has been resourced by this Government at an equivalent level - in fact, the funding is somewhat more than that provided by the previous Government. Mr West, the commissioner, has approached me on a number of occasions complaining about the commission's workload. I do not doubt that there is quite a flow of complaints going to that commission. Following the making of those approaches to me, in January of this year I requested that the Premier's Department undertake a comparative review of the Community Services Commission in order to determine the appropriate level of resources for the commission to carry out its functions. I suggested, for example, that the Premier's Department might have some regard on a comparative basis to other complaint handling bodies such as the Ombudsman and the Health Care Complaints Commission, to give two examples.

Those bodies might not be directly comparable but they are complaints handling bodies. Of course, it might be said that the Ombudsman's office is perhaps not adequately resourced and probably never has been since its establishment. The review I requested be carried out by the Premier's Department commenced during February this year. Its purpose is to examine whether the role of the commission is administered as intended by the legislation under which it is established; to assess whether current practices are aligned with the commission's strategic priorities; to determine whether the legislative functions of the commission are delivered in an efficient and effective manner; to assess the practices of the commission in comparison with the practices of similar organisations, such as the Ombudsman and the Health Care Complaints Commission; and to determine the appropriate level of resources.

Page 5839

The review is not directed towards assessing the appropriateness of the Community Services (Complaints, Appeals and Monitoring) Act itself; that is a matter for the Parliament. The Premier's Department review team has consulted with staff of the Community Services Commission, interviewed key stakeholders, visited the commission and other similar organisations, and compiled comparative data. A draft report flowing from the review and containing its findings was forwarded to me in June this year and I well remember reading it. The review has found the achievements of the commission in its two years of establishment commendable, and recommendations have been made about additional resourcing for its functions and for the community visitors scheme. I point out that there are now many more community visitors than there were at the time of the previous Government. I would be guessing that multiple, but I would say that there are three or four times as many community visitors now available than were available under the previous Government.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Are you sure of that?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, I am sure that there are many more community visitors.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You said it was a guess.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I was guessing what the multiple would be. There are now many more community visitors than there were under the previous Government. The final review report and the recommendations made by the Premier's Department are now with the Premier. I hope and anticipate that the report will be forwarded to me in the near future.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Community Services. In view of the Minister's answer that the draft review suggested that the commission's work was commendable and in view of the statistics that have been revealed today, will the Minister now call upon the Premier to release that final report so that the commission's work can be enhanced?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am sure that the Premier is quite capable of considering matters in an appropriate way following an approach by me. The report did partially uphold the approach made by the Community Services Commission. However, it is a matter for the Premier and for my colleague the Treasurer to consider. After all, any enhancements to staffing in any government department or government instrumentality of whatever sort must be funded out of the resources available to the Government.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Let me assure you that any additional funds for any community services will go to you and nobody else.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Treasurer has indicated that any additional resources will go to me and no-one else.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Yes, get it on the record.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If a statement like that is made, I should record it for posterity. The resources available to the Government and the Treasurer are not inexhaustible. I remain confident, however, that the Premier and the Treasurer will look kindly on the claims I make upon them, as they have in the past two budgets.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I address my question to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Given the sustained criticism of the previous Government's staffing supplementation for schools classified as disadvantaged, why is the Government further reducing State support to federally funded disadvantaged schools programs?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer that question to the Minister for Education and Training and obtain a reply.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: Is the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police, aware of the conclusions made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption with respect to the police air wing and tendering practices that have been found to have failed minimum probity standards? What steps have been made since the commencement of the ICAC inquiry to review, revise and reissue tendering guidelines that ensure a fair go to all potential providers of fixed-wing aircraft, or have no steps been taken? Following the outrageous debacle involving more than $3.5 million of public moneys, will a simple and clear message on the importance of probity over tenders now be communicated by the Government to all public sector employees?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer that question to the Minister for Police and obtain a reply.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Is the Attorney General, representing the Minister for the Environment, aware that the Minister for the Environment has just declared five nudist beaches in New South Wales? Is the Minister aware that three of those beaches are on the harbour, one is at the Royal National Park to the south of Sydney and one is on the mid north coast? Why did the Minister not
Page 5840
live up to the promise made by the Labor Party when in opposition to declare Reef Beach on the northern peninsular a nudist beach? Is this yet another broken promise of the Labor Government?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I infer from this question that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is advocating the declaration of Reef Beach as a nudist beach. If that be a correct inference, I shall certainly put that matter to the Minister. It is difficult to understand the question as being anything other than an advocacy of the declaration of that beach. As all honourable members know, the Minister for the Environment has announced the declaration of a certain number of additional beaches as nudist beaches. Just where they are located and the precise number of them is not within my knowledge, but I will put the question to the Minister for the Environment and, to the extent that a reply is called for, will seek a reply.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Is the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations aware that the result of a recent major study of 1,100 youth indicated that parental rule and strict supervision have no effect on the youth crime rate but that parental emotional support is the crucial issue in cutting youth crime? Does the Minister agree that there is a clear relationship between emotional support and breaking the law? Is the Minister going to devise and implement a preventive program to help parents or guardians of children so as to reduce the number of youth breaking the law?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I thank the honourable member for an undoubtedly thoughtful question. I am sure that there is a link between parental emotional support and youth crime. That corresponds to commonsense and it is good to see a statistical survey reinforcing the commonsense answer. But I suppose that the honourable member's question also points to a difficulty or restriction, if you like, in governmental activity dealing with such matters. If a critical factor is emotional support by parents, there is frankly a limited amount that governments can do in that area because in a sense it is a personal responsibility of the parents. I am not suggesting by any means that government is incapable of taking action about youth crime, but because questions of personal conduct and responsibility are involved obviously the community itself bears a responsibility. I will be happy to reflect on the honourable member's question in trying to formulate policies about youth crime. But I am sure that the honourable member, who is a highly intelligent person, accepts that this is not an easy area.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Government put into place an active campaign to inform all our major international and domestic customers of the changes to New South Wales animal health surveillance and to reassure them about the continued safety of our livestock products?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall be pleased to refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture to obtain a suitable response.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport. Following the closure of the track maintenance operation at Ivanhoe in western New South Wales, can the Minister confirm the reports that a further $70 million is to be taken from the budget of the Railway Services Authority, resulting in a further reduction of 50 per cent of staff in the central west, including fettlers and clerks, across the board?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will be happy to refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Transport.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Attorney General. What is the status of the review of liability and insurance problems for local government, community and voluntary organisations initiated by the Attorney General and the Minister for Local Government? When was the review announced, when did it commence and when will its results be released?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not have the precise dates available to me. I should not be expected to apologise for not knowing dates of announcements and the like. An investigation of that complex matter is under way, as the honourable member indicated, involving both the local government department and the Attorney General's Department.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Roads: did the Roads and Traffic Authority assert in the case of Residents of Blacktown and Seven Hills Against Further Traffic Inc. v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales that the work on Abbott Road, Seven Hills, was merely an upgrade and not an extension of the M2? Can the Minister guarantee that Abbott Road will never be used as an extension of the M2? Can the Minister also unequivocally guarantee that the night-time percentage of heavy vehicles will not exceed 5 per cent and that they will not reach 21 per cent of total traffic flow as claimed by residents? Is it not a fact that if Abbott Road does indeed turn out to be an extension of the M2, the RTA would have been obliged to have produced an environmental impact statement, which it did not do?

Page 5841

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sure that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would not expect me to have the answer to that question so I suggest that he place the question on notice.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the acute financial crisis in the Macquarie District Health Service which has been characterised by the charging of a mortuary fee at the Narromine hospital? Is he aware that this is also producing grave problems in the Coonamble, Nyngan and Dubbo hospitals? Is the Minister prepared to monitor and publish mortality rates for the health district to indicate that services which appear to be contracting in the district are not causing undue suffering for patients in the area?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: This is to stop grave robbing.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Lift the shroud of secrecy.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It is shrouded in mystery.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am sure that the Hon. D. F. Moppett asked the question with an honest and serious intent, in contrast to the flippant remarks made by some of his colleagues opposite. He asks intelligent questions. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asks intelligent questions. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition occasionally does and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner always does. I am sure that the Hon. D. F. Moppett wants an answer to his question, unlike some of his less well-informed colleagues. Therefore I shall be delighted to refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health and convey a suitable and, I would hope, prompt response to the honourable member.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier and Minister for the Arts. Is he aware that last week at Government House the Lord Mayor launched the Sydney Festival in the presence of community arts leaders and critics? Is he also aware that the Premier, who was overseas, was not represented by any parliamentary member of his Government? Does he agree that the Sydney Festival plays an important role in promoting the visual and performing arts and achievements of Sydney and New South Wales to Australians and tourists from overseas? If so, does he not agree that the lack of parliamentary representation by the Premier indicates the Government's lack of concern for the arts?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I was the Acting Premier last week. I was also the Acting Minister for the Arts. I was also the Acting Minister for Ethnic Affairs. I was also the Treasurer. I was also the Minister for Energy. I was also the Minister for State and Regional Development. I was also the Vice-President of the Executive Council. And, in my normal capacity as Minister Assisting the Premier, for 10 days I was Minister assisting myself. I am a great supporter of the Sydney Festival. A year would not go by in which I do not - while the Leader of the Opposition in this House is flying all over the world for his Christmas - stay in Sydney and enjoy all of the pleasures of Sydney in January, not only our great beaches but also all of the events that are held during the Sydney Festival.

I picked up the paper on Saturday and read that the Sydney Festival had been launched at Government House - and I had not been invited. No-one bothered to invite me. Next time I see the Lord Mayor, or next time I see the director of the Sydney Festival, I will have a few nasty words to say to him. Not only am I the Treasurer, which means that I end up paying for whatever needs to be paid for, but I was also last Friday Acting Premier and Acting Minister for the Arts, and I was not invited. I was quite put out. I was pleased to see on Saturday that the festival program - I think it was in the Sydney Morning Herald but it might have been in one of the other newspapers - will be one of the best ever. I am particularly looking forward to the Spanish choir that will be performing Gregorian chants. I would invite all honourable members to go with me to enjoy the performance.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is directed to the Attorney General. As a knowing and caring Minister is he aware of statements in the press by former Senator Graham Richardson that anaesthetists are undervalued and underpaid? Does the Minister agree with that statement? If so, why did he intervene earlier this year in the agreement for fees under the workers compensation schedule?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order. Should the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti not declare a pecuniary interest in this matter?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On the point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have seen some debate in recent times within the medical profession about the role of anaesthetists and some criticism of that role. I do not know whether the honourable member has seen that. I am persuaded that anaesthetists have been badly treated by some of their peers in the medical profession. Probably they are undervalued in the sense of not receiving the professional recognition that they deserve. Whether anaesthetists are underpaid is perhaps a more contentious proposition. I am not sure whether many
Page 5842
members of this House would agree that anaesthetists are an underpaid, exploited labour force. It may be that former Senator Graham Richardson said so, but I should not be thought to agree literally with everything that the former senator says. Attempts have been made in the WorkCover scheme to restrain the costs of medical practitioners and lawyers, with a reduction of 10 per cent in lawyers fees. It is fair that some restraining measures be taken in respect of medical practitioners also, and that will occur in consultation and following dialogue with the medical profession.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Have you done it?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: There has been ongoing consultation with representatives of the medical profession.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In view of the time, and as question time has exceeded an hour, I suggest that if honourable members have further questions, they place them on notice.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 12 September the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked me a question concerning arbovirus. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer.

The NSW Department of Health advises that it is unable to comment on the responsibilities of the South Australian Department of Primary Industries.

The NSW Department of Health has advised that it is unaware of a South African virus which causes eye problems, meningitis and encephalitis in humans which is almost identical to the main viral agent believed to be responsible for the kangaroo blindness disease, the Wallal arbovirus.

Advice from the NSW Department of Health is that many kangaroos which carry arbovirus are asymptomatic. The disease appears to be very species specific and has occurred mainly in adult western grey kangaroos. Vector insects are believed to be responsible for transmission of the disease. During the recent epidemic biting midges were found to be carrying the virus.

The NSW Department of Health has advised that there is no evidence for transmission of the disease to other species. It is not a new disease and if the disease were transmissible to humans it could be expected to have occurred in people who have been exposed to vector insects. A survey of personnel engaged in the kangaroo meat business has failed to identify any related problems. There is no evidence to suggest the possibility of transmission to humans, either when exposed to vector insects or as consumers of kangaroo meat.

I understand that research into arbovirus has been undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW Agriculture, the South Australian Central Veterinary Laboratories and the CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory.

The NSW Department of Health will investigate any claims of unexplained human blindness believed to be related to kangaroo blindness disease, and has consulted the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists seeking information about such cases.

Questions without notice concluded.

Debate resumed from 30 October.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON [4.24]: This is the third occasion on which I have spoken on this report. Maybe the first occasion on which I spoke could be titled Star Wars, the second occasion could be titled Return of the Jedi, and my speech this afternoon could be titled The Empire Strikes Back.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You have them in the wrong order; The Empire Strikes Back is the second one.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: Well, whatever the order, I have refreshed my memory of the stage I had reached when I last spoke on 30 October. I was in the midst of commenting that the golden thread of neglect characterises much of what was said by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, particularly their comments on the report. My comment is supported by the actions of the coalition when it had control of the agriculture portfolio prior to March 1995, and that is borne out by the attitude of coalition members to the report in that they have sought to make certain recommendations to the committee, and to this House, in relation to the Biological and Chemical Research Institute - the BCRI. I emphasise that because the recommendations in relation to the veterinary laboratories, as I have pointed out, were unanimous.

I highlight what I consider to be evidence of neglect and hypocrisy on the part of the coalition concerning the BCRI. In government the coalition wanted, and determined, to disaggregate the BCRI - to break it up, to disperse it, and to close the Rydalmere facility. The Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs at the time, Mr Armstrong - currently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the National Party - was supportive of the proposal. His support has been commented upon and is documented. Of course, he now says that the Government must not do what the former Government planned and was determined to do.

What was it that put a spoke in the wheels of the National Party in relation to the BCRI? Along came the economic rationalist Premier from the Liberal Party - Premier Greiner - with a Coopers and Lybrand report based on a so-called cost-benefit analysis in his arms. The former Premier had not consulted the people in the bush or considered what was best for agriculture; he was just armed with the Coopers and Lybrand report. The cost-benefit analysis is the golden rule of economic rationalists. The former Government did not want to spend money unless it could be satisfied that it would
Page 5843
recoup its investment or that the overriding benefit would outweigh the money that it was prepared to spend or that it could make from the sale of the BCRI Rydalmere site.

The former Government did not conduct a mammoth round of consultations or consider what was best for agriculture; it merely relied on an economic, dry Coopers and Lybrand report. It decided not to spend money and proceed with the project as the cost-benefit analysis showed it was not worth it, notwithstanding the fact that National Party members thought it was a terrific idea and that it would be good for the bush. What are we left with? The coalition did nothing! It spent no money, made no decisions and neglected the bush, its so-called heartland.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Rubbish!

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: Yes, you did. This Government has made a decision, is prepared to spend the money and is looking after the bush through the relocation of the services currently provided by BCRI to regional and rural New South Wales. It is interesting that there was no evidence before the committee that the centres of excellence concept was a bad thing. There was evidence before the committee about the right number of those centres. Let us not try to escape from the critical point that centres of excellence are regarded as a good concept. Opposition members of the committee, having painted themselves into a corner by their two-bob-each-way approach, having decided that they had to be seen to be critical of the relocation of BCRI and that they had to protect their credibility in the bush, in the minority report came up with the lulu of all two-bob-each-way statements, and said at page 139 of the report:

We support and encourage localised applied research that is close to industry.

Great! They will not support the disaggregation of BCRI into centres of excellence. In many ways, that is exactly what the break-up of BCRI represents: localised applied research close to industry. Then they felt constrained to add this sentence:

We also support industry based research.

Terrific! Again that is what disaggregation of BCRI represents. The hypocrisy in which they had to wrap up their comments destroyed any credibility that they had hoped to bring to their minority report. The Government is doing what Opposition members say they support - localised applied research close to industry, and industry-based research. All in all, the majority recommendations of the report relating to BCRI are sensible and I trust will lay the foundations for constructive developments in the diverse fields of agricultural research in New South Wales. As I said earlier, the recommendations in relation to New South Wales veterinary laboratory services are unanimous, and I do not wish to add to what I have already said about those recommendations.

Report noted.

Debate resumed from 24 September.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [4.33]: It is a remarkable tribute to the operation of the committee system of this House that the Standing Committee on Social Issues tabled its report on children's advocacy on 19 September and now on 13 November honourable members have their first opportunity to address the issues of the report in this take note debate. I am pleased to note that the committee system of this House is very healthy and is working productively.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Debate in the public arena has already commenced.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: It certainly has. There could not have been better timing for the undertaking of this inquiry and the production of the committee's findings and recommendations, given general community awareness of the needs of children being exposed by the Wood royal commission and community concerns about failures in the substitute care system, matters which the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services is attempting to rectify. I congratulate the Minister on making this reference to the committee because community concerns about it made the inquiry necessary.

The report represents the results of a lengthy, complex and challenging inquiry by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The fact that the report is unanimous indicates a strong commitment to a bipartisan approach to issues affecting children and young people in this State. Following the tabling of the report the secretariat and I received numerous telephone calls applauding the committee's approach and supporting its recommendations. Correspondence was received from a range of groups and individuals commending the initiatives contained in the report and urging the Government to implement those initiatives as soon as possible. I would like to read onto the record excerpts from some of the correspondence received by the committee. The first came from the eminent paediatrician and chief executive of the New Children's Hospital, Dr John Yu, who also is Australian of the Year:

I read a recent press report in which I understand the all-party Standing Committee on Social Issues recommended to the Premier the establishment of an Office for the Status of Children and Young People. I was delighted to see this report and to know that your Committee was prepared to champion the needs and interests of children in New South Wales.

A further letter was received from Mr Morri Young, Executive Director of the Association of the Children's Welfare Agencies, which stated:

I have had the opportunity to read the report of your Committee's Inquiry into Children's Advocacy. I would like to extend to you the Association's appreciation for your efforts and contribution to this important report. As

Page 5844
your Committee has found, children's advocacy in NSW is inadequate, has been inconsistent and lacking in a coordinated approach particularly for children and young people and for poor or marginalized communities.

The Association commends the positive approach you have taken in putting forward your recommendations and looks forward to the Government's urgent implementation of practical solutions to these findings.

The Network of Community Activities also wrote to the committee. Its letter stated, in part:

Congratulations on your excellent and very readable report "Inquiry into Children's Advocacy" and the far-reaching recommendations it contains. In particular, the recommendations concerning the establishment of a Children's Commissioner and an Office of the Status of Children and Young People.

The Youth Justice Coalition also wrote to the committee stating:

The Youth Justice Coalition welcomes the report entitled "Inquiry into Children's Advocacy", released by the New South Wales Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues. We commend a well thought out and comprehensive report that deals with the myriad of complex issues relating to children's advocacy.

The Youth Justice Coalition is of the view that this report is timely, given the evidence emerging in the Wood Royal Commission and the cuts to legal aid funding announced by the Federal Government. We welcome the initiatives contained in the report and indicate that we are willing to assist in the implementation process of these recommendations.

Other messages of support were received from people who understood the issues and were confident in the outcomes of the committee's report. At the outset I would like to express my thanks to my fellow committee members for once again demonstrating great patience and skill in dealing with this very important inquiry. I thank the committee staff for their thorough preparation of the report and for the creative proposals contained therein. I thank especially the acting director, Ms Alexandra Shehadie, and the senior project officer, Mr Glen Baird. Jane Millett and Tanya Van Den Bosch both contributed in remarkable ways to the preparation of the report. Jane Millett's work in formatting has been outstanding and is very much appreciated.

The committee received 64 submissions, had 71 briefings, and heard from 72 witnesses. In particular, committee members were concerned to consult children, and heard from 55 children. The inquiry was referred to the committee by the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, in response to community concerns about the adequacy of advocacy for children and young people in New South Wales. The committee made thirty-seven recommendations in relation to the four key areas of care and protection, law and justice, education and health. Of the 37 recommendations, four are major recommendations. They are that the Premier urge the Prime Minister to create the position of children's commissioner within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to ensure that governments meet their obligations arising from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; that the Premier establish an office of the status of children and young people to be located within the Premier's Department to report directly to the Premier; that the Premier establish an independent children's advocacy network throughout New South Wales to be based in non-government agencies and in areas of disadvantage and where there is a high children and youth population - a serious and important measure in dealing with young people's concerns; and that the office of the status of children and young people establish a committee of children and young people for the purpose of promoting peer advocacy in New South Wales. We must change our culture, start to listen to children and encourage their participation in all levels of society.

From the early stages of the inquiry the committee recognised that children represent the most powerless, vulnerable and silent group within our community. The fact of childhood means that the needs and rights of children and young people are too often overlooked. For children who are poor, abused or from minority and marginalised groups, this issue is even further compounded. One need only listen to the revelations of the Wood royal commission and the stolen children inquiry to recognise that there are groups of children within our community whose fundamental human rights have been breached, yet they have been repeatedly silenced or actively denied opportunities for justice often by the very systems that have been set up to protect them. Statistics gathered for this inquiry confirm that, now more than ever, an effective, practical and positive advocacy system for children is needed.

Some of the statistics gathered by the committee are: there are approximately 10,000 homeless children and young people between 12 and 18 years in New South Wales; more than 1,500,000 children live in families that are dependent on social security support or that exist just above the poverty line - that is a national figure; 6,000 children in New South Wales are in substitute care; as at 30 June 1995 there were 2,659 State wards in New South Wales; Aboriginal infant mortality rates are almost double the rates for all Australian infants; and as at 4 September 1996 475 children were in detention centres in New South Wales, compared with 88 children in detention in Victoria for the same period. The committee noted throughout its report that effective advocacy for children involves taking a pro-active or preventive approach to children's issues. It is not merely about reacting or responding to a crisis.

As one witness told the committee in evidence, advocacy should not be about simply improving the administrative grievance procedures. There needs to be some sort of broader framework which says that the interests of children are important, not merely important vis-a-vis the current political situation, a particular scandal or problem that has arisen, but important because Australians need to think about
Page 5845
the next generation. Nevertheless, numerous inquiries and extensive reports have revealed the inadequacy of existing systems in preventing child abuse, neglect, exploitation, homelessness, poverty, unemployment and suicide and allowing children from all backgrounds and experiences to be heard and to have their concerns listened to. Children today are constantly being denied basic human civil rights. It is time that an effective system is established that will protect and promote those rights.

It is my firm belief that, once implemented, the recommendations contained in this report will go a long way to achieving that system. An effective system of advocacy for children would recognise the rights and needs of all children and young people and respond to those needs. It would allow children and young people to have a say in decisions likely to affect them. Effective advocacy would also provide children with quality, individual advocates to ensure that they have the right of equal access to the law and the processes of government, a right that adults demand and expect. It is also about providing children with redress against individuals or systems which have harmed them in some way. Children must be listened to. Children must be believed when they disclose harm that has been done to them.

This committee came to the firm and unanimous conclusion that children's advocacy is not about undermining the role of families or parents. Parents can often be a child's most powerful advocate. This fact was repeated constantly throughout the inquiry process. Improving advocacy for children allows both children and parents greater access to the processes of government that directly affect the daily lives of children. However, many children do not have parents who can advocate on their behalf. This may be because they are estranged from their parents or because their parents and families, themselves being part of society's disenfranchised and disempowered, do not have the resources, knowledge or capacity to advocate on their children's behalf. It is these children who are most in need of a strong advocacy system that will promote and protect their rights and needs.

As I have noted, it is the vulnerable, neglected and marginalised children who are most in need of effective advocacy. Many of these children suffer in silence because their experience and situation cannot be disclosed or it is not recognised. The committee acknowledged that, thankfully, professionals and community members alike are now alert to and will not tolerate the sexual abuse of children. As better mechanisms for detection of child sexual abuse have been put in place, children are now more encouraged to disclose their experiences. However, although the committee applauds this approach to child sexual abuse, it considers that the plight of many children who are physically abused and/or neglected can go undetected as the proper systems for prevention, identification and disclosure are yet to be fully developed.

Whilst the sexual abuse of children is an issue of grave concern, so is the physical abuse, neglect and poverty of children, issues which are often overlooked. A great proportion of children who are in care have been removed from their families because of neglect. That is, their parents could not properly care for them because of mental illness or, more commonly, poverty. Because the principle of disclosure does not apply to neglect, the committee considered it essential that an early intervention program be established in order to prevent the neglect of children and their removal from their families. The committee therefore strongly recommended that the Minister for Health establish an outreach program for vulnerable families at the time of confinement of the mother. Workers of the outreach program would conduct regular home visits to such families until the child reaches five years of age. Among the tasks of the workers would be to provide advice about nutrition, child development and parenting skills.

The situation of children in the care and protection system was examined in great detail by the committee. The committee quickly realised that, as a group, these children are the most in need of improved advocacy. For many children the process of being placed in care is extremely damaging, both physically and emotionally, with many children in care being abused, becoming homeless, dropping out of school, misusing drugs and alcohol and entering the juvenile and later the adult justice systems. Continued budget cuts that began in 1988 resulted in a serious and dangerous contraction of services for children and led to overworked and demoralised staff in the Department of Community Services. These historical cuts have severely reduced the effectiveness of the care system and support services for this State's most needy children.

The recommendations made by the committee to ensure that the needs and interests of children in the care and protection system are met include calling for the immediate implementation of provisions of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 relating to the establishment of boards of review; amending that Act to oblige the boards to undertake annual reviews of all children in care, not just wards; and ensuring that annual reports on the processes and outcomes of the boards' decisions are tabled in Parliament. We must involve ourselves in scrutiny of the systems that care for children. The committee also felt that the adequacy of support for young people leaving care provided by leaving care centres - a recent initiative of the Labor Government - needs to be assessed after three years of operation. The adequacy of the law and justice system in meeting the needs of children is also examined in the report. Children's involvement in the juvenile justice system as alleged offenders, witnesses in prosecution cases involving personal assaults and as parties to family law proceedings were examined by the committee. The committee also found that in all these areas advocacy for children continues to be inadequate and inferior to that provided for and expected by adults.

Page 5846

The committee makes a number of recommendations to improve services to children in law and justice. One of those recommendations is that within the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission an appropriately resourced and staffed special children's section be established, whose solicitors will undertake matters in relation to juvenile justice, care and protection. The children's section should also coordinate and monitor a scheme whereby children's solicitors travel on circuit to country areas where there are no specialist children's courts or specialist children's solicitors. It also recommends that the duty solicitor and social work scheme at Cobham Children's Court be expanded to other Children's Courts throughout New South Wales. The committee would like to see a wide range of practitioners attracted to the Children's Court jurisdiction. There needs to be developed within that jurisdiction a wide body of case law. Accordingly, we recommend that the Children's Court jurisdiction be elevated to that of the District Court, as is the case in South Australia, Western Australia and New Zealand. This would significantly upgrade the court processes and legal systems approaching justice issues for children in New South Wales.

The committee unanimously supports the separate representation of children in family law proceedings. However, as the report notes, it is concerned that the current funding cuts to the Legal Aid Commission may prevent this from occurring. Because of Federal budget cuts the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission will lose $100 million over three years. The committee therefore recommends that the Legal Aid Commission quarantine an appropriate amount of available funds to ensure that children are provided with equitable finance so that they may have some chance of getting legal representation in family law proceedings. We understand the strains on the commission arising from Federal budget cuts. However, we unanimously agree that it is the duty of the Legal Aid Commission to indicate its support for children's rights to legal services by allocating separate funding to manage children's justice issues.

The committee investigated the effectiveness of advocating for and promoting the needs of children in the area of health, including mental health. The committee found that, traditionally, the health needs of many children and young people have been unmet. Inadequacies in children's health facilities include the limited numbers of children's specialists in various fields, low immunisation rates, the inferior health of children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and the appalling state of Aboriginal children's health. Examining this issue would completely demolish Pauline Hanson's ignorant and racist statement that Aboriginal people receive better treatment than non-Aboriginal people. Aborigines have an infant mortality rate twice that of the white population; therefore, it would be difficult to sustain such a claim.

The committee also found that Australia's obligation to consider the views of the child when making decisions about the child, as set out in the United Nations Convention, has not been adhered to in relation to health. The committee has made several recommendations to improve children's health and their status within the health system. The committee notes that the Minister for Health recently announced the development of a child health policy which it hopes will assist in overcoming many of the problems identified in the report. The committee also looked at children's rights and advocacy in the education system. Schooling takes up a large part of an individual's childhood, and his or her experiences within the educational system have a significant impact on later life. A key issue that was raised by students themselves was their right to be involved in decision making. The committee agreed that children should have input into their educational environment, as required under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We heard that progress was being made on this front through student representative councils and involvement in school discipline policies.

Children's access to counsellors is another important issue. There are still insufficient numbers of experienced and adequately resourced counsellors to allow students to receive effective and confidential counselling, particularly in rural areas. Discipline within schools well illustrates the need for advocacy. Many of the submissions and evidence received by the committee were critical of the current use of suspension, exclusion and expulsion policies in schools. The committee believes that improved advocacy is required for students facing disciplinary action at school. The continued discrimination suffered by Aboriginal and non-English speaking background students in schools was of concern to the committee, including their overrepresentation as subjects of disciplinary action. The committee recommends that the Minister for Education and Training take action to ensure that Aboriginal and non-English speaking background students are not unfairly discriminated against in disciplinary procedures, including ensuring access to counselling support and the involvement in disciplinary proceedings of a support person such as a youth or community worker.

With the establishment of the children's advocacy network through the State, this might be a source of independent advice and support for children in education matters. Other issues which the committee believes require urgent attention by the Minister for Education and Training are: the informal exclusion of young homeless people from schools; the improvement and strengthening of complaints procedures; and a review of the special education policy to consider increasing the inclusion of students with disabilities. Recognising the difficulties of that, nevertheless we all agree efforts had to be made to improve the rate of inclusion of students with disabilities. The committee identified that a major problem within the school system is
Page 5847
that of bullying. Until the education system through its policies examines and identifies levels of violence within schools as a significant issue we will not make progress on behalf of individual children and on behalf of the system itself, which should be promoting tolerance at the school level.

The committee recognises that child-care programs provide a unique opportunity to support families in their caring roles, and that it is imperative that governments provide continued support for high-quality, affordable community-based child-care services. I was filled with alarm when I read the Economic Planning Advisory Commission - EPAC - report, which was released today. I am sure that all the committee members who recognise the role of children's services in supporting children and families would share that concern. The fact that the removal of operational grants will cause a significant increase in the cost of child care, which will have ill consequences for children and families, is one thing; but the ignorance of the drafters of the EPAC report, who are following the line of letting the consumers choose which services they wish to avail themselves of via some kind of complicated voucher system, is doomed to create havoc in children's services. It pays no regard to the need for planning in children's services in terms of capital works, recurrent work, quality standards and professional expertise within the system. Children's services is such a complex area of delivery, as the Minister knows. To simply say "Let the consumers choose" is a dangerous and damaging way to approach the delivery of children's services.

In relation to out-of-school-hours care, the committee believes that there are insufficient care programs but is concerned that such care is not currently regulated. There needs to be an inclusion of standards and regulating approaches to out-of-school-hours care and an injection of funds that will give some kind of stability to the quality and extent of provision of such care. The women who have worked tirelessly in that area need to be commended for the way in which they have recognised the need, sought to provide the service and, against all odds through all political agencies have retained their devotion to that service and their commitment to children. It is time that they and their service were recognised more appropriately.

The committee found that there is a plethora of agencies working on behalf of children. Government agencies include the Department of Community Services, the Community Services Commission, the Community Services Appeals Tribunal, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the official visitors scheme and the Department of Education, to name a few. Non-government agencies include Centacare, Burnside, the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, the State Network of Young People in Care and the Youth Justice Coalition, again to name just a few. I must not forget the Youth Action Policy Association, which is another fine advocacy group for young people in this State.

Despite all of these organisations there is still a piecemeal and uncoordinated approach to children's advocacy. The approach of many of these agencies is reactive and relies on complaints being made by children, their parents or community members before action is taken. They certainly are not included at the level of planning and delivery of care in a cooperative government and non-government association, as they should be. The report presents an imaginative and practical model for cooperative children's advocacy. The committee maintains that advocacy for children needs to be put in place at both the systemic and individual levels. As well as being proactive, rather than always reacting to crises, advocacy must cover all policy sectors and portfolios.

I have mentioned already the four major recommendations of the report. At the State level I consider it crucial that the Government establish as soon as possible an office of the status of children within the Premier's Department, particularly in light of continual revelations about the abuse and neglect of children. It is essential that an office of the status of children and young people be placed within the Premier's Department so as to be at the very hub of decision making. It is also fundamental to the effective workings of such an office that the Premier, as leader of the State, be responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and needs of children.

Such an office would lead government efforts to ensure that government and community resources create positive outcomes for children. Mr Carr has already publicly said that children are the highest priority for his Government. Here is an opportunity for him to provide a mechanism whereby he can demonstrate to the community that that is indeed the case. I hope that this is the last of the many inquiries into the rights, needs and interests of children. We are aware of the problems; we know what the solutions are. This is the perfect opportunity to correct the flaws in the system. I look forward to an early and positive response from the Government. As I said at the outset of my contribution, the committee tabled the report on 19 September and the community has received it with great praise and with eagerness for its implementation.

I hope that Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services will be able to convey to the Premier and to Cabinet that the community, which is demanding a range of new mechanisms and systems to deal with advocacy measures for children, is more than content with the unanimous outcome of the committee's inquiry. It would be of enormous benefit to the community, which is concerned about children and their interests, to the Government and particularly to the children if this report were to be implemented as a matter of urgency. I commend the report.

Page 5848

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [5.04]: The inquiry into children's advocacy was an extremely complex issue for the Standing Committee on Social Issues. There can be no doubt that children have been badly served in modern democratic society. Democracies run on lobby groups, on squeaky wheels, and on organisations that are bent on pushing their own barrows, getting the ears of government and the media, and getting attention and resources. Children tend not to be prominent in lobby groups; children are not strong lobbyists, for obvious reasons. The parents of children are too busy parenting and wearing the many other hats that they have to wear to take on the role of lobbyists. In modern democratic societies we tend to find the needs of our children sadly neglected, as I point out in my recent book Political Incorrectness. The consequences of such a process - of a democracy that runs on squeaky wheels and that neglects some of the most important issues such as the needs of our children - are numerous. Many of them are spelled out in the report "Inquiry into Children's Advocacy". Other consequences I have alluded to.

Australia is entering the third-world league of debtor nations. We are bequeathing a massive and increasing debt to our children. That is the legacy this generation will leave its children - massive debt. Employment has become a youth problem. Youth homelessness, child abuse and family disintegration have become major social problems. Children have become exposed to an unrelenting diet of not just violence but also negative bad news in the media. We are raising our children on doom and gloom. In addition, there has been a major transference of resources from youth to older people. Those are just a few of the issues that tend to be endemic in modern western cultures - cultures where the baby boomers have the numbers and democracy runs on numbers.

The consequences outlined in the report are more detailed and deal more with specific cases, because the committee wanted to find out how individuals were being affected. For that reason they tend to be absolutely harrowing. I draw the attention of honourable members particularly to the chapter on care and protection, which is located near the front of the report - for very good reason. In my view this is the most important issue that the committee dealt with in the course of its inquiry, because the needs are just so urgent; the problems are just so dreadful. The statistics cited in the chapter on care and protection are salutary. Child advocate Dr Ferry Grunseit commented in evidence to the committee that the notification rate for child abuse and neglect has increased by 56 per cent during the past three years and now exceeds 34,000 annually. He further told the committee that the rate of renotification is over 50 per cent. This means that children are being reabused, with some coming before the Department of Community Services several times within a short period.

The circumstances that brought children into contact with the care and protection system have left many both physically and emotionally damaged - as have many of their experiences within the system. The committee is aware that whilst a number of children survive, as it were, the process of being placed in care, a significant proportion of others do not complete their education. They become homeless, they engage in drug and alcohol abuse, they develop serious emotional problems, they may even become suicidal or become involved in the juvenile justice system and later the adult criminal justice system. As the Standing Committee on Social Issues was told in the course of its 1992 inquiry into juvenile justice in New South Wales, that is especially the case for wards of the State. Some four years later, it appears to be still the case. The submission from the Community Services Commission observed:

. . . state wards and children in care appear to make up a significant proportion of the population of young people involved in the juvenile justice system. Information available to the Commission suggests that a lack of appropriate support and advocacy for children in the care of the Department of Community Services is contributing to their drift into juvenile justice.

Over the years a number of reports and books have documented the situation of young people involved in the care system. A litany of reports point out the problems. Among the reports are: "Report of the New South Wales Child Sexual Assault Task Force" of 1995; the "Girls at Risk" report of 1986; the Usher report of 1992; the 1994 report commissioned by the New South Wales Child Protection Council entitled "Systems Abuse: Problems and Solutions"; "Longitudinal Studies of Wards Leaving Care" of 1996; and the 1996 book Every Childhood Lasts a Lifetime: Personal Stories from the Frontline of Family Breakdown. As the committee's report stated, all those reports and publications paint a grim picture for many children involved in the care and protection system. But the picture has been painted, repainted and repainted yet again over the years, and the problems still go on. Children are still being abandoned to a care and protection system that is a gross misnomer: the system has not cared and it has not protected.

The revelations of the Wood royal commission have dramatically highlighted the vulnerability of many children and young people involved in the care and protection system. Despite all the reports dating back to the 1980s and despite the deaths of 19 children, who had been notified to the Department of Community Services as being at risk of abuse or neglect, the result is a glaring example of the failure to provide appropriate and effective advocacy - as the Council for Intellectual Disability claimed of the department. This is an ongoing tragedy. In this debate I am not making cheap political points; the neglect and abuse have occurred under governments of both persuasions: under the previous Labor Government, the recent coalition
Page 5849
Government and the present Labor Government. The tragedy is still going on, and it has gone on for too long. It is about time that things changed.

To give honourable members a specific example of the sorts of cases that occur under the care system I shall relate evidence received by the committee from Dr Judy Cashmore, who detailed the disturbing case of a young woman and her siblings who were systematically starved by their foster carers for approximately eight years. The children were stealing food from rubbish bins and from other children. Although the Department of Community Services had received a number of notifications regarding the children from the time they started school, the responses from their foster parents that the children had come into their care with junk food habits were accepted. After refusing to return to the house and seeking assistance from a teacher for alternative accommodation, the children were medically examined and found to be three years delayed in their bone development because they were not being fed.

Dr Cashmore commented to the committee that during those years the children had not had anyone ask them in private what was really going on. Dr Cashmore explained that, as was the case with the children to whom I have referred, caseworkers may regularly ask about the situation of children in front of their foster parents. In evidence Dr Cashmore stated, "It is a pretty brave kid who will say `things are terrible' in front of the foster parents." I have given one example but there have been many cases in which our children have been betrayed, abandoned and neglected. As we know, the result in many of those cases has been not only terrible and traumatic physical and emotional damage, but also death. The neglect and abuse have gone on for too long. In this regard I strongly support the comments made by the chair of the committee, the Hon. Ann Symonds, in her contribution to the debate.

The recommendations of the Standing Committee on Social Issues that caseworkers insist on private discussions with children in foster care and that all children in foster care have access to the Kids Help Line are very important. The recommendation for independent children's boards of review is fundamental if the care system is to improve. I point out that the report contains many fewer recommendations than most reports of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The report contains 37 recommendations, which cover a wide range of issues. The fact that there are so few recommendations makes each one of them of fundamental importance. It is my hope that the Government, and particularly the Ministers responsible, will consider the recommendations in that light. If the committee has made a recommendation in this report, it is because the recommendation is extremely important.

While care and protection is the most obvious area in which the State has failed its children in a most horrific way, the committee also found problems with regard to law and justice, health and education. I commend the committee's recommendations as they relate to those matters to all honourable members. In relation to education, the chair of the committee mentioned the issue of bullying. I support her comments on that issue also. Research in recent years has revealed not only the widespread nature of bullying but also just how damaging bullying is to children - not only at the time and not only in their childhood; bullying affects people materially and emotionally throughout their lives and it is an issue that requires urgent attention.

I acknowledge that recently there have been a couple of horrific cases of stabbings in schools. Those incidents have appalled many people and I do not seek to downgrade their importance to the individuals concerned. But if it were possible to weigh up the consequences of violence in schools and the overall pain, suffering and destruction caused by bullying to many thousands of children, to my mind bullying would prove to be the most important issue of violence in our schools and the matter that requires the most urgent attention. I also point to the importance of education for democracy, an important issue in schools which was supported by the committee. I will have comments to make about the complexity of the advocacy issue, about the balancing of children's rights with parents' rights, and the concerns of many groups in the community that parents' rights are being not only eroded but totally destroyed and that the job of parenting is being made increasingly difficult.

I have to state, however, that I regard education for democracy as being of fundamental importance in a democratic society. It is particularly important in a society in which children by the time they leave school are for the most part already citizens, if they have reached the age of 18. The committee reported that it was essential that students were educated for citizenship in a democratic society such as our own. When students leave school at the age of 18 years they begin to exercise their democratic right to participate in social institutions. The provision of adequate training about how those institutions work, how to access citizenship rights and how to develop skills in that regard is a fundamental necessity of an education system in a free society.

The most important form of training is the development of skills and the knowledge of how to pursue one's interests and goals within a democratic process. I strongly support the ongoing development of school councils. I am very proud to have been a member of the Government that set up many of those school councils, and it is my hope that they will continue to flourish and provide a voice for young people in the development of their skills. I mentioned at the outset that this was a complex issue. The children of New South Wales have clearly not had effective advocacy given the problems which the report outlines. Yet there is a plethora of organisations that have the function of
Page 5850
defending children and speaking up for their needs. Chapter 7 of the report refers to a number of such organisations and their role.

I shall briefly list them to give an idea of the number and variety - the Office of the Ombudsman, the Child Protection Council, the Community Services Commission, the Community Visitors program, the Community Services Appeals Tribunal, the Health Care Complaints Commission, the Official Visitors program, the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, the Guardianship Board and the Youth Branch of the New South Wales Cabinet Office. These are just official bodies, not independent advocacy bodies, of which there are also a number. That there are so many organisations involved in children's issues and that children's issues have, in spite of this fact, been very poorly handled in some important areas are points that need to be made. The people who work in these organisations, from my experience, for the most part are highly dedicated professionals who care about children. Indeed they gave the committee considerable helpful information about the problems they confronted. Yet the overall picture is one of serious structural malfunction and a major need for rationalisation, reorganisation and empowerment of the agencies responsible for children, hence the major recommendation of the report - to amalgamate some current agencies and set up an office of the status of children and young people.

As the committee chair stated, the office should be located in the Premier's Department to ensure that it is central to policy making. An issue that emerged during the inquiry was that the term "children's advocacy" means different things to different people. A major concern of mine was that the promotion of children's advocacy not be simply another bureaucratic burden on and disempowerment of parents. In this context Mr Michael Hogan, the Director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, informed the committee that as a general statement parents are usually the best advocates for their children, but they are let down by a lack of support, information, resources, opportunities and training to be good advocates for their children. Further, Mr Robert Ludbrook, the Director of the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, explained to the committee in his testimony that parents are the best and strongest advocates for children and the centre receives more inquiries channelled through parents than those directly from kids. Adults are more confident and know how to find and access help. That is the ideal model of children's advocacy - parents being the advocates for their children. They were very important statements by two major contributors to our inquiry - in submissions and testimony. However, the overwhelming weight of the evidence and testimony the committee received came from those whose main concern was to promote children's rights rather than their needs, and to empower children, I think in many cases, in isolation from their parents. I do not know that this was the direct intention of those giving us testimony but certainly their concerns appeared not to include parents; they were directed at empowering young people.

Pursuant to resolution debate interrupted.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW: By leave, I table a list of all legislation not proclaimed, pursuant to the resolution of the Legislative Council of 22 October 1996.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.26]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.26]: Regarding recent forest decisions I shall read onto the record material distributed widely by the conservation movement regarding the interim assessment process. The main purpose of the interim assessment process was to undertake a rapid assessment of public forests in eastern New South Wales and then determine a moratorium or logging ban over the forests most likely to be needed for a comprehensive, adequate and representative - CAR - reserve system. Once the moratorium is in place government policy provides for further, more detailed comprehensive regional assessments - CRAs - leading to finalisation of the CAR reserve system and off-reserve management issues. Because of the way the interim assessment process has been set up, Cabinet was faced with a set of options for the moratorium, all of which fell far short of agreed conservation targets except for one which met the criteria to a reasonable degree. This was known as the conservation criteria outcome, or CCO.

To its credit, the Carr Government chose a moratorium based on the CCO. For this reason prominent conservationists said that "the Carr Government has given interim protection to the most important public forests". However, some qualifications are needed. The CCO represented a realistic best fit of the agreed reserve criteria but fell far short of achieving some of these, especially criteria for long-term protection of wildlife. Even if a permanent reserve system is established based on the interim assessment process moratorium, many species are likely to decline, including well-known vertebrates such as owls, unless management outside reserves is significantly improved. The issue of developing standards for ecologically sustainable off-reserve management, long promised by governments since the national forest policy statement, is therefore crucial. This becomes even clearer when one realises that even under the Government's decision to effectively protect the conservation criteria outcome more than half of State forests are available for logging.

Page 5851

Given its incessant propaganda about logging "only one per cent of the forests every year," one might imagine the timber industry would be delighted with a moratorium which leaves it access to over half of the State forests. Surely such a large area must contain ample timber for many years. In reality, the industry's situation is far more desperate. Massive overcutting over many decades has left our public forests in very poor condition. Old-growth forests have been targeted for logging, rapidly depleting timber stocks. The available quality sawlog resource has declined dramatically, forcing last year's 30 per cent quota cut as an initial adjustment to bring the industry closer to sustainable yield. At current cutting rates there is only a few years supply of quality timber left in New South Wales State forests. Much of this is inside the new moratorium area.

The main drawback of the interim assessment process moratorium, which casts a shadow over the prospect of its eventual conversion to a permanent reserve system, is that it is subject to industry's demand for timber being met. Crucially, the same Cabinet decision which declared the moratorium also effectively guaranteed 10 years of timber supply to the sawlog industry at levels only slightly below 1996-97 cutting rates. The decision by Cabinet to grant guarantees of long-term wood supply to the timber industry at the end of the interim stage in the assessment process was a flagrant breach of the national forest policy statement and the Carr Government's pre-election forest policy. This broken promise has marred the forest decision and may well return to haunt the Government. State and national policy made provision for resource security, but only after completion of the entire assessment process - two to three years from now in most of New South Wales. There are very good reasons why.

Through the comprehensive regional assessment process reserves will be finalised along with management prescriptions outside reserves. As well, a full and accurate inventory of available timber will be carried out for the areas left open to logging. With all that information it will be possible to set long-term timber quotas which, for the first time, may prove sustainable. Instead of following this logical process which could have brought about long-term resolution of forest conflict in New South Wales, Cabinet chose the politically expedient path of placating the timber industry by literally giving away long-term tradeable and compensatable timber rights to vast quantities of timber from New South Wales public forests - gifts potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is impossible to be sure just how serious the situation is because the State Forests standard of timber assessment is so abysmal. It changed its estimates of the quantity of available timber on several occasions during the interim assessment process. There are grounds for believing its advice to Government exaggerated the available supply of quota sawlogs by more than 100 per cent. If that proves to be correct, the Carr Government will effectively set up a scenario in which most of the forests now under moratorium will either have to be logged or Treasury will be forced to pay compensation to timber companies. As the comprehensive regional assessments progress it will become clear whether there is enough timber outside these areas to supply guaranteed amounts.

An interesting footnote to discussions about the new moratorium is that the area in question is substantially smaller than the previous deferred forest area - DFA - moratorium. The DFA amounted to 80 per cent of State Forests. The new moratorium covers less than 50 per cent, but contains what we currently believe to be the most important areas for conservation. The fact that the timber industry was more satisfied with a moratorium which left only 20 per cent of the forests for logging indicates the scarcity of loggable areas after decades of overcutting. The recent Cabinet decision means that high-conservation forests will be saved from logging in the short term; but immense pressure from industry to abandon the moratorium has already started. The next phase of the forest assessment program is the comprehensive regional assessment process. There will be several, probably six, CRAs in different parts of the State, including the west. [Time expired.]


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.31]: I speak about a matter that has been raised in regard to the royal commission into police corruption and its investigation into paedophilia networks, and whether there is any association with the homosexual movement in this city, State or nation. It is false to claim that there is no association between the homosexual movement and the paedophilia network, as I will establish. If a person criticises this association, that does not mean that the person is homophobic. Homophobic literally means a person who fears man. I am certainly critical of the link, and I am not homophobic. Other honourable members, who are not homophobic, are critical of the association. I have no fear of homosexuals, the homosexual movement, the paedophile network, any man, or organisation. A phoney concept has developed around the term homophobic. I care about the sexual and physical abuse of children up to the age of consent of 18 years for males. I fully support our age of consent laws and wish for them to be maintained. If the age of consent were 16 years, there would be a gap of two years where a person may claim that he was in doubt about the age of a young person. That could lead to people claiming legal sexual intercourse with a male at the age of 14 years. On 8 November 1983 I directed a question to the then Attorney General, the Hon. D. P. Landa, on this subject. I asked:

What action has the New South Wales Government taken to protect the children of New South Wales by charging the members of the Australian Paedophile Support Group operating in New South Wales, following the excellent action of the Victorian Police Delta Task Force on

Page 5852
Saturday, 5th November? Is the Minister aware that the formation of this dangerous paedophilia group arose out of the Sixth National Conference of Lesbians and Homosexual Men in Sydney in 1980 and that the recent Ninth National Conference of Lesbians and Homosexual Men held between 2nd and 4th September, 1983, had two workshops on paedophilia entitled "Paedophilia - a political discussion" and "Paedophilia - a discussion about experiences, etc.", during which one delegate who was arrested last Saturday claimed to have had sexual relationships with up to 2 000 children?

In a supplementary question to the Attorney General I asked:

Is it correct that arrests were made in Sydney but have not received the same degree of publicity as those in Victoria?

The Attorney General replied:

I have no doubt that arrests are made in Sydney -

I interjected, "Last Saturday." The Hon. D. P. Landa said:

I can assure the honourable member that thousands of arrests are made in this city. Unlike Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, I do not take a morbid interest in dissecting those arrests that relate to sexual offences and those that do not.

I interjected, "They relate to children." The purpose of my question was to draw to the attention of the Government the activities of these paedophile groups. It was not asked because, as Mr Landa falsely claimed, I had a morbid interest in matters relating to issues of a "purely sexual nature", to use

his words. Also, on 19 September 1984 I raised another matter. I asked the Minister for Transport and Vice-President of the Executive Council, the Hon. B. J. Unsworth, the following question:

What action will the Government take to prevent the leader of the Australian Paedophile Support Group, Mr Emu Nugent, from promoting his filthy immoral cause in New South Wales, particularly his lectures which advocate sex between adults and children, which were to be held next month at the New South Wales Gay Counselling Service workshop, as reported in the Daily Telegraph today? Will the Government reopen the court case which was brought against Mr Emu Nugent for abusing children and producing and distributing child pornography in Glebe in which the charges were allowed to lapse? What further action will the Government take to restrict the activities of the New South Wales Gay Counselling Service, which in 1983-84 received $20,000 in New South Wales Government grants from the Department of Youth and Community Services, which commendably have now been withdrawn by the Minister for Youth and Community Services?

I could go on with a great deal more to show clearly that there is a direct association; it is not my imagination, it is not the imagination of the media, it is not the imagination of the royal commission. Obviously the homosexual movement wants to distance itself from the paedophilia network.

Motion agreed to.