The President (The Hon. Virginia Chadwick) 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.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

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

1. That the resolution adopted by the House on 11 November 1998 referring the Residential Tribunal Bill to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 for inquiry and report be rescinded.

2. That the bill be restored to the business paper and the second reading stand an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [11.10 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Crimes at Sea Bill 1998 is designed to give effect to a new, nationally uniform Commonwealth-State application of criminal laws regime. The bill is based upon proposals developed by a special committee of Solicitors General and is consistent with model legislation approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The proposed legislative scheme will replace existing Commonwealth and State legislation dealing with the application of the general criminal law in Australian waters. The current scheme is found in a variety of Acts, including the Commonwealth Crimes at Sea Act 1979 and the New South Wales Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1980.

Honourable members may be aware that legislation in this area was originally introduced following the 1975 High Court decision in New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the seas and submerged lands case. In that case the High Court decided that the territory of each State ends at the low-water mark. In other words, the States had no sovereign or proprietary rights in respect of the sea beyond the coastal low-water mark. The High Court held also that the external affairs power in the Commonwealth Constitution enabled the Commonwealth to legislate on matters relating to territory beyond the low-water mark of the Australian coast. Accordingly, the High Court held that, for the purposes of international law, the Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 successfully vested in the Commonwealth sovereignty over coastal waters out to 12 nautical miles.

The Commonwealth and States subsequently enacted the current crimes at sea legislation to overcome the effect of the High Court’s decision in respect of the application of State criminal laws to the coastal waters. However, over time it has become clear that the original crimes at sea scheme does not provide a uniform approach to dealing with offences occurring at sea. A recent review of the current crimes at sea scheme identified a number of problems with the existing scheme, including a lack of heterogeneity between the legislative approaches adopted by the various jurisdictions, gaps in the law, and unnecessary complexity.

The existing scheme provides for the imposition of State criminal laws upon conduct by reference to the destination of the vessel and the State in which the vessel is registered. This approach has resulted in practical difficulties, for example, a State authority investigating a crime at
Page 10099
sea which was an offence against the law of another Australian jurisdiction would be bound to follow the investigative procedures of that other jurisdiction. Under the proposed scheme the Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory will each enact legislation containing an identical schedule of provisions.

This schedule will constitute the scheme for the extraterritorial application of State criminal laws in that area of the sea surrounding Australia described as the "adjacent area". As defined, the adjacent area extends from the baseline of the State to 200 nautical miles, or to the outer limit of the continental shelf - whichever distance is the greater of the two. The criminal law of the State will apply of its own force from the baseline of the State out to a distance of 12 nautical miles and by force of Commonwealth law beyond 12 nautical miles. The boundaries and baselines of the States and Northern Territory and the boundaries of the adjacent area are described in the map and descriptive material in part 6 of the schedule to the bill.

Under the proposed new State and Commonwealth legislation responsibility for administering criminal justice will be divided between the Federal Government and the States. The proposed legislation also provides for an intergovernmental agreement to be entered into by the States and the Commonwealth with respect to the operation of the scheme. This agreement will empower State authorities to exercise or perform powers, duties and functions as provided for in the legislation, and provide for co-operation and assistance between the States and the Commonwealth where practicable. It is proposed that the intergovernmental agreement will be entered into once all the participating jurisdictions have enacted legislation.

Under the proposed scheme the laws of criminal investigation, procedure and evidence will apply as follows: the law of the Commonwealth will apply to investigations, procedures and acts, other than judicial proceedings, by authority of the Commonwealth; the law of a State will apply to investigations, procedures and acts, other than judicial proceedings, by authority of the State operating within the area of administrative responsibility for the relevant State. The intergovermental agreement provides that the arrival State, that is, the State in which an Australian ship arrives after an offence has occurred, has primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting an offence.

For example, New South Wales police investigating an offence which under the scheme is an offence under Victorian law will follow New South Wales investigative procedures. Previously New South Wales police would have been obliged to conduct investigations according to Victorian law. In a Commonwealth judicial proceeding the law of the Commonwealth applies and in a State judicial proceeding the law of the State in which the proceeding was commenced applies, subject to the Constitution. The schedule to the legislation also provides for an evidentiary presumption as to the location of the offence, that is, there will be a rebuttable presumption as to the jurisdiction in which the offence took place.

In situations in which an investigation is held concurrently into a State maritime offence and a Commonwealth offence operating of its own force, for example, an offence against the Customs Act, the present practice whereby the investigating authority follows the more stringent applicable procedural requirements will continue. The consent of the Commonwealth Attorney-General will be required in relation to events which occur on foreign ships where, under international law, the country of registration has jurisdiction over the alleged offence. This requirement is designed to ensure that no conflicts occur in respect of Australia’s obligations under international law.

The application of State and Territory law will be subject to some reservations in relation to existing Commonwealth legal schemes relating to subjects such as fisheries. Further, the proposed scheme does not deal with the law applicable under special regimes of law, such as pollution at sea, or Commonwealth laws creating extraterritorial offences. Under crimes at sea legislation to be introduced by the Commonwealth Government the Jervis Bay territory law will apply to criminal offences that occur outside the adjacent area on Australian vessels, or involve Australian citizens on foreign vessels - if the person is not a member of the crew - and on a foreign ship that first lands in Australia after the commission of an offence.

The Commonwealth legislation will also make special provision for the application of criminal laws in the Australia-Indonesian Zone of Co-operation. I note that legislation relating to the new crimes at sea scheme has already been enacted in South Australia and I am advised that legislation is due to be introduced in a number of other jurisdictions. The proposed scheme will simplify existing procedures relating to the investigation and prosecution of crimes at sea and clarify the law in this area. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford.

Page 10100

Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Consideration resumed from 17 November.

Schedule 1

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.20 a.m.]: I will not move Opposition amendments Nos 4 to 6. By leave, I move Opposition amendments Nos 7 to 10 in globo:

No. 7 Page 4, schedule 1[5], proposed section 12C, line 29. Omit "joint".

No. 8 Page 4, schedule 1[5], proposed section 12C, line 32. Omit "joint".

No. 9 Page 4, schedule 1[5], proposed section 12C, line 33. Insert "or are joint tortfeasors or otherwise" after "proceedings".

No. 10 Page 5, schedule 1[5], proposed section 12C, lines 1-11. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) A tortfeasor may recover contribution from any other tortfeasor (whether a joint tortfeasor or otherwise) under section 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 in respect of the same damage resulting from a dust-related condition even though a judgment in favour of that other tortfeasor has been entered by the Tribunal without a consideration of the merits.

(3) In calculating the damages payable by a tortfeasor found by the Tribunal to be liable to a plaintiff for damage resulting from a dust-related condition, the Tribunal must deduct the amount of any damages that any other tortfeasor (whether a joint tortfeasor or otherwise) in respect of the same damage has paid or is liable to pay to the plaintiff under the terms of a settlement between that other tortfeasor and the plaintiff.

(4) If in any proceedings there is more than one alleged tortfeasor (whether or not all such tortfeasors have been joined in the same proceedings) and the plaintiff settles a claim with one or more but not all the alleged tortfeasors (before or after the proceedings were commenced):

(a) the plaintiff must file the terms of settlement and particulars of amounts paid under the settlement, and

(b) the Tribunal may disclose, or authorise a member, the registrar or an officer of the Tribunal to disclose, any terms and particulars filed by a plaintiff (whether or not the terms contain non-disclosure requirements):

(i) to another party to the proceedings, or

(ii) to another tortfeasor who is subsequently found liable for the damage concerned in other proceedings.

Amendments Nos 7 to 10 relate to multiple defendants and will have no impact on the plaintiffs. The Act stipulates that the defendant who is primarily named has to meet the total cost of compensation. Under the present system there could be multiple contributors to the condition suffered by a plaintiff. Presently all potential defendants are joined; it becomes a matter for multiple defendants to work out their contributions to the compensation payable to the plaintiff. Under the current legislation various defendants are not able to secure between themselves an assessment as to their liability. The named defendant will be responsible for the total payment.

That is unfair because it does not allow the defendants to apportion financial responsibility as between themselves. The Opposition is familiar with the concept of knock-for-knock in areas of liability assessment in which the defendants are able to work out between themselves their proportion of responsibility and pay accordingly. When one defendant is consistently named, the result is that that defendant would bear the total liability without appropriate contribution. The scheme embodied in amendments Nos 7 to 10 reintroduces a equitable contribution by responsible defendants.

I am aware that neither the Government nor the crossbenchers support this proposition. However, it is interesting to note that the advisory council is supportive of the direction advocated by the Opposition. There is no purpose in forcing the House to continue to divide on these amendments as we know the resulting numbers. The Government has a responsibility to ensure an equitable contribution between responsible defendants. The Government should refer this issue back to the advisory council with a view to having that council consider the amendments advocated by the Opposition. Perhaps at a subsequent time the amendments that allow equitable contributions between defendants could be reintroduced. Outside
Page 10101
that cauldron of pressure the amendments advocated by the Opposition are likely to be supported by the Government.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [11.24 a.m.]: I have no difficulty with any of these provisions being kept under surveillance and further considered by the advisory council. These are technical and difficult matters. One cannot be dogmatic, but Parliament has to be completely correct in every material particular. In principle, the provisions are correct and supportable. Accordingly, the Government does not support the Opposition’s amendments which relate to the sequential settlement of claims between several tortfeasors. They are unnecessary in light of the Government’s amendments, which are incorporated in the bill.

Following extensive consultation on the exposure draft of the bill the Government responded by making a number of amendments. The Opposition amendments were addressed by Government amendments. The Government was prepared to finetune the bill and take account of technical commentary in a sensible way. Proposed subsection (4) of new section 12C, contemplated by the amendments, is unnecessary. Once the provision operates to allow sequential settlements the amount of damages is dealt with satisfactorily by the common law principles governing the calculation of damages.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.26 a.m.]: I will not move Opposition amendments Nos 11 to 14. I move Opposition amendment No. 15:

No. 15 Pages 6 and 7, schedule 1[8], proposed section 25B, line 24 on page 6 to line 15 on page 7. Omit all words on those lines.

In my contribution to the second reading debate I adverted to a number of fundamental issues about which the Opposition was concerned, and this was one of them. New section 25B deals with relitigating or re-arguing in proceedings matters which had been determined in previous proceedings. An article in the Australian Law Journal Reports, volume 72, page 742, under the heading "The adversary system", restated the comments of Chief Justice Spigelman. The Chief Justice is quoted as saying:

In any proceedings, including those in which the State is a party, the litigants determine, in large measure, what issues are raised and how they are fought. This is fundamentally different from the inquisitorial system, common in Europe, where the judge is in control of what happens; the judge decides what the issues are, what inquiries are made, what witnesses will be called and he or she asks the questions.

This aspect of the adversary system reflects the significance our society attaches to the autonomy of individuals and to the maintenance of personal freedoms. Individuals are entitled to exercise control over their own lives. They are entitled to participate in decisions which affect their lives to the maximum degree possible. No arm of the State controls how they conduct their legal affairs, even in court. Not even the judiciary.

That issue goes to the fundamental nature of our system of justice as described by Chief Justice Spigelman. One might say this is the first real introduction of the inquisitorial system, as described by the Chief Justice. He further stated:

This is fundamentally different from the inquisitorial system, common in Europe, where the judge is in control of what happens . . .

That effectively is what is occurring now under section 25B. The court, having made a decision on issues in other proceedings, will be able to say that that issue has been determined, and the determination on that issue will now apply across the board. The Government has taken that concept a step further and seeks to prohibit a matter from being relitigated or re-argued in other proceedings. That is a new concept for our judicial system. One might describe it as groundbreaking; others might describe it as breaking the back of our traditional justice system.

The Opposition has said that the provision in the bill is not necessary. I understand that the Government’s advisory council also has said the provision is not necessary because other measures already exist within the legislation. I am aware that some criticism has been made of that procedure. It may be that the procedure needs finetuning. I understand that that is a matter that advisory council parties were prepared to address. The Government, however, regards the avenue of redress that it has taken as the most sensible. The Opposition disagrees with the Government on that point.

Again, I acknowledge that members on the crossbench, because of the cauldron heat of this debate, are not prepared to support the Opposition on this issue. As I have said, this is a procedural matter; it does not go to the fundamental directions of the legislation. But, again, because the Government would paint any changes to this bill as undermining the fundamental principles of the Act, I can understand the position taken by those on the crossbench. They do not want to be painted as depriving worthy litigants of their opportunity to
Page 10102
receive appropriate levels of compensation. This amendment does not go to that question at all.

The Government ought to send this issue back to its advisory council so that that council may reconsider that and all relevant issues regarding the most efficient way to seek to process cases through the courts. The Government might well find that, despite the advice coming to it from the advisory council in these circumstances of cauldron heat, this provision is not necessarily the most advantageous and that there are more efficient ways to make the system work. We all acknowledge that the advisory council was set up to bring together all relevant parties to consider more efficient ways of driving the management of the workers compensation scheme and the claims system. The Government ought to ask its advisory council to monitor what is occurring and advise on whether or not there is a better way of dealing with this matter.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [11.33 a.m.]: I do not accept the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition, made on a number of occasions, that the advisory council has taken some position antithetical to the provisions of the bill. The bill certainly was put before the council, and it was the subject of some discussion and disagreement, but I have not received from the advisory council either formal or informal advice that it disputes the appropriateness of provisions such as the one that the Committee is now debating.

I do not accept that there is any conflict between the observations of the Chief Justice of New South Wales and this particular provision. This provision does not negate the idea of adversarial litigation. It does not introduce in New South Wales a regime of inquisitorial justice; it reflects notions that are well known in the law. There have always been judgments in rem. There have always been provisions avoiding the relitigation of issues that have been authoritatively determined: for example, the need to obtain leave to argue before an appeal court an issue that has been the subject of an authoritative decision. So there is nothing as radical in this provision as is portrayed by the Leader of the Opposition. It is in conformity with legal principles.

The amendment seeks to remove from the bill entirely a proposed provision that prevents general issues - I emphasise the word "general" - which the Dust Diseases Tribunal has determined from being relitigated or re-argued. New section 25B is one which streamlines procedures and recognises that certain general issues arise again and again in the tribunal; and that, once determined, there is no need for the parties to revisit the issue. The proposed provision as it stands contains necessary safeguards. It relates only to general issues.

When new evidence comes to light the tribunal can give a party leave to relitigate the issue. That is the safeguard. If a party can persuade the tribunal that there is some rational basis upon which the matter can be relitigated - if, for example, there is new evidence of a scientific or other character - no doubt the tribunal will, in the exercise of its judicial functions, give leave for the relitigation of the issue. But, absent some rational ground, and absent some particular argument why a general issue ought to be re-agitated, it would simply be a waste of the resources of the tribunal to allow relitigation to occur. The Government’s position is entirely defensible, and I oppose the Opposition amendment to delete the provision.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 6

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.36 a.m.]: The Opposition will not proceed with amendments Nos 16 to 27. By leave, I move Opposition amendments Nos 28 and 29 in globo:

No. 28 Pages 32-37, schedule 6[13], proposed section 8E, line 6 on page 32 to line 7 on page 37. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 29 Pages 37 and 38, schedule 6[15], proposed Part 3 to schedule 2, line 12 on page 37 to line 21 on page 38. Omit all words on those lines.

Amendment No. 29 is consequential upon amendment No. 28, which basically relates to what I might describe as an opportunity provided by the legislation to require double dipping in the contributions made by defendants towards the scheme. At present, all defendants involved in this jurisdiction have been contributing to the insurance scheme that exists under the dust diseases legislation. The money in the fund - some $178 million - has come exclusively from defendants. New section 8E, to which the amendment relates, provides a mechanism by which the board may seek reimbursement of compensation from negligent third parties.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Persons in the public gallery may not use mobile telephones. I ask anyone with a telephone to turn it off or leave the gallery.

Page 10103

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: New section 8E enables the board to pursue negligent third parties to seek reimbursement of an award of compensation. Therefore defendants, who are already contributing to the fund, who have liability determined against them may have the board administering the fund pursuing them for reimbursement of an award of money. Thus a negligent defendant will pay twice. That, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a justifiable position. I understand that this is a matter about which the advisory council has concern. I indicated in the second reading debate that this is one of the fundamental issues about which the Opposition has concern. That is not to say that new section 8E could not have been better written, nor that damages should not be recovered from defendants who have not been making contributions.

The structure of the bill as drafted is not adequate and does not deal appropriately with the situation. I understand the position adopted by the crossbenchers. As they will not support the Opposition’s amendments I will not put the Committee to the burden of a division. The Government has created the perception that honourable members who want to improve the working operation of the Act by way of amendment are opposed to the granting of improved access to compensation by plaintiffs. This provision has absolutely nothing to do with the payment of plaintiffs. Indeed, it is a machinery provision aimed at making the system work more effectively and efficiently. It is unfortunate that the Government has publicly pursued emotional blackmail of the crossbenchers and made them feel that they cannot support machinery improvements to the bill.

I do not believe that the Government has these provisions absolutely right. It should refer them back to the Workers Compensation Advisory Council for further advice on improving this area of the bill. The Committee will recall that during the second reading debate the Opposition moved to refer the bill to the advisory council for formal advice. The Minister acknowledged that he had not received formal advice, or even informal advice, from the advisory council on these issues. Had there been an opportunity to get advice from the advisory council, the council may have suggested some positive improvements to the bill. I acknowledge that the crossbenchers do not support the Opposition’s amendments and, therefore, I will not pursue them. I ask the Government to refer these provisions to the advisory council with a view to considering whether constructive improvements can be made to the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [11.43 a.m.]: I shall clarify what I said about the advisory council. I have had no advice from the advisory council that the council has taken an agreed position which is antithetical to the essential features of this bill. I have received feedback from the council’s discussions, but I have not had any advice that the council opposes sections of this bill. I dispute the use of the term "double dipping" by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to these provisions. It is true that the exposure draft of the bill included a provision for employers to reimburse the board in some circumstances, that is, if employers were liable at common law for the dust disease. However, that provision was removed. This is an example of modification of the bill in the light of discussions and consultation.

It is not true to say that this bill is being rushed through in some unceremonious way. The Government was prepared to consider legitimate criticisms of the bill, and this is a classical example of a particular aspect, which might have been described tendentiously as "double dipping", being removed from it. The "double dipping" point has been removed entirely from the bill and, therefore, from the debate. The amendment relates to the provision that enables the Dust Diseases Board to obtain appropriate reimbursement from negligent third parties responsible for dust diseases. The justification for that provision was set out in the second reading speech and the explanatory note to the bill.

Essentially, new section 8E will bring the Dust Diseases Board into line with employers and workers compensation insurers in terms of the reasonable reimbursement arrangements presently available in the Workers Compensation Act. If this provision does not proceed, the Dust Diseases Board and employers who contribute levies to the fund will effectively be subsidising negligent third parties. It should be noted that the proposed reimbursement arrangement will not place employers in the position of having to reimburse the Dust Diseases Board even if they are liable under the manufacturer's liability to the worker, for example, as well as employment-related common law. While I am happy to keep these provisions under surveillance and have the Workers Compensation Advisory Council review matters in the light of experience, I believe that the provisions are defensible, and I oppose the amendments moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

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

Page 10104

Parts 2 and 3

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [11.52 a.m.]: It is indeed a great honour to be the first to move an amendment on these important bills. I move A Better Future for our Children amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 4, clause 4. Insert after line 11:

(4) It is the intention of Parliament that the Commission be adequately funded to ensure that it is able to undertake its principal functions.

It is most important that the commission is adequately funded to undertake all its functions as outlined in clause 11 of the bill. Without the necessary resources, certain functions would be compromised. This point was emphasised repeatedly in discussions I have had, including discussions with the Queensland Children’s Commissioner and the former Commissioner for Children in New Zealand, Laurie O’Reilly, who died recently.

This amendment will not guarantee or impose upon the Government any obligation to provide adequate funding, but as a statement of intent by the Parliament it will underline to future governments and to the people of New South Wales the importance of the commission. At the very least it will give the new commissioner some legislative authority for requests for funds to enable the commission to meet its stated functions. On 17 November the Attorney General referred to funding in his reply to the second reading debate as follows:

I also put on record, as Minister Lo Po’ did in her address in reply in the Legislative Assembly, that the Commission for Children and Young People and the Ombudsman will be adequately funded to carry out their important functions.

I draw to the Attorney’s attention that Minister Faye Lo Po’ late at night said, "I want to state up-front that the new commission of the Ombudsman will be funded to carry out important work." I am pleased that on behalf of the Government the Attorney emphasised that the Commission for Children and Young People and the Ombudsman will receive adequate funding. Resourcing is critical to the success of that bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [11.55 a.m.]: The Government cannot accept this amendment. Funding is a prerogative of the government of the day. As the Hon. A. G. Corbett said, the Government has indicated that the commission will be adequately funded to undertake its important functions.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.55 a.m.]: As a matter of principle the Opposition believes the commission should be funded adequately, as should the Office of the Ombudsman in its work not only under this proposed legislation but in all its work. In view of my past comments about underresourcing of the Community Services Commission it is fair to say that I endorse the spirit of the amendment of the Hon. A. G. Corbett. However, as the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment, I indicate that the Opposition will not seek to jeopardise the passing of this legislation by accepting the amendment. I place on record that the Opposition in government will work to ensure that the commission and the Ombudsman are adequately funded to undertake the work. Given our full support for the role of the commission, I could do nothing else than indicate our intention.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [11.56 a.m.]: I support the amendment of the Hon. A. G. Corbett. It would be important to have included in the bill the intention of the Parliament that the commission be adequately funded to perform its functions satisfactorily. I strongly support this amendment.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [11.57 a.m.]: Given that both the Government and the Opposition have indicated their respective positions, I shall not seek to divide on the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.58 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1 as circulated:

No. 1 Page 4, clause 5. Insert after line 14:

(2) A person is not eligible to be appointed as Commissioner unless the person has been jointly nominated for that position by the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

This amendment provides that a person is not eligible to be appointed as a commissioner unless
Page 10105
the person has been jointly nominated by the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The amendment ensures that the person appointed has bipartisan support, otherwise it may be considered to be a political appointment not independent of the government of the day. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile proposes an amendment to Greens amendment No. 1. The Greens will accept that amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.59 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports in principle the amendment of the Hon. I. Cohen. However, the inclusion of the words "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" presents problems because of the division of powers between the parliamentary and judicial aspects of the legislation. For that reason I move:

That the amendment be amended by omitting "the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court", insert instead "and the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly."

If my amendment were accepted, the commissioner would be nominated jointly by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. The amendment does not refer to any political party. If at some point in the future the political situation changes, the nomination procedure would still apply. Because of the sensitive nature of the position of children’s commissioner this is a fair way to remove any doubt or criticism about the appointment. It would help to maintain bipartisan support for the children’s commissioner and prevent that position becoming a political football.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.01 p.m.]: I appreciate the rationale behind both these amendments. It can be expressed briefly as bipartisanship, but the Government cannot accept either amendment. With regard to the amendment proposed by the Hon. I. Cohen, it is absolutely clear that one cannot have the Chief Justice involved in appointments of this nature. For that reason the amendment is inappropriate.

The modified version proposed by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would create a precedent. It would mark this position out from many other sensitive statutory appointments made by the Government. For example, the appointment of a Chief Justice does not have to be bipartisan, it does not require the acquiescence of both sides of Parliament. Agreement between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition is not required for the appointment of the head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Many other appointments of great importance and sensitivity are made by the Government of the day. That is the prerogative of the Government. If it makes the wrong appointment, it can be criticised for that. The Government does not accept the principle that the Leader of the Opposition needs to agree to the appointment of this commissioner, however sensitive and important the position may be.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [12.02 p.m.]: I express my support for the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I believe it would be inappropriate to require the Chief Justice to endorse such an appointment, but it is important that the appointment be bipartisan. The Attorney just said that this does not happen with other appointments, such as the head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I am not sure whether that is correct and whether there is not some consultation. Even if what the Attorney said was correct - and I am sure he made the statement in good faith - this is a first, and our children are important enough in our society for this to be a most welcome first.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.03 p.m.]: I take the point of the Attorney General that this may be a precedent, but he has presented a good argument why the amendment should be supported and a precedent set. In future, all sensitive appointments should have a similar requirement. The Labor Government has been very critical of the current Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Much of that tension about an appointment would be avoided if there was more co-operation between the leaders of both sides of Parliament.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: The former Government was critical of Mr Temby.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Yes, and it does not matter which party is in government. The principle should apply to both. If the Liberal-National parties come to office, the same principle should apply and they should consult with the Labor Opposition. This amendment has an advantage.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.04 p.m.]: May I just draw the distinction between consultation, which may be desirable in relation to sensitive appointments, and the veto right that is contemplated by the amendment.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.05 p.m.]: I find the reaction of the Government to this clause extraordinary, to the extent that I am told that if I support the amendment moved by
Page 10106
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, which is my inclination, the Government would pull the bill. Every member of the Chamber wants the children’s commission to have bipartisan support. They want the appointment of the commissioner to be made in a bipartisan manner well above politics.

The suggested amendment, which Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile proposes to amend further, would provide an appropriate mechanism to ensure the bipartisan nature of the appointment. It is not without precedent. Sometimes Queenslanders do things in funny ways, but in Queensland the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice make such appointments. I accepted the argument of the Government about the lack of separation of powers in relation to a position involving both Parliament and the judiciary, but I was not aware that the Government would not accept the idea of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition having to agree to such an appointment.

With all the rhetoric about this bill, the Government has tried to emphasise it is doing something above politics. It is establishing a position to safeguard the rights of children, to improve the lot of children in New South Wales. These things are beyond politics. In a sense, it is my call. I know that if I go along with the crossbenchers we will win the vote on this amendment but risk losing the bill.

We could go down that path and the debate could end at this point, but I recall messages from people such as Dr John Yu. Also, from talking with the Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies and people like Garry Moore representing the Council of Social Service of New South Wales I know how important this commission is to everyone. The fulfilment of Commissioner Wood’s recommendations is too important, even if it is in a different form from what he proposed. It is a real dilemma for me because I have been convinced by the arguments of the crossbenchers, yet the Government says that if I support the amendment it will pull the bill. Although in principle I support the amendments, I will not vote with the crossbenchers.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.07 p.m.]: That is an extraordinary thing to say, but I do understand the coalition not supporting the amendment. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe is saying, essentially, that we are being blackmailed into not supporting an amendment that the majority of members of this Chamber support. It does not damage the bill in any way and it ensures that the appointment to this position is supported in a bipartisan way. It is outrageous that the Attorney can threaten to withdraw a bill when the majority of members support the amendment. It is an insult to this Chamber.

Amendment of amendment agreed to.

Question - That the amendment as amended be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Tingle
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Corbett Tellers,
Mr Jones Mr Cohen
Mrs Sham-Ho Rev. Nile

Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Dr Pezzutti
Mr Dyer Mr Primrose
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Ms Saffin
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Hannaford Mr Shaw
Mr Johnson Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Kaldis Ms Tebbutt
Mr Kelly Mr Vaughan

Mr Kersten Mr Willis

Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mrs Isaksen
Mr Manson Mr Jobling

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment as amended negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.17 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 4, clause 5(3), line 19. Omit "4 years". Insert instead "5 years".

This amendment increases the commissioner’s period of appointment from four to five years. At present the bill provides that the commissioner be appointed for only four years and that she or he may not be appointed for more than two successive terms. The Greens consider that this is a short period when compared with the terms of appointment of other commissioners such as the Commissioner of Community Services, who is appointed for five years, and the full-time commissioner of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, who is appointed for seven years. The Greens envisage problems with a four-year time frame.

Page 10107

The commissioner will need time to get the commission up and running without worrying about her or his reappointment. Uncertainty about reappointment occurs at least nine months before an appointment is due, very much like the re-election of a State government. In the final year before an election a government spends a great deal of effort on re-election rather than on other issues. The Commissioner of Children and Young People would be put in much the same position if the appointment were for only four years. In the Greens opinion, appointments of four years impose a real constraint on the independence of the commissioner. I consider five years to be a more beneficial and appropriate term of appointment and I commend this amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.18 p.m.]: The Government is prepared to support this amendment.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.18 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment. A benefit of a five-year appointment is that such a term will break away from the political cycle of four-year terms. Should this bill be passed, we would expect the appointment of the Commissioner of Children and Young People in the first part of next year, and after a full term of appointment there will be a complete break from the political election cycle. This amendment also ties in with the appointment terms of other commissioners such as the Commissioner of Community Services.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [12.19 p.m.]: I support the amendment and I support the comments made by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. This amendment is most important. There is great advantage in changing the appointment period of the commissioner to five years, as that will break away from links with the four-year parliamentary term.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.20 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 3, 4 and 8 in globo:

No. 3 Page 5, clause 8(1), line 19. Omit "8 members". Insert instead "9 members".

No. 4 Page 5, clause 8(2), line 24. Insert "child advocacy," after "child development,".

No. 8 Page 7, clause 11. Insert after line 27:

(f) to encourage effective advocacy for children,

Clause 16 provides that the commission does not deal directly with complaints or concerns of particular children. The bill seems to prohibit individual advocacy but allows systemic advocacy. This is despite the report of the inquiry into children’s advocacy emanating from the Standing Committee on Social Issues, and particularly its recommendations Nos 6 and 11. In the foreword to that report the chair of the committee, former member of the Legislative Council the Hon. Ann Symonds, said:

Advocacy for children is about systems and individuals recognising the rights and needs of all children and young people and responding to those rights and needs.

She also said:

In the more narrow sense advocacy is also about providing children with quality individual advocates to ensure that they have the right of equal access to the law and processes of government.

The committee identified certain groups of young people most in need of effective advocacy - children who have been neglected or abused, children who are in the care and protection system, and children who are from poor, minority or marginalised communities. Those children are some of the most vulnerable and powerless members of the community. Recommendation No. 11 of the report related to setting up a network of youth advocates attached to community legal centres across the State. These amendments leave the door open for a network of child and youth advocates to be established under the legislation. Amendment No. 3 increases the number of expert advisory committee members from eight to nine. Amendment No. 4 adds an extra field that is needed on the committee. I commend amendments Nos 3, 4 and 8 to the Committee.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.22 p.m.]: The Government cannot accept the amendments. It takes the view that not just one but all members of the committee should be advocates for children. Older children will be able to participate more actively in the commission’s consultative work. The child development expert will be able to focus on the needs of infants and younger children who cannot participate directly. The Government has previously made its position on advocacy clear, that is, it is against establishing an advocacy network in legislation as part of the Commission for Children and Young People. The Government is of the view that children and young people are most likely to seek help from an adult whom they know and trust.

Page 10108

The Government believes that advocacy is a skill that workers should have rather than the vocation of a select few. Parents, teachers, district officers, youth workers and community visitors are all well positioned to provide support, information and advice to children and young people. The Commission for Children and Young People will alert the Government if the support for children and young people is not sufficient. The Government has already announced that when the commission is established it will ask it to report on the best means of improving assistance to children who may have no-one else to turn to for help.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.23 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support these amendments. I reiterate that when in government the coalition will appoint a children’s advocate under the umbrella of the commission. I make the same point as the Attorney General just made when looking at the child-related expertise in fields of health, education, child protection and child development, disabilities, the law, employment, sport or the arts: all of those people have to have expertise in child advocacy in the sense of being able to talk about promoting the needs and interests of children as a broad class. As the focus is on children as individuals obviously more work needs to be done relating to that.

I was interested in the arguments put forward by the Hon. I. Cohen but he did not satisfy me, without the clear support of the Government, that an expert in child advocacy should be on the advisory committee. In relation to finding a person with expertise in children’s advocacy, many people become advocates on behalf of children but that does not necessarily mean that they have the necessary expertise for the advisory committee that is envisaged under this legislation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.25 p.m.]: Clause 8 provides for an expert advisory committee made up of experts. I believe that advocacy could be provided under clause 8(3), which states that the commission may appoint such other advisory committees as it considers appropriate. The logical development of that proposal is that those committees could be more specialist committees in different areas, such as advocacy. The Christian Democratic Party does not support the amendments.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [12.26 p.m.]: In his speech in reply to the second reading debate the Attorney General said that the Minister for Community Services has announced that the Government will ask the commission, as soon as it is established, to inquire into the best means of improving assistance to children who have no-one else to turn to for help. That is important. The report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues Inquiry into Children’s Advocacy, which it completed in 1996, will be a key source for the commission’s work. A lot of people were looking for an assurance that its recommendations would not be lost in time. I accept the Attorney General’s commitment on this matter, and I place on record that in this instance the Government has accepted some movement on advocacy, which I appreciate.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [12.26 p.m.]: I support the amendments. Advocacy is the key word and a most important function. I welcome the commitment of the Opposition that it will set up an advocacy unit when it is elected to government. In the meantime I would like the advocacy role of the commission to be set out in the legislation.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.28 p.m.]: Greens amendments Nos 5 and 6 are the same as Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2. Therefore I will not move them.

The Hon. Patricia FORSYTHE [12.28 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 7, clause 10(a), line 5. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

(a) the safety, welfare and well-being of children are the paramount considerations,

No. 2 Page 7, clause 10(c), line 10. Omit "well-being". Insert instead "safety, welfare and well-being".

These amendments will make quite clear the principles governing the work of the commission. One could argue that the wellbeing of children is an all-encompassing term and could also be taken to apply to the safety and welfare of children. In my opinion "safety and welfare" is the principle that should govern the work of the commission and, indeed, constitute the principal functions of the commission.

A similar clause is used in the Children (Care and Protection) Amendment Bill, which is before the other House. It was intended that the children’s commission would absorb the work of the Child Protection Council and the child deaths review team. It is appropriate when dealing with issues such as safety - which is fundamental to the work of the child deaths review team - and welfare, which has been fundamental to the work of the Child
Page 10109
Protection Council, not simply to use the term "wellbeing". The importance of that term should be spelled out and emphasis given to the need for the commission to focus on those issues.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.31 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments. The inclusion of these words has been the subject of consultation already. The Government considers that the term "wellbeing" used in the bill encapsulates the concepts of safety and welfare. However, it is clear that a number of child welfare groups consider that the commission should have a more obviously defined role in the safety and welfare of children. In supporting the amendment I should state that the commission is to have a broad focus on issues relating to children and young people; its sole focus will not be child protection. This view was put strongly in many submissions and in particular was supported by young people who were consulted about the commission.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [12.33 p.m.]: I support the amendments and am pleased that the Government has accepted them. At least these important functions will now be included as part of the role of the commission.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.33 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the amendments. It is important that these words, particularly the word "safety", be included in the principles relating to the work of the commission.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [12.34 p.m.]: I move A Better Future for our Children amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 7, clause 10(c), line 8. Omit "the relationship". Insert instead "a co-operative relationship".

Clause 10 outlines certain principles that will govern the work of the commission. Clause 10(c) refers to the importance of the relationship between children and their families and between children and their community for the wellbeing of children as being one of the principles that is to govern the work of the commission. The amendment describes the type of relationship the commission should have as a principle, that is, to ensure the wellbeing of children. That relationship is simply a co-operative one.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.35 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment, which clarifies the intention of the principle. Children’s most significant relationships are with their families and communities. They will benefit most if that relationship is positive, supportive and co-operative.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.35 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 7:

No. 7 Page 7, clause 11(b), line 18. Insert "safety, welfare and" before "well-being".

This amendment and those moved earlier by the Opposition would extend the principles that govern the work of the commission, particularly those which are to be given paramount consideration. Currently only the wellbeing of children is of paramount consideration. No mention is made of child protection issues in the principles. The Greens consider that the bill exhibits a surprising lack of focus on child protection issues. Commissioner Wood recommended that the commission be the overarching child protection watchdog with appropriate powers and the capacity to oversee and co-ordinate delivery of services for the protection of children from abuse.

The Child Protection Council has a number of functions, but currently has no legislative basis. Commissioner Wood recommended that the children’s commission have attached to it a centre for child protection which should inherit the present functions of the Child Protection Council and also have additional powers. However, the Centre for Child Protection is not a feature of the bill. At the very least the issue of child protection should be included in the principles and functions. The amendment in particular inserts into clause 11(b) the words "safety and welfare" before the word "well-being" in the function "to promote and monitor the overall well-being of children in the community and to monitor the trends in complaints made by or on behalf of children". I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.37 p.m.]: The Government will support the amendment. The inclusion of these words has been the subject of consultation. The Government takes the view that the commission must have a broad focus on issues relating to children and young people. The amendment will give full effect to that objective.

Page 10110

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.37 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment, which sits with the earlier amendment regarding safety and welfare and the monitoring of trends of complaints made by or on behalf of children.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.38 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 9:

No. 9 Page 8, clause 11. Insert after line 5:

(k) to keep under scrutiny the systems in government and non-government agencies for preventing child abuse and for handling and responding to child abuse allegations.

Commissioner Wood envisaged that the commission would play a major role in monitoring the work of child protection in the State. However, the powers given to the Ombudsman in these bills to play a role in keeping the overall child protection and child abuse prevention systems relating to employees in New South Wales under scrutiny appear to make the Ombudsman and not the commission the overarching child protection watchdog. The Greens consider that the newly established commission should have this role, or at least have some role in keeping under scrutiny child protection systems.

The Greens amendment would ensure that the commission had a role in keeping under scrutiny the systems in government and non-government agencies for preventing child abuse and for handling and responding to child abuse allegations. The amendment is much broader than the clause in the Ombudsman Amendment (Child Protection and Community Services) Bill, which states:

The Ombudsman is to keep under scrutiny the systems:

(a) for preventing child abuse by employees of designated government or non-government agencies or of other public authorities, and

(b) for handling and responding to child abuse allegations, or child abuse convictions, involving those employees.

The clause is directed towards systems involving employees. The Greens amendment would cover non-employee systems. If honourable members support the amendment they will then have to decide whether they wish both the Ombudsman and the commission to have roles in keeping under scrutiny systems for preventing child abuse, in which case they would support this amendment but not proposed amendment No. 2 to the Ombudsman Amendment (Child Protection and Community Services) Bill. However, if honourable members consider that the commission should have the sole responsibility for keeping under scrutiny systems for preventing child abuse, they will support this amendment and proposed Greens amendment No. 2 to the Ombudsman Amendment (Child Protection and Community Services) Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.39 p.m]: The Government opposes the amendment. The Community Services Commission already keeps these systems under scrutiny. Furthermore, under its current list of functions the children’s commission can monitor trends in complaints, including child protection complaints. The majority of submissions on the Government’s green paper on the children’s commission argued strongly that the commission should have a broad basis.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [12.40 p.m.]: One of the roles of the new commissioner will be to convene the child deaths review team. It should be kept in mind that certain members of that team have an extensive background and experience in handling child abuse matters.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.40 p.m.]: As the proposed Greens amendments Nos 10 and 11 are similar to Opposition amendments Nos 3 and 4, I will not move them.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.40 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 3 and 4 in globo:

No. 3 Page 8, clause 14(1), lines 20-23. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) The Commission and other government or non-government agencies that provide or deal with services or issues affecting children must work in co-operation in the exercise of their respective functions.

No. 4 Page 8, clause 14(2), line 27. Insert "(or access to documents)" after "information".

Clause 14 has been the subject of lengthy discussion with community groups. Under the heading, "Co-operation with other agencies" it states:

In exercising its functions, the Commission is to work in co-operation with such government or non-government agencies . . .

It is the view of everyone who has looked at this legislation that it is the role not only of the
Page 10111
commission, but of government and non-government agencies to work in co-operation in all aspects of their work. Amendment No. 4 states that in addition co-operation is to extend to the exchange of information and includes the provision by agencies of information and access to documents. In other words, the Opposition is strengthening clause 14. This issue has been the subject of considerable community discussion and is one on which the success of the bill would have turned.

Had there not been an absolute willingness by the Government to seek that co-operation be expressed by the insertion of the words "access to documents" I suspect that this would have been a one-way street - there was no obligation on government or non-government agencies to work co-operatively with the commission - and I suspect that many of us would not have wanted the legislation to proceed in its present form. I thank the Government for supporting this amendment. The strengthening of this clause will mean that the wishes of interest groups that have a strong interest in the welfare of children may be accommodated. Clauses 14 and 16 demonstrate the strength of the Government’s willingness to support a commission with some teeth. The Government’s recognition of this clause is a measure of its acceptance that the legislation as drafted was not perfect. This clause will considerably strengthen the Commission.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.42 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments. The Government anticipates that co-operative relationships with government and non-government agencies will be essential to the commission’s work. The amendments clarify the intention of the bill.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [12.43 p.m.]: I support the Opposition’s amendments. The Attorney said that the Government anticipates the co-operation of government and non-government agencies. We want more than that; we want it embodied in the legislation. It is good that this provision has been included, because access to documents is most important. We all know how easy it is to deny access to important documents, even with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.44 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendments. It is important that the word "documents" be spelt out, not just the word "information". This is particularly so in light of the fact that some employees of the Health Department who were supposedly caring for young males have in fact abused those males. Any records or documents involving those aspects should be made available to the commission to enable it to follow up complaints.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe agreed to:

No. 5 Page 8, clause 14. Insert after line 28:

(3) A reference in this section to the provision of access to documents includes a reference to the provision of copies of documents.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.46 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 12:

No. 12 Page 8, clause 14. Insert after line 28:

(3) The obligation under this section of government and non-government agencies to co-operate with the Commission includes the obligation to provide the Commission with relevant information or access to relevant documents required by the Commission for the exercise of its functions. This subsection applies irrespective of any arrangements made by Ministers under subsection (2).

This amendment extends the co-operation requirements in amendments Nos 10, 11 and 12A. Co-operation with the commission includes the obligation to provide the commission with relevant information or access to the relevant documents it requires. This is important, because without it the commission will not automatically have access to important information that it needs to carry out its work.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [12.47 p.m.]: The Government cannot accept this amendment, because it would give the commission very vast powers to require any agency to hand over documents no matter how sensitive or confidential they may be. For example, child-care centres or large charitable organisations could be required to hand over documents. That is an excessive power to confer upon statutory officers. It could require personal and sensitive information to be handed over without any apparent fetter, or safeguards. The bill provides for special inquiries to be conducted by the commission. Clause 21 of the Commission for Children and Young People Bill empowers the commission in certain defined circumstances to require documents to be produced. However, the amendment provides a much more general and unrestricted power which the Government does not believe is justified.

Page 10112

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena
Mr Cohen
Mr Jones
Rev. Nile
Tellers,
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mrs Sham-Ho

Mr Bull Mr Obeid
Dr Burgmann Dr Pezzutti
Ms Burnswoods Mr Primrose
Mr Dyer Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Ms Saffin
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mr Shaw
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Johnson Ms Tebbutt
Mr Kaldis Mr Tingle
Mr Kelly Mr Vaughan
Mr Kersten Mr Willis
Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mrs Isaksen
Mr Manson Mr Jobling

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.56 p.m.]: As Greens amendment No. 12A was covered by Opposition amendment No. 5, I will not move it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.56 p.m.]: The Opposition will not move amendment No. 6 because, in my opinion, the wording of the Greens amendment in respect of the same clause is better.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.57 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 13:

No. 13 Page 9, clause 16. Insert after line 7:

(2) The Commission may, despite subsection (1), provide children and their families, friends and advocates with information about and referral to government and non-government programs and services.

This amendment will allow the commission to make available to children, young people, their families, friends and advocates a one-stop referral and information service regarding government and non-government agency programs and services. The Greens consider this a useful if not necessary role for the commission. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [12.58 p.m.]: This is a most important amendment. Everyone would envisage the commission as a one-stop shop. Honourable members all know how difficult it is for children and young people to face their abusers and to refer to matters of abuse. Often, the victims of abuse are sent from one police station to another, or to a special group. It is most important that children and young persons be able to go to the commission and be referred to the proper government or non-government programs or services. Therefore I fully support the amendment moved by the Greens.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.59 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this amendment. Earlier I referred to resources. No doubt over time resources will be necessary for the commission to work as a one-stop shop, as envisaged by the Hon. I. Cohen. The Opposition believes that the amendment will strengthen the role of the commission in terms of providing assistance to individual children and make the commission more a part of the community than it might otherwise have been.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [1.00 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment. It does not intend the commission to deal with individual complaints or concerns of children as they can be dealt with by other bodies, such as the Ombudsman or the Community Services Commission. This amendment clarifies that the commission may nonetheless consult individual children and consider the issues they raise during that consultation. The bill already has a strong focus on children’s participation in decision making and in the work of the commission. The Government believes that this amendment will further strengthen that approach.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [1.01 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party also supports the amendment. As I noted during the second reading debate, a multiplicity of organisations deal with issues affecting children. It is preferable to have only one body which has all the information and can make referrals to the correct area.

Page 10113

Amendment agreed to.

Parts as amended agreed to.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

[The President left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

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

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Consideration of the Legislative Assembly’s message of 29 October.

MADAM PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly having had under consideration the Legislative Council’s message dated 30 June 1998 requesting the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly with the amendments to the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill as set forth in the Schedule to that Message, acquaints the Legislative Council as follows -

Amendment No 1. The Legislative Assembly agrees to Amendment No 1 made by the Council in the Bill.

Amendment No 2. The Legislative Assembly disagrees with the proposed amendment because:

1. The Legislative Council’s second amendment omitted the proposed changes to the City of Sydney Act put forward by the Government and called for a special commission to be established under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 to review the voting system in the City of Sydney.

However, the State Crown Solicitor advised the Government that a special commission of inquiry in these circumstances was not appropriate. While a special commission of inquiry requires the appointment of a current judge or practitioner, the motion carried by the Legislative Council called for a retired judge.

In addition, the Crown Solicitor advised that special commissions of inquiry were envisaged for circumstances where some offence (such as a criminal offence) may have been committed. This was not the case here and the range of coercive powers given to special commissions of inquiry were not appropriate for what was essentially a policy review of legislative electoral provisions.

Notwithstanding this, the Government has fully accepted the spirit of the Legislative Council’s amendment and, accordingly, the need for an independent review.

2. Therefore, on 5th August 1998, His Excellency the Governor appointed the Honourable W.K. Fisher, AO. QC, as Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into the Sydney City Council election procedure. Mr Fisher is a former President of the Industrial Relations Commission.

The Commissioner’s terms of reference were to inquire into:

(a) the qualifications of electors;

(b) the procedures for conducting elections; and

(c) the procedures for ascertaining the results of elections,

both in relation to elections for the Council of the City of Sydney and in relation to elections for the Office of Lord Mayor of Sydney.

These terms of reference are identical to those suggested by the Legislative Council.

The report of the inquiry has already been tabled in both Houses of Parliament and the amendments just moved by the Government and adopted by this House respond positively to Mr Fisher’s recommendations.

Accordingly, the Legislative Assembly proposes the following further amendment:

Pages 7-12, Schedule 2, line 4 on page 7 to line 8 on page 12. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

[1] Section 14 Definitions

Omit section 14 (1) (f) (i). Insert instead:

(i) whether a person is entitled to have the person’s name included in a roll of electors - the date on which the claim for enrolment is made, or

[2] Section 14 (4)

Insert "a ratepaying lessee or" before "an occupier".

[3] Section 14 (5)

Insert after section 14 (4):

(5) If the City of Sydney is divided into wards, this Division applies to each ward in the same way as it applies to the area of the City of Sydney.

[4] Section 15

Omit the section. Insert instead:

15 Right to be enrolled as an elector

(1) A person is entitled to be enrolled as an elector for the City of Sydney if the person is:

Page 10114

(a) an owner of rateable land in the City of Sydney, or

(b) a ratepaying lessee or occupier of rateable land in the City of Sydney, or

(c) a resident of the City of Sydney.

(2) A person is not entitled to be enrolled as an elector under subsection (1) unless the person (or, in the case of a corporation, the person nominated as the elector by the corporation) is entitled to vote at an election of members of the Legislative Assembly or an election of members of the Commonwealth House of Representatives.

(3) Sections 266 and 269-272 of the Principal Act do not apply to the City of Sydney.

[5] Section 16 Provisions relating to right to be enrolled as an elector

Omit section 16 (2).

[6] Section 16A

Insert after section 16:

16A Partnerships

(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Division and sections 267 and 268 of the Principal Act.

(2) If a person is an owner, ratepaying lessee or occupier of rateable land in the person’s capacity as a partner of a firm:

(a) the person is taken not to be an owner, ratepaying lessee or occupier of that rateable land, and

(b) the firm is taken to be a corporation that is the owner, ratepaying lessee or occupier of that rateable land.

[7] Section 17

Omit the section. Insert instead:

17 Roll of electors

In the application of Division 2 of Part 6 of Chapter 10 of the Principal Act to an election for the City of Sydney:

(a) a reference in that Division to persons entitled to be enrolled as electors because they are non-resident owners of land within an area is to be read as a reference to persons entitled under section 15 (1) (a) to be enrolled as electors, and

(b) a reference in that Division to persons entitled to be enrolled as electors because they are ratepaying lessees or occupiers of land within an area is to be read as a reference to persons entitled under section 15 (1) (b) to be enrolled as electors, and

(c) a reference in that Division to persons entitled to be enrolled as electors because they are residents of an area is to be read as a reference to persons entitled under section 15 (1) (c) to be enrolled as electors.

[8] Section 17A Non-residential roll for use in September 1995 ordinary election

Omit the section.

[9] Section 18 List of electors for compulsory enrolment on non-residential roll

Omit the section.

[10] Section 18A

Insert after section 18:

18A Enrolment on non-residential rolls

(1) The general manager of the City of Sydney must:

(a) at least 2 months before the closing date for each ordinary election, and

(b) at least 1 month before the closing date for each other election,

send to each relevant person notification of that election and a form that enables the person to lodge a claim for inclusion of the person’s name in the non-residential roll or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees to be prepared for that election.

(2) In this section:

closing date for an election has the same meaning as it has for an election under the Principal Act.

relevant person means:

(a) a person whose name was included in the non-residential roll or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees prepared for the previous election for the City of Sydney, or

(b) a person who has, since the closing date for the previous election for the City of Sydney, lodged a claim for inclusion of the person’s name in the non-residential roll or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees to be prepared for the next election for the City of Sydney (being a claim that the general manager of the City of Sydney considers is not a current claim for enrolment for that next election).

[11] Section 19 Non-residential roll

Omit the section.

[12] Section 19A Regulations - non-residential roll

Omit the section.

Page 10115

[13] Section 21 Voting where secretary of corporation enrolled as elector

Omit the section.

[14] Section 22

Omit the section. Insert instead:

22 Compulsory voting

(1) Electors whose names are on the residential roll, the non-residential roll or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees must vote at a contested election for the City of Sydney, unless exempt from voting under the Principal Act or this Act. Section 286 of the Principal Act does not apply to a contested election for the City of Sydney.

(2) In the application of Division 4 of Part 6 of Chapter 10 of the Principal Act to any such election:

(a) a reference in those provisions to a resident is to be read as including a reference to a person included on the non-residential roll or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees for the election, and

(b) a reference in those provisions to a residential roll is to be read as including a reference to the non-residential roll or the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees for the election .

[15] Part 3, Division 4

Insert after Division 3 of Part 3:

Division 4 Council poll or constitutional referendum

24 Applicable provisions of Principal Act and this Part

(1) The provisions of this Part apply (and the provisions of sections 266 and 269-272 of the Principal Act do not apply) to a council poll or constitutional referendum in the City of Sydney.

(2) However, section 22 (1) applies to a constitutional referendum but not a council poll in the City of Sydney.

[16] Schedule 3 Savings, transitional and other provisions

Insert "or the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Act 1998" after "1997" in clause 29 (1).

[17] Schedule 3

Insert at the end of the Schedule:

Part 9 Provisions consequent on enactment of Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Act 1998

31 Obligation of General Manager with respect to rolls for first election held after amending Act

(1) In this clause:

existing list means the list kept by the general manager of the City of Sydney, immediately before the repeal of section 18 by the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Act 1998.

(2) The obligation of the general manager of the City of Sydney to send out notifications of election and claim forms under section 18A in connection with the first election after the commencement of that section extends to sending out notifications and claim forms to any person whose name is on the existing list.

32 Amendment to be made by Administrative Decisions Legislation Amendment Act 1997 that is no longer necessary

Schedule 5.6 of the Administrative Decisions Legislation Amendment Act 1997 (which substitutes section 18 (7) of this Act) does not have any effect if section 18 of this Act is repealed beforehand by the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Act 1998.

And the Assembly requests the concurrence of the Legislative Council in its proposed amendment to the Council amendment No. 2 in the Bill.

Legislative Assembly John Murray
29 October 1998 am Speaker

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.38 p.m.]: I move:

That the Committee does not insist on its amendment No. 2 disagreed to by the Legislative Assembly and agrees to the Legislative Assembly’s proposed further amendment in the bill.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [2.39 p.m.]: I move:

That the Legislative Assembly's proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

No. 1 Omit proposed schedule 2[3], relating to the insertion of proposed section 14(5) into the Principal Act.

Before speaking to the amendment I would like to comment on the background to the bill being dealt with in this House. Before the luncheon adjournment honourable members were considering the Committee stage of the Commission for Children and Young People Bill.

Page 10116

The Hon. Franca Arena: An important bill.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: As the honourable member says, an important bill. It is no coincidence that that debate was interrupted to bring on the Committee stage of the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill, known as the city of Sydney bill. Honourable members would have noticed that before lunch the Hon. Elaine Nile was missing from divisions because she was ill. Without drawing too long a bow, I believe it is more than a coincidence that consideration of this bill has been called on expediently by the Government. It is also interesting to note that I was sitting in the House the other night when these amendments -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is listed for today.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Surely the Treasurer does not expect honourable members to believe that. Everyone knows what the Government is up to. He should not try to cover up. I am making obvious to members not present in the Chamber what the Government is up to. This move is another one of the Government’s dirty little tricks. Honourable members are being asked to revoke amendments that the House had passed to the bill allowing for an independent review. The Government put in place retired judge Bill Fisher whom, I noticed, the Hon. B. H. Vaughan eulogised in the House as one of the founders of Young Labor. The Opposition does not disagree with all of Justice Fisher’s recommendations, but it does disagree with some. This move highlights what the Government is trying to do: it has brought on this bill when a crossbench member who would normally be expected to vote for the amendments moved by the Opposition is absent.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It was listed for today.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It was listed for today, but that does not give any indication that it would be brought up in the middle of Committee consideration of another bill. The Treasurer knows quite well that is what the Government has been up to. I have more than capably made my point and I am sure the crossbenchers are aware of the duplicity of the Government on this and many other recent matters. The Opposition wants the first part of the amendment removed. It states:

If the City of Sydney is divided into wards, this Division applies to each ward in the same way as it applies to the area of the City of Sydney.

We are unsure why the Government has included that amendment. Previously there has been no intention to divide the city of Sydney into wards. Wards have never been recommended by Judge Goran or by Justice Fisher. In fact, Judge Goran said that because of the size of the city area there is no reason for wards. I am concerned that the Government chooses to include this amendment, given that there has been no move for it. If such an amendment is agreed to, the council will decide how the city was split up. The Opposition just does not know who recommended the amendment.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Could the Hon. D. J. Gay please specify which amendment he is talking about?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am talking about amendment No. 1 moved by the Opposition. This Government amendment seeks to delete the provision to put in place wards. The Opposition does not know the reason the Government moved that amendment and wants to remove the part about wards. That was not recommended by Justice Fisher or Judge Goran. There must be some other agenda that is not clear to the Opposition. Naturally we are suspicious when the Government brings on the bill in this manner.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.44 p.m.]: Can I first deal with the suggestion by the Hon. D. J. Gay that the Government has somehow, in an untoward manner, brought this debate on.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It was more than a suggestion.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It was more than a suggestion, as the honourable member points out. If honourable members look at today’s speakers list they will see the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Bill, message from the Legislative Council, is the third item on government business orders of the day for today. It is not uncommon for the orders of the day to be varied by motion of the House. I moved the motion in that way and the House carried it. There was no dissent by the Opposition or by anybody else to that, and why should there be? This matter would have been coming on today anyway. The Hon. D. J. Gay suggests that somehow or other the Government is trying to impose wards on the city council or that it is giving the city council the right to impose wards on the residents of the city. Nothing could be further from the truth. Proposed section 14(5) of the City of Sydney Act to be inserted by this bill states:

If the City of Sydney is divided into wards, this Division applies to each ward in the same way as it applies to the area of the City of Sydney.

Page 10117

That decision is for the council to make, not the Government. The Local Government Act stipulates that if the council thinks introduction of wards is desirable it must first obtain the approval of residents and ratepayers through a referendum. The council could only do that if it gains the support of residents and ratepayers through a constitutional referendum. It is not for the Government to force the council to introduce wards or not to introduce wards. All this amendment will ensure is that the approval of residents and ratepayers would be sought. The amendment inserts the words "If the City [council] is divided into wards . . ." but it is a decision for the residents and ratepayers to make.

Amendment of the Legislative Assembly's amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.48 p.m.]: I move:

That the Legislative Assembly's proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

1. Insert the following after proposed schedule 2[4]:

[5] Section 16 Provisions relating to right to be enrolled as an elector

Omit section 16 (1). Insert instead:

(1) If a corporation or partnership is the owner, ratepaying lessee or occupier of ratable land, two natural persons nominated in writing by the corporation or partnership as electors are taken to be entitled to be enrolled as electors instead of the corporation. If only one natural person is so nominated, then that person is so taken to be entitled to be enrolled.

This is an attempt to resolve what has become a contentious issue relating to partnerships. The Government has proposed removing the current voting rights of partners, while the Opposition and some members of the crossbench support retaining those rights. This amendment proposes a compromise solution that has been tried and tested elsewhere. In the cities of Melbourne and Perth, corporations and partnerships are represented by two voting nominees. This ensures voting equity between a business house and the average residential household. It provides adequate balance between the interests of a city’s residents and its businesses that employ many thousands of workers and invest in the city.

The Christian Democratic Party proposes that that system be adopted in the city of Sydney. This amendment would result in a fair outcome and a compromise between the competing calls from either side of politics. Proposed section 16(1) is to be amended to provide that if a corporation or partnership is the owner, ratepaying lessee or occupier of rateable land it can appoint two persons as its voting nominees.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.51 p.m.]: The Government cannot support this amendment because it conflicts directly with one of the key findings of the inquiry of Justice Fisher and with a fundamental democratic principle and democratic commonsense. Justice Fisher expressed his belief that the existing proportion of non-resident voters was too high and that, as a result, the electoral system for the city of Sydney was undemocratic. Acceptance of this amendment would significantly exacerbate that situation. The Government does not agree that this amendment would be a compromise.

Acceptance of the amendment would lead to a doubling of the non-resident vote. It would be undemocratic in the extreme to give corporations two votes instead of one. As is the case with some amendments that have been put forward by the Opposition, the argument that there should be no taxation without representation is in this context without foundation. There is already representation for non-resident ratepayers in the city of Sydney, as there is in every other council area in New South Wales. Also, the argument of no taxation without representation has always referred to personal taxation, not corporate taxation.

With regard to the first election under the Greiner Government’s City of Sydney Act, Justice Fisher stated at page 111 of the report that only 3,863 residents were on the roll but that there were 12,270 non-residents, property or commercially linked voters - a proportion of one to three or more. He said that any system said to be democratic which produces results like those stands in need of revision and that, in democratic terms, it would be hard to contemplate less acceptable voting patterns. There were similar proportions of resident to non-resident voters at the 1991 and 1995 elections. The Government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [2.53 p.m.]: The Opposition is placed in a difficult position. The Opposition intends to move an amendment that goes much further than the terms of this amendment, and does not believe that this amendment goes nearly far enough. Having said that, given that the Opposition accepts part of this amendment, the Opposition cannot vote against this amendment and will therefore support it. The thrust of what is proposed
Page 10118
in the Opposition’s amendment - if the Opposition is permitted to move it - is very important. In this amendment Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile seeks to restore a parity of one vote, one value. Tenants in common of a property, usually a husband and wife, get two votes. All residents of voting age in a residence have an opportunity to vote.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, in an attempt to restore parity, proposes that a partnership and a corporation be entitled to two votes. Opposition members believe that partnerships and corporations should be entitled to more than two votes. However, this amendment would put corporations and partnerships on a parity with the residential vote. When this bill was before the House previously the Minister said that it was appalling that companies such as AMP and CSR had only one vote. I agree with that sentiment. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has picked up the Government’s argument that it is unfair for partners to have several votes while corporations are entitled to only one.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has picked up on the Government’s argument and has said that a corporation such as AMP or CSR should have the same entitlement as tenants in common or any person of voting age within a family group. The Minister said that Justice Fisher does not agree with the argument behind this amendment. Justice Fisher, at page 112 of the report, stated that the retraction of the extended partnership vote as proposed in the bill will go part of the way to restoring a balance but will not restore a genuine voting environment, which would require a voting base of sufficient size, diversity and experience - including commercial, cultural, professional and social experience - appropriate to demonstrate civic responsibility.

Justice Fisher, in one of the recommendations that the Government selectively did not pick up - and there are several such recommendations - has said that unless the boundaries are extended the extra vote will have to be given to partnerships. The Minister said that Justice Fisher made carte blanche statements. The Government has, however, chosen not to pick up Justice Fisher’s recommendation at page 109 that boundaries be enlarged, his recommendation at page 147 that the State Electoral Commission be used, or his recommendation at page 151 that a non-residential roll be established. The argument put by the Minister is not feasible. The Opposition supports this amendment. Although Opposition members do not consider that the amendment goes far enough, it would be improper of us to oppose it.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [2.57 p.m.]: Having listened to the arguments put forward I shall support this amendment. I was concerned that so many votes were in the hands of residents, and this amendment is a good compromise. The Minister is saying that we have been to the arbiter but we do not want to accept his decision. As the Hon. D. J. Gay has said, Justice Fisher has suggested that the boundaries be extended but the Government is not considering that issue. I am therefore of the view that the compromise suggested by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is good and I shall vote for it. His amendment brings the issue into perspective and produces a fair result.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [2.57 p.m.]: The amendment underlines the difficulty in applying the Local Government Act to the city of Sydney. I have for a long time considered it entirely inappropriate for the city of Sydney area to be governed by the Local Government Act, as other local government areas are. That position is becoming unglued, as is demonstrated in the issues with which honourable members are grappling today. I am tempted to support this amendment. However, I am also aware of, and in large measure I agree with, the arguments advanced by the Hon. D. J. Gay. Here we are trying to balance the franchise between a very large number of people who are ratepayers but non-residents of the city of Sydney and a smaller number of people who are ratepayers and residents of the city.

For a long time I have been of the opinion that the Sydney City Council area should include only what might be called the business district of the city and exclude residential areas, but that is outside the scope of this bill. I congratulate Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile on looking for another compromise, as he has done so many times, in this matter. He is trying to balance the obvious numerical inequity between non-resident ratepayers and resident ratepayers. I am not sure that by supporting this amendment we will achieve anything more than fiddling the figures and tampering with the ultimate arrangement. I ask Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, given that his amendment says "if a corporation or partnership is the owner", what would happen if a corporation was also a partnership

The Hon. D. J. Gay: There would still only be two votes.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: Would there? I am not sure that is absolutely explicit in this amendment and I would like that to be clarified so that there is
Page 10119
no double dipping, which I am sure the Minister would not want. I am tempted to support the amendment but I believe that the time is not far off, as will be proved by what happens with this legislation, when the city of Sydney has to be looked at again and a new Act introduced for its governance. We are being asked to apply the wisdom of Solomon, and I am just not that smart.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.01 p.m.]: I endorse the words of my colleague the Hon. J. S. Tingle, who summed up the situation extremely well. The Australian Democrats dislike taking votes from people and called for a wider franchise. Justice Fisher’s report calls for a widening of the franchise and it is disappointing that this bill does not provide that. Pages 102 to 107 of the report deal with who has the vote and the need for representative voting. It certainly bothers the Australian Democrats that residents who live in the city comprise such a small percentage of voters. We believe that the influence of those people is important. Every time I sail past the "toaster" building I feel that would not have happened if there was a more representative resident franchise in the city.

The Australian Democrats have tried to be totally objective about this amendment. I have read Justice Fisher’s report, and if we move in the direction of this amendment, which is away from the concept of one person, one vote, we will get into bad trouble. The Australian Democrats oppose the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.03 p.m.]: The Leader of the Government was critical of the amendment giving a corporation or partnership two nominee votes. As the Minister realises, in the past partners have had multiple votes and, according to Justice Fisher’s report on page 110, the top 10 accountancy firms in the city have in total 452 partners, ranging from 155 down to 13. Of course there are many more accountancy partnerships. Justice Fisher said also that the top 50 legal firms have 1,029 partners, ranging from 70 to six. There are very many other partnerships. This amendment is more reasonable, even for the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, than what has been supported in the past by some members of the House.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle and other honourable members have pointed out that the city of Sydney is different to local councils such as, for example, Bankstown and Chatswood, because it is the central business district of the State. Therefore I believe that corporations should be recognised. It could be argued that AMP and other organisations that have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Sydney, and hundreds of employees, should have two votes. That is not undemocratic and, in a sense, perhaps it is not sufficiently democratic and should go further. To give corporations and partnerships two votes is a minor recognition of their investment and activities in the city, which should be recognised by the proposed legislation.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.05 p.m.]: It ought to be borne in mind that the Government’s proposal still allows each partnership and corporation that is a ratepayer within the city of Sydney to have a vote. That is a principle that seems to be well established by local government throughout New South Wales, but one I have always had great difficulty accepting.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I thought you might.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, because if nonresident ratepayers are entitled to vote in local council elections, for the life of me I cannot work out why nonresident corporations cannot vote for State and Federal elections. either. Simply because AMP might be a big investor in Sydney, New South Wales or Australia should not give it multiple votes, or a vote, in Federal or State elections.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They all get a vote.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If they are residents they do. If a foreign owned company is registered in Australia and is a ratepayer in Sydney, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says that it gets a vote even if its entire ownership is held overseas. Nevertheless, the Government is removing the right of partnerships and corporations to have a vote.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Yes, you are.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, the Government is not. The Hon. D. J. Gay says a partnership and a corporation should be entitled to two votes because a two-person household is entitled to two votes. In that instance two residents are two distinct entities and as citizens of the city of Sydney they are each entitled to vote.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: There could be 135 partners in a firm.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If 135 partners live in the city of Sydney they are each entitled to vote in the city of Sydney. To my way of thinking there
Page 10120
is no reason why a partnership or a corporation should have more votes than a resident of the city.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.07 p.m.]: It really concerns me that the Treasurer has a problem with the simple proposition that caused the War of Independence, which was "no taxation without representation". If the Treasurer has a problem with that he should not go to America. The issue with which we are dealing is not very different. At this time I have to declare an interest, though so minuscule as not to disqualify me from the debate, because I have a property in the city of Sydney and I am entitled to vote here. If I had properties in 26 local government areas of New South Wales I would be entitled to vote in 26 local government areas. Nobody would gainsay that, because that is exactly what the Act provides. The Hon. J. S. Tingle is concerned about multiple voting when a person or individual gets more than one vote in a particular election, but that is not the case in the city of Sydney, where an individual gets one vote.

If I live in the city of Sydney and have 27 properties there I do not get 27 votes, but if I have 27 properties in 27 different local government areas I do, because that is part of the principle of no taxation without representation.

In Phillip Street many barristers occupy tiny rooms for which they pay a large sum. Each of those barristers is entitled to one vote in the city of Sydney elections. However, Allen Allen and Hemsley, which occupies about 16 floors in that excrescence built by Bondy and his mates, would be entitled to only one vote under this proposal. That firm occupies 16 floors of a major construction, is a major contributor to the city of Sydney - it pays hundreds of millions of dollars in section 94 contributions - but will be given only one vote. That is not even vaguely fair, but that is what has been argued by the Labor Party and the Hon. J. S. Tingle. Are members of that firm entitled to a vote because of their contributions and their occupancy of that building? I believe they are. This bill is a nonsense. The Government is trying to get away with taxing people without giving them electoral representation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.11 p.m.]: I should respond to some of the remarks made about the amendment. In his report Justice Fisher made a strong reference to what happened in respect of the Perth City Council voting qualifications. At pages 98 and 99 he said that a body corporate, owner or occupier of a rateable property in Perth can nominate two people as owners or occupiers. At page 100, referring to the Melbourne City Council, he said that a corporation which is the sole owner or sole occupier of rateable land in a ward of the city can appoint two people to represent it.

The point I seek to make, which may be of interest to the Treasurer, is that this is not a radical proposal. Two major cities in Australia have adopted this system. If they see merit and value in it, surely the New South Wales Government should consider it. Those cities give special recognition to occupants of the central business district, in the same way as should occur in Sydney. This amendment would allow for a special situation. Rather than giving hundreds of partners a vote, the amendment would simply allow partnerships and corporations to have two votes. That is a reasonable proposition and, if accepted, there would be a lot more co-operation and agreement among the business organisations in the city who asked me to move this amendment. They believe that this is the way to go.

The amendment has the support of the various business representatives, including the Chamber of Commerce and the Property Council of Australia. If the Government is seeking genuine co-operation in respect of what has become a contentious matter, this is a simple way to achieve it.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.14 p.m.]: The Hon. J. S. Tingle raised a fair point about a matter that concerned the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and the Hon. A. G. Corbett. He questioned whether the amendment would allow people to have four votes. The answer to that is unequivocally no. The amendment does not contain the words "and/or"; it says "corporation or partnership". That would allow partnerships to have two votes and corporations to have two votes. That is relevant to the principle of one vote having one value. The amendment would re-establish parity.

The amendment does not go as far as I would like it to go: Each partner should have a vote, but the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would reduce the number of votes in one of the firms mentioned from 145 to two. It would allow also for parity between CSR, AMP and any corporation which owns property in the city. Though the amendment does not go far enough, the Opposition will support it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.15 p.m.]: The owners of a corporation or members of a partnership should not be restricted to having only one vote. One of my colleagues tells me that he is hopeful of owning two properties within the city of Sydney in the near future. He pointed out to me that if one of those
Page 10121
properties was owned by him and his wife as partners and the other was owned by him and his wife as a corporation, the amendment would allow each of them to have two votes.

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

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Have a careful look at the amendment. Even though my colleague and his wife own a number of properties in the shire of Wellington, each of them is entitled to only one vote.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.16 p.m.]: That is an absolute crock of nonsense. It is rubbish! If ever anyone was in any doubt, they can now be assured that Labor Party members advocate voting early and often. The Act specifies that a person can vote only once - irrespective of whether he or she is a member of a corporation, a single resident or a martian - but a member of the Labor Party can vote as often as he likes.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.17 p.m.]: I shall get back to the substance of the amendment and ignore the Treasurer’s red herrings. The goal is to achieve for the city of Sydney a franchise that reflects the wishes of those who have a stake in the city.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What about all those who work in the city?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: We could go as far as the recommendation made in Judge Goran’s report in the 1980s, but he did not recommend voting; he recommended the appointment of a board. The Opposition believes in democracy and believes that consideration should be given to the wishes of those who have a stake in the city. I make the point that 97 per cent of city of Sydney rates are paid by the business community. The Opposition seeks only fair representation. The nonsense of the system proposed by the Government is best exemplified by the barristers who occupy chambers in city buildings. Each barrister has one vote because each of them is a single proprietor and is not a member of a partnership. Yet a similar number of partners in a firm of solicitors would get only one vote.

I take up the matter raised by the Treasurer. I have said before that my husband is a partner in a city firm of accountants. That does not preclude me from voting on this issue. I assure the House that as a consequence of that partnership our family resources are well and truly tied up in the partnership. If we chose to buy a residential property in the city we would get a vote. However, our resources are tied up in the partnership, and the proposal is that members of a partnership will have only one vote between them.

At the end of the day surely all honourable members want a council that will reflect the views of the people who use the city and have a stake in it - those who provide the rates for the city of Sydney. That was the problem in the 1980s that led to the council being sacked - the "Dear Doug" letter of 1986. The coalition had to introduce legislation to revive the Council of the City of Sydney. The coalition believes in democracy but believes also that all of those who participate in the city by way of paying rates are fairly entitled to a vote.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.19 p.m.]: In reply to the statement that the Treasurer made after he was led astray by the former general manager of Wellington Council I draw attention to page 123 of the Local Government Act 1993, and particularly section 268, which says:

One vote per elector
Nothing in this Chapter entitles a person to more than one vote in one area in an election.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.20 p.m.]: I will have to read Justice Fisher’s report to determine how I will vote on this, because until this report became available I would have supported the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Page 109 of the Fisher report said of the current system:

One of the further difficulties in assessing whether the interests of representative democracy are being appropriately served lies in the fact that the system gives effectively two votes to each individual partner

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It does not.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: That is what Justice Fisher said. He continued:

The partner votes as a resident in his own local government area and again in the City of Sydney not as a personal voter but on behalf of his partnership’s interests. There are some thousands of such votes.

Justice Fisher referred to multiple voting on pages 110 and 111. He said:

In a City with a resident population of 3,759,000 this suggests strongly a major imbalance in voting touching the City of Sydney which requires rectification.

I have to vote with Fisher, basically.

Page 10122

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.21 p.m.]: I hope that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is convinced of the argument and does not have a preconceived view.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I have his report.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Just pay me the courtesy of listening. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones indicated that Justice Fisher said that partnerships get more than one vote, because the partners can vote elsewhere. It is a pretty shallow interpretation by Justice Fisher that the residents are in exactly the same situation. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who admits that he is a resident, may or may not have voted for Frank Sartor in the city of Sydney election. He also gets another vote in Lismore, where he resides. What is the difference between that and the proposed amendment? Justice Fisher formed a very superficial view in that instance. I suggest that the honourable member should support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Question - That the amendment of the Legislative Assembly's amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena Dr Pezzutti
Mr Bull Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gay Mr Tingle
Mr Hannaford Mr Willis
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Jobling
Rev. Nile Mr Moppett

Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Mr Primrose
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Saffin
Mr Cohen Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Corbett Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Kelly Mrs Isaksen
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson

Dr Goldsmith Mr Dyer

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the Legislative Assembly's amendment negatived.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.30 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 6 in globo:

That the Legislative Assembly’s proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

No. 2 Omit proposed schedule 2[5], relating to the omission of section 16 (2) of the Principal Act.

No. 6 Omit proposed schedule 2[13], relating to the omission of section 21 of the Principal Act. Insert instead:

[13] Section 21 Voting where secretary of corporation enrolled as elector

Omit "the general manager of the City of Sydney" from section 21 (1) (b). Insert instead "the Electoral Commissioner".

[14] Section 21 (1)

Omit "in the list under section 18 and the non-residential roll for the election" . Insert instead "in a roll referred to in section 18A for the election".

[15] Section 21 (2)

Omit the subsection.

Amendments Nos 2 and 6 are similar in nature and will go a long way towards fixing up some problems in the operation of the City of Sydney Act. The Opposition seeks to retain section 16(2), which provides:

If a corporation fails to nominate a person as an elector under this particular section, the secretary of the corporation shall be taken to be nominated until a nomination is made.

The Opposition believes the corporation should be entitled to a vote - in fact, the Opposition believes it should be entitled to more than one vote. The amendment will ensure that the corporation has at least one vote. If a specific nomination has not been made, the voting right should fall to the company secretary, a position that in the main is constant within the company.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The level of audible conversation is making it difficult for those in the gallery to hear what is being said.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It would be in the interests of Government members to listen to what I am saying, because their knowledge of this matter is
Page 10123
fuzzy, consistent with their particularly fuzzy logic. Currently, corporations have one vote, and that vote goes to the company secretary unless the company decides otherwise. That is a simple process, and it is easy to use. That provision should be retained. The joint business submission to Justice Fisher stated that the Government’s amendments would make it harder for non-residents to get onto the electoral roll. That is true. That matter should be addressed, and Opposition amendment No. 2 would address the problem. Opposition amendment No. 6, which is similar, provides that the company secretary should be an elector where the corporation does not nominate a person as an elector.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [3.33 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. They are in direct conflict with an explicit recommendation of Justice Fisher. The Opposition wanted an independent inquiry into Sydney city council election procedures. Not only that, but I understand that the terms of reference for the inquiry were drafted by the Hon. D. J. Gay himself. The Opposition got the inquiry that it wanted, but now it does not want to accept the umpire’s decision. The amendments would remove the provision in the bill that proposes the deletion of subsection (2) of section 16 of the City of Sydney Act. The effect of the Opposition amendments would be to retain the deemed nomination of a company secretary. That is precisely the opposite of this recommendation, made by Justice Fisher at page 123 of his report:

That procedures for the enrolment of persons on behalf of corporations be brought into line with those presently existing for all other councils in New South Wales.

Accordingly, the Opposition amendments should be opposed by the Committee.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.34 p.m.]: Once again the Government is being selective in supporting some of Justice Fisher’s recommendations and not others. In this instance the Government has been very selective in adopting a recommendation from Justice Fisher’s report. The Opposition equally could point to parts of the report that support its amendments. Basically, the Opposition is seeking to retain a provision that is already in place.

Question - That the amendments of the Legislative Assembly's amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Willis
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Jobling
Rev. Nile Mr Moppett

Mrs Arena Mr Obeid
Dr Burgmann Mr Primrose
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Cohen Mr Shaw
Mr Corbett Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Kelly Mrs Isaksen
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson

Dr Goldsmith Mr Dyer

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments of the Legislative Assembly's amendment negatived.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.41 p.m.]: I move:

That the Legislative Assembly’s proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

No. 3 Omit proposed schedule 2[6], relating to the insertion of proposed section 16A into the Principal Act (Partnerships).

Basically, the Government is seeking to diminish voting rights: it is as simple as that. New section 16A provides that an owner, ratepaying lessee or occupier of rateable land in the person’s capacity as a partner of a firm is not entitled to vote. The Opposition believes that all partners should have the right to vote; it wants to retain multiple voting rights for partners. Currently, each partner has a right to vote. Although the Government has led honourable members to believe that it is making the system fair by giving partners the vote, it is in fact removing the right of partners to vote. Partners in firms were given the right to vote because the city of Sydney is unique in that businesses contribute 97 per cent of
Page 10124
rates. The city of Sydney council area is unlike any other council area in New South Wales.

It seems that the crossbenchers support the Government’s proposal to remove the right of partners to vote. The Hon. Franca Arena, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. J. S. Tingle simply tripped lightly across the Chamber to vote with the Government - that happens more often than not - and they did not disclose their reasons for supporting the Government and voting against the Opposition’s amendment. The crossbenchers should tell the citizens of New South Wales why they believe partners in the city should not be entitled to vote. It is a reasonable question. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe’s husband is a partner in a city accounting firm.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: Why shouldn’t her husband have the right to vote?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Under these provisions the Hon. Patricia Forsythe’s husband will not have the right to vote, although the Attorney General, as a barrister, will have the right to vote. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe’s husband will not have the right to vote unless he is nominated as the partner who will vote. The honourable member said the partners’ investment in the accounting firm, which is an investment in the city, is probably equal, if not greater than, their investment in their suburban residences. Yet by this bill the Government would deny them the right to say how their rates and taxes are spent in the city of Sydney. I have always believed that it is fair that they have that right. I suspect that I may be on a hiding to nothing with this amendment, given that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, the Hon. A. G. Corbett and the Hon. I. Cohen voted against the lesser amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I will be interested to hear what the Government and the crossbenchers have to say.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [3.45 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment, which would retain the existing multiple voting entitlement for partnerships. Once again, this amendment conflicts with Justice Fisher’s findings. On page 111 of the report the commissioner said, of the first election under the Greiner Government’s City of Sydney Act 1988:

. . . only 3,863 resident voters were on the roll but at the same time there were 12,270 non-residents, property or commercially linked voters, a proportion of 1 to 3 or more.

Any system said to be democratic which produces results like these stands in need of revision . . . In democratic terms it would be difficult to contemplate less acceptable voting patterns. The results have been obtained partly by inflating the non-residential vote, by extending multiple voting to partnerships and is regressive.

The proportion of resident voters to non-resident voters was similar in the 1991 and 1995 elections. It has been argued that partnerships should somehow be equated with households and that as all members of a household who are over the age of 18 can vote all partners in a partnership should be able to vote. To confuse the democratic voting rights of citizens with voting by corporations and partnerships is ridiculous and undemocratic. The Government rejects the analogy. The argument that there should be no taxation without representation also misses the point. First, there already is representation for non-resident ratepayers in the city of Sydney and, indeed, in all other council areas in New South Wales. The local government electoral system is unique in that regard. Secondly, the no taxation without representation argument has always referred to personal taxation, not corporate taxation.

To reveal the absurdity of the Opposition’s argument when taken to its logical conclusion I pose the question: Should corporations be able to elect 28 of the 148 members of the House of Representatives simply because they contribute 19 per cent of Commonwealth revenue? Of course not; it would be absurd and repugnant to democratic principles. In the context of the city of Sydney electoral system the question relates to the appropriate proportion of resident voters to non-resident voters. Justice Fisher clearly believed that the existing proportion of non-resident voters to resident voters was too high. Therefore, he seized the Government’s proposed restriction of multiple voting by partnerships as a proposal that will in part cure the problem. I refer to page 109 of the report. At page 112 of the report Justice Fisher said that the retraction of the extended partnership vote will go part of the way towards restoring a balance. For those reasons the Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.48 p.m.]: The contradictions are incredible. To give an example, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has a residence in the city of Sydney in which he resides with his charming and gorgeous child bride, Dr Christine Pezzutti, and at least one adult child, if not two adult children.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, they do not.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Sometimes they are. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, his wife and his two adult children are able to vote, yet an accounting
Page 10125
partnership of five, 10, 15 or 135 partners has just one vote. I am sure that contradiction is obvious even to the Attorney General, who has replaced the Treasurer in this Chamber. The Treasurer was hastily scratched from this debate. I know the Attorney has leanings to the Left, but he is a fair man. Surely he would acknowledge the huge anomaly in what the Government is trying to do.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.50 p.m.]: I should like to respond to the criticisms of the Hon. D. J. Gay about Independents not expressing their views on this matter. The Attorney General made several good points in his speech. In my maiden speech as an Independent on 1 July I supported the Opposition amendment for an inquiry because at that time the Government had not consulted interested parties about the matter. An inquiry into resident eligibility would be a fair process.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: You betrayed Kathryn Greiner just like you betrayed the Liberal Party. What are you going to say to Kathryn Greiner?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Continued interjection does not help me consider my support for the legislation.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: We’ve lost you anyway.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: You are betraying her just like you betrayed the Liberal Party.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Honourable members opposite are just trying to shut me out. I can stand here and talk about relevance. Ignoring the interjections, which are uncalled for, I abide by the report of the independent umpire. The Opposition asked for a report, and I have read it. The Hon. D. J. Gay has tainted the reputation and character of Justice Fisher, but he must acknowledge that the review was completed and that a report was made to the Government and to Parliament. Justice Fisher consulted widely and in his report makes many points particularly on multiple voting. This is of fundamental importance to me. Justice Fisher called for representational democracy and democratic franchises, which are enshrined in the common law and the Australian Constitution. Justice Fisher was blunt in his criticism of the current Act when he said on page 5 of the report that the containment of votes belittles the democratic process and fails to provide anything like a suitable mandate.

He went on to say -

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: That’s your mandate. You were elected as a Liberal.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I do not have a party line. I am speaking according to what I judge as an elected member. The commissioner said:

It follows that the proposals contained in the 1988 Act governing elections for the City of Sydney have not worked satisfactorily or assured a significant vote consistent with the expected standards of representational democracy.

As a representative of people living in a democracy I must defend that democracy and not allow anything to undermine those cherished principles. Justice Fisher’s report has focused my attention also on the value of a person’s vote. Section 30 of the Australian Constitution expressly includes the one person one vote principle. All other State constitutions are similarly based. Equality, an issue close to my heart, is at the heart of this issue. I am a person of principle and rightly that.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Principle?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Absolutely, unlike you.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.54 p.m.]: Obviously, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho relies heavily on Justice Fisher’s report, but I draw her attention to page 24 of that document. Justice Fisher quotes from page 6821 of Hansard of 30 June the comments of the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho as follows:

I oppose any changes that would disfranchise business voters and set up a gerrymander for particular political interests . . .

The process of using the city of Sydney as a political football must stop. Recognition and franchisement must be given to those who pay the bulk of the rates, which enable the city of Sydney to provide services to its community. No other resolution can be considered.

The honourable member said, and I am sure she will correct me if I am paraphrasing or verballing her incorrectly, that that does not stand because she was a member of the Liberal Party at the time and she is now an Independent. I would have thought the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho would have believed everything she said at that stage, believed it was right and therefore believed it to be right now because that is the one thing that has not changed. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said there should be one person one vote. I wrote that down when she said it and I was reminded of it by honourable members seated behind me. I ask the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: What about the rest of the partners? How does that equate with the principle of one person one vote?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [3.56 p.m.]: Labor Party members are trying through Justice Fisher’s report to put a veneer on the nonsense that somehow
Page 10126
they are the bastions of democracy. The Labor Party rorts elections. It has a long and fine history of rorting elections and it is trying to rort this one. The Labor Party deliberately brought on this debate when one of its members was not present - rort number one. Labor never misses an opportunity. The only time the Labor Party makes any change to any voting system is in order to fleece it.

The redistribution of electoral boundaries was a terrific exercise, although I am sure it was designed as a means of rorting the next State election. Fortunately, the redistribution was not as favourable for the Labor Party as it thought it might have been, but the redistribution was all about rorting elections. All the crossbench members have joined the Labor Party every time it wants to rort an election. The Labor Party has rorted elections in Campbelltown, where I live. Its members represented themselves as and pretended they were Greens on one occasion in the Robinson electorate. At the last Federal election they tried to pretend they were members of One Nation! The Hon. P. T. Primrose is not present, but I shall not forget his little effort of distributing brochures that made it look like he was worse than One Nation!

Labor Party members in this Chamber, including the Attorney General, have tried to put a veneer of decency on trying to rort the election of the city of Sydney council. It does not matter what avenue is used, this process is all about trying to stack the deck to ensure that the Labor Party wins most votes at the next council election. The Attorney General should not smile at what is happening. It is hardly decent that the first law officer makes himself part of this rort. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said she believes in democracy. She should adhere to the word "mandate", which was her word. She was elected as a member of the Liberal Party with a great deal of help and support, I understand, from the Greiner family.

When the honourable member sought election she would not have been elected - as I would not have been elected to the upper House when I sought election - without the Liberal Party’s endorsement. Now she has moved to the crossbench she should not complain to the House that she believes in the principles of democracy. If she believes in those principles, when she could no longer support the party for which she was elected she should have forthwith resigned and then sought re-election as an independent. If she had managed to return to this House she would receive the respect and recognition she would be entitled to as an independent. I ask honourable members to take account of the remarks of the Hon. D. J. Gay in support of his amendment. I ask them to take account also of the reputations of the people proposing this measure. The Labor Party has never been known for its adherence to democracy or fair play, particularly in elections.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The PRESIDENT: I announce the presence in my gallery of Patrick Renault, the new Consul-General of Belgium. He is most welcome.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Is the Treasurer aware that last Thursday the Victorian Treasurer, Alan Stockdale, announced that British Aerospace will establish a high-technology aircraft systems design centre in Victoria worth $35 million which will create 250 jobs? Can the Treasurer advise the House whether any attempt whatsoever was made to win this investment for New South Wales, particularly in light of the large investment by the New South Wales Government to attract British Aerospace to Tamworth and, if my memory is correct, also to Williamtown? Will the Treasurer also advise what is being done to ensure that New South Wales does not in future miss out on such lucrative and job creating investment opportunities?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If the Leader of the Opposition’s assertions are right, I congratulate Victoria on obtaining a $35 million investment. The honourable member seems to ask the question as though some blame can be attached to New South Wales if any investment goes to any other State. That is clearly nonsense. New South Wales accounts for 34 per cent of the nation’s population and a little bit more than that of the national economy. Quite frankly, I am happy to be getting more than our fair share of investment, which we do get.

This is a ludicrous argument. I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition has not asked me a question about the latest unemployment results, which show that New South Wales has the lowest unemployment of all the States - 6.7 per cent. In relation to high technology investment, New South Wales has well above its fair share of information
Page 10127
technology companies. We have a very strong presence in the aerospace industry. Only yesterday I was telling the House not only about Australian Defence Industries but also Kaman Aerospace.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister please inform the House of the recent success of an Orange-based company in winning a contract for Olympic business?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am pleased to inform the House that the Orange-based company Stonetile has won a contract to supply granite paving to be used in the main Olympic stadium at Homebush. I am advised that Stonetile will create four new jobs in Orange to fulfil the contract. Stonetile is a great example of a regional company seizing an Olympic business opportunity and how that success has generated spin-off benefits for the local area. This is the second Olympic contract won by Stonetile. It was previously successful in winning a $250,000 contract to supply paving for the Homebush Royal Agricultural Society Exhibition Hall.

Stonetile used support from the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development to help it bid for Olympic business. I am told the company is confident that the prestige associated with an Olympic contract will open doors to new contracts and new markets. Stonetile already exports to Europe, the United States of America, Japan and South-East Asia. Unlike many other Olympic hosts, the State Government has spent a lot of time looking at the economic impact of the Games on business. The Games are expected to contribute $6.3 billion to the New South Wales gross State product and to create some 99,000 jobs in New South Wales between 1994 and 2005. The State Government is determined to ensure that the Games open opportunities for New South Wales small business.

The New South Wales Government’s Australian Technology Showcase already includes more than 50 small businesses. As I have informed the House, a campaign is under way to recruit more small businesses into this export promotion program. Also working for small business is the Olympic Commerce Centre, a joint venture between the New South Wales Government and the State Chamber of Commerce. The centre is a shopfront for business information on the Olympics. Stonetile is just one example of a regional small business that has directly benefited from the Olympic Games.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Minister for Public Works and Services, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development. Is it a fact that a brewery is undertaking trials of liquor selling vending machines in hotels? Can the Carr Government explain how this form of liquor sale is consistent with the responsible service of alcohol, such as ensuring that alcohol is not purchased or consumed by underage or over-the-limit patrons?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raises an important question that I will refer to my colleague the Minister for Gaming and Racing. As soon as I have a response I will convey it to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading. What steps is the Government taking to progress the exchange of information between judicial agencies?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Carr Government is concerned that each of the agencies working in the New South Wales criminal justice system is working with the latest and most accurate data available when decisions about cases are made. To support this objective an initiative is currently under way to ensure the efficient exchange of common data across justice sector agencies. The joint agencies data exchange [JADE] project was established to help remove information and technology barriers and to provide improved sharing of information. The agencies taking part in the JADE project are the Attorney General’s Department, including the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the New South Wales Police Service, the Department of Corrective Services, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Judicial Commission, and the Roads and Traffic Authority.

The overall strategy of the JADE project is to bring into accord the information technology strategies of the individual agencies in order to provide a platform of complementary computer systems. Part of the strategy is to develop common codes to be adopted by the agencies. The electronic
Page 10128
exchange of common data will result in benefits including increased productivity stemming from the replacement of paper forms, increased accuracy of information passed between agencies, and increased user accessibility to data, resulting in faster updating of records. The first exchange to occur under this project is of apprehended violence orders [AVOs] between the courts and the Police Service. New South Wales courts are now able to send AVOs electronically to the Police Service via the computer operated police system [COPS]. The system commenced live operation in July 1998.

The AVO exchange means that police at the operational level are advised earlier of court orders relating to apprehended domestic and personal violence and will be able to act more quickly on court orders to safeguard protected persons. The adoption of unique computer identifiers for individuals in the criminal justice system will soon allow the Department of Corrective Services to advise the police electronically immediately a person is released on parole, the conditions of the parole and any breaches of parole when those occur. The electronic exchange of warrants of apprehension between the courts and the Police Service has also been identified as a priority JADE outcome.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask a question of the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware that Victoria has been selected as the Asia-Pacific base for the production and design of smart cards by German bank note manufacturer Giesecke and Devrient? The facility, which was launched this week, has already had more than $6 million invested in it by the German manufacturer, and a further $4 million will be invested in the next three years. Could the Treasurer advise whether any attempt was made to attract this major technology production and design company to New South Wales? Could the Treasurer further advise just what he is doing to ensure that New South Wales does not lose such important technology companies to other States?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the company to which the Hon. J. M. Samios has referred. I am interested in Australia attracting regional headquarters for the Asia-Pacific region. I am very pleased when Victoria manages to snatch one or two of those regional headquarters. I am pleased, too, when some of those headquarters go to Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Perth. Frankly, sometimes when I am talking to my interstate colleagues I get a little embarrassed that New South Wales is winning 64 per cent of the regional headquarters that come to Australia. New South Wales comprises only 34 per cent of the national economy and 34 per cent of the nation’s population, but it is winning 64 per cent of Asia-Pacific regional headquarters. I am sure that honourable members would be interested to know that there are some 408 regional Asia-Pacific headquarters in Australia.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: They are not all real manufacturing companies.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. J. M. Samios asked a question about Asia-Pacific regional headquarters. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should ensure that Opposition questions are drafted more appropriately. New South Wales has 261 of the 408 regional headquarters located in Australia - 64 per cent of them. Melbourne comes second, with 24.5 per cent of the regional headquarters. Apparently, Opposition members would like to swap Sydney’s record for Melbourne’s record. I would prefer that the record stay as it is, with New South Wales gaining three regional headquarters for every one gained by Victoria.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he read the attack by the Australian Hotels Association [AHA] against registered clubs in the association’s press release dated 17 November. Has the AHA claimed that the registered clubs movement received from the Government, and I quote from the press release, "extreme benefits through the current taxation regime and State tax subsidies"? What is the Treasurer’s response to such an attack on our clubs, which perform a very important community service with the sporting facilities, gymnasiums and many other services they provide for members and their families?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I had not read the AHA press release until the Hon. Franca Arena kindly gave me a copy of it shortly before question time. I had a little difficulty in understanding the logic of the press release until I realised that the AHA has calculated what it claims to be a State tax subsidy and then subtracted from that the community contributions of each of those clubs. From that figure, the AHA has drawn the conclusion that the State is making a net contribution to clubs, rather than the other way around. It is true that the poker machine taxation rate for clubs in this State is lower than it is for hotels, and that it is the lowest
Page 10129
poker machine tax rate for clubs in all Australian mainland States.

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

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, it is absolutely and entirely true. It was not only absolutely and entirely true when the rate was lifted in the budget prior to the most recent budget, but now that the rate has been lowered even further it is absolutely and entirely true about 10 times over. It cannot be any better than absolutely and entirely true - the rate is the lowest poker machine tax rate applying in any Australian State. The AHA does not like that.

The differential in the rates between clubs and pubs is due to the fact that clubs are mutual organisations. The profits made by clubs from poker machines are not dispersed to shareholders; they remain the property of the club and its members. Pubs are profit-making ventures. That is not to say that pubs do not also make a contribution to the community - in fact, they make a significant contribution, particularly in country towns, as do small clubs. The hotel movement will have to get used to the fact that there will always be a differential in the tax rate between hotels and clubs.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Public Works and Services. What action is the Government taking to improve environmental performance in the building industry?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Once again I acknowledge the Hon. A. B. Manson’s long experience and interest in the building and construction industry. Honourable members will recall that yesterday in reply to a question asked by the Hon. A. B. Manson I detailed the release of a new set of guidelines for occupational health, safety and rehabilitation procedures on government construction sites. Before I answer this question - and I regret that the Hon. D. J. Gay is not in the Chamber at present - I recall that when I answered the question asked yesterday I had uttered but one sentence before the Hon. D. J. Gay interjected, "Why will not Michael Knight wear a hard hat on construction sites?" I explained that I make it my practice to wear a hard hat whenever I go onto a construction site.

I was so troubled by that interjection that I approached the Hon. Michael Knight last night to acquaint him with the Opposition’s accusation that he does not wear a hard hat when he goes on to a construction site. Not surprisingly, the Hon. Michael Knight assured me that like all other law-abiding members of the Government he does wear a hard hat when he goes on to a construction site. I make that clear to the Hon. D. J. Gay, who once again has made a wrong allegation.

I am pleased to report the release of a further set of guidelines for government construction this time relating to environmental performance. It should be freely admitted that in past years the environmental performance of some sections of the building industry has been inadequate. Problems have included the inappropriate disposal of building waste and the inadequate attention to the protection of waterways and lands near construction sites. With the release of these new guidelines, the Government is taking a decisive step towards improving the record of the construction industry and is making permanent improvements to the natural habitat around the State. The guidelines which come into effect from 1 May next year require the production of a specific environmental management plan for State Government construction sites.

The management plan will be required to be produced prior to the commencement of work and must cover soil erosion, water pollution, noise and dust suppression and the disposal of waste. Tenderers for major projects will be required to have their corporate management plans registered with the construction agency and accredited as meeting the specifications. New South Wales is the first State to prepare a consistent set of environmental guidelines for use across all government construction works. For the initial policy application major works will be defined as those exceeding $10 million or ones that are otherwise considered to be environmentally sensitive. The $10 million threshold will capture projects such as high schools, colleges, hospitals, major roadworks and urban redevelopment. If the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn does not behave himself I will be tempted to return to my theme of the stonework program.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Oh, don’t!

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As the honourable member does not want me to return to the stonework program - and possibly Madam President does not want me to either - I will continue to talk about the building and construction industry. The Government will also be strongly promoting the practice of environmental management plans to the private construction industry. Briefing sessions will be held around the State to advise building
Page 10130
contractors on the new guidelines. The first briefing session will be held in Newcastle next week with subsequent sessions being staged in Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Bathurst and elsewhere. Proper environmental protection procedures need to become a central part of construction industry operation, not some sort of added extra.

Up until now environmental protection has rested with individual agencies and suppliers to apply their own rules on an ad hoc basis. The Government has a leadership role to play in encouraging all private and public construction operations to address environmental concerns. I would also stress that the wider community has an important part to play in recognising those building contractors who take the lead in protecting the environment. It is an important issue. I draw attention to the construction work under way at the old State Office Block site near the State Library, quite close to Parliament House. Honourable members may have noticed the colourful performance art displays that adorn the hoardings and the side of Charterbridge House next door.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: We are waiting for the important part.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The important part is that I am advised that in the demolition and reconstruction works on that site 98 per cent of the concrete and steel building waste has been recycled for use in the new building and elsewhere and only the bare minimum - 2 per cent of the total - has been disposed elsewhere. That is truly a remarkable achievement and should set a benchmark for other construction contractors. I commend the new guidelines to the House. I invite all honourable members with an interest in environmental issues to contact my department and obtain a copy for themselves.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Did he tell the House on 1 April:

. . . the Government is looking to bring more international call centres to Sydney and more domestic call centres . . . to regional New South Wales.

Similarly, on 8 September did the Minister tell the House:

I am pleased to . . .advise the House that New South Wales is continuing to consolidate its position as the frontrunner in the Asia-Pacific call centre industry.

Is the Treasurer aware that this week the Victorian Treasurer announced that Victoria had won the contract for a call centre for a major New Zealand electricity company? Is the Treasurer aware that this multimillion dollar deal will create 100 new jobs for Victoria? Will the Treasurer advise the House whether he made any attempt to win that call centre for regional New South Wales? Can the Treasurer further advise what he is doing to ensure that New South Wales does not lose call centres of that size and job facilities to other States?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As I have pointed out to the House on a number of occasions, New South Wales not only has 50 per cent of all Australian regional call centres; it has 50 per cent of all call centres in the whole of the Asia-Pacific region. Of the 135 Asia-Pacific call centres New South Wales has 65, Victoria has 30 and the rest are scattered around other cities in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region. The Government is active in encouraging and winning call centres and all sorts of new businesses to New South Wales. New South Wales not only has the great majority of call centres of regional headquarters but also has the lowest unemployment rate in Australia.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading a question without notice. During the recent meeting of Attorneys- General did the Attorney General on behalf of New South Wales support the sale and hire of current X-rated videos as a result of heavy lobbying by the X-rated, hard-core pornography industry which is closely related to the United States of America based mafia? Did a previous Australian Labor Party Government introduce the original prohibition on X-rated videos in the public interest and in accordance with decent moral and family values?

Is the change from X-rated to NVE-rated a deceptive device to legalise the current X-rated videos in New South Wales? Will the Minister assure this House that the Government will continue to prohibit both X-rated and de facto X-rated, NVE-videos, which really should be classified NVP as they seek to dehumanise women by depicting women being sexually exploited and sodomised by one man and sometimes two men at once, as well as depicting sexually explicit same-sex perversions?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: No, it is not the case that at the meeting referred to by the honourable member I supported the sale and hire of X-rated videos. On the contrary, I made it clear that the
Page 10131
status quo would be preserved in New South Wales. At that meeting the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Mr Williams, proposed the new censorship category of non-violent erotica [NVE]. A new category that actually circumscribed some of the matters that can be shown in the current X-rated classification was generally supported by the Attorneys.

Undoubtedly it is a matter for respective governments to finalise their position. The Federal Attorney-General proposed a rather long-term project. It was supported by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General but it does not have implications for State views that may be determined from time to time about the ban on the sale and commercial hiring of that type of video. The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory supported, as they had for many years, the sale and hire of X-rated videos. No doubt they will continue to do so in respect of non-violent erotica. I make it clear to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, lest there by any ambiguity, that New South Wales did not support any change to that position.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I ask the Attorney General, Minster for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading a question without notice. Will he inform the House about the use of mediation to solve home building disputes?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Department of Fair Trading provides a range of services to assist consumers and traders to resolve disputes, from formal intervention by departmental staff to formal hearings by the Consumer Claims Tribunal, the Building Disputes Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. Honourable members will be aware that emotions often run high in home building disputes. The approach by the department is to facilitate the early resolution of disputes with maximum satisfaction for consumers and at a minimal cost for all parties, including the taxpayer.

Although consumers may have insurance coverage for home building work and may also make claims to the Building Disputes Tribunal, many consumers and contractors would prefer to resolve matters in a more conciliatory manner without resort to formal mechanisms. However, at times they may need assistance to do this. Since 1995 the Department of Fair Trading has provided a successful mediation service in home building disputes. This is a voluntary service which uses independent mediators and is provided at no cost to the parties. The Department of Fair Trading home building mediation service has now handled several thousand complaints. That shows that the service is considered by parties on both sides to be an appropriate way to deal with consumer problems. Indeed, a fair trading survey last year showed that the success rate for mediation in home building matters was 89 per cent, which is a credit to everyone involved in the service.

I will ignore the interjections from the Opposition benches which seem to be derogatory about the public servants implementing this program. The statistics bear out that they are doing an excellent job. A success rate of 89 per cent is hard to argue against. Mediation is a quick, cheap and effective method of resolving disputes. As the option is voluntary, the parties can proceed confident in the knowledge that they are not closing off other options. They can use this method of voluntary mediation or exercise their legal rights. When the mediation stream yields 89 per cent successful resolutions that is an objective fact that is worth taking into account, as distinct from the chatter emanating from honourable members opposite, who may not be familiar with the objective facts.

Mediation is well recognised as a valuable process that takes advantage of the skills and experience of independent specialists. The Department of Fair Trading accesses mediators from a panel that provides services across New South Wales. However, resolution of disputes remains in the hands of the parties, and they are responsible for the ultimate outcomes. In most cases consumers and traders prefer an option that prevents escalation of the problem, as there are often ongoing relationships that require a level of goodwill to be maintained in any later negotiations. Mediation can offer a win-win result, or at the very least can minimise damage to a relationship by offering the opportunity to negotiate an outcome with which all parties can live. The parties have no obligation to commit to an outcome that does not meet their needs.

A Department of Fair Trading survey carried out in 1997 found that the average cost of handling a matter by mediation was less than $360, and that includes the fees paid to mediators, the salaries of case managers, venue hire where applicable, and general day-to-day costs such as phone calls, postage and stationery. It is easy to see the benefits to the community from this type of affordable complaint resolution procedure. The department now also offers mediation services for disputes notified under strata schemes legislation and disputes in sensitive areas such as retirement villages.

Page 10132

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that a truck driver harassed a doctor in Jerilderie for notifying the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] of the driver’s unsuitability to retain a driver’s licence? Is the Minister aware also that the harassment included death threats and required the doctor to leave town? What protection is being offered to doctors who are being harassed for notifying the RTA of a patient’s unsuitability to drive a vehicle, though they are forced to do so by the Act?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Transport will be interested in the honourable member’s excellent question. Whilst this is a serious issue, as a local member of Parliament in the days when I was a member of the lower House I experienced harassment from elderly people in my electorate, some of them more than 85 years of age, who stood the risk of not having their licences renewed. I was harassed also by their grandchildren over the same issue, but from a different aspect. Often elderly persons of 89, 90 or more would seek my support to have a licence renewed.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They used the proper approach. You were not blamed directly.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I agree. The honourable member has raised a serious matter. I am now simply reminiscing. One could not fail to be impressed by the case the elderly people put. The next day the wife, child or grandchild would plead the opposite case. That reminded me of the dilemma faced by Michael Maher when he lobbied the then Minister for Transport to have a bus stop moved from one corner to another corner. After six months the Minister finally relented and had the bus stop moved. Six months later Mr Maher began to make similar representations to the Minister, who said that he had already acted. Mr Maher told the Minister that he wanted the bus stop moved back to its original position. He had been lobbied by people with opposing views on the same issue. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has raised an important question and I shall refer it to the Minister.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading in his own capacity and representing the Minister for Women and the Minister for Education. What progress has the Tradeswomen on the Move program made under the Labor Government? Has the program, which was used to give young women at high school an opportunity to develop role models amongst women who were undertaking a trade, been effectively axed by the Government? In view of the low level of women in apprenticeships, how can the Minister justify this action?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not believe that this program comes within my portfolio. I will make inquiries and report the answer to the House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice. Have the police stations at Lismore, Bangalow, Byron Bay and other towns received numerous complaints from residents throughout the region about the illegal night-time shooting of flying foxes, squirrel gliders, possums and other wildlife by fruit growers? Have residents complained also about the unbearable noise from all-night shooting? What action has been taken by police to apprehend those who are shooting illegally and to let orchardists know that shooting protected wildlife is illegal? What action has been taken by the police to reduce the noise problem?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will inquire of the Minister for Police about the matter to which the Hon. R. S. L. Jones referred.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Public Works and Services. What emergency assistance was offered by the staff of the Department of Public Works and Services in the aftermath of the Wollongong storm disaster?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I commend the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann for her obvious interest in the affairs of the Illawarra. Honourable members would be aware of the disastrous flood and landslip damage affecting the Wollongong area earlier this year. All government departments played an important role in restoring services and providing basic support following the disaster, which the Premier and others have acknowledged. However, I place on the public record a recognition of the efforts of the staff of the Department of Public Works and Services [DPWS] south coast office, who were required to provide immediate emergency
Page 10133
assistance and performed their duties with the utmost efficiency and sensitivity.

The department’s emergency relief effort in Wollongong was led by South Coast Regional Superintendent Mr John Hetherington, who worked with departmental officers, Eric Raymond and John Franklin, in providing key engineering advice and setting up the central communications centre to co-ordinate rescue service activities. At the height of the appalling weather conditions John Franklin worked more than 24 hours without a break to ensure that emergency engineering works were conducted without delay. The emergency management team was also ably assisted by Brian Gillett as the Public Works and Services natural disaster relief co-ordinator. Following abatement of the storm the department made courtesy calls to schools and other clients to offer assistance and stores where appropriate.

Much to the disappointment of local schoolchildren, two DPWS officials from Q Stores contacted all local schools and replaced stocks damaged by flooding, allowing schools to reopen almost immediately after the storm. South coast staff including Sharon Jones, Joanne Jouannet, Rosalie Oliver and Chris Dohnt also provided assistance either through the disaster recovery centre or by assisting clients to repair and replace damaged assets. Emergency geotechnical advice was also provided by engineers Michael Neville and Moshen Rahimi to stabilise creek banks and prevent further flooding. The hard work and dedication of those officers deserves the special recognition of this House, and I commend their efforts to all members in the wake of this terrible storm event.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice. Given that it is now more than three weeks since I asked the Minister if the cryptosporidium species found in Sydney’s water supply had been genotyped and accurately identified as either harmful or not harmful to human health, can the Minister now tell the House which species they are? Does the Minister still not know? Can the Minister inform the House as to where testing for cryptosporidium species has been carried out? Does the Minister not understand the significance of this matter in deciding whether the recent water scare was justified or a false alarm? Does the Minister remember that he said he was delighted to take my question to the Minister for Health? When will honourable members have an answer?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am always delighted to receive a question from the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans and I am equally delighted to convey questions to my colleague the Minister for Health, as I have on this occasion. I recall that the question the member asked was of a highly technical nature and no doubt some research has been occasioned in order to respond to the scientific concepts contained in it. However, now that the honourable member has expressed some impatience regarding the delay I will ask the Minister to convey his response to me for the benefit of the member as soon as he conveniently can.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Chief Industrial Magistrate, Mr George Miller, was recently reported to have warned employers who do not follow directions from WorkCover New South Wales on workplace safety. Could the Minister please tell the House of the circumstances that necessitated that warning?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Mr Miller has occupied the office of Chief Industrial Magistrate for many years and is an extremely experienced judicial officer, especially in occupational health and safety matters. Last week he heard a case involving the builder of a number of shops and residential townhouses in Crown Street, Wollongong, in 1997. WorkCover prosecuted Milo Constructions Pty Ltd and its director under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after the director allegedly failed to comply with a number of notices issued by WorkCover inspectors. As many as 10 improvement notices and nine prohibition notices were served on the Crown Street site over four visits by three inspectors in April and May 1997. As well, the director received two infringement notices, each carrying a $550 fine.

In April the inspectors found that there were no handrails on stairways, no fencing to secure the site after hours and an array of building debris strewn around the site creating trip hazards at access points. The inspectors also noticed that electrical leads used on site were plugged into a submains board that was not located on site, but at other premises nearby, namely a preschool. As well, electrical leads owned by a contractor bricklayers were defective and lacking inspection tags, and others were faulty. While an inspector was on site a worker was seen on an aluminium mobile scaffold owned by Milo Constructions which had no handrails or toe board and no internal access ladder.

Page 10134

In May when two inspectors returned to follow up on the notices issued they found electrical leads lying about the ground and hung over sharp edges of brickwork and the lead from the switchboard buried by broken roof tiles. They also noticed a particularly haphazard arrangement for the supply of power for the tilers in unit seven at the site: a four-in-one socket box from the switchboard hanging on a fence, connected to an extension lead run along the ground to another four-in-one box followed by another extension lead run along the ground then up through a second-storey window to a portable electrical tool. As would be evident to even the most casual observer, this run of leads and boxes is not an acceptable work practice.

An inspector also found the mobile scaffold did not comply with the measures to be taken in the notice he had served and that only one of the seven units under construction had a form of handrail. The WorkCover notices identified a number of recurring safety concerns such as electrical practices, handrails and scaffolding; all of which present serious risks to persons on site. Following this inspection a further four prohibition notices were issued. These were followed up and found to have been complied with, largely due to the fact that the construction work was nearing completion. On hearing this case the Chief Industrial Magistrate, Mr Miller, pronounced the work site as substandard and said there must be strict compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act at construction sites. Mr Miller convicted and fined Milo Constructions $12,500 and the company director $2,000 for breaches of the Act.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Minister for Public Works and Services.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You’re game.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am game and I am hopeful the Minister can help me.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: I will give you a comprehensive answer.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I hope the answer is not only comprehensive but also helpful.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: It will be that as well.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Excellent. Is the Minister aware that a Cooma-based company, Monaro Welding Pty Ltd, has completed the fabrication of various steel structures as a subcontractor to Haskins Contractors, the prime contractors for the Department of Public Works and Services for the improvement works to Goulburn racecourse, but neither has been paid? Is the Minister further aware that the department has stated that the work is not considered completed until the structures are in place, something which is not the responsibility of Monaro Welding or Haskins Contractors, nor is it possible because there have been three months of rain, causing delays? Will the Minister look into this matter and please endeavour to allow both companies to be paid? As the Minister would be aware it is very important for small companies to be paid money owed by the Government.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the honourable member for his question. As a matter of courtesy to the Hon. D. J. Gay, I indicate that earlier in question time, while he was absent from the House, I made some comments in which he would be interested regarding the practice of Ministers wearing hard hats on construction sites. The honourable member might read Hansard to see what I said.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Will Michael Knight be wearing hard hats?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Suffice it to say that I had a conversation with the Hon. Michael Knight last evening in which he assured me that as a matter of practice he wears a hard hat on construction sites, as indeed I do. I turn to the question asked by the Hon. D. J. Gay regarding the security of payment issue. I am not familiar with the details of this matter, given the extensive interests of my department across the State in building schools, hospitals and all sorts of other infrastructure. It is a huge operation. The department and the Government are both concerned about the security of payment issue, which affects several industries, but it is often worse in the construction industry.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The question related to your department and no other in this instance.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The usual problem is that subcontractors are not paid by the head contractor. The Government has taken a number of initiatives to deal with that problem. For example, in October 1996 the Government released a green paper on security of payment. That was integrated into the white paper that my colleague the Attorney General and I launched at Homebush Bay on 20 July this year. We have required contractors to place into trust accounts any cash security or retention money that they hold on behalf of
Page 10135
subcontractors. We have amended the Oaths Act to increase the penalties for making false statutory declarations about payments made to contractors. The Attorney General will be most familiar with the fact that we amended the Contractors Debts Act to update and strengthen its provisions.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: But will you do anything about the problem I raised?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes. Already we have done a number of things about security of payment. Just to put the Hon. D. J. Gay out of his misery: yes, I will look into the matter. I am happy to do that. The Hon. E. M. Obeid chaired a parliamentary inquiry into this very issue, and the Government is considering that committee’s recommendations. The Hon. D. J. Gay asked me the question in a courteous fashion, and I intend to give him a courteous answer as soon as I have had the opportunity to investigate the detail of the circumstances.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask a question of the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier. In light of the letter to me dated 16 March 1995 signed by Bob Carr which states, "We will end export woodchipping by the year 2000 or earlier if regional circumstances permit", will the Carr Government keep this commitment, or will it further entrench this environmentally destructive, wasteful industry, which was referred to as follows by the former Federal Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, according to the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 September 1989:

Woodchipping was "a bastard of an industry" which contributed little to the economy . . . He said it was "disgraceful" that Australia was content with low value-added industries such as woodchipping without wanting to develop more advanced industries.

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

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What is the answer? There was no answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If the member had been chatting less and paying more attention he would have heard the answer.

The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: I direct a question without notice to the Treasurer. What has the Treasurer done to help old golfers?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I must admit to the House that until recently I had done very little to help old golfers. But, a short time ago I happened to be talking to an old golfer in the Cronulla area by the name of Ben Lee, a well-known citizen and identity in Cronulla, a returned serviceman, and a longstanding member of the Cronulla Golf Club. Mr Lee informed me that a certain member of the Cronulla Golf Club was challenging in the Equal Opportunity Tribunal the half-fee concessions to which members of the Cronulla Golf Club become entitled upon reaching the age of 65 years and having been a member for 20 years. I said to Mr Lee, "I can’t believe that the Equal Opportunity Tribunal would uphold such a challenge."

Mr Lee informed me that the challenge had been mounted by a member of the golf club, a leading luminary in the Liberal Party by the name of Mr John Cassidy, who I am sure is known to some honourable members opposite. I assured Mr Lee that I was confident that the challenge would not be upheld by the tribunal. To my surprise I read in the Australian Financial Review on Saturday a little item reporting that the tribunal had upheld the challenge. The result would seem to be that senior members of the Cronulla Golf Club - indeed senior members of all golf clubs, bowling clubs, tennis clubs as well as all sorts of other clubs around New South Wales - would be deprived of that benefit.

Having had the benefit of the advice of Mr Ben Lee, I immediately contacted the Premier and said, "Premier, I want to draw your attention to an article in the Australian Financial Review of today’s date." He said, "Just wait till I finish my muesli." I said, "You should not be eating that rubbish. Have a look at the Fin Review immediately." He did, and said, "I can’t believe that either." I said, "Premier, you have got to do something about this discrimination problem." He said, "I am absolutely determined that we will do something about it."

Only yesterday the Premier announced that the Government would introduce regulations, to be drafted by our esteemed and learned colleague the Attorney General, to overcome that deprivation of the rights of senior citizens. I am sure that the regulation will henceforth be known by all golfers throughout New South Wales as the Ben Lee regulation. I congratulate Mr Ben Lee on raising the matter with the Government. This goes to show that any citizen of this State who has a genuine grievance knows that this is a Government that will act upon it and put it right.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development, representing the
Page 10136
Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs. Is the Government’s decision that police administrators based in the Sydney CBD should manage, control and implement policy regarding Newcastle’s parking infringement system a laughable contradiction of the its announced initiatives of encouraging people to move to and work in regional New South Wales centres? How can the Government encourage professionals and small business operators to relocate to regional centres when it cannot trust locally based administrators to manage Newcastle’s parking infringement system? If you do not know, perhaps you could ask your mate Dick Face.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That was a silly thing to say. The Hon. J. H. Jobling really is a blowhard on occasions; he should know better. Only recently the Government announced that it would establish centralised police call centres, to be known as PALs, in two regional areas: the central coast and Lithgow.

If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 14 October the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked me a question about the Gerringong and Gerroa sewage treatment plant. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has provided the following response:

On 24 September CGE Australia was announced as the preferred tenderer for the Gerringong Gerroa regional sewerage scheme. CGE Australia proposes to construct a two-way pipeline to the existing sewage treatment plant - STP - at Bombo. In dry weather the scheme will take away treated water from Bombo to irrigate local pastures in Rose Valley. In wet weather, when local pastures are waterlogged, the pipeline will take treated water back to Bombo for release through the existing outfall.

It is important to note that the announcement concerning Rose Valley is a proposal only. An extensive consultation process is about to commence that will involve consideration of various options and alternative sites. This process will be an integral part of the development of the environmental impact statement or EIS. The Rose Valley proposal and alternative options will be subject to a detailed EIS, under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 15 October the Hon. Franca Arena asked me a question relating to the public housing waiting list. The Minister for Housing has provided the following response:

The major reason for the waiting list for public housing in New South Wales is the failure of the Commonwealth Government to raise rent assistance to a level capable of meeting the needs of low-income households. There are many families on the waiting list whose only obstacle is an inability to find suitable housing at an affordable cost. The Minister for Housing is continuing to negotiate with the Commonwealth to ensure that reforms to housing assistance programs include subsidies which can be paid at a level which will address rental affordability.

Despite the Commonwealth’s shortcomings, the New South Wales Government has more than demonstrated its preparedness to meet its responsibilities in addressing housing needs. This Government has introduced a range of initiatives focusing on improved client service models and strategic asset management. As a result of these initiatives, growth in the public housing waiting list has been slower in the last three years than under the previous State Government.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 15 October the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked me a question relating to inland wetlands protection. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has provided the following response:

State environmental planning policy 14 - SEPP 14 - protects coastal wetlands and applies to all those local government areas with direct frontage to the Pacific Ocean. Wetlands in the greater Sydney metropolitan area are protected by other mechanisms such as the Hawkesbury-Nepean Sydney regional environment plan 20 - SREP 20. The policy does not apply to inland wetlands. As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones points out in his question, inland wetlands are subject to a different set of pressures than coastal wetlands. These pressures include salinity, catchment pressures and restricted water flows. They also differ from coastal wetlands in that many tend to be ephemeral, their exact boundaries are difficult to define, depending very much on the nature and extent of rainfall and flooding events, and many are subject to cropping and grazing activities when dry. These activities do not require consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Given these characteristics, a SEPP 14-type approach is not considered appropriate to the management of inland wetlands.

Inland wetlands are instead protected by a number of mechanisms, including the recent water regulation reforms and the New South Wales wetlands management policy. In some areas these are supplemented by regional approaches. For example, in the Murray Regional Environmental Plan 2 - Riverine Lands, wetlands along the riverine corridor are identified and the impacts of development are required to be specifically considered by councils when determining development applications. The New South Wales wetlands management policy is also instrumental in guiding the management of inland wetlands. It is administered by the Department of Land and Water Conservation and identifies nine principles fundamental to the ecologically sustainable use, management and conservation of all wetlands in New South Wales for the benefit of present and future generations. Implementation of the management policy is aided by the Wetland Action Group, a subcommittee of the State Catchment Management Co-ordinating Committee.

Page 10137

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 27 October the Hon. D. J. Gay asked me a question about septic tank registration and inspection. The Minister for Local Government has provided the following answer:

1. As the honourable member will be aware, the Local Government (Approvals) Amendment (Sewage Management) Regulation 1998 was introduced at the request of the Shires Association of New South Wales. Specifically, the ability to charge an inspection fee was the subject of a resolution of the association’s 1997 annual conference. In other words, the Government simply implemented a policy that the shires of New South Wales requested. I also note that, when given the opportunity to bring the regulation before Parliament for debate via a disallowance motion, the Opposition failed to act.

2. This is fundamentally an issue of public health and environment protection. There was clear evidence that local councils were not effectively dealing with the impacts of on-site waste water systems, an issue already their responsibility. In March 1998 the Government’s new regulations gave councils clearer powers to monitor septic systems and to manage the cumulative impact of sewage pollution. Councils are addressing this challenge with practical supervision strategies which will protect public health and the environment, and help householders keep their septic systems working well. Councils are able to recover the reasonable costs of registration and inspection and it is appropriate that ratepayers are advised of this.

3. The regulations include transitional provisions covering the operation of existing septic systems through to 30 June 1999. By that date all septic systems must be registered with the council. The transitional period was extended to 30 June 1999 to require councils to carry out further consultation with landowners and to develop appropriate risk-based sewage management strategies before finally enforcing the new requirements. Landowners must lodge a sewage management application with their council before 30 June 1999 but they can wait until the last day if they wish. Many councils are sensibly using the mail out of quarterly accounts to encourage landowners to get their applications in early.

4. A period of extension was requested by the honourable member in a letter to me dated 8 July 1998 in which he offered bipartisan support. Not only has the honourable member failed to keep his word on the matter of bipartisan support, he has now promised to repeal the entire regulation and thus expose landowners to potentially unhealthy and life-threatening conditions. I should also add that the Local Government and Shires Associations also requested the Government to delay implementation of the regulation to allow for more effective implementation.

5. The new regulations establish environment and health protection standards for all small sewage management systems but the supervision arrangements are up to councils to determine. The regulations do not require councils to inspect every existing septic system but some field audits may be necessary when the council considers there is a risk of water pollution, environmental damage or the transmission of disease.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 14 October the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked me a question concerning knife search records. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

I am advised by the Deputy Commissioner, Operations, that police have been directed to record the results of all such searches on the computerised operational policing system - COPS - whether an implement is found or not. I am advised by the Deputy Commissioner, Operations, that information on the number of searches and the results of those searches is being provided to the Ombudsman, and that the Police Service is working closely with the Ombudsman’s office to ensure that all appropriate information is recorded and provided to the Ombudsman.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 10 November the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked me a question about Canterbury Residents Against Night Racing. The Minister for Local Government has provided the following answer:

Yes, the department and I are aware of Canterbury Residents Against Night Racing and its representative Mr Tzavellas. Both the department and I have received letters from Mr Tzavellas calling for a full judicial inquiry into Canterbury City Council. As I have informed him and other honourable members, who during the last few days have asked a number of question relating to this matter, my advice from the department is that no evidence was found to justify a formal investigation of the matter, much less a judicial review.

Furthermore, I have been informed that Mr Tzavellas advised an officer of the department on several occasions between June 1998 and August 1998 that the group he represents would take legal action pursuant to section 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. If the group considers it has the necessary evidence to undertake such action, it may be able to commence proceedings for judicial review. Any person may commence proceedings for judicial review, provided that, in the absence of a statutory right of standing, he or she is able to establish a special interest.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 14 October the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question about Department of Community Services client access. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women has provided the following response:

1. Yes.

2. I am advised that the action taken was in accordance with the provisions of the Public Sector Management Act.

Page 10138

3. There were no known prior incidents that should have concerned the department regarding the capacity of the staff member to adequately care for people with a disability.

4. The circumstances of this case are being investigated by police, and it would be inappropriate for me to make further comment at this stage.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 15 October the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question about Department of Community Services respite services. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women has provided the following answer:

1. Beds at Maunder Avenue Respite Service have been unavailable since 8 September 1998. However, some families have been able to access a respite service in the Area which is auspiced by Sydney City Mission.

2. and 3. I am advised by the department that families are being assisted to access other available respite services.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 9 September the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question about the Ageing and Disability Department performance agreement. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women has provided the following response:

1. This agreement could not take effect until all financial and operational arrangements between the two departments were in place. However, the Department of Community Services has been reporting annually to the Ageing and Disability Department on those matters. This is consistent with a funder-provider arrangement.

2. and 3. An agreement has been prepared that defines the nature of the relationship between the two departments and the reporting requirements. It will shortly be signed by the directors-general of the departments.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 21 October the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question about women in senior public sector positions. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women has provided the following response:

1. The ALP pre-election commitment to increase women’s participation is clear. I quote from page 1 of the March 1995 Labor’s Policy for Women, which states that the Labor Government will properly utilise the pool of well-qualified women in the community by ensuring that, wherever possible, at least 50 per cent of new appointments to government boards, councils and committees are women.

2. The policy is straightforward. There is no room for confusion. There is no broken promise.

Questions without notice concluded.

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

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

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

Committee reports orders of the day Nos 1 to 5 postponed on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen on behalf of the Hon. B. H. Vaughan, the Hon. A. B. Kelly and the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.05 p.m.]: In what I thought was an extraordinary contribution to the debate, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said that one important principle is one person, one vote and that the Committee should not consider an amendment that would give partners in firms the right to vote in city of Sydney elections. In other words, the Committee should not do anything to
Page 10139
ensure that the city of Sydney is truly democratic in terms of those who contribute to the city. The whole basis of local government elections in New South Wales is that not only residents but also property owners have a right to vote.

As I reside in Kuring-gai I am entitled to vote in that local council area, and as I own property in North Sydney I am entitled to vote in that council area as well. In fact, throughout New South Wales, people who own property in a council area may register to vote as property owners in that area. I believe that partnerships in a firm in the city of Sydney are a form of property and have as much value as a residential property. So the argument of the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is flawed on that point.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It is not the same as State and Federal elections.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile rightly says that local council elections are not the same as State and Federal elections. It is recognised that property counts in terms of voting in local government elections; property is the basis on which people may vote in local government elections. I contend that a partnership in a firm, which is not cheap - people in partnerships pay thousands of dollars - entitles a person to vote as he or she contributes to the rates of the city. Effectively, the Opposition believes that a partnership is property and, therefore, a partner is entitled to vote. I simply make it clear that the whole basis of the honourable member’s argument of one person, one vote is flawed, especially in relation to city of Sydney elections.

Only a small number of people reside in the city of Sydney, and the majority of the rate base is drawn from the business component; 97 per cent of rates are drawn from businesses in the city. Every time the Parliament seeks to deny people their fundamental right to vote in council elections, although they have equity in the city, it sets back the course of democracy. The principle of one person, one vote is fine. However, in the context of local government in New South Wales, people who own property in a dozen council areas - the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti made this point earlier - can vote in each of those council areas.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones votes three times.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: No doubt the Hon. R. S. L. Jones votes three times. I vote twice. I would be surprised if honourable members who buy property in the city in which to live during sessions of the Parliament, especially those from country areas, did not exercise the right to vote in the city of Sydney. In terms of the business vote, property is not only defined as a unit or residence; equity is determined in another way. However, people who live in the city have a fundamental right to vote.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.08 p.m.]: Some crossbenchers crossed the floor of the Chamber to vote with the Government without putting on the record their reasons for doing so. I applaud the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho for at least putting on the record her reasons for doing so. One reason she gave - the Minister gave the same reason - was that Justice Fisher had recommended it. In part they are correct. An important second part of his recommendation has been omitted. Justice Fisher recommended the end of the partnership vote only if the Government extended the boundaries.

The Government has been haphazard in this process. It chose to accept some recommendations and to reject others. Given his early work and the great praise bestowed on him by the Hon. B. H. Vaughan in relation to the establishment of Young Labor, I am sure Justice Fisher would be disappointed that the Labor Party selected only parts of his report that suited its purpose. It is clear from the report that Justice Fisher intended that partnerships lose their votes only if the boundaries were extended. The boundaries have not been extended. As the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and other honourable members have said, there should be one vote, one value. Partnerships do not have that vote.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.10 p.m.]: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe referred to other council areas. I do not believe that other councils have multiple voting to the same extent as the city council. Other businesses have only one vote. I certainly support commercial businesses having a vote because they have a vested interest. I am not a legal expert, but if one person is one legal person, that is one vote.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.11 p.m.]: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho sought to compare the city of Sydney with other councils in New South Wales. In his 1987-88 report Judge Goran made the clear distinction, because of the rate base, between the city of Sydney and all other local government areas. No other council area in New South Wales draws 97 per cent of its base rate from the business vote. In recent years more residents have moved into the city of Sydney. I support the increased number of residential buildings in the city, because it is a major central business district, but only a tiny population resides within the area.

Page 10140

Are we seriously saying that the few thousand residents in the city council area should determine the structure of this council? Or are we saying that we should examine some means by which we can extend the vote so that it reflects those who have an equity in the council area? The city of Sydney is different to other local council areas. It is the significant CBD of Australia. Certainly it is the CBD of New South Wales, but on the basis of its council boundaries it is small, and it has a small number of residents. That small number of base voters would not reflect the needs and interests of the whole city.

The amendment is an attempt to broaden that base vote to reflect the interests of those who truly have an equity in the city. My husband is a partner in a city practice and I know the amount of money he has invested in that partnership. I believe he has a right to have a voice in deciding the form of the council. He is not able to get to his car park for lengthy periods of time because of work being undertaken in the city. As a partner he is responsible for paying rates, and I believe he has a right to vote. The right to vote in council elections has been reduced basically to one vote for one person in a partnership. Unlike the Labor caucus, partners do not meet to decide the vote. Residents have a right to form their own opinions; they do not ask the opinions of others.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Now I’ll tell you the story of Goldilocks.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: If the Hon. J. R. Johnson thinks that is relevant to the debate, he can seek the call. The city of Sydney is different to other local government areas, and it is nonsense for the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho to seek to compare the city of Sydney with all other local government areas in New South Wales.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.15 p.m.]: I emphasise the point that Darwin, Brisbane and Hobart are not local councils, and that corporations in those cities do not have a vote at all. Corporations in Melbourne and Perth have two votes, but a compromise has been made in that respect through an earlier amendment. Corporations should have a vote because they have an interest in the city. I have made the compromise on that point, and I believe I have made my case.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.16 p.m.]: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said that corporations are an individual corporate body and therefore should get one vote, but partnerships are not individual corporations, although each partner is individually liable, they are different. Partnerships are not single corporations. Therefore, they should have a vote even though the Committee has voted that corporations should have two votes. Partnerships should have individual votes based on the same argument the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho presents in support of corporations.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Should they pay individual tax?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I assure the Hon. J. R. Johnson that partnerships pay separate income tax. I am in partnership with my wife and that is exactly what happens. However, that does not change the legal entity. The city has some 15,000 residents and only 6,000 are on the electoral roll. That presents a serious problem for the council and its management.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: They are estate owners. They do not have to register.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am talking about residents. Of the 15,000 residents of the city of Sydney council, only 6,000 are on the electoral roll. Honourable members opposite would have me believe that this council is acting properly in pursuing the enrolling of those entitled to vote, to make sure they are able to exhibit -

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: You are on the wrong point.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am not on the wrong point.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [5.18 p.m.]: This debate has largely ignored the cogent and persuasive reasoning in Justice Fisher’s report. He pointed out the discrepancy between a body corporate and its voting right in a municipal election and that of a partnership. If a corporation owns many strata title floors of a large city building, all of its directors do not get a vote. Certainly all shareholders of the corporation do not get a vote. Why should each of the partners in a non-incorporated partnership have a vote?

Justice Fisher pointed out that there is an equation of unincorporated partnerships with the voting rights of a corporation in all States except New South Wales; and then in New South Wales only with respect to the city of Sydney. This seems to be anomalous. No legal principle says that all members of an accounting firm or a legal firm should have individual votes when a body corporate that might occupy vast amounts of central business district property has one vote. The amendment is inappropriate and the Government’s proposal is entirely defensible.

Page 10141

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.20 p.m.]: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho mentioned the city of Brisbane. She would be aware that the Brisbane City Council comprises probably the largest council area in Australia. It encompasses the entire city limits of Brisbane. Therefore, it is quite different from the succinct central business district council that the council of the city of Sydney is. In other words, the number of voters in the city of Brisbane would number in the hundreds of thousands. It should not be compared with the city of Sydney which is very tiny and has barely 15,000 residents entitled to vote. It is quite impossible to compare that with the Brisbane City Council, which is a full-time council. The city fathers in Brisbane get paid the same as members of Parliament.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: I was comparing city with city. We cannot compare the council of the city of Sydney with other councils in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: We are not trying to. We are trying to compare it with other central business district councils. Melbourne’s council is much the same as Sydney, but it is quite different from Brisbane.

Question - That the amendment of the Legislative Assembly's amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Willis
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Jobling
Rev. Nile Mr Moppett

Mrs Arena Mr Obeid
Dr Burgmann Mr Primrose
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Cohen Mr Shaw
Mr Corbett Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Kelly Mrs Isaksen
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson

Dr Goldsmith Mr Dyer

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the Legislative Assembly's amendment negatived.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.28 p.m.]: The amendment I am about to move will be the first I will win. This is the amendment Justice Fisher recommended in his report. I know members of the crossbench will support the amendment, because they have supported Justice Fisher all the way so far. If those honourable members are not going to support me I would like them to put their reasons on the record. By leave, I move amendments Nos 4 and 8 in globo:

That the Legislative Assembly's proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

No. 4. Omit proposed schedule 2[10], relating to the insertion of proposed section 18A into the principal Act. Insert instead:

[10] Section 18A

Insert after section 18:

18A Electoral Commissioner to prepare all electoral rolls

(1) For the purposes of any election for the City of Sydney:

(a) the Electoral Commissioner (and not the general manager of the City of Sydney) is to prepare the non-residential roll and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees, and

(b) persons entitled to be enrolled are to be included on any such roll whether or not they have applied to be so included, and

(c) any such roll does not lapse after any election in which it is used, despite anything to the contrary in Division 2 of Part 6 of Chapter 10 of the Principal Act.

(2) References in that Division to the general manager are to be read as references to the Electoral Commissioner.

(3) For the purposes of preparing any such roll, the Electoral Commissioner is to comply with the following requirements:

(a) as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, the Electoral Commissioner is to make

Page 10142
comprehensive inquiries to determine the persons entitled to be enrolled and place those persons’ names on the relevant roll,

(b) at least 3 months before the closing date for an ordinary election the Electoral Commissioner must send a letter to all the persons on each such roll informing them that they are electors for elections for the City of Sydney,

(c) in the case of electors that are corporations, the secretary of the corporation is to be enrolled as the nominee of the corporation in accordance with section 16 (2) until another person is duly nominated by the corporation,

(d) the letter referred to in paragraph (b) is to inform any such corporation that it may nominate a person other than the secretary to vote at the election.

(4) The costs of the Electoral Commissioner with respect to the preparation of rolls under this section are to be met by the Council of the City of Sydney and are recoverable from the Council as a debt owed to the Electoral Commissioner as the holder of that office. Any dispute as to the amount of those costs is to be determined by the Electoral Commissioner.

(5) In this section, closing date for an election has the same meaning as it has for an election under the Principal Act.

No. 8. Omit proposed schedule 2[17], relating to the insertion of part 9 into schedule 3 to the principal Act.

Amendment No. 4 omits proposed schedule 2[10], which inserts a new section 18A. The Opposition proposes the insertion of an alternative new section 18A. The Government’s version of new section 18A proposes that the general manager of the city of Sydney sort out enrolment on the non-residential roll. Justice Fisher at page 6 of his report recommended that the Electoral Commissioner have the function of preparing the non-residential roll. At page 139 of the report it is stated that the lord mayor indicated in discussions that he would have no objection to the maintenance of the roll being transferred to the Electoral Commissioner. The recommendation therefore involves two important people, Justice Fisher and Frank Sartor. Justice Fisher quoted Frank Sartor, so those friends of Frank in the Chamber, and I suspect that there are a few of them -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: And some friends of Frank and Kathryn.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The honourable member has stated for the record that he is a friend of both Frank and Kathryn, but so far he has voted only for Frank.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: No, I haven’t.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Yes, the honourable member has, and he has not had the guts to say why he is not supporting Opposition amendments. Is the honourable member going to demonstrate some guts and some decent voting? As I have said, Justice Fisher’s report states that the lord mayor indicated in discussions that he would have no objection to the maintenance of the roll being transferred to the Electoral Commissioner. I wonder what the Government has to hide.

Why has the Government chosen not to follow Justice Fisher’s recommendations and the agreement of Frank Sartor as reported by Justice Fisher? It is Justice Fisher who reported that agreement, not me. Why is the Government not listening to Frank, or did Frank put a different story to the Government than he put to Justice Fisher? That would not be right, surely. After all, he wants maintenance of the roll to be transferred to the Electoral Commissioner.

For Justice Fisher, the general manager option was only an alternative; his prime recommendation was that the roll go to the Electoral Commissioner. If crossbench members are interested in following the recommendations of Justice Fisher then they should do so. Opposition members agree with Justice Fisher. Opposition members want the new section 18A to provide that the Electoral Commissioner prepare all electoral rolls, in order to ensure a more democratic process under which all voters are handled equally. The Electoral Commissioner would handle the entire voting process in a professional manner.

Next year the Electoral Commissioner would make comprehensive inquiries to determine who was on the roll. At least three months before the closing date for the election the Electoral Commissioner would send a letter to all those persons confirming them as electors. It was proposed that the secretary of a corporation be enrolled unless someone else was nominated by the corporation, and that the corporation would be told that someone other than the secretary could be nominated.

As the previous Opposition amendment was not accepted, that will not now happen. Roll preparation costs of the Electoral Commissioner are to be borne by Sydney City Council, and any dispute will be determined by the Electoral
Page 10143
Commissioner. The Government wants the general manager to write instructing those non-residents who were lucky enough to enrol within the three weeks - given that this sneaky Government gave them such a mingy period, there are not many who did enrol - to re-enrol.

[Interruption]

The Government is sneaky, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones knows how sneaky the Government is. I recall him telling me privately in the corridor the other day that he thought that the Government was a sneaky, deceptive government.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I never said that.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones verballed Nick Greiner from a conversation at dinner the other day. I am able to tell the people of this State what the honourable member said privately to me, given that he recounts other people’s private conversations.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Point of order: The Hon. D. J. Gay is verballing me and relating a conversation I have not had - he must have been talking to someone else. I did not say those words. I would say, however, that both sides are sneaky.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: To the point of order: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones wants to have it both ways. He recounted a conversation that he had at dinner, he claimed, with Nick Greiner about Nick Greiner’s daughter smoking. He also spoke to me in the corridor the other day and said that the Government would be destroyed and would be brought down. Now he denies that. The honourable member wants to verbal the Greiners but he will not accept me verballing him. It seems there is one law for the Greiners and one law for the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Government wants the general manager to write instructing non-residents to re-enrol, that is, those non-residents who were lucky enough to be able to enrol within the three weeks the Government allowed them in 1995. Honourable members will recall that many thousands of voters - possibly 10,000 - did not have time or notice to enrol. Opposition members have raised many points that dramatically demonstrate why Hon. A. G. Corbett should support Opposition amendments. The Hon. A. G. Corbett does not contribute anything, he just goes across and votes with the Government.

The Hon. A. G. Corbett: I’m supporting you this time.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: He is supporting the Opposition this time? The bill requires the insertion of part 9, provisions consequent on the enactment of the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Elections) Act. Opposition amendment No. 8 proposes that the Electoral Commissioner take carriage of these matters and take care of the non-residents roll. The arguments in favour of this amendment are very similar to the arguments put forward in favour of amendment No. 4. They are the arguments put by Justice Fisher in support of his prime recommendation. If crossbench members are to have credibility and support the Opposition on any amendment then this is an amendment that deserves that support.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [5.38 p.m.]: I intend to address the terms of the amendments and not deal with any matters relating to the Greiner family. The Government does not support these amendments. Once again, part, but not all, of the amendments is in direct conflict with the recommendations of Justice Fisher. Significantly, the Opposition is moving that the non-resident roll for the city of Sydney be continuous and that it not lapse after each election. Justice Fisher recommended precisely the opposite. Justice Fisher at page 150 of his report said that the non-residential roll for the city of Sydney should lapse after each election in the manner provided in sections 299(2) and 300(2) of the Local Government Act.

Justice Fisher’s recommendation would prevent the non-resident roll from becoming hopelessly inaccurate over time. Strangely, the Opposition argues that involvement of the general manager in the preparation of the non-resident roll would be open to corruption. That is an extraordinary admission. It was the Greiner coalition Government that put the general manager in that very position. The coalition, not Labor, enacted the City of Sydney Act in 1988. The Government’s proposal in this bill would involve the Electoral Commissioner confirming the roll - an entirely appropriate proposition and one that is consistent with Justice Fisher’s report. For those reasons, the Government opposes the Opposition’s amendments.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.40 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports these amendments. In our submission to the New South Wales Government commission of inquiry into the Sydney City Council election procedure we made the strong point:

Page 10144

We also urge the transfer of the entire voting procedure, the rolls, nominations, voting and counting, to the authority of the NSW State Electoral Commission and not the City of Sydney Council.

The City of Sydney Council should make a financial contribution each Election to the NSW State Electoral Commission equal to the amount of expenditure they currently spend on advertising and conducting the City of Sydney Council Elections, to help cover the costs of the NSW State Electoral Commission.

On page six of his report Commissioner Fisher said:

As to the preparation of the non-residential role for the City of Sydney, I recommend that the State Electoral Commissioner have the function of preparing the non-residential roll.

The Christian Democratic Party is happy to support these amendments.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [5.40 p.m.]: These are complicated amendments because of the issues involved in them. The Hon. D. J. Gay has said that if the crossbenchers heed the advice and recommendations of Justice Fisher my party would support the Opposition. I draw attention to some recommendations made by Justice Fisher. The amendment to new subsection 1(a) of new section 18A states:

For the purposes of any election for the City of Sydney:

(a) The Electoral Commissioner (and not the general manager of the City of Sydney) is to prepare the non-residential roll and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees, and

To his credit the Hon. D. J. Gay mentioned the following part of what Justice Fisher said on page 6:

As to the preparation of the non-residential roll for the City of Sydney, I recommend that the State Electoral Commissioner have the function of preparing the non-residential roll.

The next sentence states:

In the alternative, I recommend that the General Manager prepare the non-residential roll and that roll certified by the General Manager be confirmed by the State Electoral Commissioner, as is presently the case for all other local councils in NSW.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I said that.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: The Hon. D. J. Gay said that at a later date. I am saying that there is a definite alternative.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: His first recommendation was the one I put forward.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: I am saying that the recommendation seems to me to have two alternatives. The Opposition's proposed section 18A(1)(c) states:

For the purposes of any election for the City of Sydney:

(c) any such roll does not lapse after any election in which it is used . . .

Justice Fisher’s recommendation states:

I recommend that the non-residential roll lapse after each election, and that a new non-residential roll be created a reasonable period before each election.

In his recommendations Justice Fisher is clearly opposing that part of this amendment. Finally, new subsection 3(a) states:

as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, the Electoral Commissioner is to make comprehensive inquiries to determine the persons entitled to be enrolled and place those persons’ names on the relevant roll,

To me that seems to be compulsory. On page 7 Justice Fisher said:

As to compulsory voting, I recommend that neither enrolment nor voting for non-residential electors should be compulsory.

The Hon. D. J. Gay may well further argue that point but at least I have raised it.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.44 p.m.]: The Hon. A. G. Corbett raised valid points. He was concerned about compulsory voting but it is not compulsory: it is putting in place a stricture for the Electoral Commissioner to alert people who are entitled to vote that they have an entitlement to vote. That is the greatest demonstration of the democratic system.

[Interruption]

To be included on the role they are entitled to vote. Nowhere does it state that voting will be compulsory.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.45 p.m.]: I refer to the role of the State Electoral Commissioner. Justice Fisher explained on page 148 of his report why he made that recommendation which the Government should take on board. The Opposition has been appealing to the crossbenchers but the Government should be aware of that. Justice Fisher said:

Preparation of the non-residential roll by a body independent to the Sydney City Council with expertise in the field is reasonable, and the State Electoral Commissioner would appear to be well placed to discharge such a function.

Indeed, the commissioner is most certainly well placed. Whether it be the general manager or the
Page 10145
Electoral Commissioner, in that paragraph Justice Fisher explained his reasoning for drawing his conclusions. The Minister said that Justice Fisher concluded that it would become hopelessly inadequate if it were a continuous roll. Surely that argument could be used for all electoral rolls. Indeed, before each election officials appointed by the Electoral Commission conduct roll checks to see whether a person who says he or she lives at a house still lives at that house. The notion that this roll is different because it is made up of property owners and should not to be maintained in the way all other rolls are maintained appears to me to be illogical.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: Do you propose the same change in every other council in the State?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I have no difficulty with that, but that is not the issue. In this instance the problems in the city of Sydney are unique. It is a small council area with a small number of residents on its roll. It is a most significant central business district and city council. Sydney might have the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games but it was the city of Sydney that won the Olympics. That is how important this city is to honourable members. It is important that honourable members get it right as to who can vote. The Hon. A. G. Corbett made a play about the roles of the general manager and the Electoral Commissioner. I emphasise that the Electoral Commissioner is someone who is independent and has the required expertise. Proposed new subsection (3)(a) states:

as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, the Electoral Commissioner is to make comprehensive inquiries to determine the persons entitled to be enrolled and place those persons’ names on the relevant roll,

I do not know whether the Hon. A. G. Corbett, who is not normally a resident of the city of Sydney, would recall the period before the last council elections when all of the parties seeking to be represented on the council had to find volunteers or pay people to scurry around the city, knock on all the doors and say, "Do you know that you are entitled to be on the roll?" Given the significance of the city of Sydney that process is unsatisfactory and haphazard. One should look at the mess in the city of Sydney at the moment. At present, half the clients of business owners in the city of Sydney, be it a legal practice or whatever, are not able to easily access buildings. The decisions made by the council very much affect the day-to-day livelihood of people who work in the city. The Opposition wants to encourage people to vote in an impartial way. I cannot think of a better way than through the Electoral Commissioner. The notion of having rolls that must be renewed every four years is illogical.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.50 p.m.]: To make the amendment consistent with what was said by Justice Fisher I move:

That Opposition amendment No. 4 to proposed section 18A be amended as follows:

Proposed section 18A(1)(b). Omit paragraph (b) and the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a).

Proposed section 18A(1)(c). Omit paragraph (c).

Proposed section 18A(3)(a). Omit paragraph (a).

Proposed section 18A(3)(c). Omit paragraph (c).

Proposed section 18A(3)(d). Omit paragraph (d).

If those matters are deleted I will support the proposal that the Electoral Commissioner prepare the rolls. That will be in accordance with the recommendation of Justice Fisher.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [5.53 p.m.]: The Opposition is willing to accept the deletion of paragraph (c). I should explain to the Committee exactly what paragraph (b) does, because in this instance the Opposition is not willing to accept the removal of paragraph (b). It provides that the Electoral Commissioner will find out which people are non-residents and are eligible to be enrolled and alert them that they are eligible and ask whether they wish their names to remain on the roll.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: All verbally?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No, in writing.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: They would actually make an application?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No, they would not. The honourable member is trying to lead me into misleading the House.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: I do not understand how the Electoral Commissioner will know which persons are to be put on the roll.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I should imagine that it is within the wit of the Electoral Commissioner to put together a proper process for determining who is eligible to be on the roll.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: Without an application form?

Page 10146

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Through corporate ownerships it is possible.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: How will he know which ones are eligible?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The general manager had to have some process. There is no reason why the Electoral Commissioner, who has greater resources, would not be able to do that.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: How will he know -

The Hon. D. J. GAY: If the honourable member wishes to make a contribution to the debate he should seek the call. I hope his contribution will be better than the advice he gave the Treasurer earlier in this debate, because that was dead wrong. In an endeavour to help the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and others the Opposition will reluctantly accept the deletion of paragraph (c), but could not accept the deletion of (b), which allows the Electoral Commissioner to identify those who are entitled to be enrolled for the city of Sydney elections and to alert them of their entitlement to vote so that they may indicate whether they wish to be enrolled. That would have to be done in writing. If the Electoral Commissioner is not designated as the person to do that, the general manager of the council will have to do so. If he does not identify who is entitled to vote, he will have to identify who is not entitled to vote. It is the reverse of the process.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [5.56 p.m.]: The amendments moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to the Opposition amendment would substantially remove the Government’s concerns about the Opposition amendment. Therefore the Government will not oppose the amendment to the amendment and, if that is carried, will not oppose the amended Opposition amendment.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.57 p.m.]: I want to put on record the way that I intend to vote. I was going to support the Opposition amendment but as the Government has indicated its position I should say that I will support the amendment to the amendment. I question the assertion by the Hon. D. J. Gay that paragraph (b) provides that the Electoral Commissioner will identify those who are eligible to vote. How will the Electoral Commissioner identify those people? It will be a mammoth task for the Electoral Commissioner to find out who is eligible to vote.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It will be an even bigger job for the general manager.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I understand that, but people have to apply to be included on the roll. I am a property owner and I would apply if I wanted to vote. Voting is not compulsory. I shall place on record my reasons for supporting the amendment to the amendment as moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. If Opposition members continue to interject I will not have that opportunity. They should give me the chance to put on the record how I intend to vote. According to Justice Fisher’s report there are two options in relation to the amendment. He recommended giving the State Electoral Commissioner responsibility for preparing the non-residential roll, as proposed by the Opposition amendment. The other option is the one adopted by the Government, that the general manager be given responsibility for preparing and certifying the non-residential roll and then having it confirmed by the State Electoral Commissioner.

In my judgment the Electoral Commissioner should do the whole job. He has the expertise to do it and the costs will be refunded to the council. I do not accept that the number of people on the roll will be fewer. If as a property owner I sell my property, because I am not a crook I will not vote. This process will be open to abuse by many property owners who sell their properties and do not have their names removed from the electoral roll. They could vote because their names were not deleted.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: What happens with normal voting?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: We want to eliminate corruption. The intention is to improve the voting system. That interjection was unfair. We are the legislators and are charged with responsibility for improving the system. The roll should be cleared after each election. If people want to be included on the roll they should apply for that to be done. If I had just sold my property I would have my name removed from the roll. I support the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to the amendment moved by the Opposition, and if that is successful I will support the amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [6.00 p.m.]: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones talked a lot about paragraphs (b) and (c) of proposed section 18A(1). The Opposition indicated it would accept the deletion of paragraph (c) but not paragraph (b) for the reasons outlined. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones did not say much about deleting paragraph (a) of section 18A(3) as well. Because of that the Opposition asks that his amendments be put seriatim.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): I propose to put the amendments seriatim.

Page 10147

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [6.01 p.m.]: To assist the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, I advise that the Electoral Commission is a well-oiled machine which works out who may and who may not vote. It also has a process for encouraging people to vote. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho would understand from my earlier conversation with her that I had a real problem in applying for a vote at the last city of Sydney election. I had to go in person to the one-stop shop to process my vote; in other words, to get onto the roll. That was inconvenient and, in addition, I had to rely on the integrity of the council and the process to ensure that my name was put on the roll.

I have enormous trust in the Electoral Commission, because it has demonstrated over a long time an expertise in this area. If I apply in writing to the Electoral Commissioner I know that process will be followed through. That process is not part of the council’s core business and therefore it will not do it as well as the Electoral Commission; nor from my past experience did the council do it very well. The council deliberately made it inconvenient for me to have my name put on the roll. The preferable process would be for me to apply to the Electoral Commission in the usual manner. The commission process has been tried and tested.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: You can apply by post, not only in person.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: On the last occasion I had to go to the one-stop shop to apply. The council deliberately made it inconvenient for me and is not above doing so again.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: Maybe the Government can ensure that.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Government has shown no indication of doing that. If I deal with the Electoral Commission I know I am dealing with a body that has integrity and expertise. I am more than happy to apply in person to the Electoral Commission. I should not have to apply at every single election. For 10 years I have been a resident of the city of Sydney and I am sick to death of applying to vote at every election. Why does the council not wipe the entire electoral roll each time and re-form it each time?

The council should not wipe sections of the roll, it should wipe the entire roll. People who change properties are no different from people who change addresses. The Electoral Commission is better placed to check address changes by sending out letters, as they do to check the roll. The commission is able to do that with people such as me who have permanent occupancy. I have had permanent occupancy in the city for 10 years, necessitated by my work in Parliament. The commission can wipe me off its roll if I do not reply to its letter. However, the council does not have the expertise, the knowledge, or the integrity to do that.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.03 p.m.]: There is a slight technical problem. I seek leave, therefore, to move further amendments in the following terms:

Proposed section 18A(3). Omit the words "is to comply with the following requirements:".

Proposed section 18A(3)(b). Omit the words "the Electoral Commissioner".

With those words omitted, subsection (3) would then read:

(3) For the purposes of preparing any such roll, the Electoral Commissioner at least 3 months before the closing date for an ordinary election must send a letter to all the persons on each such roll informing them that they are electors for elections for the City of Sydney.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [6.04 p.m.]: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has sought leave, which I want to refuse. Without the amendment in written form it is impossible to understand this complicated matter. Are we talking about amendments to the amendment of the amendment? I do not know what I am voting for any more. The honourable member should have his amendments in written form, as is required of all other honourable members.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [6.05 p.m.]: The Opposition has circulated amendments and spoken to them. The Opposition has accepted the deletion of paragraph (c) of proposed section 18A(3). The Hon. R. S. L. Jones is going over the top; he has nothing prepared and is asking us to accept too much. Given that the Opposition will accept his amendment, which was the greatest concern, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is asking us to accept things that are not in written form. I ask the crossbenchers to accept what the Opposition has put forward in good faith which pretty much reflects what Justice Fisher put forward as his prime recommendation. This is not an attempt to hoodwink the House. The Opposition is acting in good faith on a matter that has been reasonably argued, and put forward in written form.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [6.07 p.m.]: It seems to me that there is a lack of logic in the amendments proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Proposed section 18A states that for the purposes of preparing any such roll, the
Page 10148
Electoral Commissioner, at least three months before the closing date for an ordinary election, must send a letter to all persons on each such roll informing them that they are electors for elections for the city of Sydney. The amendment begs the questions: How does one get on the roll? How does the Electoral Commissioner know to whom he is meant to be sending a letter if paragraph (a) is deleted. Paragraph (a) states:

as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, the Electoral Commissioner is to make comprehensive inquiries.

Unless something triggers the Electoral Commissioner to attempt to form a roll, how is he, three months before the closing date for an ordinary election, to send a letter to people who are on the roll if he has not taken the step provided in paragraph (a)? I agree with the Hon. Franca Arena about amendments on the run. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones tried to be helpful and tried to find a compromise point, but his proposed amendment is absolutely illogical.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [6.08 p.m.]: Some concern has been expressed by honourable members, with which I agree, that it would be desirable for the amendment proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to be in written form. Some confusion is occasioned by the fact that technical amendments are being made on the run, on the advice of Parliamentary Counsel, and properly so. However, it would be much more convenient and orderly if the amendment, which has complexities that are not necessarily understood thoroughly by all members, was properly prepared in written form.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

[The President left the chair at 6.10 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! For the purpose of clarification, I suggest that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones seek leave to withdraw the amendments that he has moved and that he move instead amendments Nos 1 and 2 that are in written form and have been circulated in his name.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.07 p.m.]: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 in document C-141 circulated in my name:

That Opposition amendment No. 4 to proposed section 18A be amended as follows:

1. Omit paragraph (b) of proposed section 18A(1) and the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a).

2. Omit paragraph (c) of proposed section 18A(1).

These amendments are to ensure that this portion of section 18A is in accord with the recommendations of Justice Fisher.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [8.10 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to Opposition amendment No. 4. This will result in the State Electoral Commissioner being responsible for the preparation of the non-resident roll. The Government does not oppose that course, but as it indicated earlier, Opposition amendment No. 4 directly conflicts with Justice Fisher’s recommendations. Once again the Opposition seeks to overturn the recommendations of the inquiry that it moved to establish with terms of reference that it drafted.

The first provision of Opposition amendment No. 4 that concerns the Government is proposed section 18A(1)(b). This provision would result in automatic enrolment of all non-residents and would remove the need to apply for enrolment, which happens with every other council. The Government believes that the requirement to apply to be enrolled should remain. Automatic enrolment would create the potential for abuse of the voting system in elections for the city of Sydney council.

The second provision of concern to the Government is proposed section 18A(1)(c). If enacted, this provision would ensure that the non-residents electoral roll did not lapse after every ordinary election. This is precisely the opposite to Justice Fisher’s recommendation. Justice Fisher explicitly recommended that the non-resident roll lapse to ensure that it remains accurate. If the roll were allowed to remain continuous, it would quickly become inaccurate. The result would be similar to the situation faced by the city of Sydney council in early 1995 when it became clear that the non-residents roll, as it was then compiled, was hopelessly inaccurate.

Indeed, at that time the Crown Solicitor advised the Government that it would be unsafe to hold an election with the electoral roll in such a shambles. For that reason, in mid-1995 the Government enacted section 17A of the City of Sydney Act, which applied only to the 1995
Page 10149
ordinary election, to ensure that the electoral roll was accurate for that election. If we are to avoid the non-resident electoral roll becoming hopelessly inaccurate again, it is essential that the roll lapse. It can then be prepared accurately before the next ordinary council election. Of course, if the amendment is carried, the roll will be prepared by the State Electoral Commissioner.

The final provision of concern to the Government is proposed section 18A(3)(c) proposed in Opposition amendment No. 4. This would reinstate the automatic enrolment of secretaries of corporations. Earlier today the Committee voted against Opposition amendment No. 2, which attempted to do the same thing. Proposed section 18A(3)(c) refers to section 16(2) of the City of Sydney Act, which no longer exists. A major inconsistency would be created in the legislation if proposed section 18A(3)(c) were enacted. The amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will correct these deficiencies and ensure that the provision is consistent with Justice Fisher’s recommendations. As such, the Government is willing to support the amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [8.14 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes this amendment. It is not surprising that the Government supports the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones because it removes equality between residents and non-residents. The Opposition was trying to have equality included so that non-residents would be treated the same as residents, but once again the Hon. R. S. L. Jones carries out the Government’s wishes. The Government does not even have to ask for his help; he runs over and offers it.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: No, I used my initiative.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I have never seen the honourable member not do it. He is always lobbying for the Government. He is prepared to do whatever the Government wishes. In this instance, once again he was keen and hot to trot to remove equality between residents and non-residents. I foreshadow an amendment to be moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to address concerns raised by the crossbenchers that Opposition amendment No. 4 would make it compulsory to enrol and vote. This foreshadowed amendment cements an earlier Opposition amendment.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: I am listening.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I would hope that others are listening because this is an important issue. People tell me they make up their minds on the issues, so I hope they listen. The foreshadowed amendment can only be moved if the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is unsuccessful.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I have another amendment to move.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The honourable member will have the opportunity to move further amendments shortly. If his series of amendments is unsuccessful, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe will move an amendment to remove the compulsory enrolment and voting provision. This would mean that the Electoral Commissioner would approach people to be placed on the roll and they may express a wish not to go on the roll. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho was concerned about that aspect earlier.

The Hon. A. G. Corbett asked whether enrolment and voting would become compulsory. I did not want to answer that those requirements would be compulsory, but I had to be honest and state that that would be the result of the amendment. The amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would remove proposed subsection (1)(b), which states that persons entitled to be enrolled are to be included whether or not they have applied for enrolment. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones wants to remove equality between non-residents and residents.

At present Opposition amendment No. 4 provides that the State Electoral Commissioner would automatically enrol all residents and make voting compulsory. Residents are automatically enrolled and must vote. The Opposition proposes that the same requirement apply to non-residents, thereby presenting a degree of fairness. Why should there be one rule for residents and one for non-residents? The Government is attempting to put in place those different rules.

The Electoral Commissioner will contact non-residents to tell them they are eligible to be enrolled. The Opposition’s foreshadowed amendment will give residents the choice of enrolment. This should be a responsibility of the Electoral Commissioner. It was Justice Fisher’s prime recommendation because presently council funds can be starved depending on the whim of the lord mayor. I am not saying the current lord mayor is a bad mayor but in the future a devious lord mayor could starve the city of funds and influence the college of voters for Sydney City Council. That should be considered.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [8.19 p.m.]: I do not wish to talk about the substance of this but about the amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I
Page 10150
will support them. I do not know whether the Hon. D. J. Gay realises that paragraph (c) of proposed section 18A(3) is consequential to his amendment No. 2, which dealt with the nomination of secretaries. As the honourable member’s amendment No. 2 has been negatived, there should be no reference to secretaries. The Committee is being asked to vote on something that has already been decided. That should be omitted, and that is the effect of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones’ amendment. That is very important.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Our foreshadowed amendment will do that.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: In that case we are talking about your foreshadowed amendment. I cannot accept proposed paragraph (d) because the Opposition does not want people to apply to be on the roll. If I want to get off the roll I have to apply to get off. The onus should be on the individual, like me. If I do not have property I do not vote. But many people will remain on the roll. I think the onus should be on the elector to do that.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Our foreshadowed amendment will remove that.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: No, the Opposition’s amendment actually states that if a person wants to remove his name from the roll, he has to request that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is debating a foreshadowed amendment. The Committee will deal with that amendment in due course.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I support the Hon. R. S. L. Jones’ amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [8.22 p.m.]: May I address some of the concerns raised by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. Some of them are valid concerns. The honourable member said that paragraph (c) of proposed section 18A(3) in my amendment No. 4 was out of order because of the amendments that were struck out earlier. We were alerted to that fact by Parliamentary Counsel during the dinner break, and that is partly the reason we have foreshadowed a further amendment. Honourable members will see that our foreshadowed amendment will remove paragraph (c). That is the measure that the honourable member just expressed concern about. The amendment proposes to omit paragraphs (c) and (d) from proposed section 18A(3).

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It puts them back in again.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No, it inserts different paragraphs.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: Point of order: You ruled me out of order because I was debating an amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition. I ask you to remind the Hon. D. J. Gay of your ruling, as he is speaking about a foreshadowed amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. D. J. Gay has concluded his comments.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [8.23 p.m.]: I seek clarification. I am immensely attracted to the Opposition’s amendment No. 4. It is sensible that the Electoral Commissioner be the person to prepare the electoral rolls for the city of Sydney. But looking at the original amendment and the foreshadowed amendment I have one problem, and I would be grateful for clarification before I decide how to vote. It seems to me that, according to paragraph (b) of proposed section 18A(1) in amendment No. 4, virtually everyone who is entitled to be enrolled will be included on the roll whether they have applied to be so included or not. I feel that goes against the general practice that to be on an electoral roll one has to make a claim. I am not saying it blocks the proposed amendment but it is not the normal procedure. It seems to me that paragraph (d) of the foreshadowed amendment requires an opting-out process. In other words, one is on the roll unless one says one does not want to be on the roll.

As I say, I am immensely attracted to the Opposition’s amendment No. 4 and I had intended to vote for it. However, I would like clarification as to whether we are saying to people that they will be on the roll unless they say they do not want to be. To me, that requires an opting out, which is not the normal process in a democratic system. That applies to more things than the electoral roll: it applies to being on mailing lists and everything else. I want to support the Opposition’s amendment but I have a problem relating to paragraph (d) of the foreshadowed amendment. If everyone is to be included on the roll, whether they know it or not, and they have to opt out, that may be a problem. I would be sincerely grateful for clarification.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [8.25 p.m.]: I will certainly attempt to clarify the concerns of the Hon. J. S. Tingle. First of all, I use the comparison between State, Federal and local government
Page 10151
elections. There is a slight difference but I think this will answer the honourable member’s concerns in part. I cannot pretend to answer his concerns in full. Once one registers and moves around the State, one is automatically contacted. One is not even offered the right to refuse to go on the roll. It automatically happens. The situation in local government is not quite the same. In this instance, when one becomes a resident, or purchases or owns a block of land, it is akin to registration. That is the difference. When the Electoral Commissioner identifies a person with the right to vote he will write to that person, as the foreshadowed amendment states, and indicate that he is eligible to go on the roll. If that person says he does not want to go on the roll, he does not.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: According to your foreshadowed amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Yes, according to my foreshadowed amendment. I indicate that is a foreshadowed amendment. The Committee has to be fair to me. The Opposition has moved these amendments in good faith. At the last moment the Hon. R. S. L. Jones - I accept also in good faith - moved further amendments. In that space of time we were able to identify a consequence we had not foreseen.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Aren’t you glad I did so now?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No, we are not entirely chuffed with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, but he is correct. It did allow us to identify something that was wrong. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho also said that something needed to be removed from our amendments. To be fair, we tried. We have taken Justice Fisher’s recommendations and we have tried to come back to the Committee with something that is fair, workable, and puts non-residents on the same level as residents. I do not think one can ask any more of an Opposition or any more of a piece of legislation than what we are putting up as an Electoral Act.

The amendment will ensure that both classes of citizens that are eligible to vote in the city of Sydney election are treated in exactly the same way. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones’ amendment and the Government’s support of it will establish two classes of citizens and cause non-residents to be treated differently to residents. The Opposition believes it has been eminently fair and has tried to accommodate most peoples’ concerns. To reject the Opposition’s amendment and its foreshadowed amendment in favour of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would be much worse.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.30 p.m.]: The Hon. J. S. Tingle was perfectly correct. There were problems with the original amendment moved by the Hon. D. J. Gay, which honourable members have helped to fix, even though he complained bitterly. There was a compulsion to vote; every person would have been included on the roll regardless of whether he or she wanted to be on the roll. The Hon. D. J. Gay says he wants to change that and give people the right to be removed from the roll when in some cases they may not even be aware they are on the roll. Under his foreshadowed amendment they can opt out of voting. The Hon. D. J. Gay’s amendment will not be necessary if my amendment to the Opposition’s amendment is agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.31 p.m.]: I support the amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. D. J. Gay. Whilst debating matters relating to non-residential areas I have always tried to take into account that all types of corporations, large and small, are being discussed. For example, the AMP is busy running a business and is not concerned about getting on or off the roll.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Businesses want to vote.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I know that businesses say they want to vote, but they do not take as much interest in elections as a normal residential ratepayer.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They are business people, they will follow it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: They do not, and that is the point that has been proved in previous elections. Many corporations receive a letter but do not apply to go on the roll; sometimes they do not return the letter or it gets lost.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They are efficient business people.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: No, it is not a business letter. Those corporations deal with shares, et cetera, and letters dealing with the city of Sydney elections are often overlooked. The Festival of Light is eligible to vote in the city and I know that if a letter is received from the city of Sydney council it is likely that it will be put to one side to be considered.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It can’t be keen on voting.

Page 10152

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It is, but it is only a small organisation. In big companies a letter can be lost in the bureaucracy because no one individual is responsible for elections.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I understand what you are saying.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I am telling the Hon. R. S. L. Jones that many companies have not taken advantage of the right to vote for various reasons, such as missing the deadline. This amendment tries to turn the onus around so that they are on the roll as of right, they can vote or they can ask to be taken off the roll. We are dealing with a special group of people.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Who are too slack to get on the roll themselves.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I am trying to assist them. They should not have to get on the roll themselves.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Everybody has an obligation to get on the roll.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Ratepayers go on the roll automatically, and so should corporations such as the AMP.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They should apply like everybody else.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It is ridiculous to apply to go on the roll every time there is a city of Sydney election. They should be on a permanent roll unless they request to be taken off it just the same as people enrolled for the State and Federal elections do not have to reapply to be on the roll, but are on it for the rest of their lives.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: This one lapses every time anyway.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: No, it does not have to.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: But it will.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It does not have to.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: But Justice Fisher said it should lapse every time.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Justice Fisher does not understand that will not work because of administrative red tape.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.34 p.m.]: I move:

That Opposition amendment No. 4 to proposed section 18A be amended as follows:

Omit paragraphs (c) and (d) from proposed section 18A(3). Insert instead:

(c) in the case of electors that are corporations, the Electoral Commissioner is to request the corporation to nominate an eligible person to be enrolled under section 16 (1),

(d) the letter referred to in paragraph (b) is to inform each elector that they have the right to request the Electoral Commissioner to remove their name from the roll, and the Electoral Commissioner must remove from the roll the name of any elector who duly requests, before the closing date for the election, that his or her name be removed.

A corporation that is requested under paragraph (c) to nominate an eligible person to be enrolled is under a duty to do so.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: Point of order: I would like clarification. I thought the procedure of the Committee is to vote on the amendment before a foreshadowed amendment can be moved by leave.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It has to be moved.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: But we have not voted on the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe has moved an amendment to the amendment of the Hon. D. J. Gay.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Point of order: The amendment moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe has no impact on my amendment.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Perhaps by way of clarification I could reinforce what the Hon. R. S. L. Jones just said. The amendment of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe will not come into play if the amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones are carried. If the amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones are not carried, her amendment comes into play.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I propose to deal seriatim with the proposed subsections of new section 18A. I will now put amendment No. 1 of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to Opposition amendment No. 4, to delete the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) of new section 18A(1), and to delete paragraph (b) from new
Page 10153
section 18A(1). The question is, that the amendment of the amendment of the Legislative Assembly's proposed further amendment be agreed to.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 21

Mrs Arena Mr Obeid
Dr Burgmann Mr Primrose
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Cohen Mr Shaw
Mr Corbett Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mrs Isaksen
Mr Kelly Mr Manson

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gay Mr Willis
Mr Hannaford
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Jobling
Rev. Nile Mr Moppett

Mr Dyer Dr Goldsmith
Mr Macdonald Mr Samios

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of amendment of the Legislative Assembly's amendment agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question now is, that amendment No. 2 of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to Opposition amendment No. 4, to delete paragraph (c) from new section 18A(1), be agreed to.

Amendment of amendment of the Legislative Assembly’s amendment agreed to.

Proposed section 18A(1) as amended agreed to.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.51 p.m.]: I move:

That the Legislative Assembly's proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

No. 3. Omit paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of proposed section 18A(3) and other words, so that proposed section 18A(3) reads as follows:

(3) The Electoral Commissioner must, at least 3 months before the closing date for an ordinary election, send to all the persons on each such roll a letter informing them that they are electors for elections for the City of Sydney.

The omission of these three paragraphs will resolve the problem that existed in the old National Party amendments relating to section 16(2). They were in conflict with the amendment that was opposed by the House earlier today.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [8.52 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [8.52 p.m.]: The Opposition has to support the amendment, because it will remove that part of the section left out of kilter by the failure of our earlier amendment, and that our foreshadowed amendment would have fixed. In part this amendment is similar to the Opposition’s foreshadowed amendment. Unfortunately, because the Committee accepted the earlier amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones the Opposition is no longer able to move its foreshadowed amendment which would have removed the element of compulsion that now remains for residential voters. That compulsion has been retained by the Committee, in its blind adherence to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and to the Government in this instance.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.53 p.m.]: Will the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones delete paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)? In particular, paragraph (a) reads as follows:

(a) as soon as practical after the commencement of this section, the Electoral Commissioner is to make comprehensive inquiries to determine the persons entitled to be enrolled and to place those persons’ names on the relevant roll.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones wants to delete that paragraph but insert a new paragraph which is the same as paragraph (b). He seeks to have a letter sent to all persons on the roll, but he has destroyed the compilation of the roll. Where will the roll come from? The Electoral Commissioner will have to recreate the roll because it lapses at each election.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.54 p.m.]: Essentially the amendment refers to proposed 18A (1)(a), which states that the Electoral Commissioner is to prepare the non-residential roll. That has been omitted because it was contingent upon the retention of subsection (1)(b).

Page 10154

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I inform the Committee that the amendment of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe is improper because it is inconsistent with the earlier decisions of the Committee. The question now is, That amendment No. 3 on sheet C-141 of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to Opposition amendment No. 4 be agreed to.

Amendment of amendment of the Legislative Assembly’s amendment agreed to.

Proposed section 18A(3) as amended agreed to.

Opposition amendment No. 4, as amended, of the Legislative Assembly’s amendment agreed to.

Opposition amendment No. 8 of the Legislative Assembly’s amendment agreed to.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [8.56 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 5:

That the Legislative Assembly's proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

5. Insert the following after proposed schedule 2[12]:

[13] Section 20

Insert before section 21:

20 Postal voting only for elections

(1) Voting at a contested election for the City of Sydney is to be conducted by a system of postal voting that complies with this section. Voting at polling booths or any other form of voting under the Principal Act is not authorised for any such contested election.

(2) The postal voting system for any such contested election must comply with the following:

(a) postal voting material (including postal voting instructions, ballot-papers, ballot-paper envelopes and pre-paid postal envelopes addressed to the returning officer) must be posted by the returning officer to every person on the relevant electoral roll who is eligible to vote in the election,

(b) the address to which the postal voting material is posted must be the address of the person shown on the relevant electoral roll.

(3) This section applies to voting by persons on the residential roll, the non-residential roll and the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lessees.

This amendment inserts a new section 20 which enables postal voting. The Opposition wants postal voting only for elections. Recently a pensioner representative told me that he applauded that idea and thought it would be welcomed by the many pensioners in the city of Sydney. The amendment stipulates that the returning officer will send postal voting material to all people on the roll according to the address which appears on the relevant electoral roll. Eligible voters will be required to return their votes prior to the election.

In Melbourne and Perth, where total postal voting occurs, a bigger voter turnout is achieved. Surveys have shown that not only does total postal voting result in a bigger voter turnout, but that residents and non-residents prefer to vote that way. Apparently there has been some rumour-mongering about postal voting. There is absolutely no evidence that postal voting is more or less corruptible than ballot box voting. Honourable members have heard stories about voting early and voting often by way of the ballot box. That cannot happen with postal voting, particularly given the structure that the Committee has just put in place through the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [8.58 p.m.]: I seek clarification. Does this mean that there will be no more poll voting, only postal voting? The Hon. R. S. L. Jones told me that there will be only postal voting. I certainly would not support only postal voting; there should be both postal and poll voting.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.00 p.m.]: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. Franca Arena are quite correct: the amendment that I have moved relates to only postal voting.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Only postal voting?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: This one is to do with only postal voting.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: This is an outrage!

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I allow to go on the record what the parrot said. I understand that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will move an amendment that will alleviate the concerns of the Hon. Franca Arena. The Opposition is prepared to support that amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.01 p.m.]: The Treasurer feigned shock and indignation when he interjected and said, "Only postal voting?" It is interesting that where only postal voting occurs, such as in Melbourne and Perth, a larger voter turnout follows. I would have thought the Government would have wanted more people to vote. That has been achieved by postal voting. It would be much easier, as well as cheaper, for the candidates and for the city council. It is best practice
Page 10155
for city elections, with more voters preferring to vote that way. In Perth, voting increased from 11 per cent to 60 per cent; and in Melbourne, voting increased from 55 per cent to 65 per cent. Furthermore, after the first total postal voting election in Melbourne, only 18 per cent of voters wanted to return to polling booth voting. Finally, it has been proven in both Melbourne and Perth that postal voting is neither more nor less corrupt than ballot box voting.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.02 p.m.]: The Government most certainly opposes the amendment - this attempted rort by the rorters opposite. As has been the case with every Opposition amendment, this amendment is in direct conflict with the recommendations of Justice Fisher and with the very notion of democracy. Justice Fisher was the umpire. He made a decision after an inquiry whose terms of reference were written by the Opposition. Now, of course, the Opposition does not want to accept the umpire’s decision.

When the Hon. Franca Arena asked whether the amendment would mean that there would be only compulsory postal voting for residents and non-residents in the city of Sydney, I, in my then ignorance, interjected, "Of course not." I could not contemplate anything as stupid, or as evil or designed to rort an election as that. But when my colleagues showed me the amendment, there it was in black and white: one could not go along to a polling booth; one had to apply for and fill in a postal vote.

Universal and compulsory voting for residents and non-residents would significantly increase the non-resident vote, at the expense of the resident vote. That is why the amendment has been moved: Opposition members do not want residents to vote because Opposition members know that everyone who has ever voted in an election in Australia knows that when the day for the election comes the voters wander down to their local polling booths, get their ballot papers, have their names crossed off, and they vote. What the Opposition wants is a situation where literally thousands of Sydney residents -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: It is desirable that Hansard record everything that the Treasurer is saying. Therefore the Treasurer should address the Chair, thus speaking into the microphone, rather than turn his back on the Chair and face his colleagues. It is important that what is being said by the Leader of the Government is recorded precisely.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The Minister will direct his remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sure that Hansard can hear every word I say. The very purpose of the amendment is to make sure that literally thousands of residents of the city of Sydney who turn up at their usual polling booths to vote will find when they get there that the gates are shut. That is what the amendment is all about. This is a rort the like of which I have never seen before. It is no surprise it comes from the Hon. D. J. Gay, a member of the National Party, formerly the Country Party. I know how that party operates because a mate of mine became a teacher in a small country town by the name Gowrie. As the local school teacher, he found himself to be the polling clerk, and went along to perform his duties.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: As desirable as it is for us to see the Treasurer make even more of an idiot of himself than he already has in the past session, I ask that he be drawn back to the amendment before the Committee. The Treasurer has strayed to addressing a matter that is without relevance to this bill or the amendment before the Committee. These Committee deliberations have been long and involved, but we have much further to go and a lot of detail to consider. We do not need stupidity or idiocy. Frankly, we do not need the Treasurer in this place.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Of course there is no point of order. Anyway, for the first time ever, no votes were cast at Gowrie because nobody turned up.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: The remarks of the Treasurer are irrelevant. The amendment before the Committee deals with postal voting. I repeat: It has been a long day, we are all tired and our patience has been tested. The Government has ambushed us on more than one occasion. The Opposition is acting in good faith. We really do not need the stupidity of the Treasurer.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: To the point of order: The National Party simply does not like people turning up at polling booths because then their vote must be cast in secret. The National Party does not like that; it likes someone being able to manipulate the votes, as used to happen at Gowrie, when it was the polling clerk who would fill in the ballot papers for all the National Party voters.

Page 10156

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Further to the point of order: I seek a ruling on the point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. The Treasurer is referring to voting systems. The fewer points of order taken, the quicker the Treasurer will conclude his dissertation.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: This is what Justice Fisher had to say:

I consider it desirable that any amendments made to the present procedure by which postal voting is conducted for the city of Sydney elections be such as to standardise the present arrangements for postal voting at the New South Wales local government level.

I would note also that these procedures be uniform with the State and Federal election procedure.

In other words, Justice Fisher is saying that voters wishing to vote by post should still have to apply for a postal vote, which is what they must do now. Justice Fisher explicitly opposes the proposition that the need to apply for a postal vote should be abolished and that voters would simply be sent ballot papers through the mail. The Government opposes the Opposition’s ridiculous amendment.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.09 p.m.]: This is a very good amendment proposed by my colleague the Hon. D. J. Gay. The reality is that we live in a multicultural society in the Sydney basin. It is well known that a number of newly emerged ethnic groups are reluctant to go out to vote. I am sure, for example, that the Jewish community would welcome the facility of postal voting. The amendment would provide that equity to the process, and clearly should be supported.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.09 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. D. J. Gay. In particular I draw the attention of the House to the reference by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to the increase in voting turnout in Melbourne and Perth when those centres changed to postal voting only. I would have thought that every honourable member of this Chamber would believe it desirable to have all eligible people vote. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile quoted statistics that in one centre the voting increased from 11 per cent to more than 60 per cent, and in the other centre it increased from 55 per cent to 65 per cent. The statistics quoted by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile showed that in one case postal voting increased from 11 per cent to more than 60 per cent, and in another case from 55 per cent to 65 per cent.

The Parliament should be making it easier for eligible voters to vote. All the Committee heard from the Treasurer was his great desire to make it difficult for people to vote or to stop them from voting altogether, and there is no logic in that. Many voters on the roll reside some distance from the city of Sydney so they must travel into the city to cast their votes on election day. As honourable members know, there is no absentee voting in local government elections. If the principle is that non-residents are eligible to vote, the Parliament should make it easy for them to vote.

If there is a philosophical divide among honourable members, I simply tell members opposite that the fundamental principle is the principle of democracy. The Opposition has determined that a specific category of people should be eligible to vote and is trying to make it possible for them to vote, not putting up barriers, hurdles or the fatuous argument of the Treasurer. Frankly, the Parliament should be encouraging people to vote, not making it difficult for them to vote.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.11 p.m.]: I support in principle the amendment moved by the Hon. D. J. Gay, but to ensure that honourable members are fully informed of the proposal, by leave I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2:

That the Legislative Assembly's proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

No. 2 Insert the following after proposed schedule 2[12]

[13] Section 20

Insert before section 21:

20 Non-residents deemed to be general postal voters

For the purposes of elections for the City of Sydney, each person on the non-residential roll or the roll of occupiers and rate paying lessees is taken to be registered as a general postal voter under the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [9.12 p.m.]: The Committee is in this situation because of the inapplicability of the Local Government Act -

[Interruption]

I made up the word "inapplicability". Do members opposite like it?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: No, the honourable member can keep it.

Page 10157

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: I understand the point of the Hon. D. J. Gay in relation to postal voting only for elections. After all, the city of Sydney elections are different from other local government elections. Should people who live in Ultimo, The Rocks and so on, be required to undertake a postal vote -

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: They should have the option.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: It is not an option. We are talking about postal voting only for elections. I do not intend to move an amendment to this effect; I simply ask whether the Opposition would accept an amendment that inserted after the words "not authorised for any such contested election" the words "except for voters registered as residential ratepayers". In other words, residential ratepayers would vote at polling places and non-residential ratepayers -

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: No.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: The honourable member should give me a chance. Residential ratepayers would vote at polling booths and non-residential ratepayers would vote by postal vote. I have received a lot of mail from people living in the city who say that they find the postal voting process fairly complicated and would rather vote at a polling booth. I know that an amendment to that effect would create complications. I simply ask the Opposition to consider whether such an amendment should be moved.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [9.13 p.m.]: By this amendment the Opposition is basically giving the Committee a choice of proposals. The Opposition’s proposal is to adopt the principle that applies in Perth and Melbourne. If the Committee does not agree with this proposal, that is, everyone should have a postal vote, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has moved an amendment that effectively addressed the issue raised by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The effect of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s amendment is that residents in the area would either vote at a polling booth or apply for a postal vote; and non-residents would automatically go onto the general postal voter roll and the Electoral Commissioner would send them the ballot paper. The Hon. J. S. Tingle’s suggested amendment would confuse the issue. The Opposition has put forward two options, and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s amendment is the simplest way to express the option enunciated by the Hon. J. S. Tingle.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.15 p.m.]: The Leader of the Opposition has answered the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s question. I simply reiterate that my amendment basically covers what the honourable member proposed. It states that only non-residents would have a postal vote. That means that residents would continue to vote at polling booths.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle: It does not say that. It deals only with residential voters.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is right, because it does not change the voting method for residents. Residents will vote according to the provisions of this bill, that is, voting at polling booths.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Where does it say that?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It is in the bill. The honourable member is looking at the Opposition’s amendments. The bill provides for residents to vote at polling booths.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [9.16 p.m.]: I am sorry but I seek clarification. Would Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s amendment replace the Opposition’s amendment? The Opposition’s amendment, which states that voting at polling booths or any other form of voting under the principal Act is not authorised for any such contested election, seems to suggest that no-one will be able to vote at a polling booth. Does Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s amendment mean that all voters would still vote at polling booths except non-residential voters, who would have postal votes?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Yes.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.17 p.m.]: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s amendment addresses the concerns raised. I have been informed that people will have the choice of voting at a polling booth or by postal vote. Therefore, I seek leave to withdraw the Opposition’s amendment to enable the Committee to consider Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s amendment.

Opposition amendment No. 5 of the Legislative Assembly’s amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [9.18 p.m.]: I support the thrust of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s amendment. I simply ask where the bill provides that residents can vote at polling booths. The bill states that non-residents can cast a general postal
Page 10158
vote. Does the bill definitely state that residents can vote at polling booths? I have been told now by the advisers that the bill does state that, and I am satisfied with that.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.19 p.m.]: The postal voting issue has created a conflict between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition has now withdrawn its amendment even though the same procedure works successfully in Melbourne and Perth. Like other issues, Sydney may catch up with other cities eventually, despite the Treasurer’s rhetoric. Justice Fisher’s report recommended that a postal voting application be included with the enrolment application. My amendment will assist the holding of democratic elections by helping people who are not in Sydney, such as nominated persons in the Australian Mutual Provident Society and other such companies, and who may reside in other suburbs and perhaps be voting in their residential local government elections, to cast their vote for the city of Sydney council.

This amendment will enable postal voting and thus will allow greater democratic involvement in the city of Sydney election. The Government, however, may want to stop non-residential voters from voting. We want to encourage them to vote, and this amendment will ensure that non-residential voters will receive postal voting applications automatically rather than having to make applications to vote. This process does not threaten anyone. It is a fair and democratic procedure and will ensure a greater turnout at elections.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.21 p.m]: The Government opposes this amendment. In many ways it is similar to Opposition amendment No. 5. The Government opposes this amendment for the same reasons it opposed the Opposition's amendment. Justice Fisher explicitly recommended that postal voting entitlements for the city of Sydney be consistent with postal voting entitlements for every other council area. That was the umpire’s decision. The Committee should not forget that the terms of reference upon which he reported were drafted by the Opposition. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.21 p.m.]: The Government has selective amnesia once again. The Government is willing to accept what Justice Fisher says when it suits but is not willing to accept recommendations that it does not like.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.22 p.m.]: It is misleading for the Treasurer to say that this amendment is basically the same as earlier amendments. This amendment is totally different. The people about which he spoke and pleaded for to go to a polling booth will still go to the polling booth. This amendment has no effect on residential voters in the city of Sydney area.

Question - That the amendment of the Legislative Assembly’s amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena Dr Pezzutti
Mr Bull Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gay Mr Tingle
Mr Hannaford Mr Willis
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Jobling
Rev. Nile Mr Moppett
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Mr Primrose
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Saffin
Mr Cohen Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Corbett Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mr Johnson
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mrs Isaksen
Mr Kelly Mr Manson

Dr Goldsmith Mr Macdonald

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the Legislative Assembly’s amendment negatived.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.28 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 7:

That the Legislative Assembly's proposed further amendment be amended as follows:

7. Insert after proposed schedule 2[14]:

Page 10159

[15] Section 23A

Insert after section 23:

23A Lord Mayor must also be candidate for election as councillor

A person who is a candidate for election as the Lord Mayor of Sydney must also be a candidate for election as a councillor of the City of Sydney at the same time. Section 283 of the Principal Act applies accordingly.

The lord mayor should not only be out with the mayoral garland, ermine and chain but should also be part of the general huddle of councillors. The Opposition does not believe that any potential lord mayors should be sulking in a corner if they do not win the mayoral ballot. If someone is serious about being Lord Mayor of Sydney, he or she should be willing to accept that if the ballot is lost he or she will remain a councillor. The Opposition does not want the city to be full of show ponies.

We do not want any lord mucks. We believe that whoever wishes to become Lord Mayor of Sydney must also be prepared to take on the default position of a regular councillor should the candidate not succeed in the quest to be lord mayor. That person should be willing to do the hard work either way. This amendment will ensure that people who stand for the position of lord mayor will demonstrate that they have a total commitment to the city of Sydney and do not just want to wear chains and robes but are willing to continue as councillors as well. I am down six nil at the moment -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You have got one through. You got No. 4 through.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You can’t even count to six.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am not innumerate. The Treasurer is innumerate, he cannot add up. The Opposition believes that people who wish to stand for the position of lord mayor should be willing to serve as councillors. I believe this is a fair amendment. I appeal to members on the crossbenches to support me. If they are not going to support me, they should at least give a reason why they are not.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.32 p.m.]: I would like to give the Hon. D. J. Gay the reason I am not supporting this amendment. It is desirable that everyone standing for lord mayor be a councillor of the city of Sydney. They should have that commitment and that is a noble sentiment. However, a show pony could come along who wants to be lord mayor or nothing. If this amendment is passed such a person would have to accept that if he does not become lord mayor he will be stuck with being a normal councillor. Presumably such a person would be a very unconscientious councillor.

Obviously one does not want a councillor who does not want to be on the council. It is ridiculous to force someone to stand for the council who wants only to be lord mayor. If a person is a rogue, hopefully the voters will throw him out. If a worthy citizen is elected as lord mayor, he or she will have to work with the council, and that goes with the job. That is why I am not going to support this amendment, and I expect other members on the crossbenches will take the same view.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.33 p.m.]: To respond to the point of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, the purpose of our amendment is to discourage show ponies and encourage workers. I would have thought our amendment is the best way to dissuade anyone who could not face the prospect of sitting in the local council for four years after missing out on becoming lord mayor.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: If it works.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It can only work if honourable members support it. It will not work it if they do not support it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: The honourable member used the term "show pony". I ask the honourable member to focus on September 1999. That is the date of the last local government election before the Sydney Olympics. Everyone would like the opportunity of attending the Olympics Games as the Lord Mayor of Sydney. That will be a very significant position during the Olympics. If people start to realise that to be lord mayor they will have to accept that they could be on the council and be doing all the tough work for the following four years, maybe the right person will be attracted to the job, not someone who seeks that position only for the glory of September 2000. We want the right sort of person to apply. Our amendment will encourage workers to apply.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [9.35 p.m.]: This morning I spent some time with the Lord Mayor of Sydney, who came to discuss the bill with me. He spent time with all members on the crossbenches. I was with him only 20 minutes. I enjoyed it and we discussed the bill. He said, "Franca, I have no objection to this, because I
Page 10160
always run as lord mayor and as a councillor. If you want to support it, support it. I think it is a good amendment." So, on that basis, I am going to support it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.35 p.m.]: The Government has listened very carefully to the debate. We found the arguments of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans most compelling and for that reason we will support his opposition to the amendment.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [9.36 p.m.]: I think certain local councils, especially the larger ones, have popularly elected mayors. Perhaps the Hon. D. J. Gay can tell me whether a candidate who does not win an election for the position of popularly elected mayor have to become a councillor?

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.36 p.m.]: That is quite correct. On numerous occasions honourable members have said that Sydney City Council is different from any other. It is a small, discrete area. It is a most important area. It is the capital city of New South Wales and the capital city of Australia.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is the capital city of the world.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It is the most important city in the world, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said. I do not think one could have a more plausible or better reasoned argument than the one the Hon. Patricia Forsythe put forward. We are looking for someone who will work. This amendment will ensure that the people who apply for the job of Lord Mayor of Sydney - a very important job - know that if they do not succeed in gaining that job they will have to serve on the council for four years. That will attract a particular type of person. If I wanted any more support for my amendment, I could not ask for better than the Hon. Franca Arena indicating that Frank Sartor himself told her to support it because he is willing to work and willing to put himself up as a councillor. I am so disappointed that Frank did not come into my office this morning to tell me that he agreed with me, that he supported the amendment and that it is good for Sydney and New South Wales.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.38 p.m.]: It seems to me that the Hon. Franca Arena and even the Hon. D. J. Gay are just acting as stooges for Lord Mayor Frank Sartor.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [9.38 p.m.]: It is recognised in this House that my chief charm is my modesty. Therefore let me say that being older than anyone else in the House I probably know much more about the Sydney City Council than most honourable members here. I covered the council in the 1950s as a young reporter. I saw many lord mayors elected - luminaries like Harry Jensen, Pat Hills, Emmet McDermott, Doug Sutherland and people like that.

I remind honourable members that in the good old days one first had to be a councillor to become lord mayor. He was elected to the council and then elected by the council to be lord mayor. Any person who aspires to be lord mayor or, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said, the chief executive of the greatest city in the world should be qualified as and capable of being a councillor. Therefore, the amendment is not only sensible, it actually reflects what ought to be best practice in local government. I support the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.40 p.m.]: I have not spoken to Frank Sartor about this matter, as the Hon. Franca Arena has done. I want to know if Kathryn Greiner, who is in the public gallery, supports this amendment. If she were to nod her approval, I too would support it. She having indicated her support for the amendment, I must support it also.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [9.41 p.m.]: What is the probability of being elected lord mayor as against being elected a councillor?

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.41 p.m.]: That is unanswerable. I wish I could reassure the honourable member.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: One has more of a chance to be elected a councillor than to be elected as lord mayor. That is an elementary probability theory.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.41 p.m.]: It is a pity the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho did not ask the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, who is quite correct: it is more probable that one would be elected a councillor. I am not a bookmaker; I cannot give the exact odds.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.42 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment, which has the support also of the present lord mayor and his opponent for the position.

Page 10161

Amendment of the Legislative Assembly’s amendment agreed to.

Legislative Council’s amendment No. 2 not insisted upon.

Proposed amendment of the Legislative Assembly as amended agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

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

Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Part 4

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.48 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 14 circulated in my name:

No. 14 Page 10, clause 17(1), lines 3-5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) The Commission may conduct a special inquiry into a specified issue affecting children, either at the request of the Minister or on its own initiative.

The Wood report specified that the commission must be an independent watchdog. The Greens are of the view that the bills will not allow the commission to be an independent watchdog. The Minister has a discretion as to whether to conduct a special inquiry. The Minister may not recommend an inquiry even though one is sorely needed because the Government fears the exposure and political fallout that may result. The Community Services (Complaints, Appeals and Monitoring) Act 1993 contains a provision for allowing the Community Services Commission to conduct on its own initiative inquiries it considers necessary. The Greens believe that provision should be mirrored in this bill. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.50 p.m.]: When I examined this proposed legislation some weeks ago I came up with an amendment identical to that moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. I understand that the Opposition drafted a similar amendment. The commission should be allowed to use its initiative. There are many occasions when the Minister may not wish the commission to examine specific issues, but I believe the commission should be allowed to do so. If the Opposition is unable to support the amendment, it may be that when it returns to government it will amend the legislation.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.51 p.m.]: I understand that this amendment is the same as Opposition amendment No. 7.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Which I will not move.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Government opposes the amendment for reasons that have been clearly stated. When conducting a special inquiry the commission may use its significant coercive powers. Those powers should not be invoked without careful consideration or used often. Requiring that the Minister agree to a special inquiry is balanced against potential undue exercise of an individual commissioner’s power. It also commits the Minister to considering the commission’s recommendations. The commissioner may report to Parliament if the Minister unduly restricts the commission’s work program. An amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. A. G. Corbett, which the Government will accept, would enable the commissioner to report on requests for special inquiries that have been rejected and the reasons for approval not being given. These measures will ensure transparency of decisions about special inquiries.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [9.53 p.m.]: I strongly support the amendment. This is the crux of the power of the commission. I have discussed the amendment with advisers from the Premier’s Office who said that, after all, the commission can always report to Parliament if it is determined that an inquiry is not necessary and seek an explanation of the reasons for the Minister refusing to give permission. As I said during the second reading
Page 10162
debate, that would make a headline on page 5 or page 10 of the Daily Telegraph and would soon be forgotten, but a much-needed inquiry would not have taken place. It is essential for the commission to have this power. I do not pretend to speak on behalf of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe but in discussion with her she indicated that once more there has been blackmail by the Premier’s Office, which said that if members voted for this amendment the Government would pull the bill and blame the upper House for not having a children’s commission. That is unacceptable.

In a grandiose gesture the Treasurer said that the Government will accept the amendment to be moved by the Hon. A. G. Corbett, which will permit the Minister to give reasons. We know how reasons can be used to bamboozle people and tell them that white is black and black is white. I intend to divide the Committee on this amendment because it is important for the children of the State. I commend the Greens for having moved the amendment. I would have moved it myself if necessary.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.55 p.m.]: I should make it clear at the outset that I will not be moving Opposition amendment No.7, though I had intended to do so. To some extent the Hon. Franca Arena is correct: I understand that if we were to divide the Committee and have the amendment accepted, the Government would effectively pull the bill. On radio some weeks ago the Premier made it clear that if the Opposition went down the path of amending the proposed legislation to a level he regarded as unsatisfactory, it was his intention to blame the upper House and accuse its members of obstruction, thereby making this an issue. As I said in the second reading debate, I would be delighted to make child protection and the welfare of children an election issue. I suspect that the Premier and the Carr Government would have little about which they could get excited.

Many groups are anxious for the commission to be established even if it is based on flawed legislation and is not the best that could be done. I do not want to be accused of preventing the establishment of the commission. I have been on the record as supporting its establishment since I became shadow minister. I visited Tasmania to see what had been done there; I went to New Zealand and spoke to the commissioner there; and I spoke with the commissioner in Queensland. I understand what it means to have a children’s commission. The commission should be independent of government. I regret that the only way the commission can undertake the inquiries implied by the term "special inquiry" is if the Minister approves of it.

I realise that the Minister, or the Government, has to allocate the resources. The Minister has the documentation made available to him. Obviously a high level of co-operation is important. The Government is not interested in this commission and has put forward a series of excuses. My heart is very much with the crossbench members, but I will not allow the bill to be pulled because of this issue. Having strengthened clause 14 we have gone part of the way to putting on the record the nature of co-operation. I remind honourable members that the amendment agreed to this morning put in place a measure of co-operation between the commission, the Government and non-government agencies. I acknowledge the amendment that will be moved by the Hon. A. G. Corbett, which will require the Minister to give reasons if he does not co-operate with the commission.

There is an extreme measure of disappointment in the community. The work done by all the agencies that have focused on this issue, people involved with the Child Protection Council, groups such as the Association of Child Welfare Agencies, the Community Services Commission and others, has pointed to the need for special inquiry powers. The Community Services Commission and the Health Care Complaints Commission have those powers. In many ways the children’s commission would be a less powerful body than those commissions. I appreciate that they have the capacity to conduct special inquiries. The purpose of the children’s commission is not necessarily to deal with complaint inquiry work but more to carry out broad research work in the interests of children. Nevertheless, the Government has stopped short of meeting community expectations. It has failed to understand the real purpose of a children’s commission.

The Government has made a pitch to the community that this is a bold new step for New South Wales and that the commission will bring about a whole new deal for children, in a whole-of-government approach. Yet it has stopped short of giving it teeth and making it the very commission that the Government has portrayed to the media and the community. The Government now proposes that the commission will have the special inquiry powers only if the Minister approves. There has been a good measure of co-operation between the crossbench members and Opposition members on this issue.

Our goal is to have the commission established, first and foremost. The bill is flawed but if the Government will not move and this is the point upon which the Premier will seek to stop the
Page 10163
bill, I will not give him reason to do so or another reason to be critical of the upper House. Members of the upper House should be congratulated on the work they do and not condemned in the way the Premier frequently does. Having put my views on the record it is obvious that I will not vote for the amendment if a division is called.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Tingle
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen Tellers,
Mr Corbett Mr Jones
Mrs Sham-Ho Rev. Nile

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Dr Burgmann Mr Primrose
Ms Burnswoods Mr Ryan
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Mr Samios
Mrs Forsythe Mr Shaw
Mr Gallacher Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Ms Tebbutt
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis Mr Willis
Mr Kelly
Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mr Manson Mrs Isaksen
Mr Obeid Mr Moppett

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [10.07 p.m.], by leave: I move in globo the amendment on sheet C-137 and amendments Nos 1 to 14 on sheet C-089:

Page 12, clause 22, line 29. Omit "Nothing in this Act". Insert instead "Nothing in parts 3 and 4".

No. 1 Page 18, clause 33(1). Insert after line 28:

employer-related body means any body that supervises, represents or has other functions with respect to an employer.

No. 2 Page 19, clause 33(1), line 6. Insert at the end of the line:

, or

(e) performance of work as a minister of religion or other member of a religious organisation.

No. 3 Page 19, clause 33(1), lines 33 and 34. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

completed proceedings involving:

(a) child abuse or sexual misconduct by the employee, or

(b) acts of violence committed by the employee in the course of employment.

No. 4 Page 20, clause 35(1), line 30. Omit "may publish guidelines". Insert instead "must publish guidelines from time to time".

No. 5 Page 21, clause 35(3), line 10. Insert "The guidelines must also deal with access by employees or prospective employees to information that is or may be used in employment screening." after "application.".

No. 6 Page 21, clause 35. Insert after line 10:

(4) The Minister must ensure that guidelines are published with effect on the commencement of this Part.

(5) The Minister is to review the guidelines to determine whether they remain effective and appropriate having regard to the policy objectives of this Part (including relevant industrial and privacy issues). The review is to be undertaken within 2 years after the commencement of this Part.

No. 7 Page 21, clause 36(1)(b), line 19. Insert "(or employer-related bodies)" after "employers".

No. 8 Page 22, clause 37(4), lines 17-19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(4) An employer may engage:

(a) the Commission, or

(b) an employer (or employer-related body) approved by the Minister, to carry out all or any of the relevant procedures of employment screening on its behalf.

No. 9 Page 22, clause 37(6). Insert after line 26:

(b) child-related employment to which that Act applies by a minister of religion or other member of a religious organisation, or

No. 10 Page 22, clause 38(1), line 35. Insert "(or employer-related body)" after "employer".

No. 11 Page 23, clause 38(2), lines 1-5. Insert "(or employer-related body)" after "approved employer" wherever occurring.

No. 12 Page 23, clause 39(2), line 21. Insert "(or employer-related body)" after "another employer".

Page 10164

No. 13 Page 23, clause 39(2), line 23. Insert "(or body)" after "other employer"

No. 14 Page 25, clause 43(1). Insert after line 27:

(2) Any provision of that Act relating to fees or charges payable by applicants does not apply to such an application for access.

The Government is proposing a number of amendments to the Commission for Children and Young People Bill (No 2) which are the result of further discussions with the Opposition and crossbench members, the welfare sector, the unions and the Catholic Education Commission since the introduction of that bill and its cognate bills in another place. The amendments will clarify the intent of certain provisions thereby increasing protection for employees without detracting from the protection of children. I will briefly outline the effect of the proposed amendments. First, the Commission for Children and Young People Bill (No 2) will be amended so that members of religious orders who work with children, but who are not strictly paid employees, are covered by the bill’s mandatory screening provisions.

This clarifies the original intention of the bill and ensures that there will be equitable treatment of religious and lay employees who work side by side. Secondly, the definition of "relevant disciplinary proceedings in relation to acts of violence" will be amended to "acts of violence committed in the course of employment". This clarifies the types of completed disciplinary proceedings that can be used in employment screening.

The provisions relating to ministerial guidelines also will be strengthened. This will give greater certainty to employees by ensuring that the guidelines are in place and are published before the system commences, that the guidelines will deal with employees’ access to information held about them, and that they will be reviewed after they have been in operation for two years. Another amendment will clarify that screening can be conducted by an employer-related body if approved by the Minister.

These additional safeguards are important, given that the system is new and needs to be carefully monitored for any unintended consequences. Another amendment is intended to clarify that the provisions relating to privileged documents apply only to parts 3 and 4 of the Commission for Children and Young People Bill. This is to clarify concern about the width of the clause. I understand that these amendments have been the subject of consultation, and I believe they are generally supported as finetuning of the bill as originally proposed.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.11 p.m.]: The Government is far too modest. To suggest that the Government is moving a small number of amendments just to finetune the bill is to considerably understate what the Government is actually doing. The Opposition supports the amendments because they are the result of not just some consultation but considerable consultation with the Government, the Opposition and the crossbench members. Indeed the Government, in moving these amendments, has picked up on many of the issues and concerns that Opposition members and crossbench members would have sought to correct by way of amendment.

I make the point that the Government is being just a little too modest because, if one had listened to the Premier speaking on radio a couple of weeks ago, one would have heard his suggestion that the Opposition is about moving amendments to do all sorts of things to the bill that are certainly outside the intentions of the Opposition. In fact, the Opposition had flagged to the Government that the Opposition was trying to correct what it saw as problems in the bill.

I instance Government amendment No. 2 in relation to the performance of work as a minister of religion or other member of a religious organisation. There was some doubt that ministers of religion or others in religious orders fulfilling certain tasks in relation to children were necessarily covered by the bill. That was the view that the Catholic Education Commission had formed and relayed to the Opposition.

The next matter was in relation to certain acts of violence. Government amendment No. 3 embodied a matter that had been raised with all honourable members by the Teachers Federation. Government amendment No. 4 provides that the commission "may" instead of "must" publish guidelines. So much of this legislation hangs on the fact that guidelines are needed. The great pity is that honourable members do not have those guidelines while we are debating the bill.

All honourable members would say that having the guidelines would make debating and considering the bill much easier. So the vague reference in the legislation to "may" publish guidelines was a recognition by the Government of what had been recognised by Opposition and crossbench members and what we had intended to do by way of amendment. We need to make it clear that guidelines must be published. Indeed, the legislation would not work without the benefit of those guidelines. I indicate Opposition support for what the Government has sought to do. The amendments
Page 10165
clarify most of the issues that have been raised with members on the crossbenches and with me. We have sought to correct those matters, in many cases by way of amendments.

I place on record my thanks to the Parliamentary Counsel and in this instance particularly the Deputy Parliamentary Counsel, Mr Don Colagiuri. He has done a sterling job as amendment after amendment has come from the crossbenches and the Opposition - only to recognise and seek to deal with flaws in the bill and endeavour to improve it. I indicate my support for this Government measure, but, as I say, I just think the Government needs to be as little less modest.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [10.13 p.m.]: I place on record my full support for these amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Part as amended agreed to.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.14 p.m.]: The Government amendments that have been moved and accepted overcome the problem that I had seen in the bill. The Government’s substitution of parts 3 and 4 overcomes the problem that I saw in the legislation with the role of Cabinet overriding that of Parliament. My acceptance of the Government amendments means that I need not move my circulated amendment.

Part 5

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [10.15 p.m.]: I move A Better Future for Our Children amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 14, clause 23(2). Insert after line 15:

(d) a description of any request made by the Commission to conduct a special inquiry that was not approved by the Minister and a statement of the reasons given by the Minister for not approving of that request.

This amendment, which relates to the commission’s annual report to Parliament, adds another element that must be included in the commission’s annual report to Parliament. Currently, the bill requires the commission, among other things, to give "a description of its activities during that year in relation to each of its principal functions". The principal functions are listed in clause 11, and include:

(c) to conduct special inquiries under Part 4 into issues affecting children.

It is my concern that the commission would only report on any special inquiry it had undertaken and would not mention any special inquiry that it had sought approval to conduct but for which approval had been refused, or the reasons for that refusal. This amendment will ensure that Parliament will become aware of any request made by the commission which was not approved, and the reasons given by the Minister for not approving that request.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [10.17 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment. It will increase the transparency of decision making about why special inquiries are not undertaken. The powers triggered by a special inquiry are significant and should not be triggered lightly. This amendment will enable the commissioner to report on those matters which are not approved as the subject of special inquiries, and will allow the Government to clarify its reasons for not approving certain inquiries.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.18 p.m.]: I move amendment No. 1 circulated in my name:

No. 1 Page 15, clause 25(5), line 8. Omit "must". Insert instead "may".

When I read the provision in this legislation about furnishing draft reports to the Minister I was concerned that the commission was bound to consider any comment provided to it by the Minister. I felt that was somewhat onerous; that the commission should be given more independence; that it should not be compelled to consider comments put forward by the Minister; and that the commission should have more discretion in that respect. That is why I move this amendment to insert the word "may" instead of "must".

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [10.19 p.m.]: The Government does not accept the amendment. Currently, the bill requires the children’s commissioner to consider amendments suggested by the Minister on its draft. There is no compulsion on the commissioner to make the changes suggested by the Minister. He or she only has to consider those suggested changes. The amendment moved by the honourable member would mean that the commissioner would not even have to consider the Minister’s comments. The
Page 10166
Government regards the amendment as inappropriate.

Amendment negatived.

Part as amended agreed to.

Part 6

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [10.20 p.m.]: I move:

No. 4 Page 16, clause 28. Insert after line 31:

(3) The Commission may, as soon as practicable after a report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee has been tabled in a House of Parliament, make and furnish to the Presiding Officer of that House a report in response to the report of the Committee. Section 26 applies to such a report.

This amendment will ensure that the commission may respond to any report of the parliamentary joint committee, thereby ensuring that the commission can clarify and respond to any concerns or, on the other hand, reinforce any comments made by the committee in its reports. Should any debate result from a committee report, as in the event of a disagreement between the committee and the commissioner, the amendment will ensure that informed debate can occur as honourable members will be aware of the perspective of both the committee members and the commissioner.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [10.21 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment, which will give the commission a right of reply to reports made by the parliamentary joint committee.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [10.22 p.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 17, clause 29(1)(a), line 1. Omit "3". Insert instead "5".

No. 2 Page 17, clause 29(1)(b), line 3. Omit "8". Insert instead "6".

These amendments relate to the composition of the parliamentary joint committee. Clause 29 provides that the committee will consist of 11 members, three from the Legislative Council and eight from the Legislative Assembly. The numbers are not right. The committee should comprise five members of the Legislative Council and six members of the Legislative Assembly. That would be more equitable. Indeed, members of the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Social Issues, which has done much work in the area of children, should not be members of the new committee. It is grossly unfair if the Legislative Council has only three members on the committee. I hope the Government will support these amendments.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [10.23 p.m.]: The Government will accept these amendments.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.23 p.m.]: The Opposition supports these amendments as they are a step in the right direction. I commend the Hon. Franca Arena for moving them.

Amendments agreed to.

Part as amended agreed to.

Part 7

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.24 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 15:

No. 15 Page 20, clause 33. Insert after line 7:

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, the performance of the duties of a foster carer engaged by the Department of Community Services or by any foster care agency constitutes employment for the purposes of this Part.

The Greens are of the view that the proposed legislation does not make it clear that foster carers are covered for the purposes of employment screening. This amendment will rectify the situation, and I commend it to the Committee.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.24 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment. If the Committee accepts this amendment I will not move Opposition amendment No. 8, as paragraph (b) was the subject of a Government amendment, and the Hon. I. Cohen’s amendment will make it perfectly clear that foster carers are included for the purposes of employment screening. People in the community had doubts about whether foster carer were covered as intended. The Government has assured me that foster carers are appropriately covered, but I have no difficulty with accepting the amendment so that all doubt is removed.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General,
Page 10167
Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [10.25 p.m.]: Likewise, the Government will accept this amendment. It has always intended that foster carers be covered by the proposed legislation. Although the Government considers that this amendment simply clarifies, perhaps unnecessarily, that foster carers are clearly covered, it will acquiesce in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: I inform the Committee that its decision on a previous amendment precludes the moving of Opposition amendment No. 9 and amendment No. 2 of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.26 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 21, clause 35. Insert after line 10:

(4) The Parliamentary Joint Committee is, in consultation with interested parties, to review the guidelines to determine their effectiveness in implementing the objects of this Act and their impact on the industrial and privacy rights of employees. The review is to take place within 12 months after the guidelines are first published.

The amendment, which was proposed by the Teachers Federation, provides that the ministerial guidelines on employment screening will be reviewed by the parliamentary Committee on Children and Young People 12 months after their publication. The review will consider the effectiveness of the guidelines in protecting children, as well as their impact on the industrial and privacy rights of employees. This bill has the potential for a wide range of information on proven and unproven matters to be circulated among a potentially large number of employers. Given that we do not know what will be in the guidelines, it is essential that they be reviewed effectively to ensure that they promote the objects of the Act and do not deny the industrial and civil rights of employees.

The parliamentary joint committee is the most appropriate review mechanism because it will be independent of the Minster. It is being set up as a body to monitor and review the exercise of the commission’s functions as set out in clause 28(1). The Teachers Federation has suggested a short time frame of 12-months because the potential impact on employees’ privacy and industrial rights is massive and will need to be considered as early as possible. This amendment is a necessary safeguard for both the protection of children, to see whether the objects of the Act are being met, and the protection of workers' rights.

I understand that the Government proposes that the review take place after 24 months and be conducted not by the parliamentary joint committee but by the Minister. Although I can see the merit in extending the period before the review takes place, 12 months is a weaker alternative, given that the review by the parliamentary joint committee will ensure transparency and that it will take place at arm’s length from the political process.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [10.28 p.m.]: I do not want to raise a point of order, but I understand, essentially, that this amendment is substantially the same as Government amendment No. 6, which the Committee has already dealt with. Therefore, I submit that the amendment is unnecessary, and on that ground the Government opposes it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.28 p.m.]: I am not sure that the Minister is correct in saying that this amendment is substantially the same as Government amendment No. 6. I believe that it will provide a better way of approaching the review, and for that reason I do not intend to move the Opposition’s amendment. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones’s amendment will place the onus on the Minister to ensure that guidelines are published and that they are reviewed. The Opposition is of the view that the Minister will have a statutory obligation to review the guidelines not within 12 months but within two years.

I accept the Government’s argument but, given the magnitude of the task, 12-months after publication of the guidelines may be too soon to undertake a review. No doubt the joint parliamentary committee will keep the whole process under review, but two years would be a more appropriate time. The Minister issues the regulations, and has a statutory obligation to review them. Government amendment No. 6 is a better approach to that review, not that it necessarily refers to the same issue.

The Government amendment states that the Minister is responsible for the review and provides that it be undertaken after two years. For that reason the Opposition will not support the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, which was the initial approach of the Opposition. Indeed, the Opposition moved a similar amendment, but I was persuaded in discussions with the Government that its proposal may be the better solution.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon.
Page 10168
Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived.

Part agreed to.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [10.31 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [10.31 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the formation of the First Greek-Australian Foundation, which was founded in 1993. The foundation’s brochure states:

It is a registered charity, the ultimate aim of which is to found in Sydney a Museum and Cultural Centre charting the history of the Greek-Australian experience.

A further aim of the foundation is to present to the broader Australian community a record of Greek contribution to Australia. The brochure further states:

As part of its charter, the Foundation has sought also to foster cultural interaction between Greece and Australia. These efforts have culminated in the triumphant signing in September 1997 of an historic agreement between the Hellenic Republic and the State of New South Wales for the loan to Sydney of a collection of antiquities recording the history of the ancient Olympic Games.

The First Greek-Australian Foundation plans a number of other important initiatives that will foster its operations in the lead-up to the 2000 and 2004 Olympic Games. On Friday, 13 November, the foundation held a reception at Government House in honour of His Excellency Professor Evangelos Venizelos, the Minister of Culture of the Hellenic Republic, in the presence of the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs.

The patrons of the foundation are His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia; and His Excellency Ioannis Beveratos, Ambassador of Greece. Foundation members are Professor Manuel Aroney, Joanne Alexander, Peter Cassimary, Emanuel J. Comino, Stan Halkeas, Dimitri Kepreates, Nick Malaxos, Paul Nicolaou, Nicholas Pappas, Stavioula Saunders, Tanny Tsanis, George Venardos and Nick Vlahadamis.

The foundation plays an important role and represents a further step in the growth of an ethnic community that, like all ethnic communities, is an integral part of our Australian multicultural society. This progressive step will add to the social cohesion that is so important in our society. The organisers and the committee are to be congratulated on taking a positive step in relating to the cultural contribution of Australia’s multicultural society.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.35 p.m.]: I received yet another communication from the Wildlife Education and Research Centre, enclosing a copy of its letter to the Hon. Pam Allan about her dreadful policy on flying foxes. The centre points out that the black flying fox, Pteropus electa, will be killed with grey-headed flying foxes and red flying foxes. Black flying foxes are being shot in the area where I live, yet I am not aware of a single prosecution being taken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service for those shootings.

At this time of the year mother foxes are either carrying their young or leaving them in the roost. When the mothers are shot, the young die automatically. Is the National Parks and Wildlife Service going to the roost to find out how many babies are starving to death and determining what it will do for them? Nothing is mentioned in the information contained in the policy on flying foxes and mitigation of commercial crop damage, which the National Parks and Wildlife Service issued a few days ago. The policy states:

. . . the Service seeks to encourage orchardists to shoot to scare wherever practicable.

However, this is never done because orchardists enjoy shooting flying foxes. The Peggy Eby report stated that 50 per cent of orchardists illegally shoot flying foxes, but not one prosecution has been laid. Last night the House heard how one person picking up fruit had to drive over hundreds of dead flying foxes, most of which were mothers whose babies would starve to death. Do these people care? No, because they enjoy shooting the flying foxes.

The Minister has suggested that orchardists should use blanks to shoot to frighten away the flying foxes but, of course, these monsters prefer to shoot to kill. They have no concern whatsoever for
Page 10169
the animals or their young. The centre advises that an officer of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will inspect properties affected by active flying foxes. To my knowledge no inspection has been undertaken, and no checking will ever be done because those officers work only from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

Licences are issued to shoot a maximum of 50 animals, but if the licensee determines that more than 50 animals need to be harmed, he may make a second licence application to continue killing foxes. Nothing in the application form for an occupier’s licence ensures that the person wanting the licence will provide other crop protection measures like netting or the deterrents mentioned in this House on another occasion. The application just states, "Please provide details". Contrary to what the Minister said, the application does not indicate anywhere that a licence will not be issued unless the applicant ensures that crops will be netted or some other method will be used to deter flying foxes.

A number of things are published in the guidelines but very few things protect the flying foxes. I believe that this year the flying fox population will be devastated - perhaps by another 20,000, 30,000 or 50,000. Very few people in the Government care about these important creatures. They are important for maintaining the rainforest and assisting in the growth of eucalypt forest. They are more valuable in propagating forest than the Government and the orchardists give them credit for. The Government should reintroduce the moratorium and assist farmers to buy Phoenix alarm systems at reduced rates. This year they are about 10 per cent cheaper than normal - about $4,500. One orchardist said his alarm system paid for itself in six nights. If people were to get off their butts and investigate this method of deterring flying foxes they would find the system pays for itself very quickly. It deters birds and prevents hailstorm damage. No professional orchardist should be shooting flying foxes; only amateurs do that.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.39 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to conclude the story of the family from Narellan Gardens and their extraordinary experience at the hands of the intercountry adoption branch of the Department of Community Services. Last night I had reached November 1997. From November 1997 to July of this year the story does not change. More money was paid - $79 on one occasion for a home study. During that period the family’s ability to get files and clear answers from the department was not made any easier. Departmental officers were not available. That continued throughout the period. Let me now read from the letter of 8 September that the family sent to their local member, Dr Kernohan. It reads:

Further to our conversation on 7th September at your office, I wish to highlight several areas which have caused my husband and me great concern.

1. The Assistant Manager of the Intercountry Adoption Branch of DoCS required us to attend a P.E.T. parenting course before our approval could be granted. This requirement was appealed, and we were granted an approval for two children pending successful completion of the sixteen week course.

This program is geared towards parents with children - we don’t have children at this stage - and after being berated for not completing homework on numerous occasions we offered the suggestion that as we didn’t have children, it was impossible to report back on the effectiveness of the "skills" being taught.

It was then suggested to us that we could "practice on dogs" to learn to read body language and signals! This certainly wasn’t what we had paid $100 each to be exposed to.

2. In recent weeks we have made application to adopt a specific sibling group of 3 children from Columbia. Firstly, we wrote to the Manager of the Department but were not graced with a written response.

A phone call was forthcoming after a delay of around three weeks, and we were advised that because we were approved for a sibling group of 2 children (having applied for 2 or 3 children) that we would have to be re-assessed at our expense. This would require being referred back to our original social worker, in whom we had lost confidence.

Should we request a different social worker the approval process would have to start from scratch at our expense and considerable delay. $1,300 and six months.

At this stage we decided there was little point in progressing with this specific enquiry, and that we should wait for an allocation from the orphanage in Colombia.

Some five weeks later, we heard through another source that the Department had located an alternative social worker for us, and that we could now continue by payment of a smaller fee, and be re-assessed in respect to these three children.

Once again we wrote to the Department, addressing our letter to both the social worker responsible for our file, and copied for information to the Manager. Again, no written reply was received. However, we were contacted by phone and advised that the alternate social worker had now accepted a different brief, and that yet another social worker would have to be located who was willing to accept the re-assessment of our application.

To date, we are awaiting confirmation that an alternate social worker is available.

3. It is our contention that the decision makers within the

Page 10170

Department of Community Services, Intercountry Adoption Branch should be required to present their findings in the form of a dual list which would indicate "Positives" and "Negatives" as identified through the assessment. This would result in the Department being required to justify or substantiate their decisions in relation to each application.

At present, no decision is supported by anything more substantial than the much overused and abused phrase "decisions are made with the best interests of the child/children being paramount". In our experience this is questionable.

The letter goes on to refer to the delays. At this stage the family has no approval to adopt any children. I understand it was suggested that they take three children but it turned out that two of them were siblings and the older child - a 12 year old - was in fact the uncle of the children, the other two children being very young. Because the family had been granted approval for a sibling group, they could not then have access to those children.

The whole thing is a farce. The suggestion that one does a parenting course and practices skills on one’s dogs sums up all that is wrong. Added to that, they paid $1,300 and were then asked to wait for that period of time. I think the Minister has indicated some sort of inquiry will be held into the actions of her department. If she has not done so, I urge her to do so. The whole episode is a disgrace. Somebody owes this couple from Narellan Gardens a profound apology for the way they have been treated.

Motion agreed to.