Dr. Alexander Wilon JP
Chief Executive Officer
National Australian Security Providers Association
PO Box 319
OBERON NSW 2787

Dear Dr Wilon,

The changes being proposed to the Upper house by the Treasurer Michael Egan represent a serious erosion of its powers and would ensure that those who vote for minor parties and independents would not be adequately represented in Parliament.

Introducing a deadlock provision would allow the Government to call a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament to push through legislation twice rejected by the Upper House or remove amendments deemed unacceptable by the Government. It would also give the Government power to ram through legislation to abolish the Upper House altogether.

Dr. Rodney Smith, senior lecturer in political science at the University of NSW, states that a deadlock provision would mean that "the Upper House would effectively become a sort of House of Lords that can suggest amendments but has no power to enforce them". It would also aid in the long-term abolition of the Upper House as "once you have an Upper House without terribly much power, people are more likely to say, 'well, why do we bother?'"

Reducing the membership of the Upper House from 42 to 34 would increase the quota of votes required to be elected by 22%, and introducing a 3% primary vote threshold would benefit the major parties and make it more difficult for non-major party representatives to get elected.

If these changes had been in place at the last election Lee Rhiannon of the Greens, Peter Breen of the Reform the Legal System Party, Dr Peter Wong of the Unity Party and Malcolm Jones of the Outdoor Recreation Party would not have been elected. It is likely that One Nation would have had an additional member elected. The only minor parties which reached the 3% threshold in the last election were One Nation, Australian Democrats and Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party.

There is also no need for such a change. The Upper House optional preferential proportional representation voting system is working exceedingly well. Minor party and independent candidates attracted over 35% of the vote at the last election and won one third of the seats, while the major parties received over 64% of the vote and won two thirds of the seats.

Such draconian measures are also not needed to ensure that the "table cloth" sized Upper House ballot paper and plethora of front parties experienced at the last election are not repeated. There are easier ways of ensuring that minor parties are legitimate such as increasing the number of members, the registration fee and the formation time period required for each party.

Members of the Upper House need your help to oppose these changes to ensure the Legislative Council remains a strong and democratic House of review able to represent all sections of the community.

You would be are aware of just how crucial a role the Upper House plays in assisting the community in amending or rejecting problematic legislation and bringing issues to the Government's attention that would otherwise be neglected. Furthermore the Legislative Council plays an essential role in keeping governments accountable. The Court of Appeal recently affirmed the power of the Legislative Council to demand a range of government documents, stating that "No legal right to absolute secrecy is given to any group of men and women in government."

I therefore urge you and your members to write to the Premier and voice your concerns about these proposals.

Letters of concern need to be written as soon as possible as these changes, if made, will be passed by July 7 1999.

If these proposed changes are passed with the support of the Opposition, minor parties, independents and community groups will need to run a very powerful NO campaign when the referendum is voted on at the 11 September 1999 local council elections.

I do hope that you will be actively involved in that campaign.

Best wishes.

Yours sincerely,
 
 

RICHARD JONES

===================================================================
End of letter

Dr. Alexander Wilon JP
Chief Executive Officer
National Australian Security Providers Association
PO Box 319
OBERON NSW 2787

Dear Dr Wilon,

The battle is not over to sttop the Treasurer from effectively destroying the Upper House.  There is a long way to go yet.

I wonder if you mind sending me a copy of the letter you have written to the Premier so that I can table it in next week in the House, along with other letters, to prove that we have significant community support.  It is really important to show both the Government and the Opposition that community groups throughout New South Wales are opposed to these devestating changes.  Would it be possible to send it in the next couple of days?

Interestingly we now have figures to show that Members of the New South Wales Legislative Council represent more people than any other State Upper House in Australia (see attached).  There is only one Member elected for every 151,500 people in New South Wales, compared to one per 29,000 in Tasmania.  Reducing the number of Upper House Members will make it more difficult for the remaining Members to represent the community adequately.  Our Legislative Council also has less power than any other UPper House in Australia giving the Government even less excuse to further weaken our powers.

With your help we can stop this very real attack on democracy in New SOuth Wales.  If the Government is successful in getting these changes through the next steop may very well be a Bill to abolish the Upper House which we would not be able to stop.

Best wishes.

Yours sincerely,
 

RICHARD JONES

===================================================================
End of letter

Send a copy of your letter to:

The Honourable Richard Jones, M.L.C.
Legislative Council
Parliament House
SYDNEY   NSW   2000
Fax:  02 9230 2871

===================================================================
Attached Information for letter dated 17 June 1999

State    New South Wales
Number of members of the Upper House:  42
Population and Ratio of Upper House Members to Population:  6.363m at 1:151,500
Term of Office:  2 terms (8 years).  21 are elected at each election.
Method of Election:  Proportional representation accross entire State.
Current Membership:  Government 16;  Opposition 13;  Cross Bench 13.
Powers in relation to money Bills:  Cannot ultimately reject or ammend (see section 5A Constitution Act (NSW)).
Deadlock machinery:  Bills rejected by LC may be enacted after conference of managers, joint sitting and referendum (see section 5B Constitution Act (NSW))

State    Victoria
Number of members of the Upper House:  44
Population and Ratio of Upper House Members to Population:  4.675m at 1:106,250
Term of Office:  2 terms (8 years).  22 are elected at each election.
Method of Election:  22 member provinces, one member elected at each election
Current Membership:  Government 34;  Opposition 10;  Cross Bench 0.
Powers in relation to money Bills:  Can reject, suggest ammendments (and ammend "alien provisions") - see sections 62-65 Constitution Act (Vic)
Deadlock machinery:  If Bill is resolved by Legislative Asssembly (LA) to be of "special importance" the Governor may dissolve the LA within one month of its rejection -- see sections 66-67 Constitution Act (Vic).

State    South Australia
Number of members of the Upper House:  22
Population and Ratio of Upper House Members to Population:  1.489m at 1:67,681
Term of Office:  2 terms (8 years).  11 are elected at each election.
Method of Election:  Proportional representation across entire State.
Current Membership:  Government 10;  Opposition 7;  Cross Bench 5.
Powers in relation to money Bills:  Can reject, suggest ammendment, but not ammend as such * -- see sections 60-63 Constitution Act (SA).
Deadlock machinery:  If Bill is resolved by the LA to be of "special importance" the Governor may dissolve the LA within one month of its rejection, double dissolution may follow.

State    Western Australia
Number of members of the Upper House:  34
Population and Ratio of Upper House Members to Population:  1.840m at 1:54,117
Term of Office:  1 term (4 years).  34 are elected at each election.
Method of Election:  Proportional representation across six electorates.
Current Membership:  Government 17;  Opposition 12,  Cross Bench 5.
Powers in relation to money Bills:  Can reject, suggest ammendment, but not ammend as such * -- see section 46 Constitution Act (WA).
Deadlock machinery:  Legislative Assembly and Legislative Councill have equal pawer.  No formal machinery exists for resolving deadlocks -- see section 46 Constitution Act (WA).

State    Tasmania
Number of members of the Upper House:  15 (changing from 19)
Population and Ratio of Upper House Members to Population:  0.472m at 1:31,466
Term of Office:  6 years.  3 retire elected each year.
Method of Election:  15 (19) single member electorates.
Current Membership:  Government 5;  Opposition 1,  Cross Bench 13.
Powers in relation to money Bills:  Can reject, suggest ammendment, but not ammend as such * -- see sections 37-44 Constitution Act (Tas).
Deadlock machinery:  Legislative Assembly and Legislative Councill have equal pawer.  No formal machinery exists for resolving deadlocks -- see section 45 Constitution Act (Tas).

State    Queensland
Number of members of the Upper House:
Population and Ratio of Upper House Members to Population:  3.472m
Term of Office:
Method of Election:
Current Membership:
Powers in relation to money Bills:
Deadlock machinery:

Senate
Number of members of the Upper House:  76
Population and Ratio of Upper House Members to Population:  18.813m at 1:247,539
Term of Office:  2 terms (8 years).  38 are elected at each election.
Method of Election:  Proportional representation across each State and Territory.
Current Membership:  Government 35;  Opposition 29,  Cross Bench 12.
Powers in relation to money Bills:  Can reject, suggest ammendment, but not ammend as such * -- see section 53 Constitution Act (Cth).
Deadlock machinery:  Double disslolution followed by joint sitting -- see section 57 Constitution Act (Cth).
 

*  As Harry Evans points out in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, Eighth Edition, AGPS, Canberra, 1997, at page 274: "The provisions of a section 53 ... are procedural limitations only, not substantive limitations on power, because the Senate can reject any bill until it is amended in the way the Senate requires.  In particular, the distinction between an amendment and a request is purely procedural: in one case the Senate amends a bill itself, in the other it asks the House of Representatives to amend the bill.  In both cases the bill is returned to the House of Representatives for its agreement with the proposed amednment.  In the absence of agreement the Senate can decline to pass the bill."

John Evans
Clerk of the Parliaments
4 June 1999
 
 
 
 

29 June 1999

The Honourable Richard Jones
M.L.C Legislative Council
Parliament House
SYDNEY NSW 2000 By Facsimile 02-92302871

Dear Mr. Jones,

Firstly, I should like to commend you on your decisive leadership which I hope has prevented the Carr Government from yet another step towards the erosion of democracy in NSW.

I forwarded copies of your letter to all our members, and I also posted it on the Internet. Our members' response was of profound indignation and anger, and many of them assisted in the further distribution of the letter.

The leader of the National Party Mr. Souris recently described the Current Government as "The Carr Mafia Government".

Due to the lack of a realistic opposition, the Carr Government and his supporters have embarked on dictatorial style of leadership which, if unchecked, will lead to a totalitarian style government.

I also thank you for forwarding a copy of the letter from the Minister of Police. Mr. Whelan's response did not surprise me. As you know, I have no confidence whatsoever in Mr. Whelan and the Carr Government appointed Police Commissioner Ryan.

I am amazed that the NSW Police Commissioner was unable to detect that the principle power players governing the NSW Security Industry have now created a monopoly from which there is no escape.

Everyone in the security industry is aware of the hopeless state of affairs of our industry--everyone but the NSW Police Minister and the NSW Police Commissioner.

Everyone is aware of the low morale and desperation in the NSW Police Service which is causing our best officers to resign in droves--everyone but the NSW Police Minister and the NSW Police Commissioner

In a letter to my office ICAC merely stated that the nature of the matter raised did not fall within their jurisdiction. ICAC informed me that they had forwarded the matter to the NSW Police Commissioner for investigation--an investigation which of course failed to produce any results.

NASPA firmly believes that if an Independent enquiry was to be held in the management of the NSW Security Industry, it would produce far more evidence of corrupt conduct than that produced during the recent enquiry in the NSW Police Service.

If given the opportunity, I would be delighted to head the enquiry and help the NSW Police Commissioner discover the necessary evidence.

I strongly support reforms to the NSW Security Industry, indeed, I believe that the reforms should be held at a national level. I was delighted to read the findings of the Industrial Commission CIT Enquiry. The Commission was highly critical of the NSW Police management of the NSW Security Industry, and recommended immediate action.

Regrettably, I saw the same incompetent individuals involved in the "restructuring" process. The NSW Security Industry Act and Regulations were hurriedly passed in an attempt to satisfy the Commission's recommendations.

During a recent poll conducted by NASPA, it was found that only 6 security companies out of 408 had been consulted.

By forcing security providers to join associations "approved" by the Commissioner, and by refusing that approval to many worthy organisations merely because they did not belong to the "Club", the "Club Members" have firmly established a deadly grip on the industry.

This grip has begun monopolisation of the industry and ultimately will result in poor quality of service due to reduced competition and criminal activity.

To be frank with you, I feel that the NSW Security Industry is now beyond recovery. We are dealing with a very powerful "club" cooperating with a mafia style government. We are also dealing with an impotent opposition.

NASPA will continue to oppose the NSW Security Industry Act and Regulation (aka the Club Members Act and Regulation). We will continue to recommend the suspension of the Act and Regulation and a consultation process involving every member of the security industry, not just the "Club Members".

Please do not hesitate to seek my personal support in preventing the Carr Mafia Government from eroding the democratic rights of the citizens of NSW.

Warm regards,
 
 

Alexander Wilon JP PhD
Chief Executive Officer

 
* The term club member applies to a small group of unethical, greedy people, who have been dominating the NSW Security Industry for the past 15 years.  The club members enjoy the support of corrupt politicians and corrupt authorities.  Through these connections club members are attempting to set up a monopoly in the industry--not just in NSW but Australia wide.