LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thursday, 17 May, 1990

MAFIA INVOLVEMENT WITH DRUG TRAFFICKING

Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) r11.241: I move:

(1) That this House calls upon the State Government to request the Federal

Government to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the activities of the

Mafia with terms of reference which would focus upon-

(a) the involvement of the Australian Federal police and the New South

Wales police with the Mafia in the illegal growing of marijuana crops

on the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales and in the Brindabella

ranges in the Australian Capital Territory;

(b) corruption involving the cultivation and distribution of marijuana in the

Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and in particular the Griffith area; and

(c) the relationship of all the above with the death of Mr Winchester and

related allegations of police corruption and any commonality of personal

interests involved therein.

(2) That the New South Wales Government offer full co-operation and

support for the conduct of such a Royal Commission; and

(3) That senior experienced officers from Scotland Yard be called in and

that the Victorian Police Force be requested to provide personnel to form an

independent investigative body to assist the Royal Commissioner appointed to

report on such matters.

This is the gravest matter that I have ever raised. The second most senior

police officer in our country has been assassinated. More than 10 crops of

marijuana, worth tens of millions of dollars, were grown on the South Coast

and Southern Tablelands of New South Wales and in the Australian Capital

Territory, some of them with police knowledge and or involvement. There

was mafia and other criminal involvement with police in illegal

marijuana-growing operations. For seven years senior State and Federal police

have been and are involved in a massive coverup and conspiracy of silence

to avoid responsibility for illegal acts. Judge Foord has links with organised

crime and the marijuana industry. There are serious questions about the

efficiency of the National Crime Authority. There is an absence of effective

structures which, together with incompetence and lack of political

commitment, has allowed organised crime to flourish, especially in the

marijuana industry. There is a danger to my life. An attempt was made to

bug a committee room of the Australian Parliament to listen in on secret

discussions involving the National Crime Authority. There is a lack of political

and administrative will to pursue the illegalities of police action in a

multimillion dollar marijuana-growing operation. Bungling and corruption

have been involved and people have profited from it. Attention is focused

on whistleblowers rather than the illegality of police activity.

All this has happened despite important legislative advances-they are

not inconsiderable-such as the confiscation of the proceeds of crime and

the Independent Commission Against Corruption that were put in place by

this Government. After what I reveal today, if this Government does not give

unstinting and unqualified support to the establishment of a Federal royal

commission as outlined and, because of sensitivities within the police force

or the police ministry concerning outside investigations, this Government

slides away from its responsibilities in this awesome matter, it will commit

political suicide and stand condemned for its lack of courage. I do not believe

it will but I have not taken the risks and carried the burdens this far to be

denied. This is just the beginning.

Today is an important day in the life of this Parliament. I thank the

Leader of the Opposition, the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic

Affairs and the Attorney General for their bipartisan support. What is needed
is absolute commitment. At the outset, I thank my family for the heavy

responsibility and burdens that it has carried for some years now and in

particular in the last few weeks. A Federal royal commission structured as I

have suggested with wide terms of reference and sufficient powers and a

royal commissioner with the courage, commitment and capability to carry the

matter through with a dedicated counsel assisting and, above all, a competent,

honest and independent team of investigators of high integrity, will yield

information that will shock the country. I am rock solid on that. A precedent

has been established for calling in overseas investigators. South Australian

Premier Dunstan called in Scotland Yard to investigate the death of Mr

Duncan. Dunstan, in his memoirs, stated:

The police investigation could not sheet home responsibility for the murder.

A coroner's inquiry was allowed to offer an anonymity and protection to anyone

giving information, but no evidence was obtained which could lead to charges

being laid.

Salisbury had to cope with this mess. Since there was a possibility of

allegations of local police involvement in the crime, he asked permission to call

in two Scotland Yard officers to check the investigations. That was done.

Dunstan was referring to the death of a private citizen. I am referring to the

death of the second most senior police officer in Australia and I am referring

to all the matters that I have outlined. Despite the fact that I have not

mentioned Mr Grassby's name in any way anywhere in association with the

matter before the House today, yesterday morning I received a letter from

Mr Foley, the lawyer representing Mr Grassby. Prior to the receipt of that

letter, the Attorney General had informed me that actions for criminal

defamation and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice are listed in the

Supreme Court tomorrow, Friday, 18th May, for a date to be set for the trial.

The Attorney General counselled me strongly against making any adverse

inferences against Mr Grassby. I have not in any way prejudiced the case,

and will not do so now. I will mention Mr Grassby today but in no way

making any imputation against him. What I say today is not to be taken as

any imputation against him. I ask the press to carefully observe this. Mrs

Mackay and Mr Salmon have an interest in this case, as well as Mr Grassby,

and I am being very careful in what I say.

In the past few days my telephone has been running hot with calls

from the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, and

Western Australia, as well as calls from within New South Wales, of course.

People are anxious to help. The only thing Australians need is to have an

investigation in which they can have confidence and, in some cases, a forum

in which they can feel safe. My job today is considerable; it is to detail, in

as simple a form as possible, a complex and frightening picture, to bring

forward new information and to raise grave questions that only a royal

commission with solid bipartisan national support can adequately answer. The

drug industry is one of Australia's biggest industries. That it is able to survive

and flourish in the way that it has in New South Wales is a national scandal.

In summary, I will demonstrate the continuity of events and my role in those

events from the death of Donald Mackay on 15th July, 1977, to the death of

Assistant Police Commissioner Winchester on 10th January, 1989, and show

why these deaths are inextricably linked and how the events form a continuum.

The key principals involved in marijuana growing in Griffith are the

principals involved with Operation Seville in which Assistant Police

Commissioner Winchester played a pivotal role. These people continue to

flourish. The key figures are Antonio Barbaro and Luigi Pochi, but there are

others. Because there is some confusion with family names, I shall not name

the others at this time. Large-scale marijuana crops were grown in Griffith

as early as 1971. Donald Mackay gives information in a court case; his diary
is given to defence counsel without key sections, not related to the court

case, being sealed off. Donald Mackay is thus revealed as an informant.

Shortly after, in July 1977, he is brutally murdered. Wran says that no stone

will be left unturned to track the killers; no inquest is held for five years;

Attorney General Walker says he has to wait for a police report. The

Woodward royal commission is established; it exposes mafia links and mafia

families; the Wran Government denies Woodward access to grass castles;

Woodward complains that he has less power of entry than a fruit fly inspector;

after the Woodward royal commission I receive incredibly naive answers to

questions in Parliament-for example, in answer to a question on whether

the Commonwealth-State task force is to be called in, Crabtree replies that

Griffith is not related to hard drugs.

Later shadow attorney general Dowd exposes Nugan Hand and forces

an inquiry that proves links between Nugan Hand in Griffith and heroin and

international gun-running. Crabtree refuses to accede to my call for a joint

Victorian-New South Wales task force. He says there is a special New South

Wales task force investigating Donald Mackay's murder. There is little, if

any, interstate co-operation in the matter. Victorian police prove links between

the Mr Asia heroin syndicate and Robert Trimbole. Inspector Parrington

bungles the investigation, ignoring vital evidence that later led to the

identification of Mackay's killer. Later Parrington was castigated by Mr

Justice Nagle.

Mr Justice Woodward reported to the New South Wales Government

in November 1979. He recommended that a task force be set up to monitor

the activities of Trimbole and his associates. No task force was set up. In

November 1979 Trimbole tells the Sydney Morning Herald that "That Page 20

commission can't touch me or charge me in any way". Trimbole was right.

He was able to flee the country, despite the royal commission. In 1982
Gianfranco Tizzone provided Victorian police with precise details of

Trimbole's telephone number and address, and the name he was using. Later

in 1984, Victorian Assistant Police Commissioner Mengler publicly expressed

concern that the Trimbole information in 1982 had not been acted upon. The

Trimbole file on necessary action,for an extradition treaty to get him back

from Ireland was removed from the desk of the Federal Attorney-General to

the storage vault and marked "No further action required".

Further information on Trimbole's Spanish address was provided. In

1987, Trimbole dies of natural causes, five years after his whereabouts were

known to Australian authorities. The Woodward royal commission exposes

those involved with the mafia and with marijuana growing in Griffith. The

key figures simply turn up in another location a few hundred kilometres away.

It is business as usual in the Brindabella Ranges in the Australian Capital

Territory and in the Bungendore-Braidwood areas of New South Wales, with

Luigi Pochi and Antonio Barbaro at the helm. About 10 crops-and these

are only the ones I know of-were able to be grown and harvested, and tens

of millions of dollars' worth of marijuana were able to be marketed. Two of

those crops were ripped off five times while under police surveillance. This

week the New South Wales police have admitted to $2.75 million worth of

marijuana being lost, and more than $84 million worth of cropping occurring.

The industry flourished. My estimates are much higher.

Senior New South Wales and Australian Federal Police co-operated in

an illegal operation, Operation Seville. The first crop was ripped off twice;

the second crop was ripped off three times, both while under police

surveillance. Of the police officers involved in the massive police operation,

which ones acted corruptly? Which officers acted for legitimate purposes,

and which officers were in league with the mafia? I demand to know. It was

a joint operation. The Federal Police blamed the New South Wales police
and said it was mainly their operation under Mr Bob Blissett, the head of

the Bureau of Crime Intelligence. Answers to questions asked in Parliament

this week discount the fact that the Federal police played a minor role. Who

is lying? Assistant Federal Police Commission Winchester, however, did play

a pivotal role, and he was assassinated on 10th January, 1989, before he

could give evidence when charges against 11 people were brought to court.

What was the parliamentary and bureaucratic response? I first raised

this matter by placing questions on notice in 1983. For seven years the

questions were not answered. Questions relisted for seven months last year

under this Government were also not answered. For two months this year

they were not answered. Fortuitously, those questions were answered this

week. The answers tell us that the former Minister for Police, Mr Anderson,

was kept in the dark until I took an interest, and that he was briefed only

two weeks prior to meeting with me. The Federal Police Commissioner at

the time, Sir Colin Woods, told Jana Wendt in a "60 Minutes" program in

August 1987 that he did not know of the operation, and that if he had known

he would have taken action against the officers concerned. The answers this

week to my questions show that he not only knew about the operation but

authorised it. Someone is lying.

The answers also state that former Commissioner Abbott sanctioned

the operation. Was Seville crop No. 1 authorised by Abbott without

Commissioner Lees knowing? This massive illegal joint operation, State and

Federal, was carried on in conjunction with the mafia-an operation that went

horribly wrong and out of which people were able to make massive profits.

There was no internal inquiry, no ministerial inquiry, no disciplinary action,

no civil charges laid, no answers to questions, and no support for my call

for a royal commission in 1987 when I was even prevented by the former

Attorney General Sheahan from speaking on the floor of the House. There
were no formal interviews of officers such as Jamieson who kept a running

sheet on the illegal operation. Constable Jamieson was interviewed in depth

only when he went public on television recently on the "7.30 Report", and

then the interview was by police internal affairs. No one wanted to know.

Assistant Police Commissioner Winchester was assassinated. I believe

Winchester would be alive today if that royal commission had been held in

1987.

I turn to Winchester's death. Assistant Police Commissioner Winchester

played a pivotal role in Operation Seville, in which there was a known mafia

involvement with the Australian Federal Police. Investigation was allowed to

be carried out by the Australian Federal Police, a police force that was

compromised by its involvement in Operation Seville. The Australian Federal

Police investigation became split into two camps, those who wanted to get

to the truth and those who wanted to cover up the illegality. This illegality

is bound to be revealed by a competent, independent investigation. The Federal

Government's response to the assassination of the second most senior police

officer in Australia was to hold an inquest. However, if a person is accidentally

run over by a bus and killed, an inquest is held. An inquest is a legal

requirement for probate reasons. The inquest into the assassination of

Winchester is being carried out competently, but on a part-time basis. Cahill

is the Australian Capital Territory chief magistrate and also the coroner. He

is doing two jobs at once. That inquest relies on a compromised police force

as its investigative arm.

In the case of Donald Mackay no inquest was held for five years. There

was at least, however, the Woodward royal commission, which exposed

important arms of the mafia. I am co-operating with Mr Cahill, as I did with

the National Crime Authority and the police. I believe that Mr Cahill is

committed, brave, dedicated and competent. I do not wish to embarrass him

and it is certainly not at his behest when I say that he should be considered

as the royal commissioner. His experience, his knowledge, and his track

record support my view. Judge John Foord is connected with organised crime

and drugs. In a censure motion on former Attorney General Sheahan on 2nd

December, 1986, the present Premier said:

Indeed, for several years a light sentence before Judge Foord was one of

the most lucrative rackets in town, being offered by that class of touts and con

men who thrive on the edges of the law. Two quite distinct cases have emerged

of drug trafficker Benny Esposito taking money in return f0r.a good deal before

his friend Judge Foord.

I will have more to say about Esposito later when I pass this summary stage

and give some of the interesting detail. The Vincent report had revealed a

statistically inconsistent pattern of sentencing by Judge Foord, especially in

cases involving solicitor Morgan Ryan. Foord is defended by those who argue

that he has delivered consistently light sentences. This is not so. I will detail

a number of drug cases which reveal extraordinary coincidences of leniency

and, in at least one case, forgetfulness. I will also refer later to Benny

Esposito. Shadow attorney general Dowd and Leader of the Opposition Greiner

called for a royal commission. Photographs given to me-and I shall refer

to them later-and to the New South Wales police were passed on to the

National Crime Authority. These five photographs gave evidence of Foord's

association with known drug traffickers. I will refer to these matters later.

As Mr Greiner said when he was Leader of the Opposition, referring to former

Attorney General Sheahan:

All the Attorney has done is to hand to the Authority evidence concerning

the Judge, relevant to the mafia reference.

Mr Dowd: On a point of order. I appreciate that it is a courtesy title

to call him a judge. As he is no longer a serving judge, he should be referred

to by his proper name. Another judge has a similar name.

Mr HATTON: I am grateful for that advice. I do not want any

confusion in this matter. Mr Greiner then said:

What are the allegations of impropriety on the part of the former judge,

even the allegations of improper conduct associated with organised crime

figures?

What are the broader allegations of judge shopping and the informal but
significant

system of plea bargaining which operated in this State for several years? Those

questions fall squarely within the responsibility of the Attorney General, a

responsibility he has consistently sought to avoid.

Former Judge Foord said he did not know of those people's reputation. This

was at a time when the marijuana industry was flourishing. Inquiries made

of the National Crime Authority after the photographs were handed over were

met with a wall of silence-that is, my inquiries. Nor was there any action

by former Attorney General Sheahan in response to calls from shadow attorney

general Dowd and the Leader of the Opposition for a royal commission.

Sheahan said it was a matter for the National Crime Authority, and could

not see his obvious responsibility. Judges were pleased not to deal with the

Foord matter. They had no power at the time to investigate a retired judge

under the Judicial Commissions Act. I have no brook with that. There was,

however, neither pressure from them for a wider inquiry, nor public outrage.

They took the view that it was not their problem. As the Liberal leader of

the upper House, the Hon. M. F. Willis, said at the time, Foord was able to

retire on a pension of $82,000 a year. I will be more specific about that later.

My research officer received evidence of an approach by an attendant

to another attendant at the old Parliament House, Canberra, to seek his

co-operation to bug committee room No. 7 of the Australian Senate in the

old Parliament House building. I spoke to the person in charge of the room

at the time, who recalled that a National Crime Authority meeting was to be

held that day. Information was passed to Mr Bob Green of the National Crime

Authority by my research officer. My research officer was not interviewed;

the attendants were not interviewed. The National Crime Authority, in a closed

hearing, heard from a secret witness, Mr X, of a plan concocted by the mafia

boss, Robert Trimbole, to kill me. Did they tell me? No. I went on dealing

with the National Crime Authority while they knew of this bloodcurdling plot

and they never breathed a word of it to me. Neither the National Crime

Authority, the Attorney General of the day, if he had known-I do not

know-nor the Director of Public Prosecutions, who must have known as it

was on his file, and the National Crime Authority, which must have known,

informed me. Who else knew? Why was I not told? This matter is

bloodcurdling. It was not until a change of government and the appointment

of Mr Dowd as Attorney General that I heard of it.

Attorney General Dowd confidentially apprised me of this chilling

evidence. Honourable members should put themselves in that position and

ask why a member of Parliament was not told and confided in, and feel as

I do. Barrister Gillespie-Jones warned my research officer of the danger to

my life. The same barrister rang Constable Peter Jamieson, who noted it in

his police diary. Peter Jamieson is the honest policeman at Bungendore who

desperately tried to get his superior to do something about the Bungendore

marijuana crops down the road. My research officer, Alan Barry, passed this

on to the New South Wales police. Neither Jamieson nor Barry were

interviewed. Gillespie-Jones simply declined to be interviewed by the National

Crime Authority and that was the end of that. What does this say to me or

to any other parliamentarian about the value placed on our lives? However,

the night after Winchester was murdered, 11th January, 1988, the area
commander contacted me. He was concerned about my safety; he wanted to

put a police guard on my house. Some time later, Constable Peter Jamieson

was contacted by police and told to get out of Bungendore with his wife and

family. Police paid for his relocation and his accommodation.

What do the police know that we do not know about Winchester's

death and the links with Operation Seville? I will say more about that later.

I have thought long and hard about this matter. Some exciting things are

happening in Queensland and New South Wales and in other areas in terms

of an attack on organised crime. It is clear that both nationally and

internationally we do not know the answer; we do not have the mechanisms.

I do not enjoy raising allegations, but the role of Parliament with its absolute

privilege is vital. Had it not been for a small number of people throughout

Australia, the public perception of what is happening with organised crime

and corruption would not have been raised to the level whereby change was

forced. Peter Anderson, George Paciullo, the Hon. E. P. Pickering and Senator

Tate are all good people. I do not cast any aspersions on them. They relied

on the police for their information. Police Ministers are vulnerable in that

regard. Former police Minister Anderson was the first police Minister in New

South Wales to admit to institutionalised corruption and he set about attacking

the problem with a disciplinary package. George Paciullo took up where

Anderson left off; and John Avery, despite recent problems, has done a good

job. The Attorney General and the Greiner Government have done a good

job and have gone some considerable distance, as did former MLC Derek

Freeman. There are also others outside the parliamentary scene.

I have spoken to the Attorney General, the Premier, the Minister for

Police and Emergency Services, the Leader of the Opposition and former

police Minister Anderson, seeking a 100 per cent commitment in a united

approach. This matter must become everyone's problem and everyone's

interest. It must not be interpreted that I am bailing out; far from it. But I

will not carry this burden on my own any longer. I did so during the Wran

Government and I do not want to do it any more. Hence the wide consultation

and bipartisan approach to this matter today. If there is not that sort of support

it is unfair to my wife, to me and to my fellow citizens. Omerta is the Italian

word for silence but the English word silence is not a translation. Omerta

really means "silence-or else". Omerta is the best protection the mafia has.

Whether it is silence by choice or silence by terror is immaterial. So long as

there is silence there is no trouble.

The lawyers they use, the police they bribe and the officials they corrupt

are invaluable allies but there is no ally as cheap, as widely used and as

efficient as omerta. This motion presents this Parliament and the Australian

Government with an opportunity to expose omerta as a mafia weapon, to end

the silence, and to strip off the covers of mafia involvement in the marijuana

industry of New South Wales. There are no racist or ethnic stains in my use

of the word mafia. Organised crime is a business. People of all racial and

cultural backgrounds are involved. The mafia flourishes because of this. Only

the origin of the term is Italian; the connections are international. The

operatives and collaborators are Australians of differing origins. Australian

Italians are fine people, whose culture I respect, whose contributions I admire

and whose friendship-many of them close to me-I enjoy. Fortuitously, this

week, seven years after I first placed questions on the parliamentary notice

paper and nine months after I placed questions on notice for this Government

to answer about Operation Seville, at last we have some answers. There have

been seven long years of silence. If I am permitted to do so, I should like

to refer to the detail of some matters. I seek an extension of time to enable

me to complete my speech on this matter.

Mr DOWD (Lane Cove), Attorney General [11.51]: Rather than

adopting the usual form of a member seeking an extension of time, I move:

That so much of the sessional orders be suspended as would preclude the

honourable member for South Coast, Mr Hatton, being allowed unspecified time

for his speech.

Motion for suspension of sessional orders agreed to.

Mr HATTON: I thank the Attorney General and the House for

extending to me that courtesy. In April 1983 I first met Detective Senior

Constable Max Chapman. During 1983 I interviewed serving police officers

and others about Operation Seville. In November 1983 I placed questions on

the parliamentary notice paper. In December 1983 I wrote to the Australian

Federal Police and New South Wales Commissioner of Police at that time,

Mr Abbott, about the Bungendore crops. In early 1984 I met with police

Minister Anderson and senior police and received a briefing. In July 1984 I

met with senior New South Wales police. In April 1986 I wrote to Assistant

Commissioner Bob Shepherd, of New South Wales police, seeking a progress

report. In May 1986 in a censure motion in the Parliament I raised matters

relating to marijuana crops. In June 1986 I received a letter from Assistant

Commissioner Shepherd, who said he had no real or personal knowledge of

the Braidwood crops. In fairness to Mr Shepherd, I was not sure that he was

referring to "the crops". In May 1987 I called on the Parliament to set up a

royal commission, but I was never permitted to speak in the House about the

matter. Immediately after that I met with police Minister Paciullo. With my

research officer, Alan Barry, I went to the National Crime Authority. We

spent two hours discussing this matter in detail with Mr Justice Stewart. In

May 1989 I placed further questions on the parliamentary notice paper.

There have been seven long years of research and co-operation on my

part with the authorities. At last, officially, we have some answers. At last

police are admitting, officially, that Operation Seville-an illegal operation

to have marijuana crops grown by the mafia-was not approved by either the

Attorney General of this State, the Federal Attorney-General, the Federal

Ministry of Justice, the Federal justice Minister, the New South Wales police

Minister or the Federal police Minister. It was a multimillion dollar illegal

operation, involving two police forces, that was completely out of control.

According to answers I have received to questions, police Minister Anderson

was not told of the drug crop nor of Operation Seville until three years after

the fact-in January 1984. There were two plantations conducted in a joint

State-Federal police operation. The first plantation was ripped off on two

occasions; the second-which was a separate operation-was ripped off on

three occasions. Police admit to at least $2.75 million worth of marijuana

being lost.

Sergeant Cullen of Goulburn police was reported in the Queanbeyan

Age of 14th February, 1983, as saying at that time that $3 million was lost

from one crop alone. Someone is lying. In answer to questions asked this

week police say that the Federal police commissioner at that time, Sir Colin

Woods, and the State police commissioner, Mr Cec Abbott, sanctioned

Operations Seville I and 11, yet Sir Colin Woods said in an interview with

Jana Wendt on the "60 Minutes" program in August 1987 that he knew

nothing about it. He said that if something like that was happening in his

area, he should know about it. He said he found the situation hard to believe.

He said further that if there was such an operation, it was probably illegal-a

master understatement. When asked what he would do if such a matter was

drawn to his attention, he replied:

Well, I would take the strongest action. I think the people who are doing

that would be very dangerous people. No matter how good their motivation, their
professionalism is gravely in doubt. They would have to answer for it.

Blind Freddy in the Braidwood area knew what was going on. There had

been a number of crops before Operation Seville. The "Police Crop" program

depicted the local police officer on traffic duty, such were the movements to

which Peter Jamieson believed attention should be directed. When the matter

finally came to court in an abortive case brought on by the National Crime

Authority-when 11 people were charged with conspiring to cultivate Indian

hemp at Bungendore-the representative of the Director of Public

Prosecutions said that he would call evidence to show that "after the first

Bungendore crop had been harvested in mid-1982 Mario Cannistra and others

had approached the police informant, Giuseppe Verducci, about establishing

a second plantation. This crop had eventually been established in a State

forest several kilometres from the first site". He said further:

Police had inspected the site before the crop had been planted . . . After a

meeting between Mario Cannistra and Pochi and Antonio and Rocco Barbaro, it

had been decided to set up a third plantation at the same location 100 metres

away.

I am talking about people involved before the death of Donald Mackay. There

were two plantations-Seville I and Seville 11. At best, Operation Seville was

an almighty foulup; at worst, a multimillion dollar conspiracy. If it was

intelligent, it was also sinister. The situation gets worse. There is evidence

of more than 10 crops, which would realise profits in excess of $100 million.

Think about what such an amount would do for organised crime! On 9th

December, 1983, I wrote to Mr Cec Abbott, who was then the Commissioner

of Police, about a number of important questions. Because this was a joint

operation, copies of those questions were sent to Federal police commissioner

Grey. I received no answers to those questions, and one wonders why I raise

them now in the Parliament. I do not ask that those questions be printed in
Hansard. In November 1983 I placed on the parliamentary notice paper

questions about the transfer of Max Chapman. I asked when Goulburn police

first became aware of the Monga State Forest marijuana crop-the Verducci

crops. I asked for the names of senior police officers of the Goulburn police

district who were involved and whether they were aware of the illegal activity;

the involvement of Australian Federal Police; the arrests; the harvesting; the

seizure of marijuana; a visit by Detective Sergeant Cullen to a house at

Griffith; and the arrest of Salvatore Parisi and others. No answers were ever

provided to those questions. On 9th December, 1983, I wrote to Commissioner

Abbott. I have informed the House of that already. Those matters were never

answered.

Early in 1984 police Minister Anderson went to extraordinary lengths

to locate me over a weekend to ask me to come to Sydney, because 1 said I

had met with senior police and that if I did not get answers to questions I

had raised in letters I would place more questions on the notice paper. On

25th July, 1984, with my research officer, Mr Barry, I met with senior New

South Wales police, including Assistant Commissioner Ross and former Chief

Superintendent Bob Shepherd. I was asked not to proceed publicly. I was

informed that an undercover intelligence operation was under way which was

aimed at tracking the marijuana marketing chain to capture the principals

involved. I was told that if I were to proceed publicly, I would place at risk

the life of at least one person. With some misgivings I acceded to their

request. I waited almost two years, until 16th April, 1986, before writing to

Assistant Commissioner Bob Shepherd seeking a progress report on issues

raised in the 1984 meeting. I received a handwritten letter from him, which

was dated 15th June, 1986, in which he wrote, "I had no real or personal

knowledge of the Braidwood crop". He wrote further:

I hope you don't mind, but I got in touch with Chief Superintendent Paul
Lawrence of the Drug Law Enforcement Bureau and Superintendent Jim Forster

of the Bureau of Crime Intelligence, who have full knowledge of the incident.

They will gladly, on a personal level, give you all the details within their

knowledge.

At one such meeting I was shown a three metres by one metre chart on which

the mafia families were plotted. It showed those who had been killed. The

importance of the operation was explained to me. Hansard of 22nd April,

1986, records my reference to my investigations into crops of marijuana in

the Braidwood area and investigations involving Tizzone. I expressed faith

in Mr Anderson, who had in the intervening period moved from the police

portfolio to become Minister for Youth and Community Services. The record

shows that I voted for the censure motion that was moved at that time.

By 13th May, 1987, I had had enough. My investigations had pointed

up some very serious matters indeed which I now believe could be associated

with the death of Assistant Police Commissioner Winchester. On 13th May,

1987, in this House, I gave notice of motion calling for the Government to

establish immediately a royal commission with terms of reference to

investigate: (1) the growing of crops of marijuana in the Goulburn police

district at Monga State Forest, Michelago and Bungendore; (2) whether, and

if so how, at least $6 million worth of marijuana-that was my estimate-in

the Bungendore area was able to be harvested and marketed when the crops

were under police surveillance; (3) whether any arrests were made in

connection with the Bungendore crops and if not, why not; (4) the role in

the operations of Detective Inspector William Cullen, Detective Sergeant First

Class George Slade, Bureau of Crime Intelligence, Superintendent Reg Martin,

Superintendent Herbert Talarico, Executive Chief Superintendent (Country)

Gallagher, Assistant Commissioner Bob Shepherd, Commissioner Abbott and

any other persons. I inadvertently omitted Mr Bob Blissett who, as head of

the BCI, played a pivotal role in Operation Seville.

I make no apologies. I received a lot of mail from the fadies and I

can understand their anxiety. But I sincerely tried for years befoie I got to

that stage. However, police responsible for upholding the law were involved

in an illegal act-some in a peripheral way, some for idealistic reasons, others

were corruptly involved. After seven years of silence, I now demand the truth

that only an independent Federal royal commission can reveal. Police and

the Police Association are critical of me. My obligation is to get to the truth.

This can best be done by them supporting a call for a royal commission to

isolate corrupt police and to clear the names of the others in the operation

as well as the names of tens of thousands of honest police men and women

who provide excellent service in a difficult social climate. That should be

the aim of the Police Association and that should be the aim of all.

The events which followed were most revealing. In answer to a dorothy

dix question by the honourable member for Riverstone, George Paciullo, the

then Minister for Police, admitted to the police surveillance of the marijuana

plantations and revealed few facts about Operation Seville. He said that

Operation Seville led to the arrests of drug offenders and the clearing up of

two of the most notorious murders in the country and the charging of another

10 persons with serious drug offences. He did not give credit to the Victorian

police for these arrests and convictions and did not push for a royal

commission. He said that the senior police officers I named were incensed

at the implications in the motion. He said that the National Crime Authority

had a reference to investigate the growing of marijuana nationally. He

suggested I withdraw the motion and consult the National Crime Authority.

I agreed, provided I was given an opportunity to make a statement to the

House.
Hansard of 14th May, 1987, records that the then Leader of the House

and Attorney General sheahan went to extraordinary trouble to prevent me

from speaking, despite what I understood to be an agreement made between

myself and Mr Paciullo. It is obvious from Speaker Kelly's remarks that he

was also aware of what was going on. It was suggested by the Leader of the

Opposition at that time, Mr Greiner, that it was a simple matter for the

Attorney General to move suspension of standing orders and at least to

explain, to ask or to press or to do something. George Paciullo is a good

man, but like all other police Ministers he was reliant on police information.

Neither Attorney General Sheahan nor the Labor Government wanted the

matter aired. I was ruled out of order. The motion stood but was never

debated. Accompanied by my research officer, I then attended a two-hour

meeting with the National Crime Authority.

On 25th May, 1987, my research officer, Alan Barry, and I met with

Mr Justice Stewart and senior counsel of the NCA for over two hours. We

have co-operated with them ever since in regard to matters that I will not

reveal today. Serious questions must now be raised. How is it that two years

later, in 1989, the National Crime Authority bungled the court case against

11 people? The NCA must have known that the police informant, Verducci,

was playing both sides and was a completely unreliable person. This, with

the absence of any adequate witness protection program, meant that any case

that stood or fell on Verducci's evidence was bound to fail, and it did. The

NCA relied on the fact that Verducci had previously given evidence which

led to the conviction of a person in the drug industry. To rely on him to

convict leaders such as Pochi and Barbaro was naive in the extreme. Recent

reports from Victoria show that Barbaro and Verducci went marijuana

cropping together after the court case. Yet Verducci portrayed himself as

being in fear of his life, particularly at the behest of these people.

There is confusion as to whether Assistant Commissioner Winchester

was to give evidence at the trial. In any event, Winchester was shot in January,

1989, before he could give evidence. The role of Verducci and his relationship

with the police and the reliance placed on him by the NCA scream out for

investigation. After Operation Seville Verducci was able to grow marijuana

in the Guyra area using equipment previously used at Bungendore. Constable

Peter Jamieson, the officer in charge of the Bungendore police station at the

time of Operation Seville, expressed concerns about the marijuana growing

and cropping in the area. So great was Jamieson's concern about the widely

known marijuana cropping that he kept unofficial running sheets. He

threatened to go to College Street. He was abused and assaulted by his then

district detective, Sergeant Cullen. The unofficial running sheets were then

given to the then Country Superintendent, Gallagher. Where are those sheets

now? What action was taken on them? On television, Gallagher said he

reprimanded Jamieson and directed him to record the information officially.

Jamieson denies this. I have a copy of the records and there is no evidence

to support this.

Apart from two very brief and informal visits from officers of the

NCA, the last being on 13th October, 1988, no one really wanted to know

what was happening. No statements were taken. For seven years Jamieson

was not interviewed in detail until he made a public statement after the

screening of "Police Crop". To what extent were politicians involved? Did

the Federal Minister of State, Minister responsible for the Australian Federal

Police, know of and sanction the operation? We have seen some evidence

from answers today. Was the Federal Minister ever briefed? Did he ever ask?

He must have known when I raised the matter publicly. There was no real

concern; no in-depth investigation followed. Advice to him from the AFP put
almost total blame on the New South Wales police. Senator Tate is a good

man. However, he is being lied to by the Australian Federal Police. On 30th

August, 1987, Federal Police Commissioner, Sir Colin Woods, said on

television that he knew nothing of the operation, had not sanctioned it and

SO on.

At the time I withdrew the motion, Mr Paciullo informed me that

former Commissioner Abbott, former Executive Chief Superintendent

Gallagher and Inspector Cullen, who were incensed at the implications of my

motion without any comment from me, would co-operate with any inquiry

into the allegations. But there was none. There was not even an internal

inquiry. No approach was made to me; I was not interviewed. Mr Paciullo

put the onus on the NCA but this did not remove the onus from him as

Minister for Police. Senior New South Wales police at the highest level were

involved in a massive illegal operation. Abbott sanctioned the operation. In

discussions with me and my research officer, Alan Barry, Mr Justice Stewart

personally underlined my very serious concerns about the involvement of

New South Wales police. Yet no action has been taken or public expressions

of concern voiced either by the NCA or by the New South Wales or Federal

police Ministers. There are other very serious administrative and political

questions surrounding this whole matter. Evidence given by a witness in

secret in a closed hearing of the NCA warned of a plan to kill me. Neither

the NCA nor the Attorney General, State or Federal, warned me of this. It

had to await a change of government. Attorney General Dowd told me that

it was on a file prior to him becoming the Attorney General. Can anyone

imagine anything more blood-curdling than this, that perhaps a fellow

parliamentarian or certainly the Director of Public Prosecutions or somebody

in his office, or the NCA or somebody on its staff would not warn me of a

death threat? Why? Did the Attorney General or his staff know? I am shocked
and dismayed at this.

On 11th January, 1988, the night after Colin Winchester was shot, the

Area Commander South-I believe at that time it was Assistant Commissioner

Bill Fleming-phoned me expressing concern and asked whether I felt the

need for a police guard on my home. As I was to go away the next day on

a short holiday on the Russian cruise ship, Pushkin, I declined. I was

concerned but I did not want the intrusion of a police guard. A police car

patrol was arranged. Similarly, as I have mentioned, Constable Jamieson had

expenses paid for his wife and family to get out of town. It is obvious that

police thought that Hatton and Jamieson were under threat-a direct link in

the minds of senior police between Winchester's death and Operation Seville.

Some years ago when I was investigating matters connected with the death

of Donald Mackay, my sister, who was working at the Volvo factory, received

a warning from a truckdriver. The warning was that when I was driving along

the Princes Highway an attempt would be made to run me off the road and

make my death look like an accident. My sister's married name is not Hatton.

Someone went to some trouble to locate her. I have not talked about this

matter before anywhere, but I have to reveal it today, and I have to tell the

House the pressures that my wife, my family and I have felt. The danger is

real. In recent years 16 people connected with organised crime and marijuana

have met violent deaths. My research officer, Mr Alan Barry, a man with

whom I have worked for more than 10 years, a man who was a whistleblower

in the Department of Motor Transport-he was sacked because of that-and

a man in whom I have complete faith and trust, noted in a memo that on

Wednesday, 22nd June, 1988, he received a telephone call from a barrister

at law, Mr Gillespie-Jones. In summary, the file note records that

Gillespie-Jones was to meet A1 Grassby "once again". Mr Barry presumed

that the Grassby meeting was to discuss Max Chapman's case. Max Chapman

was the former New South Wales police officer who was trying to get into

the Australian Federal Police.

Gillespie-Jones expressed concern for my safety. He said that Mr Greg

Woods, Queen's Counsel, and Grassby's lawyer, had indicated to

Gillespie-Jones in a personal discussion that he was aware of some danger

to John Hatton in that, because of Hatton's knowledge of the marijuana

plantations, the police may wish to cause John some physical harm.

Gillespie-Jones became vague when asked about the original source of the

death threat information. Gillespie-Jones recommended that I, John Hatton,

make a very detailed statement in respect of all matters related to marijuana,

and he said that he was happy to draw up such a statement. He said that he

had pulled out of representing the 11 Italians charged by the National Crime

Authority. I invite honourable members to think about that little scenario.

Gillespie-Jones informed my research officer that Grassby intended to

approach Bob McMullan of the Australian Labor Party and arrange for a

meeting with a Mr McGowan to discuss Chapman's denied appointment to

the Australian Federal Police. I immediately wrote to Commissioner Avery,

informing him of the Gillespie-Jones discussion and of the death threat. Mr

Barry was never interviewed about the substance of the telephone

conversation. On 5th August, 1988, at 8.15 a.m., my research officer

telephoned Senior Constable Peter Jamieson. Senior Constable Jamieson said

that Gillespie-Jones mentioned that John Hatton's life was in danger, as well

as his own-that is, Jamieson's life. Senior Constable Jamieson confirmed

to Mr Barry that he had made a record of the salient points of the conversation

in his official diary. Jamieson was not interviewed about this matter.

Does anyone doubt the ruthlessness of the group involved in these

matters? Does anyone doubt that there are senior police officers and members
of the mafia with a lot to lose? Shooting people involved in the marijuana

industry, witnesses and informers, is becoming a part of Australian life. It is

my firm view that Deputy Commissioner Winchester, as I said earlier, would

have been alive today if the royal commission I sought to have established in
1987 was granted.

I make this statement knowing how serious it is. Whether

or not it is a fact that the assassination was directly related to the marijuana

growing industry, the Australian Federal Police investigation into the death

of Winchester is compromised in any event by his involvement and its

involvement in that illegal operation and that illegal industry. Senior officers

of the New South Wales police and Australian Federal Police officers are so

compromised that some of them will do anything to prevent the truth of

Winchester's involvement and their own involvement from ever coming out.

Thus, the efficacy of any investigation carried out by the New South Wales

police or the Australian Federal police is severely prejudiced; and that is the

investigation on which the Coroner has to rely.

Have not the Drury-Rogerson and the Blackburn cases taught us

anything? In the "Seville" matter, the careers-and more--of senior officers

are at risk. We cannot-we must not-leave the investigation in the hands

of police officers who are compromised. The integrity of the two major police

forces in this country is under question. It is our duty and the duty of the

Australian Government to impartially investigate this matter. This can be

done by putting the investigation in the hands of a police force other than

the New South Wales Police Force or the Australian Federal Police. This is

no time for niceties or for consideration of feelings. This is the time for

action-national action. We owe it to the citizens of Australia, the men and

women of New South Wales and the Australian Federal Police. There is an

international aspect to all of this. What does it say to police forces in other

countries if our second most senior Australian police officer is assassinated?

There is known police involvement with the mafia and there is a lack of

political will and commitment to pursue the truth. The commonality of the

people involved in Bungendore and Griffith points to a Griffith replay. There

are a number of people involved. However, I name only the two key figures:

Antonio Barbaro and Luigi Pochi.

I turn now to Judge Foord. In late 1985 I handed a series of photographs

to police. Those six photographs were taken at the engagement party of Benny

Esposito. Contemporaneous notes I made when given the photographs

identified to me those at the party to be Harry Lahood, Dominic Sergi, William

Booth, Pat Sergi, Barry Hoff, with Lahood and Hoff identified as close

associates of Hakim; in the second photograph, Barry Hoff, Harry Lahood

and William Booth; the third photograph, Tina Esposito and Judge Foord; in

the fourth photograph, Harry Lahood, Mrs Lahood, Tina Esposito, Rita

Esposito, Benny Esposito and Judge Foord; the fifth photograph, Franco Sergi

and Benny Esposito; and the sixth photograph, Con Constanopolous, Tina

Esposito, Frank Sergi and Dominic Sergi. The reputation of many of these

people would be known and must have been known to former Judge Foord.

Reports of remarks allegedly made by Judge Foord at the party have been

passed on to the National Crime Authority.

I turn now to the interview at Long Bay. The prisoner I went to see

with Superintendent Lawrence of the Drug Law Enforcement Bureau was held

in protective custody in a darkened cell with guards outside so that anyone

entering the cell would be backlit and could be seen by, but could not see,

the prisoner. The informant was obviously terrified. He spoke of an attempt

having been made on his life and that of his girlfriend and a daughter. He

told me he was involved in the marijuana and heroin industry and that former

Judge Foord was a vital part of that industry. The prisoner said that he was
a courier of money from Griffith to Pat Sergi, and he named a number of

people he had met. He spoke about Morgan Ryan's link with Hakim and

connections to Griffith. He told me of a multimillion dollar drug operation,

but he did not give details. All of this information and the photographs were

passed on at the most senior level of the New South Wales Police Force, for

the purpose of being passed to the National Crime Authority.

On 16th December, 1985, Mr Justice Stewart wrote to me after reading

a report in the Sun-Herald of 8th December, 1985, in which the NCA

investigators were reported as having "studied photographs showing a New

South Wales judge drinking beer at a party attended by drug dealers" and

some remarks made by me. Mr Justice Stewart advised me that the

investigators had seen the photographs but that they did not have copies in

their possession; and he was simply setting the record straight. The matter

again surfaced in 1986. I wrote to Mr Justice Stewart as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 16th December, 1985, in which you advised

me of the Authority's position in respect of certain photographs.

My letter continued:

. . . I understand the photographs were taken in 1979, the same period as the

Supreme Court Judge, Mr Justice Woodward, was investigating the activities of

drug trafficking.

I pointed out to Mr Justice Stewart that it struck me that the photographs

were worthy of investigation and that 1 could find no evidence that the

authority viewed this matter with seriousness; that it had made any request

for the photographs; that it intended to examine the relationship between the

New South Wales judge and those persons in the photographs; and how these

relationships came to develop and to what extent they may have been evident

with other persons suspected of, or known to be involved in, drug trafficking.

I then asked the authority to indicate what action, if any, the authority was
taking in respect of these matters. I received a dismissive letter from Mr

Justice Stewart indicating that his letter of 16th December was just to set the

record straight about the press report and that section 51 of the Commonwealth

National Crime Authority Act 1984 prevented him from responding to the

matters that 1 raised in my letter.

In 1986 the Vinson report caused links to be revealed between Judge

Foord and solicitor Morgan Ryan and Judge Foord's selective and lenient

treatment given to Morgan Ryan's clients and others. This was summarily

dismissed by Attorney General Sheahan. However, Wendy Bacon, writing in

the National Times on 14th September, 1986, left little doubt about the matter.

She referred to the photographs taken in 1979 at the home of Benny Esposito,

who has since been "convicted of possession of $280,000 in counterfeit US

dollars in a conspiracy to supply drugs". She then outlined those cases of

Judge Foord that had attracted comment from the Court of Appeal Or in the

press, and she cited a number of examples. They included the case of

Francesco Mittiga, a public servant who arranged passports for Robert

Trimbole. The Court of Appeal found that the bond given by Foord was

inadequate but declined to send Mittiga to prison because the appeal had been

delayed for so long. The main reason for the delay was that Foord failed to

supply a corrected version of his reasons for sentence. Wendy Bacon also

reported as follows:

Paul Ostara was taped by fellow prisoner Billy Downes saying that the then

Detective Roger Rogerson offered to arrange lenient sentences in his armed

robbery

case in return for them giving false evidence in the inquest into the shooting of

drug dealer Warren Lanfranchi. Downes and Ostara offered to give evidence in

the Supreme Court case but later reneged on this offer. They were both given

bonds by Foord.

George Adler, a solicitor, was struck off the roll for embezzlement of $200,000
and was given a bond by Foord. This outraged the Law Society whose

investigator found Adler living in luxury at the time of the case. On 2nd

December, 1986, the then shadow attorney general, John Dowd, told State

Parliament that Judge John Foord had connections with Robert Trimbole and

the Sydney-based mafia. Dowd identified Benny Esposito, a drug trafficker,

and said that while he was not directly associated with Trimbole he was a

close associate of other members of the Sydney-based mafia. Dowd revealed

disturbing allegations of Foord's associations, when he was a barrister, with

Robert Trimbole and other members of the Sydney-based mafia and said that

these allegations were all the more disturbing because of the number of

members of the organisation, including close associates of Trimbole, who

had come before Judge Foord and received light sentences. He cited a number

of cases. For example, in December 1978, Judge Foord gave a three-year

bond and a $5,000 fine to Domenico Velardi who had been arrested in 1977

in possession of almost two tonnes of marijuana. Mr Justice Woodward proved

that this marijuana was part of the infamous Euston crop, which was described

by Mr Justice Woodward at the time as the biggest single seizure of prepared

leaf in the State.

Dowd also mentioned the Mittiga case, to which I referred earlier. He

referred to a case in 1981 where Pasquale Vecchi came before Foord charged

with the cultivation of more than 1,200 cannabis plants. Vecchi pleaded guilty

and received a bond but the Crown then appealed against the lightness of the

sentence. As a result, Vecchi received a four-year gaol term. Dowd referred

to horse doping-and I remind the House of Trimbole's interest in horse

racing. Dowd referred to "the storm within racing circles" over the light

sentence given to Robert Field for horse doping apd the "outrage within the

Corporate Affairs Commission" when Judge Foor dismissed the case against

John Giles Bourke after five years of preparation. & r Greiner, the then Leader
of the Opposition, was quoted as saying-and I referred to this earlier; "Touts

and 'con' men have been able to traffic injustice in New South Wales because

of an informal system of plea bargaining and judge shopping".

Mr Greiner also said: "Two distinct cases have emerged of trafficker

Benny Esposito taking money in return for the good deal before his friend

Judge Foord". Mr Greiner, who was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald

of 3rd December, 1986, was speaking during an Opposition censure motion

against Attorney General Sheahan for his failure to take effective action.

Sheahan flicked off this matter, as had Anderson in connection with the Age

tapes and the National Crime Authority. There is no record of the National

Crime Authority ever doing anything. One of the greatest scandals was the

answer Attorney General Sheahan gave to Mr Greiner on 19th November,

1986, when Sheahan revealed that former Judge John Foord had produced

health certificates and had resigned. Sheahan said, in part:

Yes, that does mean that as Mr Foord is no longer a judicial officer his

conduct or any allegations against him will not be investigated by the Judicial

Commission.

No, the Government will not establish a royal commission.

Both the then shadow attorney general John Dowd and Leader of the

Opposition Greiner had called for a royal commission into Judge Foord.

Sheahan was correct when he said that section 32(1) of the Judicial Officers

Act provides that, "the Conduct Division shall cease to deal with the complaint

if the officer ceases to hold office". As the Hon. M. F. Willis pointed out

on 19th November, 1986, Judge Foord, who was then aged 55, was eligible

for an annual pension of $82,000 for the rest of his life. All this occurred

nearly a year after I handed photographs and supplied information to the New

South Wales police, who said they had passed it on to the National Crime
Authority. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 21st November,

1986, took Sheahan to task for asking why the National Crime Authority was

given the Foord case. It quoted Mr Greiner as saying, among other things:

It's perfectly proper for the NCA to investigate questions of drug running

and other matters. But the basic issues of leniency allegations and judge
shopping

rackets are the responsibility of the New South Wales Government.

I am fed-up with no investigations; dead-end investigations; incompetence;

the long arm of coincidence which allows key princi als to escape; the lack

of will; the lack of expertise; and the indolence or de lberate cover-up. These

all scream out for a royal commission. When coincidences were so numerous

and so regular, a favourite saying of Wal Lewer, who was once Deputy Chief

Magistrate, was, "It affronts the logic of the mind". The Winchester coronial

inquiry, under Mr Cahill, is doing, and has done, an excellent job. Mr Cahill

has taken the wider view in investigating Winchester's cause of death.

However, it can be argued that the inquiry has turned into a quasi-trial of

Eastman. The Coroner simply does not have the power or the investigative

backup to examine the wider implications of such a tangled matter. Subsection

(2) of section 30 of the Australian Capital Territory Coroners Ordinance

states:

Nothing in the last preceding subsection requires a person to make an answer

which will criminate or tend to criminate him of an offence.

That statement alone will preclude some members of the police from coming

forward and giving meaningful and truthful evidence; for example, police

who were unknowingly used in an illegal operation and who simply followed

orders. Criminals with evidence to give must be given, where appropriate,

immunity against prosecution, but, at the very least, they must be guaranteed

protection. Under the Royal Commissions Act, statements made before a royal
commission in defined circumstances cannot be used in subsequent trials. In

June the Coroner will examine Operation Seville, but he does not have the

necessary coercive powers and he cannot grant immunity from prosecution.

At least one witness that I know of is in fear and I have a letter to that

effect. I have written to, and spoken with, Coroner Cahill. My research officer

has met with him. I have offered him my complete co-operation. Coroner

Cahill informed me that the Australian Capital Territory Coroners Ordinance

confers on him a wider duty to ascertain the strength of evidence which could

lead to someone being convicted of an indictable offence. This could then

mean a pre-committal hearing concerning a number of people.

For a number of reasons the Coroner should make a finding which will

legally satisfy family and other immediate requirements. After the inquest is

concluded, and with the benefit of royal commission findings, the inquest

can be reconvened by the Federal Attorney-General. This is dangerous; but

I do not know how dangerous. Every honourable member in this House knows

the risks. I have taken precautions and I have asked for the full support of

every honourable member in this Parliament. In my view, I am getting that

support. Clearly, the National Crime Authority has failed to do what a royal

commission can and must do. I will not repeat matters that I referred to

earlier, but I wish to refer to one important matter. In August last year the

Sydney Morning Herald reported that, in August 1982, Mr Justice Stewart

recommended to the Federal and New South Wales governments that Trimbole

be found and extradited. This raises some serious questions. Did the Federal

and New South Wales governments act on that recommendation? If so, why

did he take two years to commence extradition proceedings or formulate the

legislation to allow extradition proceedings? Was the Tizzone information

passed on to, or withheld from, the Stewart royal commission? Is it

coincidence that nobody followed it up and Trimbole went free?

Previously in Hansard I have referred to the naivety of answers from

Mr Crabtree relating to evidence given by Alison Dine in the inquest on

Douglas and Isobel Wilson. I shall not repeat that here. There is a need for

an outside police force. It is proven police practice, in an inquiry of officers

under suspicion, to use officers who are distanced from the suspected officers.

In the absence of a structure in Australia similar to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, the next best solution is to use overseas and interstate police

officers. All police forces have a corruption problem, and the Victorian police

are no exception. However, it was the Victorian police who arrested Tizzone

and charged and convicted him. The Victorian police convicted George Joseph,

the killer of Donald Mackay. It was Assistant Victorian Police Commissioner

Mengler who informed the inquest on Douglas and Isobel Wilson of the link

between Clark and the Nugan Hand organisation, further extending the link

between marijuana, Griffith, and heroin. These links were proven.

The present Attorney General, Mr Dowd, knows a great deal about the

Nugan Hand matter and deserves credit for being the first politician in

Australia to raise this matter-I believe that at the time he was at great

risk-and to successfully demand and bring about an in-depth inquiry. The

Victorian police were putting runs on the board at the same time as the former

Minister for Police, Mr Crabtree, was answering my questions on notice with

disinformation. At the same time in New South Wales, Inspector Parrington

was bungling the inquiry into Donald Mackay's death. I do not blame Mr

Crabtree; I blame the police. Mr Crabtree had to rely on their information.

I have outlined a continuum. It is a tangled mess that only a royal

commission has any chance of untangling. The National Crime Authority has

failed dismally in this matter. There is evidence of an attempt to bug a

committee room of the Australian Parliament at the former Parliament House

specifically to eavesdrop on a meeting between the National Crime Authority

and other people. What followed was incredible. My research officer passed

on the information to Mr Bob Green of the NCA. They were not interested;

they never even probed the possible truth. They interviewed neither my

research officer nor the other people involved. Why? Can people wonder at

my diminished faith in the National Crime Authority?

This matter will not go away, no matter what happens to John Hatton.

It is now too big. The truth will out. Lesley Hicks wrote a book entitled The

Appalling Silence about the murder of Donald Mackay. That appalling silence,

omerta, still hangs over the marijuana growing industry in Australia. The

Wran Government's record on the Mackay murder is appalling-the

prevarication, the delay, the inefficiency, the lies, the half-truths, the

unwillingness. What is it about marijuana growing industry investigations?

The coincidence of incredible bad luck, incompetence, failed and inefficient

investigations, lack of political will. Omerta! The proposed royal commission

must have the widest terms of reference and must be able to guarantee the

efficacy of the investigation. This is the chance for the New South Wales

and Australian governments to demonstrate a willingness and a real

commitment to come to grips with the multimillion dollar marijuana industry

and the web of corruption. Unless this Government shows its commitment to

a full inquiry and its commitment to truth, like the previous Government it

will inevitably be tainted by its lack of definite action. If the New South

Wales and Federal parliaments fail to establish a royal commission to inquire

into such momentous matters, what does that say about the morality of our

politicians, of our senior police, of our State, of our country, and of our

international reputation?

Finally, I thank my staff-Linda Furness, Lynne Symonds, Lesley

Currie, who is a volunteer in my office, and particularly Lois Blach of

Parliament House whose untiring work has been a great support. She has

worked many hours outside her normal hours of duty. I particularly want to

thank Mr Alan Barry, my research officer for more than 10 years. His

assistance, insight, and attention to detail-and, above all, his loyalty and

hard work-are invaluable. In the past two days the honourable member for

North Shore, Robyn Read, has agreed that Elizabeth Drury could help me

with last-minute typing. Robyn Read herself has acted in the capacity of press

officer in answering dozens of telephone calls. I am grateful for that

assistance. I thank the Attorney General for his indulgence.

Mr DOWD (Lane Cove), Attorney General [12.34]: I thank the

honourable member for South Coast for the courtesy he extended to the

Premier and me in apprising us of the general nature of the allegations he

has made. I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for the support of the

Opposition in enabling this motion to come before the House today. It is

easy to seek the establishment of royal commissions; it is particularly easy

for this Parliament to call on the Federal Government to establish a royal

commission that would be conducted largely at the expense of that

Government, though obviously such a royal commission would require

co-operation. I thank the honourable member for South Coast for his gracious

comments about my activities in fighting corruption over the past 14 years

or so. You know only too well, Mr Speaker, of some of the difficulties we

encountered.

In the late 1970s it became clear that matters that cut across State

boundaries and involve State and Federal crimes require a royal commission

with powers exercised by both the Commonwealth and the States. If these

issues are to be aired, there is no option but to establish a royal commission

with Commonwealth and State powers, as was done with the Nugan Hand

inquiry. The Government will support the motion, but it will move one
amendment. By doing so, we do not intend to simply pass this matter to the

Federal Government and say, "This is your problem". Royal commissions are

inordinately expensive. I have been advised that the two royal commissions

established by this Government have absorbed about 800 judicial sitting days.

Probably 800 court cases could have been dealt with in that time.

Nonetheless, the proposed royal commission must be a joint

responsibility of the Commonwealth and the State. I understand that the

Federal Minister with responsibility in this area has said that a royal

commission should not proceed while the Australian Capital Territory Coroner

is conducting an inquest into the murder of Colin Winchester. That is a view

that I would have taken in similar circumstances. However, the matters placed

before the House today by the honourable member for South Coast are so

serious that the Federal Government is not entitled to claim that it should

wait until that inquest concludes. If a royal commission is established, the

selection of a royal commissioner and appropriate staff will take some time.

That process could be completed and the royal commission could be in place

by the time the inquest is concluded. I hope that the inquest can be expedited,

as the matters raised by the honourable member for South Coast in speaking

to his motion are of great importance.

The honourable member made out a strong case for having no New

South Wales police officers or members of the Australian Federal Police

involved in the proposed royal commission. However, the Government does

not agree that that is an appropriate way to deal with the matter. If the royal

commissi6n were set up, negotiations would be necessary between the

Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government, and other

State governments, on the selection of appropriate commission officers. The

Government does not believe that the motion should be framed in such a way

as to preclude the involvement of officers of police forces in New South

Wales, the Australian Capital Territory or any other Australian State, New

Zealand or the United Kingdom. I shall be moving an amendment to the

motion to cover that.

The honourable member is right; in terms of perception, there ought

to be a distancing between State forces and State officers. However, we do

not accept that that is so. If the amendment I propose to move is accepted,

the thrust of his case is still made out; any officers from New South Wales

must not only be separate from those involved but also be perceived to be

separate and manifestly clear of any association with senior officers who will

be the subject of an investigation if the commission is set up. The Government

strongly urges the Federal Government-if this motion is passed-to set up

a joint commission. The New South Wales Government and, I am sure, the

Opposition will support the granting of appropriate resources and so on,

bearing in mind that the mere establishment of such a commission is a

multimillion dollar exercise. I disagree with the statement of the honourable

member for South Coast that a coroner's inquest is for probate purposes only.

The coroner's inquest being carried on in the Australian Capital Territory is

wider than that. Coroners' inquests are established under the Coroners Act

for various reasons. A coroner has a considerable degree of power.

The history of matters relating to the mafia-and I am not reflecting

on the Italian mafia though obviously Italy was the mafia's origin-shows it

to involve people of all race, colour and creed. In other parts of the world

the mafia are not Italians at all. I have raised matters relating to the mafia

for many years. In September 1986 and in November 1987 the Premier raised

matters relating to mafia corruption. Clearly the former Government did not

deal with this matter for a considerable length of time. As the honourable

member for South Coast has said, for some months after the termination of

the Queanbeyan proceedings, questions remained on the notice paper. I am

not satisfied that the delay in answering the questions has been justified. I

have been unable to ascertain the reasons for the delay, but I have been

informed that the answers to the questions were ready at the time of the

screening of "Police Crop". They were available to the police Minister.

However, it was thought better not to answer those questions at that time,

until matters relating to the "Police Crop" program were investigated, and I

accept that as a proper reason. On Monday the police Minister indicated to

me that he had the answers, that sufficient time had elapsed since "Police

Crop", and there was no reason why the answer could not be given. He

advised the other place of the answers to those questions. But that does not

answer the charge of why there was such a long delay. I am unable to assist

the House on that matter now but I will do so at an appropriate time.

In the exercise of my office I have had various involvements in some

of these matters, some of which, as a matter of policy, I cannot advert to,

but material came to me in material that I had to examine in the exercise of

my office. I do not say that any previous attorney general did or did not see

that material. It does not always follow that one is obliged to look through

thick files. I do not reflect on any previous attorney general, but I examined

the file and brought material to the attention of the honourable member for

South Coast. If the lives of members of this Parliament are threatened,

however scant the evidence may be and whatever the nature of the hearsay,

it is my view that there is a duty to inform them of that. Evidence has various

degrees of weight. It may be a reference to what someone has said to someone.

I have had considerable experience in the past few years with threats to my

life but that is the joy of dealing with matters of organised crime. I sympathise

with the honourable member for South Coast and any other members who

have had a similar experience, either as office holders, as Ministers or

otherwise.
I brought the material to the honourable member's attention as I

considered it proper, not only because of the criminality involved but also

because of the threat to this institution. Honourable members ought not lightly

ignore the importance of the exercise of privilege. I do not agree with the

approach of the previous Government of flicking the matter to the National

Crime Authority. It was a justifiable point of view but it was not a sufficient

answer and at that time I expressed my views on the matter. Much material

has been presented to us, some of which is historical, some of which is

anecdotal, and some of which is based on unreliable witnesses. It is easy to

say that because a witness has been discredited no prosecution should be

brought. I assure honourable members that if we did not have unreliable

witnesses giving evidence, we would lose many convictions. Juries make

those decisions. The fact that one is a discredited witness does not mean that

one is lying. I have been involved with many indemnity cases and have had

to look at scruffy witnesses and make decisions about indemnifying them if

they have a slight case only against them. Nonetheless, juries have seen fit,

knowing all that, to convict on the basis of their evidence. It is not necessarily

a criticism of the National Crime Authority that the prosecution did not

succeed and that it relied on a discredited witness. The fact that the honourable

member for South Coast refers to information that has come to him and that

he accepts it to be true, does not necessarily mean that the witness is reliable

or his evidence would be the basis for a prosecution.

Honourable members should not draw inferences that prosecutions do

or do not proceed because of a witness's credibility. Much of the evidence

that has been referred to today cannot easily be checked by me or the

Government. The fact that I do not reply to specific allegations, whether it

be against former Judge Foord or anyone else, does not mean that the

Government accedes to the truth of those matters or believes that they are
cogent. The Government does believe that the case is cogent and that the

matters are serious enough to warrant setting up a royal commission. I thank

the honourable member for South Coast for bringing this matter forward in

the way he has. He might have referred to people who are the subject of

proceedings but he has responsibly not raised those matters. I ask the media

to take care in the reporting of these proceedings and not print anything that

would harm any current or impending court proceedings. I appreciate that is

a difficult task as the media is not in a position to keep track of all matters.

Accepting the thrust of the suggestion of the honourable member for

South Coast that the Victorian and United Kingdom police be used, the

Government rejects the necessary implication of reflection on the New South

Wales police force and therefore that all its officers cannot be relied upon.

However, I accept that the public does not necessarily understand the way

in which officers can be quarantined from others, and the enthusiasm with

which New South Wales police officers pursue other police officers whom

they believe to be criminally involved. Therefore, the Government supports

the motion of the honourable member for South Coast but in order to allow

a proper determination of supporting police officers, and without reflecting

on either the Australian Federal Police, in whom I have much confidence, or

the New South Wales Police Force, large sections of which I have confidence

in, I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting from paragraph 3 the words "from

Scotland Yard be called in and that the Victorian Police Force be requested to

provide personnel" and inserting in lieu thereof, the words "be provided from the

New South Wales or other State police forces, the Australian Federal Police or

others".

The Government will co-operate with the Federal Government as best it can

in the setting up of a royal commission and will make available appropriate

officers in accordance with past joint Federal-State royal commissions.

Mr CARR (Maroubra), Leader of the Opposition [12.50]: I

acknowledge the consistency and courage displayed by the honourable member

for South Coast in his pursuance of these matters over the years. On behalf

of the Opposition I say that I am appalled that a member of Parliament should

have his life threatened as a consequence of the performance of his duties.

His references to Operation Seville and the murder of Colin Winchester raise

matters that ought now to be dealt with by a royal commission. That is the

view of the Opposition and it is the view I expressed initially in the wake

of the broadcasting by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of a program

that dramatised these matters. I acknowledge the validity of the argument

presented by the Attorney General that it would be possible to utilise the

time that the relevant coronial inquest has remaining to set up the machinery

necessary for a royal commission. A case has been made out for these matters

to be dealt with by a royal commission.

A more difficult question arises, however, and that is whether any

investigation should be carried out by police from Scotland Yard or Victoria,

as was proposed in the motion of the honourable member for South Coast.

Obviously perception is a large part of the problem, but so too is the practical

matter referred to by the Attorney GeneraL-of whether, if New South Wales

police participate, the investigation can be quarantined from those in whom

we have no confidence. That is a difficult matter. It is a matter of, first,

whether the public can be persuaded that a royal commission supported by

investigations involving New South Wales police would be completely

legitimate and its findings, therefore, wholly definitive, and, second, whether,

if New South Wales police do participate, their work can be quarantined from

the work of New South Wales police in whom there is not complete

confidence.
The Opposition is disposed to the view of the honourable member for

South Coast: that is, the greatest public confidence would attach to a royal

commission supported by police drawn from outside New South Wales. I

shall wait with interest to hear the views of the honourable member for South

Coast before resolving on the position. The final objective must be that within

as short a time as possible a definitive report of a royal commission should

be placed before us that will resolve these matters once and for all. That is

the hope of the Opposition. We support the motion. Our instincts are to opt

for the original motion rather than the amendment moved by the Attorney

General, although we will be guided by the response of the honourable member

for South Coast to the arguments presented by the Attorney General.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [12.54]: I am grateful to the Attorney

General for his having provided me with a copy of his amendment; however,

I do not support it. The matters that I have detailed to the House are extremely

serious. It is in the interests of officers of the New South Wales Police Force

and Australian Federal Police that the investigation be conducted by police

drawn from outside the two forces I have mentioned. In that way, if something

goes wrong with the investigations, New South Wales and Federal police

cannot be blamed. These matters have gone on for years. I am sure those

officers of the two forces I have mentioned, who do such a good job under

difficult circumstances, would support my motion. It is quite easy for the

New South Wales Police Association to say that if New South Wales police

were not involved in the investigation, it would reflect on the entire force.

If I were suspected of having done something wrong, I would welcome an

independent investigation in which I could not possibly have any influence.

If such an investigation cleared me, everyone-including me-would be

satisfied. I am aiming my comments at individual police, not at the Minister

or the association.
Through the Parliament I am saying to individual officers, "That is

what you want really, isn't it? You want to be able to stand up in your police

force and say 'Well, we were examined in this matter; we were examined by

Scotland Yard and by police forces outside our State and outside our influence,

and these are the findings"'. To conduct such a royal commission could cost

tens of millions of dollars, and, after all that expenditure and at the end of

the day, it would be undesirable if someone could say of the royal commission,

"It did not get to the truth, because there was a question-mark hanging over

the heads of the members of the investigating team upon which the commission

had to rely". That would be unfortunate. In regard to police investigating

police, former Minister Anderson has done some excellent work, and in his

efforts to reform the New South Wales police force he drew on the experience

of such people as Sir Robert Marks. In England Sir Robert firmly established

the principle that if problems arise in one specific area of the police force

in Great Britain, a team that cannot possibly be compromised is brought in

to conduct an investigation into the matter.

These matters must be cleared up once and for all. Public demands

must be satisfied. Only then will the honest police men and women be able

to return to work, happy that their integrity has been re-affirmed-their

reputations untarnished. The improvements that have been achieved in the

New South Wales Police Force in recent years have been outstanding. I give

all credit to former Ministers Anderson and Paciullo, the present Minister

Pickering and police commissioner Avery and his senior officers. They have

taken a hard line, for which they have been criticised, but the results are

there for all to see. The Government should forget about the sensitivities of

its Minister. It should do what is right with regard to these matters. I say to

individual members of this House: let us do it right; let us do it properly. If it is

done properly, we can have no regrets. For those reasons I cannot support
the amendment. It refers to hand-picked police but does not exclude the two

police forces involved. I am grateful that overseas police are to be invited

to participate. I understand that is a precedent set in Hong Kong in regard

to investigations into corruption. I again thank the House for its indulgence.

I cannot support the amendment and I ask the Government to earnestly

consider its withdrawal.

Mr DOWD (Lane Cove), Attorney General [12.59]: The Government

does not disagree with the strength of the case that has been presented. The

amendment is moved because the Government will not entertain a motion

which is perceived to be a reflection on the whole of the New South Wales

Police Force. That would be unfortunate. The Leader of the Opposition

carefully expressed the reservations of the Opposition in that regard. The

Opposition does not want a motion which would be perceived to reflect on

the whole of the New South Wales Police Force. However, honourable

members will decide the fate of the amendment. The Government is moving

the amendment not because the honourable member for South Coast has not

made out his case. However, it will not accept the perception that all New

South Wales police are unsuitable to be involved. That is the reason for the

amendment. A decision in regard to the motion will be made by the State

and Federal governments. This particular part of the motion is not germane

to the ultimate decision that will be made. For that reason the Government

proposes to proceed with the amendment.

Question-That the amendment be agreed to-put.

The House divided.

Mr Andrews

Mr Baird

Mr Berry

Mr Books
Mr Booth

Mr Caterson

Mr Causley

Mr Chappell

Mr Cochran

Mrs Cohen

Mr Collins

Mr Dowd

Mr Downy

Mr Fahey

Mr Glachan

Mr Graham

Mr Griffiths

Ayes, 49

Mr Hartcher

Mr Hay

Mr Jeffery

Mr Kerr

Miss Machin

Mr Matheson

Mr Merton

Dr Metherell

Mr Morris

Mr D. L. Page

Mr Park

Mr Peacocke

Mr Petch

Mr Photios
Mr Pickard

Mr Rixon

Mr Roberts

Mr Schipp

Mr Schultz

Mr Singleton

Mr Small

Mr Smiles

Mr Smith

Mr Souris

Mr Tink

Mr Turner

Mr White

Mr Yabsley

Mr Yeomans

Mr Zammit

Tellers,

Mr Beck

Mr Phillips

Noes, 45

Ms Allan

Mr Keegan

Mr Price

Mr Amery

Mr Knight

Mr Primrose

Mr Anderson

Mr Knowles
Ms Read

Mr A. S. Aquilina

Mr Langton

Dr Refshauge

Mr J. J. Aquilina

Mr McManus

Mr Rogan

Mr Arkell

Mr Markham

Mr Rumble

Mr Carr

Mr Martin

Mr Shedden

Mr Cleary

Mr Mills

Mr Unsworth

Mr Doyle

Mr H. F. Moore

Mr Walsh

Mr Face

Ms Moore

Mr Welsh

Miss Fraser

Mr Moss

Mr Whelan

Mr Gibson

Mr J. H. Murray

Mr Harrison
Mr Nagle

Mr Hatton

Mr Newman

Tellers,

Mr Hunter

Ms Nori

Mr Christie

Mr Irwin

Mr E. T. Page

Mr Davoren

Pairs

Mr Greiner

Mr Beckroge

Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Lovelee

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Question-That the motion as amended be agreed to-proposed.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [1.10], in reply: I wish to reply briefly

by thanking the Government for the historic support that it has g:;ren to this

motion. I do not devalue that support one little bit. I disagree strongly with

one part of the motion as it has been amended, but I value greatly the

Government's support. Its position is different from that of the Opposition;

it has so many aspects to consider. I am grateful for its support. I am grateful

also for the strong support I have received from the Opposition, from

individual members, and people in the corridors, who this week have walked

up to me and said: "Good on you, John. Congratulations". That has had a.

great effect on me. This motion is the acid test for the Hawke Government.

Will it or will it not give a commitment to the people of this country? I do

not exaggerate, and my history in this House shows that I do not exaggerate.

Every major matter that I have raised in this Parliament has stood its ground;

and I am absolutely confident that this matter will stand its ground. I hope

that the Federal Government does not slide out from under this opportunity

to establish a royal commission, as has happened so many times in the past

with royal commissions. The way in which royal commissions have been

fixed in the past is that the wrong commissioner has been chosen, the terms

of reference have been narrow, investigators who do not get to the truth have

been chosen, and legal counsel who filter the truth have been chosen. I am

fed-up to the teeth with it.

This motion presents an opportunity to the Federal Government. The

most important Parliament in Australia is united on a bipartisan basis on this

matter. As I said on the "Midday Show" today, I am asking every Australian

citizen to get behind us in this matter and to tell the Hawke Government

squarely that it has a responsibility to appoint an external inquiry of the

highest integrity to investigate this matter, to establish a royal commission

with the widest terms of reference, to appoint a royal commissioner with

capability, conviction and courage, to assign to that royal commission

competent and sincere investigators who will carry out an in-depth

investigation that will get to the truth, and to appoint competent legal counsel

whose integrity we can rely upon. Only then will members of the Federal

Government be able to do that to which they committed themselves when

they took the oath upon being sworn in as members of Parliament; and that

is to work in the best interests of the people of this State and the people of

Australia. Until and unless the Hawke Government responds in that way, it

will stand condemned for its lack of courage to take the initiative. That is

its challenge. This is an historic day in this Parliament. I thank you all.

Motion as amended agreed to.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.14 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CROWN ADVOCATE (AMENDMENT)

BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr DOWD (Lane Cove), Attorney General [2.15]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The position of Solicitor General, the second law officer of this State, is of

considerable importance to the administration of justice. An examination of

the history of the office of Solicitor General shows considerable development

in its role and functions. The first Solicitor General was appointed in 1824

by virtue of letters patent. The dispatch from Earl Bathurst to Sir Thomas

Brisbane of January 1824, advising of the appointment, gives some indication

of the Solicitor General's role, It states:

The Solicitor General will by virtue of his appointment be considered as

the legal adviser of Her Majesty's Government in the Colony, either in cases

where sickness or absence of the Attorney General or any other unavoidable

cause

may render it necessary to employ a substitute for that Office, or in cases which

for their peculiar difficulty or importance require that the Attorney General
should

have the professional assistance of another Counsel.

The method of appointment by letters patent was to continue right up until

the commencement of the Solicitor General Act in 1969. As with many

institutions, the introduction of the Solicitor General was a continuation and

replication of the English model. However, the office began to develop its

own characteristics in accordance with the local conditions and expectations.

Until 1922 the Solicitor General was usually a member of Parliament and a

member of the Cabinet. This followed the English tradition in so far as the
holding of a seat in the Legislature was deemed a necessary qualification for

appointment. However, this century is notable for the depoliticisation of the

position. Section 2, subsection 6 of the Solicitor General Act 1969 states:

The Office of Solicitor General shall not be held by a Minister of the Crown.

The history of the office is not unbroken. Governor Bourke, one of our great

reformers and not lauded sufficiently as one of the early liberals in the real

meaning of the sense, abolished the position in 1836 and it was not formally

revived until 1849. It was abolished again in 1873, only to be reconstituted

in the 1890s. This period is significant for the growing independence of the

office from political influence. The role as non-partisan legal adviser was

reinforced by the deletion of the office of Solicitor General from the schedule

in the Constitution Act which listed the offices of profit under the Crown

which could be held by members of the Legislative Assembly. This change

did not occur without debate. Concern was expressed at the lack of control

that followed the removal of personal accountability to Parliament.

Nevertheless, the office has continued to be seen as both non-political and

non-departmental. The Solicitor General is now perceived as appearing on

behalf of the Crown, not the Government of the day. Although the Solicitor

General may exercise certain functions on delegation from the Attorney

General, the delegation concerns the Attorney General in his role as first law

officer of the Crown, not as a Minister of the Government.

The establishment of the position of Crown Advocate further

modernised the function of the Solicitor General by relieving the position

from the bulk of duties associated with advising on and representation of

criminal matters. The functions of the Crown Advocate, as expressed in the

Act, are to assist the Solicitor General in respect of the exercise or discharge

by the Solicitor General of any powers, authorities, duties or functions

delegated by the Attorney General under the Solicitor General Act; to advise
and assist any Crown prosecutor, member of the police force or, if so directed

by the Attorney General or Solicitor General, any other person in respect of

the conduct of criminal proceedings; and to act as Counsel for the Crown in

right of the State for the Attorney General or for any other person in any

criminal or civil proceedings or in any inquiry or commission. It is against

this historical background and evolution of these offices that the present

proposal must be framed.

The contemporary responsibilities of the Solicitor General and Crown

Advocate as full-time legal Counsel for the State are reflected in the drafting

of the Solicitor General Act and the Crown Advocate Act which provide,

respectively, that the Solicitor General and Crown Advocate will be deemed

to have vacated office if undertaking paid employment or practising law

outside the duty of office. No doubt these provisions were intended to ensure

hat these senior law officers within the State were able to give priority to

the performance of their statutory duties on a full-time basis. However, it

has come to the Government's attention that these provisions have the further

and undesirable effect of preventing the Crown Advocate or the Solicitor

General from providing legal advice in a voluntary or honorary capacity even

if in relation to matters which are wholly unconnected with matters of State

or their official duties.

As the Act presently stands, those who are appointed to the statutory

office of Solicitor General or Crown Advocate are not permitted to give

evidence by way of legal advice, even to such deserving organisations as

charities or church bodies. Upon review it is considered that such a stringent

restriction is not justified. I am of the view that those who are appointed to

the position of Solicitor General or Crown Advocate who, after all, are skilled

lawyers of the highest standing within our community, should not be

prevented, as is presently the case, from giving legal advice to others, if they
should choose to do so in their own time.

It is important to note that this amendment will not extend to permitting

these statutory officers to enter private practise or to receive any remuneration

for practise of law outside the duties of office. It is intended that the

restrictions presently applying will be eased only so far as it is necessary to

clarify that the Solicitor General and the Crown Advocate are not prevented,

under the terms of their respective Acts, from practising law in an honorary

or voluntary capacity. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the present

incumbents of the offices of Solicitor General, Mr Keith Mason, Q.C., and

the Crown Advocate, Mr Bruce James, Q.C., for their distinguished service

to this State. Leaving aside present incumbents, whom I expect would advise

me of any matter that is likely to create a conflict or the taking of any office,

it is desirable for future officeholders that the Attorney General of the day

be advised of any office that is held that could bring about not only a potential

conflict but also that would enable the Attorney General to be advised of

significant advice other than private, gratuitous legal advice on any position

that might bring some commonness into the public arena. One would expect

officers of the standard of the present Solicitor General and Crown Advocate

to be able to provide that sort of information. I commend the bill to the

House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.

CRIMES (PUBLIC JUSTICE) AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr DOWD (Lane Cove), Attorney General [2.23]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The amendments contained in this bill will rationalise and reform the law

concerning offences involving interference with the course of justice. Offences

that damage the administration of justice strike at the very heart of our judicial

system. It is fundamentally important that confidence is maintained in our

system of justice, and to this end it must be protected from attack. Those

who interfere with the course of justice must be subject to severe penalties.

Not only do offences concerning the administration of justice affect

individuals, but the community as a whole has an interest in ensuring that

justice is properly done. The amendments in this bill are the first stage of a

two-stage process to deal with offences concerning the administration of

justice. The second stage will be the presentation of a bill dealing with

corruption and bribery of public officers and judicial officers. These offences

are not covered specifically in the bill before the House, but will be dealt

with as part of the Government's general review of offences of bribery and

corruption.

At present there is no comprehensive statement of the law relating to

public justice offences. The law is fragmented and confusing, consisting of

various common law and statutory provisions, with many gaps, anomalies

and uncertainties. Common law offences have no specific penalty provided,

and the exact limits of these offences are sometimes difficult to establish.

The bill will rectify this by creating specific offences dealing with a number

of areas. The bill deals first with offences involving an interference with the

administration of justice. In chapter 2 of the new part 7 to be inserted in the

Crimes Act, the statutory offence of making a false accusation will be created.

This will replace section 344 of the Crimes Act, which is limited to

conspiracies. Another new offence is that of hindering the investigation, or

discovery of evidence, or apprehension of a person concerning a serious

offence. The common law offence of misprision of a felony will be abolished

under the bill. It will be replaced in statutory form in a new section 316 of
the Crimes Act. The offence in that section carries a maximum penalty of

two years7 imprisonment unless the person solicits or accepts a benefit for

concealing the serious offence, in which case the maximum penalty is

imprisonment for five years.

Recently, offences involving false instruments were significantly

reformed by the Crimes (Computers and Forgery) Amendment Act 1989. The

bill before the House will continue that reform by creating a new offence of

making a false official instrument with the intention of perverting the course

of justice. The penalty for this new offence is 14 years'

imprisonment-significantly higher than for the basic offence of making a

false instrument. This higher penalty reflects the seriousness of conduct that

threatens the course of justice. A general offence of perverting the course of

justice is also included in chapter 2. It has been necessary to include this

offence as, no doubt, offenders will find particularly devious ways of

perverting the course of justice that are not covered by any of the specific

offences in the bill. It is intended that this offence will cover such situations.

However, where the facts show that a specific offence has been

committed, the specific charge should be laid in preference to charging the

general offence. Though the maximum penalty for this general offence is 14

years' imprisonment, in sentencing a person for an offence under this section

a court will obviously have regard to the level of criminality involved, and

it may use the penalty level set in the specific offences as a guide. The bill

deals also with offences involving interference with judicial officers,

witnesses, jurors, and public justice officials in the course of their duties.

Chapter 3 of the new part 7 to be inserted in the Crimes Act will create a

number of offences, some of which are specific to witnesses and jurors, and

others of which protect these people as well as judicial officers and public

justice officials.
A person who attempts to bribe a witness or juror, or a witness or

juror who accepts a bribe, will commit an offence under proposed new section

321. For this offence a person will be liable to a penalty of up to 10 years7

penal servitude. A similar penalty is provided for the offence of threatening

or intimidating witnesses, jurors, judicial officers, or public justice officials.

Honourable members will note that there is no specific offence of bribery or

corruption of judicial officers or public justice officials. As I explained at

the outset, these matters will be dealt with in the next stage of the

Government's proposals. Until then, such offences will be dealt with under

the general offence of perverting the course of justice. A less serious offence

than those I have just outlined is that of influencing a witness to give false

evidence, or influencing a juror, other than by the production of evidence or

argument in open court. The penalty for this offence is seven years' penal

servitude. Other offences in chapter 3 are designed to ensure that witnesses

and jurors are not unlawfully prevented or dissuaded from carrying out their

duty, and that reprisals are not taken against judges, witnesses, jurors and

public justice officials because of things they have done lawfully in the course

of that duty.

Chapter 4 of the new part 7 to be inserted in the Crimes Act concerns

perjury. At present there are statutory offences of perjury, subornation of

perjury, and similar offences. These will be replaced by new provisions that

increase the coverage of the sections to ensure that those who attempt to

thwart the administration of justice are punished. The new statutory offence

of perjury makes it clear that the offence can be committed by making a

statement on oath, even if it is not actually made during the hearing. For

example, provided the matter is material, a person who makes a false statement

on oath in pleadings to a civil action is guilty of perjury. It is necessary to

clarify this aspect of the law as there is a growing awareness that it is

important to resolve as many issues as possible prior to the hearing of a

matter through the use of pleadings and other statements that are verified on

oath.

A further improvement of the law of perjury is that the bill provides

specifically that the question of materiality is a question of law. In proceedings

in the past, occasional difficulties have been experienced in resolving the

question of whether the materiality of a false statement is a question of law

for the trial judge or a question of fact for the jury. The specific provisions

will end these difficulties. It is in no way intended by this restatement of the

offence of perjury that any change be made to the evidentiary and procedural

rules regarding perjury. Specifically I have in mind the present common law

rule regarding the need for corroboration of evidence where a person is

charged with perjury. Nothing in the bill is intended to affect the common

law rules. At present only specific courts are empowered to direct a

prosecution for perjury. Under the bill before the House, the Director of

Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General of the day may prosecute for

perjury.

A person who wishes to prosecute privately must first seek the leave

of the judicial officer before whom the perjury is alleged to have been

committed, unless this is impracticable or impossible, in which case the

prosecution may be commenced with the leave of the Supreme Court. Notice

of a private prosecution must be given to the Director of Public Prowcutions.

A new offence in chapter 4 concerns the making of an entry in d public

register where the person who makes the entry does so with an improper

motive, knowing it to be false or misleading in a material particular. This

section is designed to catch the sort of conduct considered by the English

Court of Appeal in Regina v. Selvage reported in volume 1 of the 1982

Queen's Bench Reports at page 372. The offence will ensure that those who

alter public registers, even when judicial proceedings are not pending or

imminent, will still be guilty of an offence. The provision has been drafted

in such a way as to ensure that the issue of false birth certificates as part of

a witness protection plan, for example, will not be made illegal under this

provision.

As a result of the creation of the statutory offences in this bill, a

number of common law offences are abolished. These are set out in chapter

5 of new part 7 of the Crimes Act. Honourable members will note that though

the common law offence of refusing to assist a public officer in the execution

of his or her duty is abolished, it has not been replaced by a statutory offence.

That is not to say that the public should not be encouraged to assist police.

However, there are far more appropriate methods of encouraging this

participation and it is inappropriate that those who do not assist should be

guilty of a criminal offence. It is a public duty to assist police or other law

enforcement officers in the execution of their duties. Not to do so should not

be a crime. Some of the new statutory offences created have been included

in section 476 of the Crimes Act, which allows them to be dealt with

summarily in the Local Court with the consent of the accused. However,

other offences in the bill are so serious that they can only be dealt with on

indictment.

As part of the Government's proposals to strengthen the law regarding

the administration of justice, the bill provides for increased penalties for two

summary offences contained in the Crimes Act-resisting police and public

mischief. In each case the maximum term of imprisonment that may be

imposed has been increased to 12 months and the maximum fines have also

been increased. Finally, the common law offence of personating a juror is

abolished and its statutory equivalent placed in the Jury Act. I cannot
emphasise too strongly the importance of this bill to the administration of

justice in New South Wales. As I said at the commencement of my speech,

the community is entitled to have the utmost confidence and faith in the

judicial system. Judges and other participants in the criminal justice system

are similarly entitled to expect from the Parliament that there be adequate

penalties to ensure that those who interfere with the administration of justice

are properly punished. This bill is an important step in achieving that result,

as indeed the setting up of the Independent Commission Against Corruption

was an important step in ensuring confidence in public justice and

administration. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.

Source:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LA1990
0517/$file/493LA024.PDF