629

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 11 May 2011

______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Notices of Motions Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

REAL PROPERTY AMENDMENT (TORRENS ASSURANCE LEVY REPEAL) BILL 2011

Second Reading

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [11.09 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Now that formal business has concluded, members who wish to conduct conversations can do so outside the Chamber. Members who remain in the Chamber should give the Minister their full attention. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Last year the former New South Wales Labor Government introduced a new tax by stealth. Under the guise of a levy attached to a legitimate lodgement fee, a new tax was imposed on homebuyers. We opposed the tax at the time, as we believed that additional property taxes hurt both homebuyers and the construction industry. It was a bad tax then, and it is still a bad tax. As we indicated before and during the election campaign, our firm intention was to repeal the levy. This piece of legislation gives effect to that commitment.

The Torrens Assurance Fund plays a key role in underpinning the security of the Torrens system of land registration that we have in New South Wales. The Torrens Assurance Fund is used to compensate landowners and others having an interest in land who are deprived of an interest and suffer loss or damage through fraud or an error of the Registrar-General. The Torrens system, backed by the Torrens Assurance Fund, allows home owners to have confidence in their land ownership. It simplifies the conveyancing process and it underpins the economy of the State. The Torrens Assurance Fund needs to be properly provisioned to satisfy its statutory function. Traditionally, it has been funded by a levy included within the lodgement fees paid to the Registrar-General. Before Labor's homebuyer's tax was introduced, the fund was provisioned by a flat $4 payable on all Torrens dealings. This amount was reflective of the historical claims experience of the fund and was subject to regular review and adjustment in consultation with Treasury representatives.

Currently, the Torrens assurance levy comprises two components: a $4 fee separately charged on all Torrens dealings and an ad valorem amount payable on transfers of land bought for more than $500,000. The ad valorem component is calculated on a percentage of the purchase price over $500,000 with the percentage increasing for a purchase price over $1 million. The amount payable rises from $500 on a property bought for $750,000 to $11,000 on land bought for $5 million. As well, all funds collected through the levy have been remitted straight to Treasury and applied to the Consolidated Fund. This demonstrates that the Torrens assurance levy is not a genuine amount raised to support the Torrens Assurance Fund but, in fact, a tax.

630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

The Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011 repeals all amendments made to the Real Property Act 1900 and the Real Property Regulation by the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Act 2010, which was the instrument used to introduce this tax, and reintroduces the provisions of the legislation as they were before the amendment. The bill will remove all reference to the Torrens assurance levy from the Real Property Act and will reintroduce section 134 (4) to enable the Registrar-General's prescribed lodgement fees to include an amount to be paid to the Torrens Assurance Fund. This will ensure that sufficient amounts are set aside in the Torrens Assurance Fund as a separately constituted special deposits account, which will continue to be properly maintained to support the State guarantee of title in New South Wales. The Minister responsible for the administration of the Real Property Act 1900—that is me—will be charged with the responsibility of directing money to be paid into that account from fees paid to the Registrar-General.

Section 144 of the Real Property Act provides the power to make regulations for the purposes of the Act. The amendment made by the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Act 2010 expanded that power to enable the Real Property Regulation to prescribe the Torrens assurance levy. This provision also will be removed. Whilst the regulation-making power will continue to enable appropriate fees to be set, the fees, charges and expenses that can be prescribed will be limited to those that are recoverable by the Registrar-General in the administration of the Real Property Act. This restricted version of the regulation-making power ensures that it is not wide enough to enable a tax to be reintroduced at a later time without a further amendment of the Act.

The Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011 is to commence on 1 July 2011. I foreshadow that I propose to move a Government amendment to the bill to make sure that the bill takes effect on and from that date, that is, including 1 July 2011. This date was forecast in the Government's 100 Day Action Plan and was selected to give certainty to the property industry. The levy will not apply to transfers that are lodged for registration to give effect to a contract for sale of land entered into after 1 July 2011. The levy will continue to apply to transfers executed to give effect to a contract for sale of land entered into after 1 July 2010 but before 1 July 2011, even though the transfer might be lodged for registration after 1 July 2011. Unfortunately, there will be buyers who will incur a liability to pay the levy between the announcement of the proposed repeal and its final removal on 1 July 2011. Financial arrangements such as the Torrens assurance levy take time to unravel and precise transitional provisions are required to avoid uncertainty.

As well as amending the Real Property Act, the bill will amend the Real Property Regulation to remove the requirement to pay the separate Torrens assurance levy and its ad valorem component. This requires a readjustment of the fees payable under the Act, with an amount of $4 to be added to the stated transaction fees. This will not create any real increase in the actual fees paid to the Registrar-General but will restructure the fees so that they include the amount to be paid to the Torrens Assurance Fund. In the first half of each year the Registrar-General reviews the fees payable under the Real Property Act. Any increases that are to be made are traditionally timed to commence from 1 July each year. The fees set out in the Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011 have been readjusted on the basis of the current fees payable and may be subject to further amendment before 1 July 2011 as a result of the annual fee review.

The Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011 fulfils the Government's commitment to New South Wales homebuyers that was made in its 100 Day Action Plan. It proves that we are a Government that can be trusted and that we have the commitment necessary to restore the economy of the State. The bill will remove a stealth tax without sacrificing the integrity of the Torrens Assurance Fund, which will continue to underpin the security of land titles in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.17 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011. The bill amends the Real Property Act and Real Property Regulation to abolish the Torrens assurance levy, which was introduced last year by the Keneally Labor Government. Despite all the spin around this bill, the important issue at stake is the critically important Torrens title system, which provides a unique guarantee of certainty with property ownership. In fact, the Torrens title system protects more than $1 trillion worth of land in New South Wales. Before the changes that were made last year, the existing system meant that people paid exactly the same amount for every transaction. It did not matter how much a property was worth. In other words, it was a good old flat tax, which the members opposite seem to love so much. No matter whether the property was worth $100,000 or $10 million, people paid the same flat fee.

The ad valorem Torrens assurance levy was a change in the way the New South Wales Government dealt with issues relating to the security of the Torrens title system. As I said previously, a flat fee was charged 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 631

on all property transfers. The question is: Upon whom in the community and in what circumstances should the levy fall? When Labor was in government, we did not consider that the system of a flat fee on all property transfers was fair. Stamp duty is levied more heavily on a property that is worth more, the basic premise being that if people can afford to pay more they should.

The ad valorem system meant that for cheaper properties that were less susceptible to fraud no fees were charged, but rates increased as the risk of criminal activity grew. Under the new system only 13 per cent of all property transfers lodged for registration on the land title system to the end of last year attracted this charge. But, as we know with the Liberals, they love to make life a little bit easier for their rich friends, especially at the expense of hardworking families. It is absurd to suggest that people moving into a $300,000 house in western Sydney or in Dubbo, Wagga Wagga or Tamworth should be subsidising people moving into a $5 million or $6 million property on the northern beaches. We need a system that protects property transactions from fraud. It needs to be a fair system—one that does not disadvantage the battlers to subsidise the rich.

I will touch briefly on one other issue, that is, the question of where the funds raised by this program will come from. This levy raises about $450 million over the forward estimates, and although the Government has promised to release detailed financial impact statements with new legislation or policy proposals, in this case we have heard nothing about how these funds will be recouped. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about black holes—rhetoric that was demolished by Lambert and by Harris—and we are hearing plenty of excuses from the Government about why there is not as much money as the Government would like. But these changes are unfunded and uncosted and we believe they will take another $450 million from the budget bottom line. It is time that this Government showed a bit of fiscal responsibility. We believe that this change not only is irresponsible; crucially, it is inequitable. We will not support this legislation.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.22 a.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011. At the outset I congratulate the Minister for moving so quickly to cut another of Labor's stealth taxes. The bill will repeal a tax imposed on homebuyers by the New South Wales Labor Government as part of its 2010 budget. At the time it was introduced the Labor Government was not honest enough to describe it as a tax, preferring instead to call it a Torrens assurance levy and hiding it away in the Real Property Act and regulations. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals promised to repeal that tax if elected to office. Today we honour that promise.

The Torrens assurance levy is comprised of a flat $4 fee payable on all Torrens land transactions, an ad valorem amount payable on property transactions above a threshold of $500,000. At the time, Labor claimed that because the ad valorem amount applied only to transfers of land over $500,000 most homebuyers would be unaffected. With median Sydney property prices already approaching $600,000, the claim that average homebuyers would be unaffected is patently untrue. The homebuyers tax introduced yet another cost into the conveyancing process, making the dream of home ownership in New South Wales even more faint.

The home owners tax poses an additional threat to the housing market by increasing development costs, which will ultimately be passed on to homebuyers in the form of higher prices. The impost of the tax is more significant the higher the purchase price becomes. For developers it significantly increases the cost of acquiring land and must be paid in addition to other government charges such as stamp duty and land tax. To encourage the supply of additional housing this tax must be repealed. Already in New South Wales there is enough taxation on accessing land for development and the housing industry is already under enough burden in that regard.

The homebuyers tax was sold as a levy by New South Wales Labor, necessary to resource the Torrens Assurance Fund. The Torrens Assurance Fund is an important feature of the Torrens land title registration system. Traditionally it has been funded by a $4 amount included in the transaction fees payable to the Registrar-General. This modest amount has provided a cheap and effective form of assurance to landowners. The Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011 will abolish the Torrens assurance levy and will reintroduce provisions of the Real Property Act and regulations repealed by the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Act 2010. In effect, the bill will restore the status quo, as promised by the then Opposition.

The Torrens Assurance Fund will continue to support the State guarantee of land title in New South Wales. The levy to resource the Torrens Assurance Fund will again be $4. That amount will be monitored to ensure that there are sufficient funds available to meet legitimate claims by landowners and others with an interest in land who may be deprived of that interest by fraud or an error of the Registrar-General. As forecast in 632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

the 100 Day Action Plan released by the new Government, the bill will take effect on 1 July 2011. Contracts for the sale of land executed from that date will not be subject to the Torrens assurance levy. The repealed provisions will, however, continue to apply to contracts entered into between 1 July 2010 and 1 July 2011, even if the transfer is lodged for registration after 1 July 2011.

I am sure that before too long the homebuyers tax will be a forgotten impost and one more property tax will have been removed for good by this Government. This will be an important boost to the housing industry— a key driver of the New South Wales economy. I again congratulate the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Services on moving so quickly to remove this insidious Labor tax. It sends a strong signal that New South Wales is again open for business and that this Government is determined to rebuild the economic base of this great State so that New South Wales can once again become the premier State. Accordingly, it is with great pleasure that I strongly commend this bill to the House.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Leader of the Opposition) [11.27 a.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011. The ad valorem Torrens assurance levy was a charge in the way—a change in the way in which the New South Wales Government—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It was a charge too.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I know why Opposition members are so—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: The Hon. Melinda Pavey was reminding you of what you said.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: And my view is exactly the same now.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It was a desperate grab for cash.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: When people insure their cars, their homes or any other belongings, the greater their value the higher the insurance figure, which is what the former Labor Government was bringing it into line with.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You were so out of line with the other States; you know that.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I acknowledge that interjection and will explain in a moment just how this brings it into line with the other States. As I said, this was a change in the way in which the former New South Wales Government dealt with issues involving the security of the Torrens title system, which protects more than $1 trillion worth of land in New South Wales and which provides security to property owners in this State. Australia has the best freehold title system in the world and New South Wales has the best freehold title system in Australia. Previously a flat fee was charged on all property transfers, which protected the property from fraud and other criminal activity. This system provides certainty. In effect, the scheme ensures the integrity of the title that a person acquires and funds fraud claims liabilities. My memory is that it was exposed to between $16 billion and $20 billion worth of fraud claims liability. A flat fee was applied to all property transfers; that is, the fee was applied at the same rate regardless of the value of the land, whether it be worth $100,000 or $10 million.

As previous Opposition speakers have said, stamp duty is levied at a higher rate on land that is more valuable. The premise of any insurance arrangement is that the higher the value of the item insured the higher the fee. A cap was placed on the value of property that would be subject to this fee and no fee would be charged on property valued at less than $500,000. Properties valued at more than $500,000 would be subject to a flat levy of 0.2 per cent. Currently, 70 per cent of property transactions are under the cap and will not be subject to the additional levy. As the previous Opposition speaker said, this reversal of the levy will protect the 30 per cent of people in this State who have the most money. It will make zero difference to the 70 per cent of people who transfer property valued at less than $500,000. This is not about looking after people who live in country areas or in western Sydney; this is all about looking after the Liberal Party's North Shore mates.

It was mentioned by way of interjection that Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia impose lower land transaction levies and that we should do likewise. As I said, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia all impose a similar levy and most property transfers in New South Wales attract lower fees than those imposed in almost every other State. This measure is not justified. It suggests that the Government believes people living in cheaper houses in western Sydney should subsidise people living in the more affluent parts of the State, and particularly in Sydney, who purchase more expensive 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 633

properties. That is absurd. We need a system that protects property transactions, but it must be fair and not disadvantage one section of the community by having it subsidise others. The schedule to the bill demonstrates that no matter what dealings people may have with the Land Titles Office, they will have to reach for their wallet constantly, irrespective of whether they can afford it. People will be required to pay a levy and there will be no discrimination between purchasers or their means.

The second crucial point with regard to this legislation relates to the destination of the revenue collected. It was stated that this money goes into consolidated revenue. There will now be a shortfall over the next four years of between $450 million and $500 million depending on the number of transactions that occur. The Government is already talking up its farcical $5.2 billion black hole that demonstrably does not exist. It is now creating its own black hole of up to $500 million over the next four years. I point out to the Minister that this probably also means that a few transactions will be delayed. Someone involved in a $10 million or $20 million property transaction that was due to be settled on 25 June will probably delay it until next year to avoid the levy. As I said, the Opposition does not support this bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.32 a.m.]: I welcome students from Willoughby Public School who are in the public gallery. I hope that they have an interesting and exciting time in Parliament and that some of them are inspired to get involved in public life.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Some might eventually vote for The Greens.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I was not going to say that; I was going to be more circumspect. I also pay my respects to their teachers and other public sector teachers for the hard work they do and the great care they take in doing it. The Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011 repeals amendments to the Torrens assurance levy made by the previous Government about 12 months ago. Interestingly, the previous Government's amending legislation was passed on the eve of last year's Federal budget and it is now being repealed on the morning after this year's Federal budget. I am not sure about the significance of that.

As other members have said, the Torrens Assurance Fund is important in that it protects landowners in New South Wales from the consequences of fraud or errors committed by the Land Titles Office and secures their interest in their property. Should something go wrong because of an act of fraud or an error that is not redeemable, the fund compensates the home owner or those who have an interest in the title. The scheme has been funded by a flat lodgement fee of $4 on registration of all land transactions in New South Wales. That amount was set in 2004. This time last year the money raised was hypothecated in a fund that paid landowners who lost title as a result of fraud or error.

In July 2010, the ad valorem component began to be applied to all Land and Property Information division transaction registrations. Where the value of land was greater than $500,000 and up to $1 million, a 0.2 per cent ad valorem component was applied and the marginal rate above $1 million was 0.25 per cent. For example, a $1 million property attracted a levy of $1,004. The $4 was the flat fee on the transaction registration and the $1,000 was an impost on the transfer. I was interested to read the shadow Treasurer's speech on this legislation in the lower House. He said he had done a quick calculation of the money that would be raised by the ad valorem component over the next four years. He was remarkably accurate because his figures are identical to the Government's—that is, it would collect $96 million in 2010-11, $105 million in 2011-12, $110 million in 2012-13, and $118 million in 2013-14, making a total of $429 million.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: How much was raised last year?

Dr JOHN KAYE: None, because the ad valorem component was only introduced in 2010-11.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: So how much has been raised?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am referring to financial years. This is the first financial year in which it has been applied. I can only estimate that the income in the first six months was about $48 million. That is a rough calculation done by halving $96 million and remarkably arriving at $48 million.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: It would depend on the number of transfers.

Dr JOHN KAYE: And the seasonality of transfers. It would be about $50 million in the first half of this financial year. That is substantially more than the $9.9 million that has been estimated will be necessary to keep the scheme going. In fact, the scheme was operating with a balance in the range of $17 million to 634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

$19 million. It is clear that the ad valorem component was not necessary to secure the future of the scheme. In fact, if there had been concerns about its viability it would have been possible to increase the $4 levy to $4.50, $5 or whatever was required. It could have been kept as a flat fee.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: It is about fairness.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I will come to that; the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. It comes down to an issue of fairness and of revenue raising. In an answer the Minister—now the Leader of the Opposition—gave in July last year he was upfront about the fact that the money beyond the scheme would go into general revenue. That is sensible. It is not sensible to leave a large amount of money sitting in an insurance scheme and not using it to invest in the future of the State. So it is a revenue measure. As previous non-government members have said, we are in the middle of a debate about a supposed $5 billion black hole.

I am not convinced by any of the arguments about that black hole, particularly after going through Mr Lambert's report, which makes it fairly clear that, inasmuch as there will be revenue shortfalls in two or three financial years, they certainly will not add up to $5 billion. You have to do some tricky work to get that figure. I was no fan of the economic management of the previous Government, as I expressed in this Chamber many times, but it is grotesquely unfair to accuse it of hiding that shortfall when Mr Lambert, a well-respected former secretary and current acting secretary of Treasury, made it clear that the estimates published under the previous Labor Government were in line with information available to it at the time. So certainly nothing has been hidden.

The Hon. Luke Foley: The Government just made it up.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It did not quite make it up; it was creative—

The Hon. Luke Foley: They are lying liars who lie.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I was going to be kinder than that. It was creative addition, probably the same arithmetic that allowed the Deputy Leader of the Government to say yesterday that zero minus one equals zero. I am pleased that the Willoughby Public School students and their teachers were not in the gallery to hear that because it would have confused them. So here we are in May 2011. We are told to expect budget shortfalls, that there is a budget black hole and that all sorts of bad things will need to be done to address it. Is this the right time to take a $429 million revenue raiser off the books? We should go back to the 2008 report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, entitled "Review of State Taxation", and ask whether the levy fits the criteria that the tribunal placed on taxation. There were about six criteria. The first is: Is it equitable? That is to say, in a vertical sense does it collect tax from—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Tick!

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is a tick. I will get there—the Leader of the Opposition is too enthusiastic. Does it raise tax from those who can most afford to pay it?

The Hon. Mick Veitch: He was like that at school.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am sure he was. Again, I am pleased that the Willoughby Public School students are not here to see him behaving in this way. Is it vertically and horizontally equitable? As the Leader of the Opposition says, it clearly is. It is a relatively small impost on a sliding scale—and that is significant. As I said before, it means that a person buying a $1 million property pays $1,004. A person buying a $250,000 property— you probably could not get one in Sydney nowadays but you could certainly find such a property outside the city—pays $4. That is the heart of equity: You charge according to the ability to pay.

Clearly this is an equitable tax. The sliding nature of the tax means that those who are wealthier and can afford a more expensive property can pay it without too much of an impact on their quality of life. The second criterion is: Is it an efficient tax? Yes, it is. Efficiency in this sense means does it minimise the impact on economic decision-making? If a person is buying a $1 million property and there is an additional $1,004 impost on that property, is that going to change their mind? It clearly will not. Buyers will not determine whether to buy $1 million properties on the basis of a $1,000 impost. They will have far greater concerns about interest rates, and an immeasurably small interest rate change will totally absorb that cost anyway. So it is certainly an efficient tax. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 635

Is the tax transparent and simple? It is certainly transparent. People know about it when they make a purchase. There is a handy calculation spreadsheet or worksheet on the Land and Property Information website that people can use to work out how much they will pay. Is it simple? Provided one's arithmetic is not limited by the idea that zero minus one equals zero, one will find the tax relatively simple to calculate. Is it robust? That is probably the weakest aspect of this test, but States are cursed by the absence of robust taxes. Every revenue-raising measure available to the State has a problem with robustness.

The idea advanced in the 2008 report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal was that we should diversify our tax base as much as possible in order to get robustness overall. We cannot get robustness. We do not have access to an income-based tax so ultimately we cannot access robust taxation. So we get robustness across our portfolio of revenue measures by broadening it. This is a move towards narrowing our revenue base, which reduces the robustness of our measures. The fifth and final criterion suggested by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal is: Is it State competitive? As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his response to the Parliamentary Secretary, it is highly competitive. It is almost standard practice amongst the States to have an ad valorem component to these kinds of taxes.

So the tax is equitable, efficient, transparent, simple, robust and State competitive. Adding those criteria together, there can be no argument for getting rid of it. With the possible exception of robustness—and as I said before, delivering robustness is problematic—it is a tax that passes all the textbook measures that one would want from a tax. Yet on the eve of three or four months of debate before the State budget is delivered in September the Government is seeking to abolish a revenue measure that is, by any calculation—and according to the metrics of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal—a good tax. It makes no sense to do so. It might have made good election sense. As we know, in Australia the word "tax" is often used in a pejorative sense. Tony Abbott refers constantly to the "great big tax" on everything. During the election campaign the now Government talked about taxes and charges, including a stealth tax. I wonder whether the stealth tax had an anti-magnetic carbon coating so that it could not be seen by radar!

We need revenue. The kids who were in the gallery earlier need teachers and schools. We all rely on public transport and the public health system. We cannot run a State by abolishing taxes; we need to maintain revenue to maintain quality public services. Therefore, we need to look to the revenue-raising measures that will do the least damage to individuals, the least damage to the economy and the least damage to robustness, and this revenue measure passes all those tests. We supported its introduction before July last year, and we continue to support this measure. The Greens do not support the legislation.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.48 a.m.]: I support the Government's intentions in the Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011. The Labor Party has never seen a tax it does not like. The issue for the people of New South Wales to consider is that this tax is just another burden on business that makes us uncompetitive compared with other States. In our 16 years in opposition, a message that came through loud and clear from many business people—they are the powerhouses who create jobs, pay taxes and get the State moving—was that they believed New South Wales was closed for business. This meant that businesses went elsewhere—to Queensland and to Victoria. Some people say that Queensland has gone ahead in leaps and bounds because of the mining boom. But Victoria's economy has grown by an extra $50 billion, which in this State would have generated at least $2½ billion in taxes.

That is the core reason for this legislation. We are sending a strong message to the people, investors and businesses of New South Wales that we will reopen the doors to business. We are asking them to invest in this State and to employ people to get New South Wales moving again. It is as simple as that. It was a significant commitment of the O'Farrell-Stoner Coalition during the election campaign, and we are delivering on that announcement in the Government's 100 Day Action Plan. The Five Point Action Plan promises to deliver to the State and the people of New South Wales a number of important outcomes, including rebuilding the economy, returning quality services, renovating infrastructure, restoring accountability and protecting our local environment and communities.

In order to rebuild the economy we promised to introduce legislation to repeal the inequitable homebuyers tax. This bill delivers on that promise. It provides for amendments to the Real Property Act 1900 to repeal the Torrens assurance levy, which was introduced by Labor in 2010. The bill's provisions will commence on 1 July 2011 and will apply to all contracts of sale entered into from that date. The Torrens system of registration is provided for by the Real Property Act 1900. It is a system of land registration recognised internationally as being secure and efficient. It was interesting to hear the former Minister highlight the respect in which our Torrens title system is held across the world, ensuring the support of our $1 trillion land base in New South Wales. 636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

The State-backed guarantee is a fundamental component of the Torrens system and promotes certainty of title and public confidence in the system. To support this guarantee, the Torrens Assurance Fund has been established, the purpose of which is to compensate people who have legitimately and through no fault of their own suffered loss due to the workings of the Torrens system. A small component of the registration fee for dealings, being $4, was paid directly into the fund to compensate successful claims. This amount has been adequate—it is a very important point—to provide for claims made against the fund over many years. There was enough money to support those insurance claims, to support the Torrens system. However, after running down the State for 16 years, Labor had to find another way to bring in more income. So it searched high and low and decided on this measure, which made New South Wales more uncompetitive with the other States in terms of the total tax take.

Labor amended the Real Property Act in 2010 to add a new levy to the registration fee. The Torrens assurance levy introduced an ad valorem component to the existing fees for transfers of land where the purchase price was over $500,000. While Labor stated that this was not a tax but a levy created to fund fraud mitigation measures, there is no doubt that the so-called levy was nothing more than an additional tax imposed on homebuyers. It added to the tax burden of the people of New South Wales. We already know about stamp duty and all the other taxes we pay, but this is an inequitable tax paid only by some. Additionally, the greater the price the more one pays. For example, a purchase of $1 million would require an additional $1,190 payment. For a purchase of $2 million an additional payment of $3,690 is required.

When we talk about such figures we think of business and commercial developments, such as factories. We need to remove the chain of these added costs from business. That is what the bill seeks to achieve. I pick up the point made by Dr John Kaye, who pointed out that the tax was introduced 10 months ago. He may be interested to learn that, while Labor stated the tax was intended to fund fraud mitigation measures, it has raised $45 million in the past 10 months. If one extrapolates that over a full 12 months the total may be $60 million but not the $100 million or $110 million that the former Government proposed in its forward estimates. It is just another tax. The entire amount collected has been paid into the Consolidated Fund, so there is no information yet on the claim that the measure is about ensuring the integrity of the system in terms of insurance or fraud. The bill will reverse Labor's amendments and restore the arrangements that existed previously—that is, a modest component of the registration fee, the amount of $4, will be paid into the Torrens Assurance Fund to meet any claims made against that fund.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: A flat tax.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Yes. The benefits to the community are many, and include alleviating the obvious tax burden on homebuyers amongst other things. An additional cost on developers will be removed. This will encourage further development and housing supply. Hopefully, it will work towards reducing the cost of housing across this State. It is impossible for families in many parts of this city to buy a home under current costings and prices. We are trying to drive down costs and get more land and houses onto the market so that the affordability issue that is strangling so many families can be addressed. Home owners will continue to get the protection provided by the Torrens Assurance Fund that they have always received. The status quo will be restored. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [11.56 a.m.]: I support the Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011. One might be tempted to exclaim, "O frabjous day! Callooh, callay", and chortle in my joy. Because all taxation is an expropriation, it should not be imposed lightly. All taxation is an expropriation. It might be justified to fund the reasonable activities of a reasonable government, but it is unjustified if it is imposed to penalise, to punish or to give preferential treatment. Labor and The Greens never met a tax they did not like because Labor and The Greens love big government, they love big bureaucracy and they love big socialism. I make mention of the Federal budget, which was delivered last night. We saw for first time in eight years a failure on the part of a Federal government to implement any income tax cut. It was the first time that the Labor Government was not bound by tax cuts that were put in place by the Coalition Government, and did it decide to continue that tradition? No, of course it did not because Labor loves taxes— any tax is more money that it can spend on wasteful projects.

There are people who say, "Oh well, taxation is fine because the rich can afford it." The truth is that there is always someone who is poorer than you; there is always someone who believes that you are richer than they. And on that basis no-one is safe from the expropriatory claws of the socialists. Unless one wants to turn government into an engine of the welfare state, socialism should be put aside and taxation should be there only 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 637

for the reasonable activities of government. I turn to Great Britain, which at one stage had a confiscatory top tax rate of 95 per cent, and I leave it to none other than those great British philosophers John Lennon and Paul McCartney, who said:

Let me tell you how it will be There's one for you, nineteen for me Cos I'm the taxman ...

Should five per cent appear too small Be thankful I don't take it all Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman ... And you're working for no one but me

That is the sort of society that members opposite want. That is the sort of society that members opposite think would be a nirvana, a utopia—a North Korean-type utopia perhaps, but a utopia. As I said in my maiden speech, apart from a few legitimate activities in government there is very little that government does that could not be done better by the private sector. The Left believes that everything is done better by government. We know where that sort of thinking leads us to—it leads us to Cuba; it leads us to North Korea; it leads us to the Gulag Archipelago. But legitimate government activity requires legitimate funding. This levy is not legitimate, and that is why we are getting rid of it. This is a tax on home buyers. This is a tax on ordinary Australians who seek nothing more than to invest in their property rights. It is a bad levy.

Speaking of bad levies, how could we forget the Gillard Government's Queensland flood relief levy? If ever there was a rotten tax, that is it. Queenslanders and the Labor Government in Queensland had the option. They could have done as the Howard Government did and sought to self-insure their assets. I worked very closely with various Ministers and the Department of Finance in Canberra for the establishment and maintenance of Comcover. Queensland's failure to self-insure stands as an indictment to its culpable economic credentials. Alternatively, if the Queensland Labor Government did not wish to adopt self-insurance it could have had a contingency fund put aside for such occasions. It is not as if Queenslanders and the Queensland Labor Government were unaware that floods occasionally take place in that State.

But instead, despite the outpouring of voluntary support for Queenslanders, the Federal Labor Government decided that it would introduce a flood relief levy. It was always couched in dinky-di language. On 27 January 2011 the Prime Minister spoke about the fact that "Australians want to help"; she said it was "doing it the Australian way". The Australian way only in the sense that Ned Kelly, Captain Thunderbolt and Ben Hall are Australian! It is hardly responsible for the Federal Government to say it has had a voluntary taxation regime in place. It does not; it is a compulsory extraction of money. If a person who is armed with a knife approaches a person in a car park and says, "I'd like you to make a voluntary contribution to my living arrangements", the person is hardly likely to say, "I will voluntarily release money so that you can continue on whatever intoxicative habits you may have."

If the collection of money in such an inappropriate way is considered to be involuntary, I do not see how the Gillard Government can portray a levy that is compulsorily extracted as some recognition of Australians voluntarily wanting to help or "doing it the Australian way". It is a tax. It as another tax from a Socialist Labor Party that cannot get enough tax, a party that failed after eight years to institute any new tax cuts for the ordinary, hardworking members of the Australia public. I am reminded of the way some of the old city states of pre-unification Germany used to fund their activities. Each year the Treasury box would be brought out into the main square and the citizens would voluntarily contribute what they thought was a fair amount.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Was that in, like, 1870?

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: No. I am referring to the old city states of pre-unification Germany. As I said, the Treasury box would be brought out into the main square and the citizens would contribute what they thought was a fair amount. If that happened today, I wonder how much money would be extracted from people. How happy would people be to fund useless, anti-capitalist organisations such as the United Nations, or the left-wing nonsense that passes for education at so many of Australia's universities? How many people would be willing to voluntarily contribute to that?

I suspect that most people—but not all—may voluntarily give 5 per cent or 10 per cent of their income to support a government that protects the rights of its citizens. But practically no-one would voluntarily give 50 per cent or 90 per cent of their income to support a mixed economy-welfare State—and that is why 638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

governments use force to take it away from people. Who would want to voluntarily pay for that? Perhaps a few people would. Perhaps a few people would like 90 per cent tax rates. Perhaps members opposite would love to have 90 per cent tax rates. But they are the ones who think that they will get to hold onto the leash—the petite bourgeois Left, the people at the forefront of all socialist revolutions: Lenin and Trotsky, Mao and Kim, Che and Fidel, Ortega and Chavez. The petite bourgeois Left—the sort of people that Comrade Rhiannon supported while she was a member of the Socialist Party of Australia—love dictators, they love the expropriation of property, and they love high taxes. For all its faults, the Labor Party never went as low as supporting those sorts of people.

Behind the desire to help people there lurks the desire to rule them. One way to rule people is to have confiscatory tax rates—which members opposite will no doubt support. I am also reminded of the carbon tax, which is more appropriately described as a carbon dioxide tax. As if you could tax plant food with no repercussions! I foresee a future where, for example, perhaps dragons are made responsible for global warming. I think government could well fund in the future a $10 million draconian research institute, whereby peer-approved papers could be produced which would demonstrate that dragons are responsible for global warming. That could then lead to a United Nations independent committee on dragon activities, where no doubt levies would be expected—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, as I think is my right, I ask you to read the motion before the House because I am a little lost.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Do I need to do that? The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is speaking to the second reading of the bill.

Dr John Kaye: But, Madam Deputy-President, I have a right to ask that you do so at any time during the debate. I request that the motion before the House be read.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The question is: That this bill be now read a second time. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has the call.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I note the dragon denialist sitting in the corner. I think we can say goodbye to every vote from every dungeons and dragons player. Dragon denialism is a blight on this Parliament. Dr John Kaye should listen to the scientific evidence. I refer him specifically to the Dungeons and Dragons Adventurer's handbook, third edition, which states unequivocally that dragons do exist, in a wide range of colours. Perhaps dragons should be investigated even more deeply with regard to their role in climate change, because it has the same sort of scientific relevance as carbon dioxide.

We are getting rid of a tax here, and that is a great thing. I am not particularly concerned about the merits of this tax or any other tax. Indeed, members who liked Nineteen Eighty-four will be reminded of Winston Smith's companion, who speaks in reverential, almost ecstatic, tones about destroying words. I feel that way about abolishing taxes. The same reverential ecstasy is filling me now, as I know that in a short period another tax will be stricken from the statute books of this State—and I hope we keep doing it.

Liberal-Nationals governments may not be perfect but they start from the basic proposition that taxation and expenditure should be kept at the minimum level necessary to sustain a civil society. We are not a robber government. We are not an expropriating government. We do not play favours. We do not seek to give preferential treatment to certain forms of economic activity. We do not seek to penalise and to punish. We seek to create a free society—a society where the maximum amount of freedom is possible and a society where people can undertake their daily activities without the dead hand of government reaching into their pockets every time it wants to do something. This is not just a good bill. This is a great bill. This is a beautiful bill. This is a magnificent bill. Let it be the first of many bills, which will bring more economic freedom and, as a consequence, political and social freedom to this State.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [12.10 p.m.], in reply: Madam Deputy-President, I am unsure whether I have congratulated you on your election to your current position.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: You have.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Well, I do it again. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 639

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Thank you.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank all members who have participated in this debate. Disappointingly, the Opposition speakers do not appear to have noticed that an election was held a month or so ago at which they were comprehensively rejected. The election results indicate that the public of New South Wales want to embrace the policies of the Liberal-Nationals and to see change in this State. Our mandate was given and this was one of our key policies. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said little except to blurt out ideological, stale, old stuff, which was comprehensively demolished by the incredibly erudite speech of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, with one exception. They tried to argue that this tax— which was introduced by the former Government by stealth last year—was in some way related to fairness. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should read the questions and answers and the speeches that were made at the time of its introduction.

As always, Dr John Kaye focused on key issues. He demolished the Opposition's proposition that this tax was required to run the scheme. He stated that it was also not a robust or good tax, but he too missed the point that this Government has a mandate. It will be interesting to see how we proceed if The Greens continue to deny that mandate. I wish to respond to Dr Kaye's comments on the Lambert report. Dr Kaye is financially literate, unlike Opposition members. I reiterate to him that a disturbing feature of the report is the trend. Whilst the former Government switched to reporting the operating result as the budget result and it did not focus on the net lending result, which is the real and worrying figure, the adjusted figures disclosed in the report—adjusted for everything including the Solar Bonus Scheme—show a surplus in the current financial year, $79 million deficit in 2011-12, $550 million deficit in 2012-13, $1.3 billion deficit in 2013-14 and $2.4 billion deficit in 2014-15. That trend and the fact that the Government must borrow to make that growing deficit up is the real financial issue.

Dr John Kaye: Is that not an argument for not getting rid of taxes?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will come to that. When you take the net lending result the position is even worse and the interest bill will increase if something is not done about this by $140 million or $160 million per year compounding. Whilst people have been keen to focus on the theatre of the black hole, there is a significant trending problem in the budget and it is not sustainable. Dr Kay asked: Is that not a reason not to cut taxes? The Government's commitments were fully costed, checked and endorsed by a former Auditor-General and the savings and other measures that would allow us to deliver on our promises were set out well before the election. I thank also the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox for highlighting the fact that this measure is about boosting the New South Wales housing industry, which is a driver of the New South Wales economy—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Key driver.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, a key driver of the New South Wales economy. After 16 years of Labor Government New South Wales is faced with a significant housing crisis. It is faced with a lack of land release, insufficient homes being built and a housing affordability crisis. The Government unashamedly wants to stimulate the housing sector. The only other speaker was the Hon. Melinda Pavey, who made a fantastic contribution in demolishing the former Government's arguments as to taxes. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 21

Mr Ajaka Miss Gardiner Mrs Mitchell Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Borsak Mr Green Mr Pearce Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps 640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

Noes, 17

Ms Barham Mr Hatzistergos Mr Shoebridge Mr Buckingham Dr Kaye Mr Veitch Ms Cotsis Mr Kelly Ms Westwood Mr Donnelly Mr Moselmane Tellers, Ms Faehrmann Mr Primrose Ms Fazio Mr Foley Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [12.26 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1 on sheet C2011-023:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [10] (proposed clause 26 (b)), line 21. Omit "after 1 July 2011". Insert instead "on or after 1 July 2011".

This amendment adds the words "on or after 1 July" to new section 26 (b) of part 10. The proposed amendment addresses an issue with the drafting of the transitional provisions. As previously stated, the levy will apply to transfers that are lodged for registration to give effect to a contract for sale of land entered into after 1 July 2011. The levy will continue to apply to transfers executed to give effect to a contract for sale of land entered into after 1 July 2010 but before 1 July 2011, even though the transfer might be lodged for registration after the commencement of the Real Property Amendment (Torrens Assurance Levy Repeal) Bill 2011. To give effect to this intention, the transitional provision should apply to transfers that are executed to give effect to contracts entered into within the year commencing 1 July 2010 but before 1 July 2011 and that are lodged for registration on or after 1 July 2011. The words "on or" are to be added before "after 1 July" to correct this omission.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.27 p.m.]: It is regrettable that the Government in the early weeks of this Parliament is rushing through poorly drafted bills. Yesterday the Minister told us, "I must admit I was a very fine lawyer."

The Hon. Greg Pearce: I was.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: He still is.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: There is another lawyer. The Hon. Trevor Khan was a hit in the local traffic courts. Was this amendment because of a fault of the Minister or the Treasurer?

Question—That Government amendment No. 1 [C2011-023] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendment No. 1 [C2011-023] agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 641

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY

Resignation of the Honourable Edward Moses Obeid

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following communication from His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor:

Office of the Governor Sydney 2000 11 May 2011

The Honourable Donald Harwin MLC President of the Legislative Council Parliament House Macquarie Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear President

I have the honour to inform you that I have received a letter, dated 10 May 2011, from the Honourable Edward Obeid OAM MLC tendering his resignation as a Member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales.

I have acknowledged receipt of the letter from Mr Obeid and have informed him that you have been advised of his resignation.

Yours sincerely

The Honourable J. J. Spigelman Lieutenant-Governor of New South Wales

I have acknowledged His Excellency's communication. An entry regarding the resignation of the Hon. Edward Moses Obeid from the Fifty-fifth Parliament has been made in the Register of Members of the Legislative Council.

DUTIES AMENDMENT (SENIOR'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE DUTY EXEMPTION) BILL 2011

Second Reading

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [12.32 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill delivers on yet another of our commitments under the Government's 100 Day Action Plan: to extend the empty-nester transfer duty concession to individuals aged 55 years or over. The concession, described in the bill as the "senior's principal place of residence exemption", provides that individuals aged 55 years or over will pay zero transfer duty if they are selling an existing property and buying a newly constructed home costing up to $600,000. The empty-nester concession applies to new home or off-the-plan purchases entered into between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012. To be eligible the person must sell his or her existing home and reside in the new 642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

home for a continuous 12-month period. This will enable seniors to move from their current home into a new home that better meets their changes in lifestyle. It will also free-up family homes for those looking to get into the housing market or needing to move to a larger home.

Reducing the age threshold from 65 to 55 acknowledges that many people are planning for retirement well before they are 65, and that this includes changes in lifestyle and home location, such as downsizing from the family home to a smaller house or unit. As with the existing over-65 scheme, seniors over 55 must have owned and occupied a home in New South Wales within the last 12 months and must occupy the new home for a continuous period of at least 12 months. This will save up to $22,490 for seniors relocating to a new home. The scheme will encourage new home construction and will help to rebuild a strong New South Wales economy. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.34 p.m.]: The Duties Amendment (Senior's Principal Place of Residence Duty Exemption) Bill 2011 seeks to expand the existing policy introduced by the former Labor Government, which exempts persons aged 65 or over from paying duty for new principal place of residence housing purchases to the value of $600,000. Stamp duty relief for downsizers was a good initiative of the former Labor Government, which better enabled some people to downsize to more appropriate accommodation. We welcome the extension by the new Government of the current Labor policy and acknowledge the words of support for our policy from Government members in the other place. We are flattered that the Government is seeking to continue the policy we introduced when in government. Labor has a strong record of supporting seniors and is committed to working towards good public policy outcomes for older Australians. We will do this whether we are in government or in opposition.

This stamp duty relief initiative helps to unlock real estate more suited to larger families. It is a good policy in its current form and we do not oppose its expansion to include those aged 55 to 65. However, the expansion of the policy to encompass this age bracket raises some issues that we would like the Government to address. Of significant concern is the forecast increase in cost. I have not seen any forward estimates from the Government on the impact that this policy will have on the budget. This omission is counter to the Liberals' and Nationals' election promise that "every Cabinet Minister should be held responsible for decisions relating to fiscal strategy, including announcements on services and infrastructure" and their promise to provide "clear statements on the impact of costings on forward budgets". We are tolerant of this omission if it is just a short-term oversight, and we look forward to its rectification by the Government tabling its promised financial impact statement on this measure and on all others it brings before us in the future. In summary, the Opposition supports this bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [12.37 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I address the Duties Amendment (Senior's Principal Place of Residence Duty Exemption) Bill 2011. The bill extends the existing empty-nester exemptions for transfer duties from the 65-plus age group to the 55-plus age group. As members would be aware, that exemption currently applies to people aged 65 and over when they sell their home and purchase a new home and move into that new home within 12 months of the sale of their previous home. Under the scheme the so-called empty-nesters moving home can achieve a reduction of up to $22,490 in transfer duties. The change to the cut-off age from 65 to 55 is estimated by the Government to cause a loss of revenue of about $10 million. While The Greens do not oppose this legislation, we raise a number of concerns in relation to it. First, we are concerned about both horizontal and vertical equity. In relation to horizontal equity we are talking about a generation that I will join shortly—the 55 to 65 generation—which historically is probably one of the wealthiest generations, or the wealthiest generation, that there has ever been.

Of course, that is not true of everyone in that cohort; many have suffered poverty throughout their lives and continue to do so. However, because of the housing market situation and the available economic opportunities, people like me, who purchased houses prior to the mid- to late-1980s real estate bubble, were able to buy properties in the metropolitan area when housing was extraordinarily inexpensive and as a result have become asset wealthy. Many of my generation have had uninterrupted employment and have often had excellent opportunities to advance to higher-paid employment. In comparison to other cohorts, the 55-plus to 65-plus generation is not characterised by any degree of poverty. To deliver a substantial tax benefit to that generation while other generations, particularly the youngest homebuyer generation—those aged between 25 and 45—are genuinely struggling—seems to undermine the principle of vertical equity.

That raises the issue of horizontal equity because this measure does not apply to individuals who purchase an existing property. An individual purchasing an existing dwelling will not have access to the exemption from transfer duties. Obviously, the Government's aim is to stimulate the home building sector. The 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 643

original intention behind this measure did not necessarily involve equity; it was all about industry policy and it was designed to stimulate the construction market. The question that must be asked is whether this is the right time to be stimulating the construction market and whether it is the appropriate vehicle to achieve that aim. Nothing in the second reading speech made by the Minister in this place, in the agreement in principle speech made by the Minister in the other place, or in the debate in the other place established that this is the most equitable or efficient use of the $10 million that will be spent.

Problems always arise when governments provide relief on transfer duties. In fact, housing affordability is an extremely complex public policy area. It is highly questionable as to whether delivering a bonus of $22,490 to those purchasing a new home will do anything other than increase the price of a new home by that amount. This is not a balanced demand-supply economy; it is an economy limited by supply. To put it in real estate parlance, it is now, has been for a long time and is likely to continue to be a seller's market. In a market in which the seller understands that the buyer has access to additional cash, the seller will generally push up the price. The serious concern is that this $10 million will end up on the developers' balance sheets as a profit and in the hands of the vendors.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: That is a leap of logic.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I do not think it is. A supply-demand analysis would clearly demonstrate that the addition of a bonus to the demand curve would lead to a shift in its intersection with the supply curve and an increase in the price but no change in demand. It would simply shift the curve in a way that does not affect supply but does increase the price.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: That is a very simplistic analysis.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I could do a more complex analysis, but using words without a blackboard—or the more modern version, a whiteboard—might be more challenging.

The Hon. John Ajaka: I prefer blackboards.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Hon. John Ajaka is a traditionalist in many ways. The reality is that that $10 million will become profit collected by vendors and developers, and that is not necessarily the best way to spend taxpayers' money. In fact, this measure could decrease housing affordability because vendors or developers selling a new dwelling could push up prices and focus their marketing on that age cohort. I have nothing against people aged 55 and over; as I said, I will shortly join that august cohort.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Tell us your birthday.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I will do that, but not now because I do not want to interrupt my line of thought. The people really struggling are those who have never owned a home; that is, those who are trying to enter the real estate market. I have young friends who did not have the opportunity to purchase a property in Sydney prior to 1987. Unless they have wealthy parents or an extraordinarily highly paid job they will struggle.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Is that not the profile of The Greens?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I do not understand that question. This legislation will not deliver what the Government intends; in fact, it might make life more complex for those people. The Greens have concerns about the lack of horizontal equity and discrimination against people who want to move into an existing home. According to the second reading speech, the objective of this legislation is to stimulate the building industry by creating a greater market. However, it is not clear at this stage of the economic cycle that that is appropriate. The market is not in a downturn and we have emerged from the global financial crisis. The exemption was introduced in the first instance in response to the global financial crisis and it was designed to create jobs and to stimulate the economy.

Stimulatory measures in the building industry may not be a good idea at this time. In fact, if they are applied at the wrong time in the cycle they can have the perverse outcome of making property more expensive, and increasing demand makes properties less affordable for those who do not receive the benefits. Of course, many people will welcome this assistance to buy a new home. It will also enable many to move from their existing home to a more appropriate dwelling. I welcome this measure for those people. However, the Government has not justified its economic integrity, it has not demonstrated that it would be efficient and it has not explained how it will achieve both horizontal and vertical equity. 644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [12.48 p.m.]: As my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already said, the Opposition tentatively welcomes the move by the Government to extend stamp duty concessions to individuals aged 55 years or over who choose to downsize their homes. It is pleasing that the Government has chosen to continue this initiative, originally introduced by Labor during its time in Government. However, we have some serious concerns about the economic impact of the Government's proposal to extend stamp duty concessions to include 55- to 65-year-olds. I find puzzling the fact that the Government, which manufactured a budget black hole in a Greineresque move to justify decreases in government expenditure, is introducing bills in the first weeks of this Parliament that forego so much revenue and impose yet more expenditure on the budget.

The expansionary approach taken by this Government in its first weeks in office has put paid to its fictitious claims of a budget black hole. The Government has no problem forgoing revenue and increasing expenditure, so we can only assume that it now secretly accepts the conclusion of both the Lambert report and the Parliamentary Budget Office that there is no budget black hole. This is not the fiscal responsibility that the people of New South Wales expect from their Government. While this proposal does not represent enormous expenditure on the part of the Government—and it is only a small part of the Start the Change proposals—it is important to note that members of the Government, while in Opposition, refused to submit these policies to the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, preferring instead to rely on advice of their own costings.

The people of New South Wales need to know from their Government whether the Minister for Finance and Services has seen comprehensive costings and budgetary impact statements which incorporate this policy and the rest of the Liberal-Nationals proposed policies in their Start the Change manifesto. The Government needs also to detail what other programs or areas of expenditure will face cuts in order to meet its election commitments on its way to the Treasury benches. What area of government expense will face cuts to fill in its make-believe black hole? Will it be health, education or the environment? The people of New South Wales deserve more from this Government.

There are also legitimate concerns about the efficacy of this proposal. The Government has failed to offer independent advice or analysis of its proposal and, specifically, whether its plan will result in its stated goal, which is to increase housing affordability in Sydney. This policy focuses on those aged between 55 and 65, an age bracket within our ageing work force that is no longer necessarily preparing to retire. The question now is: What advice has the Government received that suggests a significant proportion of people in this age bracket are preparing to downsize? If the Government has not received any advice serious questions remain about the viability or necessity of its scheme. This bill leaves many unanswered questions and the Opposition challenges the Government to provide it with answers.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.51 p.m.]: I support the Duties Amendment (Senior's Principal Place of Residence Duty Exemption) Bill 2011, which is another step towards fulfilling the Government's Making Sydney Liveable Again policy by allowing individuals aged 55 years or over to acquire a new home free of stamp duty. The concession provides that individuals aged 55 years or over will pay zero transfer duty if they are selling an existing property and buying a newly constructed home costing up to $600,000. This is a saving of up to $22,490. Prior to becoming a member of Parliament I practiced for many years in the property market and I acted for many individuals over the age of 55 who initially had intended to sell their properties in order to downsize.

When they discovered that stamp duty was payable they realised that the associated costs would not justify the move, and as purchases were no longer proceeded with there was no longer a stimulus to the economy. The empty-nester concession applies to new homes or off-the-plan purchases entered into between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this bill. He has demonstrated that within the first 100 days of this new Government it intends to adhere to the promises it made during the election. Sadly, that is completely foreign to Opposition members who were never to honour their commitments.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: The Hon. John Ajaka is misleading the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I reject completely the Hon. Amanda Fazio's assertion that I am misleading the House. What did Opposition members do when they were in government to try in some way to stimulate the economy? Let us not forget the wonderful vendor tax that they introduced to the property market. They do not want to talk about that anymore. At that time I saw first-hand the adverse effect that it had on the economy. Clients refused to put their properties up for sale and developers moved to other States because the market in New South Wales was uncommercial. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 645

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Other countries.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: As my colleague the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox said, they moved also to other countries. When developers in New South Wales moved to other States they spent hundreds of millions of dollars in those other States. The former Government realised the drastic error of its ways and it abolished that terrible and ridiculous vendor tax. Developers did not bring back to New South Wales the hundreds of millions of dollars that they had invested in other States; that investment was permanently lost to this State and New South Wales has continued to suffer. What did the Hon. Amanda Fazio say about the Government's initiative to help stimulate the economy? Her first words were wonderful, and I agree with them—"It is nice to hear about the bill" and, "I welcome the move." But it did not stop there. She then went on to attack the Government and to list all the reasons why this should not happen, which confused me.

To be eligible for the concession the senior, and his or her spouse if any, must move into the home within 12 months of completion and occupy the property as his or her principal place of residence for a continuous period of at least 12 months. The eligible senior must have owned and occupied a home in New South Wales within the last 12 months before the date of purchase. The eligible senior, and the spouse of the owner, must dispose of the former home either prior to or within six months of the completion of the purchase. At age 55 many people are already planning for their retirement and lifestyle changes. Current duties concessions exclude a large number of people in the 55- to 65-year-old age bracket who are at that stage of their lives where they are considering downsizing.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: What about you?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I note the interjection of the Hon. Amanda Fazio. I am 55 years of age and I am honoured to be a member of Parliament who is serving the community for the betterment of that community, unlike Opposition members when they were in government. Seniors who move from their current home into a newly reconstructed one that better meets their changes in lifestyle will benefit from the concession. This will free up family homes for those looking to get into the housing market, or needing to move to a bigger home. This unique and simplistic duty savings scheme will be welcomed by individuals aged 55 and over who are contemplating a lifestyle change. Only four other jurisdictions have a stamp duty relief scheme for seniors wishing to make lifestyle changes. I am advised that South Australia, Victoria and the two Territories have similar schemes, but all are more restrictive than the New South Wales scheme either in eligibility criteria or in the amount of concession. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner) left the chair at 12.57 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

LOBBYING OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BILL 2011

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

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I draw the attention of members to the presence in the President's Gallery of the Hon. Ted Pickering and Mrs Elaine Pickering. Ted is a former Leader of the Government. Ted, you are very welcome. It is lovely to see you.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted for questions.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given the longstanding bipartisan commitment to complete the Pacific Highway by 2016 and the Commonwealth 646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

Government's announcement of $1 billion in new funding to get this achieved, will the Government now guarantee for the people of New South Wales that it will commit the additional $750 million to ensure that this is done? It should be an easy answer.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It should be an easy answer? Well, it is always an easy answer to the Opposition's questions. We were hoping we would get a question along these lines—in fact, we prepared a Dorothy Dixer in case Opposition members did not ask this question. We cannot always rely on their question time committee. They have obviously taken some of our advice, read the papers this morning and now have a question. I am sure their Federal colleagues did not send it to them because they have not been talking to them for some time.

Last night the Federal budget announced $1.02 billion in funding for the Pacific Highway. The Federal funding is scheduled to be delivered by 2014-15. Naturally, we welcome any additional Commonwealth funding for the Pacific Highway. Anything we can do to make the highway safer and reduce road accidents and fatalities has to be supported. However, there have always been arrangements to share the cost of funding Pacific Highway improvements and, unfortunately, we were not consulted about the additional funding in the budget. I know that members opposite were not consulted, but nor were we consulted about the additional funding. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals have not agreed to Federal Labor's proposals. We did not agree to divert $270 million out of western Sydney or to any other Federal funding arrangements. We are, however, still negotiating with the Federal Government about the—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: So they are talking to you?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We are about to talk to them about Pacific Highway funding. In fact, the Premier received a letter from the Prime Minister as late as last week that confirmed discussions about Pacific Highway funding were still continuing and progressing well. The current funding split for the Pacific Highway upgrades is 80:20—that is, 80 per cent Federal funding and 20 per cent State funding. This arrangement reflects the fact that the Pacific Highway is a road of national significance—it is, after all, the major freight link between Sydney and Brisbane. We need to examine the additional funding requirements as part of our budgetary process. Certainly we want to see the Pacific Highway upgraded so we can save lives. We want to see the Prime Minister's target of duplicating the Pacific Highway by 2016 achieved. Unfortunately, Labor governments have a poor record of delivering on their promised time frames for Pacific Highway upgrades.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: How much did John Howard—

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will tell you about some of the broken promises, as you have asked. In 1996 the former Labor Government promised to upgrade the entire length of the Pacific Highway to dual carriageway by 2006. It is now 2011 and obviously it has not happened. In 1998, just two years after this promise, the former Labor Government moved the goalposts to complete the upgrade by 2012. In short, Labor broke its first promise to the people of New South Wales by six years. But wait, there is more. The former Government then pushed the completion date of the Pacific Highway upgrade back to 2016. Hence, Labor broke its second promise. [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I ask a supplementary question. I am not sure whether I heard a yes in the Minister's answer. That is all I would like.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There were many yeses and many noes, but mostly disappointment. There was lack of consultation on this issue, but I am pleased with the supplementary question because I need to remind the former Minister of his history in Cabinet and the broken promises. In the space of two years the former Labor Government, of which he was a Minister, broke two major Pacific Highway upgrade promises to the people of New South Wales. These broken Labor promises have extended the completion date of the Pacific Highway upgrade by a decade, from the original promise of 2006 to a new date of 2016. To date only 51 per cent of the Pacific Highway has been upgraded to dual carriageway. That the former Government managed to convert only half of the final highway leg to dual carriageway is a clear indication of its mismanagement—I remind members that there were seven roads Ministers in five years.

Despite this being the major freight link between Sydney and Brisbane, the former Labor Government has repeatedly failed to prioritise vital upgrades on the Pacific Highway. During the mini-budget in November 2008 the State capital expenditure funding over the five years to 2013-14 for the Pacific Highway upgrade was reduced from $800 million to $500 million. That is a 37.5 per cent reduction in funding. We have been clear 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 647

about our priority to upgrade the Pacific Highway. We want to fast-track the upgrade of the sections and we want to sit down with the Federal Government to make sure we get that money on reasonable terms. [Time expired.]

FEDERAL BUDGET AND M4 EAST

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will he update the House on the Federal budget and the M4 extension?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was expecting that question from the Opposition, but obviously I did not get it. I thank the member for this important question. To answer the question in full one has to understand the chequered history of the M4 East extension project. The project, one of Sydney's key missing road links, has suffered badly due to a decade of State Labor broken promises. Way back in June 2002 the Carr Government announced it was investigating the possibility of extending the M4. At the time, the then Labor Minister for Roads, Carl "Mr Sparkles" Scully, said, "The investigation will take 12 months to complete and construction can begin in as little as three years." Two years later, on 26 June 2004—

[Interruption]

Members opposite should listen; they have forgotten a lot of this. As I said, two years later, on 26 June 2004, Carl Scully finally got around to announcing the M4 East project between North Strathfield and Haberfield. Less than a year later, in April 2005, this project was shelved by the then Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Craig Knowles. A new M4 East extension project called Sydney Link was then included in the 2006 State Infrastructure Strategy. The strategy document stated, "The M4 East extension is likely to be completed by the end of the decade", meaning 2010.

In 2007, embarrassed by State Labor's broken promises and inaction, Federal Labor promised to set aside $300 million for the M4 East extension project. However, this money has never appeared in official Federal budget papers. The previous New South Wales Labor Government's position on the M4 East extension was that without a full funding solution for delivery no further development of work or public consultation should proceed. When no funds for the M4 East extension were allocated in the 2009 Federal budget, the former New South Wales Labor Government threw in the towel and abandoned the motorists living in western Sydney. In addition, a substandard State Labor submission to Infrastructure Australia in late 2008, which included proposals for the M4 East extension project, failed to gain support or any funding from the Federal Government. Sadly, no planning work for this project has taken place since mid 2009.

Yet another State Labor submission to Infrastructure Australia, in August 2010, failed to gain support or any additional funding for the M4 East project. Labor's inaction and incompetence means that New South Wales would not be in a position to use the $300 million set aside for the M4 East extension in full. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals have been advised that the M4 East extension is not currently shovel-ready and that further work is required to define the scope of the project to complete the planning process and carry out an environmental assessment, including consultation with the community. In other words, if we wanted to spend the $300 million, even if we wanted to extend this congested motorway, we could not do so because of the incompetence and laziness of the members opposite in their last three years. We were not prepared to give up this Federal funding. The Federal Labor Government put forth a proposal that $300 million be—

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. John Ajaka is a fine Parliamentary Secretary, and I thank him for the question.

[Interruption]

Members opposite should listen to this; it is important. I think they have forgotten some of the history. They are in denial. The New South Wales Coalition Government did not want to see western Sydney robbed again by Labor—which is why it put forth proposals to keep the money in western Sydney to be spent on other western Sydney roads projects to reduce traffic congestion. But the Federal Government has taken $270 million of its money and reallocated it to Pacific Highway upgrades, leaving $30 million for planning and preconstruction works to be completed on the M4 East. If it were not for the intervention of the New South 648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

Wales Liberals and Nationals in standing up for western Sydney, Labor would have again stripped all the funding from the region. We want to see the $30 million we secured used to ensure that the M4 East extension project is indeed shovel-ready should future funds become available.

WORKERS COMPENSATION HARMONISATION

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Noting the commitment the Government has given to national workers compensation harmonisation, will the Minister guarantee that no New South Wales worker will be worse off as a result of New South Wales implementing any national harmonisation scheme for workers compensation under a Coalition Government?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am not sure what commitment the Government has given to national workers compensation harmonisation. I do not think we have given such a commitment, although we have talked about it. I will take the question on notice and get back to the member.

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES POLICY

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister confirm that he is reviewing the public sector wages policy? If so, will he provide the House with the terms of reference?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked me to confirm that I am reviewing the public sector wages policy—

The Hon. Luke Foley: The Government's policy.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Not me, but the Government?

The Hon. Tony Kelly: The Government you represent.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I confirm that we are indeed reviewing all of the former Government's policies.

FEDERAL BUDGET AND CRIME

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the impact of the Federal budget on the fight against organised crime in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: What an outstanding question. I thank the Hon. Niall Blair for his question and his interest in how New South Wales police are doing their part to ensure national security and to keep safe our borders from illicit drugs. It would appear that the Federal Labor Government does not share the same interest. I have spoken time and again on the need for the State and Federal governments to work together in the fight against organised crime. New South Wales is not an island. Drug dealers in our suburbs and cities do not own coca plantations. They do not own poppy fields. Even many of the precursor chemicals in so called designer drugs are brought into our country illegally. The drugs that do the most harm to our young people are imported from overseas. The guns that are used by thugs to enforce their control over the drug trade also come from overseas. Organised crime is transnational by its very nature. And that becomes the responsibility of the Federal Government, and the Australian Federal Police.

Which is why today I am outraged, as I am sure honourable members of this House are outraged, that the Federal Labor Government should so deeply cut away at the Australian Federal Police's budget, leaving our police in the lurch and leaving the door open for organised crime to seep back onto our streets in the wake of all the hard work our local cops have done. Labor is the party of broken promises. One would think Prime Minister Julia Gillard, having seen how quickly her party could be reduced to rubble in New South Wales, would try to keep her promises. But it looks as though, to Labor, fighting organised crime and keeping drugs and guns off our street plays second fiddle to more waste and mismanagement.

The Federal Government promised 220 Australian Federal Police officers over two years—yet what it is now delivering is staffing cuts. To me, as this State's police Minister responsible for the safekeeping of the 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 649

New South Wales community through our NSW Police Force, this is totally unacceptable. Federal budget cuts to national security mean more work for New South Wales police already overburdened with the previous State Government's myriad of failures. A concerted, co-operative national strategy tackling organised crime must be about taking drug money and turning it against the criminals who would turn our streets into warzones, or helping those victims of crime recover. However, the Prime Minister wants to withhold $32 million from the Federal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, money earmarked for victims of crime. The Federal Government is cutting the aerial surveillance of our borders. That will mean more illegal immigrants and more flashpoints at Villawood, which its resources will not be able to handle. The flow-on effects of that are clear: more issues for New South Wales cops to clean up.

It means cutting cargo inspections at our ports. While the amount of cargo at our ports increases each year, the number of funded inspections do not. Violent organised criminals will have more chance to sneak drugs and guns in under our noses. In total, there is a total of $194.7 million in cuts, including cuts to counterterrorism measures, to training of our elite intelligence agencies and to one area where we cannot afford for them to be made—that is, our national security. Despite the talk of the Federal Government, again and again we will see it fall to the New South Wales Police Force to clean up the mess. It will not be long before I am back on my feet to detail how the New South Wales Police Force has been called on to get in and get the job done.

DECENTRALISATION

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that current projections from the Department of Planning have metropolitan Sydney growing by 1.7 million people by 2036, while regional New South Wales will be growing by less than one-third of that amount—that is, an increase of 550,000 people? In order to encourage people to live and work in regional areas, will the Government introduce real incentives—such as reductions in rural business costs of 20 per cent, cuts in business registration of 10 per cent and cuts in payroll tax of 10 per cent to those opening in designated rural areas, as well a stamp duty concessions on rural land bought for commercial purposes, including agriculture?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As someone who comes from regional New South Wales, I thank the member for his question. I will refer it to the Treasurer for response.

POLICE AWARD NEGOTIATIONS AND DEATH AND DISABILITY SCHEME

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister rule out stripping any benefits away from police harmed in the line of duty as part of the current wage negotiations or review of the death and disability scheme?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Over the past couple of days we have seen a continuing theme by those opposite in relation to some matters. It is fairly clear that Opposition members are reaching deep into their collective consciousness to try to remember the issues that they could not or would not resolve when they were in government. It is evident by the questions they have asked in the past couple of days, as they try to remember what it was like to be in government, that the last shards of light surround them as they enter the tunnel of Opposition darkness,

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Point of order: The Minister knows that two years ago the Labor Government solved this problem: police were given 4 per cent for each of two years. The issue was postponed until 1 July.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: So what is the Government going to do in six weeks time?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: What a great debating point. That interjection has reiterated the point I was making: these are the sorts of decisions the former Government could not or would not decide on. Now former Government members stand up in this place as if somehow they are all clean and renewed. The O'Farrell-Stoner Government will not let the former Government forget what it did to police in New South Wales—and the police in New South Wales will not let it forget either. 650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

As I have said before and as I will continue to say: You guys are a joke. You walk in here and start asking questions on issues that you refused to address when you were in government. You have about as much credibility as the former Treasurer has when talking on matters relating to the New South Wales economy! The Hon. Eric Roozendaal has 18 sitting days to go. I made the position clear yesterday as to the Government's commitment to support our police. The sheer hypocrisy of Opposition members one after the other stepping up and trying to make out that they had nothing to do with what is happening in New South Wales is a disgrace. What a joke.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Yesterday the Minister mentioned that he had spoken at a conference of the Industrial Relations Society of New South Wales. Will the Minister inform the House what he talked about at that conference?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the member for his question and his interest in this issue. I was privileged to be invited to the fiftieth annual conference of the Industrial Relations Society of New South Wales, which was held at Sebel Harbourside Kiama, in the Illawarra, on 13 May 2010. At that conference I made an erudite speech, which, as I indicated yesterday, I took the trouble to prepare in advance. I did so because I thought those in attendance would be interested in what the then shadow Minister for Industrial Relations had to say—although it probably bored them. In that speech, in which I specifically referred to the Industrial Relations Court and to the Industrial Relations Commission, I said:

The reforms and the referral of powers to the Commonwealth have raised questions about existing Industrial Relations Institutions in NSW. The NSW Liberals and Nationals have confirmed our support—

[Interruption]

Yes, I said I probably bored everybody. I thought you guys were interested in this—

for the retention of the Industrial Relations Commission for resolving disputes concerning the State Public sector and Local government sectors.

I continued:

The workload of the NSW IRC decreased significantly after the Howard government's WorkChoices reform[ed] limited their powers to disputes involving public servants and unincorporated businesses and the Federal Labor government did not return industrial relations enforcement powers to the States. Under the proposed harmonised OH&S system, the IRC's workload may reduce further.

The NSW Liberal and Nationals are committed to retaining the State Industrial Relations Commission, but will explore ways to integrate the various tribunals to reduce complexity, duplication and cost.

That is what I said, and on a number of other occasions when I delivered the same speech I said that. Do you know who was present at that conference? It was very interesting. In attendance was none other than the Hon. Justice Boland, President of the Industrial Court. He opened the conference and I am sure he would have shown the courtesy of waiting and listening to my speech.

In attendance were a great number of the lawyers, academics, unionists and union officials, including Mark Lennon of Unions NSW. Interestingly, I have been verballed in various forums as having given rock-solid guarantees that the Industrial Court will retain the power to deal with commercial health and safety prosecutions. I am sorry, but there I was in the den of industrial relations and I said that the jurisdiction was still going to be looked at and that harmonisation would potentially impact on it. Do members think anyone who was interested took it upon themselves to ask me to elucidate my comment? No, they did not. I should say I have never given any guarantee that the powers and jurisdictions of the Industrial Relations Court would be changed as a result of the occupational health and safety reforms. I said it a year ago, and I said it on every occasion that I spoke about occupational health harmonisation. No-one asked me to elucidate. [Time expired.]

RURAL CRIME

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and relates to rural crime, which costs this State millions of dollars each year. Is it a fact that the Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Group has been successful in recent years in addressing crimes, such as the theft of livestock, produce and equipment, trespassing and other crimes that affect farmers 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 651

and landowners, particularly now that they are working with Game Council NSW? Will the Minister inform the House whether the Coalition Government will maintain the Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Group and not push the Rural Crime Investigation Unit back into general detective work?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I recognise the work done by the Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Group. The Hon. Robert Brown is the first member to raise this issue with me. I give the member a commitment that I will look into it and come back to him with an answer.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Where is your brief?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I do not need a brief. The members of this group have a specialist skill that involves an expertise in being able to identify livestock. I will come back to the member with an answer on this important issue.

NEWCASTLE FREE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SHUTTLE

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Hunter. Given the commitment by the Minister for the Illawarra in the House yesterday to maintain a free shuttle bus service in the Wollongong CBD, why does the Minister refuse to provide the same assurance to the people of Newcastle?

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: This is embarrassing.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is embarrassing because I was asked this question yesterday and I said yesterday that I have referred the matter to the Minister for Transport. When I obtain an answer from the Minister, I will provide information to the House.

F3 TO M2 LINK

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Can the Minister update the House on the Federal budget and the F3 to Sydney orbital link?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Many people on the Central Coast are interested in this matter.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Like me.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Minister for Police and Emergency Services is interested in this matter. Linking the F3 to the Sydney orbital road network via either the M2 or the M7 is an important part of the national road network. The F3 is the main route for people travelling to the Central Coast and Hunter regions, where the New South Wales Liberals and The Nationals had great success at the recent elections, winning from Labor the seats of Gosford, The Entrance, Wyong, Swansea, Charlestown, Newcastle and Maitland. Unlike the former Labor Government, the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government understands the importance of delivering better transport links to Sydney for the residents of the Central Coast and the Hunter. Labor's disinterest was demonstrated clearly last night when $150 million of Federal funding for the F3-M2 link was cut from the National Building Program's forward budget estimates. Labor clearly did not learn from the State election result. Hunter and Central Coast residents are sick of being taken for granted.

Labor has a history of failing to handle the funding for the F3-M2 link. During the 2007 election campaign the Federal Labor Party promised $150 million for the F3-M2 link. In 2009 the Federal budget allocated $5 million towards the F3-M2 link, but New South Wales never used the funds. It is no surprise that planning work for the project has not taken place since mid-2009. The former Labor Government's position for the F3-M2 link was that without a funding solution for delivery no further development work in public consultation should proceed. Basically, this meant that Labor threw in the towel, kicked up its heels and stopped all planning and preconstruction works that were needed to have the project shovel ready. Added to this was the former New South Wales Labor Government's inability to secure funding for this project from Infrastructure Australia.

In 2008 a submission was made to Infrastructure Australia for funding. Infrastructure Australia evaluated this submission but did not include the project in its national infrastructure priority list or allocate any 652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

funding for construction. The submission to Infrastructure Australia was refreshed and resubmitted in 2009 and 2010. Again Infrastructure Australia did not allocate funding for construction following these submissions. We see a common theme here: Labor's failure to secure and deliver funding for this essential link. It was not a hostile government that the New South Wales Labor Government was dealing with; it was one of its own colour and persuasion—and, frankly, a government that was disappointed in the State Labor Government.

Unlike Labor, the New South Wales Liberals and The Nationals made it clear before the election that we will commence construction on one of the key missing links in the Sydney orbital road network by 2015. Infrastructure New South Wales will determine whether the first missing link for construction will be the F3-M2 link, the M5 East duplication, the M4 East extension or the F6. Infrastructure New South Wales will ensure that our applications for funding to Infrastructure Australia get our State its fair share of funding. We will not tolerate the sort of incompetence shown by Labor. [Time expired.]

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Has the New South Wales Government ruled out the development of new coal-fired electricity generating capacity in New South Wales?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As I was expecting this question sooner or later, I have a response from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Chris Hartcher, in my file. The Minister indicates that the New South Wales Government is committed to the delivery of a secure and sustainable supply of electricity in New South Wales. New South Wales has about 18,000 megawatts of installed generation capacity. Over 12,000 megawatts of this capacity is coal-fired, about 4,000 megawatts is renewable from Snowy Hydro and the remainder is gas and renewables. The proportion of New South Wales's installed coal generation capacity has been decreasing as the latest new generation built in this State has primarily been gas and renewables, such as, wind.

Over the past two years almost 2,000 megawatts of new gas-fired generation has been built at Tallawarra near Wollongong, Uranquinty near Wagga Wagga and Colongra on the Central Coast. Reinforcing these trends, currently there are about 2,500 megawatts of renewable generation with an existing development consent and more than 6,000 megawatts of renewable generation in the planning approvals process. This Government will not entertain adopting a unilateral ban on coal and burdening electricity consumers in New South Wales with programs that would further drive up the costs of electricity substantially. The New South Wales Government is committed to generation policy that defers to the private sector to make a commercial decision about which fuel should be used for new electricity generation. That is where this decision should lie.

[Interruption]

If we listened to each of The Greens members, we would be sitting here on this day approaching winter freezing and in the dark. One Greens member does not want coal, another does not want gas, another does not want wind and none of them wants hydro, yet they might have a little bit of solar. The Government takes a sensible approach to electricity generation. The Greens should put forward a solution to assist the taxpayers of New South Wales rather than propose actions such as that which Dr John Kaye espoused a few days ago in question time about opening up the tail of the solar bonus scheme to make pensioners and low income earners pay to assuage someone else's conscience. That is not the way this Government will approach issues.

In its recent report on changes in regulated electricity retail prices from 1 July 2011, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal recommended that the New South Wales Government should adopt only the most cost-effective solar options in the future. Whilst this statement was made in relation to solar schemes, it is a sound principle that should be applied to all renewable energy initiatives. I note that in last night's Commonwealth budget, funding of $3.9 million over four years is being provided for additional support to power stations to reduce their emissions through the following measures, which we applaud—

Dr JOHN KAYE: I ask the Minister for Roads and Ports a supplementary question. Will the Minister please elucidate his answer by continuing to read it?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I always try to deliver what members ask for and in this case I will continue to do that. The measures to reduce emissions from power stations are participation in the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program, which requires large energy users to identify, evaluate and report publicly on cost-effective energy savings opportunities; and allowing the Commonwealth Department of Resources, Energy 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 653

and Tourism to develop new emissions and carbon capture and storage-ready standards for new coal-fired power stations. I look forward to seeing the outcomes of these measures and will be closely consulting with my counterpart Chris Hartcher, through the new ministerial council arrangements, on their progress. This Government is committed to renewable energy, with a focus on sensible, sustained and affordable progress for renewables. The Premier has recently announced the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary for Renewable Energy, who will be working hard to ensure that renewable energy—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Who is that?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Rob Stokes—and a damn fine one he will be. He will be working hard to ensure that renewable energy remains on the agenda. Currently more than 90 per cent of the electricity used in New South Wales comes from coal and around 7 per cent from renewable energy, including Snowy Hydro. However, the renewable generation share is expected to grow because the Government is in the process of developing a 2020 New South Wales Renewable Energy Plan that will boost renewable energy in this State to reach its goal of 20 per cent renewable energy consumption by 2020. This plan, among other things, will develop better processes for deploying commercial-scale generators—solar and wind farms—and practical measures for reducing red tape. I can advise members of the new renewable generation proposals— [Time expired.]

EMERGENCY SERVICE VOLUNTEERS WORKERS COMPENSATION

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Given the Government's move to place restrictions on workers compensation, can the Minister give a guarantee to New South Wales emergency service volunteers that the Government will allow access to workers compensation?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the Hon. Peter Primrose for his question. It is good to see him playing a role. He has been denied one for far too long by a couple of members sitting on the front bench opposite. Fire and rescue New South Wales workers compensation costs have increased by an average of 17 per cent every year for the past five years, with the exception of 2009-10 during which—

[Interruption]

This behaviour is the difference between members of the Government and members of the Opposition. I am answering a very serious question about workers compensation, but once members on the other side of the House ask a question, like budgerigars their attention is drawn to a few cheap laughs amongst themselves. Some of them have just realised that they are in Parliament. The fact is that we take workers compensation very seriously. I find it very frustrating when I am on my feet answering a question, that for all intents and purposes has been asked in a very serious way by a very serious member, and his colleagues around him decide to give their attention to other things.

[Interruption]

It is unparliamentary to interject, and I know that Hansard does not record conversations between members, therefore I will say no more about it. The fact is that workers compensation is an important part of a government's responsibility to not only emergency service workers, such as police and firies, but also to the entire workforce of the State of New South Wales. The members on this side of the Chamber today who were here some years ago when this mob on the other side was in government will remember Labor members scurrying like rats through tunnels out in Macquarie Street trying to find a gutless way to get into the Parliament without facing their own people—the union movement of New South Wales. Members of the former Government skulked through the doors and into this Chamber when there was a picket line out the front of Parliament House. Members of the Opposition want to forget all about that.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: They didn't cross a picket line, did they!

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They most certainly crossed a picket line to pass legislation. I am proud of the work we have done in the past in relation to supporting injured workers, and we will continue to provide that support. But, as I have said, I will continue to remind members opposite of their hypocrisy and their fraud and the gutless way they skulked into the Parliament and were told by their Premier—who showed the workers outside two fingers— 654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

The Hon. Luke Foley: He did not.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They say he did not. We saw it and the workers saw it. They felt it in their own hearts: their guy stood out the front of Parliament House and effectively told them what he thought of them. He was not prepared to walk through the front door, like some of members opposite did—some of them had the ticker to walk through the protest—

The Hon. Robert Brown: Westie did.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Hon. Ian West did, while the rest, like rats, tried to skulk through the tunnels to get into this place to pass legislation. I thank the Hon. Peter Primrose for that wonderful question and invite similar questions from the Opposition. More! More!

FEDERAL BUDGET AND THE HUNTER

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the impact of the Federal budget on infrastructure and development in the Hunter?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the Hon. David Clarke for an outstanding question. Today's debate on the Federal budget highlights that Federal Labor is no different from New South Wales Labor; it too has failed to provide adequate investment for growth in the future of the Hunter Valley. The budget illustrates that the Gillard Labor Government is not interested in the future of our region. As successive Labor governments at both State and Federal level have done, Labor simply takes the voters of the Hunter for granted. The O'Farrell Government does not take our region for granted. This Government is committed to delivering for the people of the Hunter Valley. We have a vision and a plan to know that for the region to grow economically it has to have investment from the New South Wales Government. However, the State Government cannot do it alone and the Federal Government must deliver funding also.

I listen to the little voices of those opposite. The closest they ever get to the Hunter is when they pick up a Chardonnay from our region and compare it to, say, a Chardonnay from South Australia or the Marlborough district of New Zealand. They should listen to and learn from a region that gave them such a severe slap only a few weeks ago. Two of the Government's most significant commitments are funding for the Glendale transport interchange and the University of Newcastle's inner city campus. The O'Farrell Government has made a commitment of $25 million towards a city campus for the University of Newcastle as part of its plan to revitalise the Newcastle central business district. Unlike the Labor Government, which did nothing for 16 years, this Government is committed to driving new investment and growth in the city so that the Hunter can grow and prosper into the future.

[Interruption]

A member opposite is asking who the shadow Minister for the Hunter is. Labor has got a member who lives in the Hunter—the member for Wallsend—but rather than make her the shadow Minister Labor decided that the best person to represent the Hunter is the member for Canterbury—because after all, Canterbury and the Hunter are sort of close! One cannot even catch a train from Canterbury to the Hunter. That is how Labor members treat the region—like a joke. They should hang their heads in shame. This commitment today and the commitment that we continue to give highlights an important distinction between this Government and Labor. Quite simply, Federal Labor has failed our region, and this budget shows that Labor has failed to realise the importance of the project by failing to allocate funding.

The Glendale interchange project is a major infrastructure initiative that is vital for the growth and development of the Hunter. It has the ability to create jobs for the region—a region heavily reliant on industry for growth. The O'Farrell Government has made the commitment of $15 million towards the Glendale interchange project. However, this project is reliant also on investment from the Federal Government, yet its budget has failed to deliver anything. Furthermore, it seems that other Hunter projects, such as the Newcastle Federal Court complex and the Fassifern to Hexham rail link, have also been left off the Gillard Labor Government's list of priorities. As Minister for the Hunter I am working closely with Hunter members, particularly the new and enthusiastic members, to implement a coordinated approach to planning and development in the region. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 655

I was asked a question earlier about the Newcastle shuttle bus. The Opposition has suggested that the Government does not have a policy with regard to that service. The Labor Government's policy was announced only in the dying days before the election. As the Minister for Transport has said, this Government's transport decisions will be made properly and carefully while focusing on customer service and integration. The Minister has stressed that the Government will fund transport services as long as people use them. My message to all communities of New South Wales is that when services are provided they should use them or they will lose them.

FOOD AND FIBRE EDUCATION

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education. Is it true that a national schools survey found that only 12 per cent of year 5 Australian school students have visited a farm and that many city-based children have little knowledge of farming activities? Given that the gap between city and rural consumers is growing and that the community has a decreasing understanding of agricultural production, will the Minister introduce a sustainable food and fibre policy as part of the curriculum for primary and secondary school children so that they know the origins of their food?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: What a good question. Members of the Opposition do not ask questions like that. Thank goodness that Shooters and Fishers Party members are here to help Government members represent the people of rural and regional New South Wales. Some members might know that I am on the board of the Bush Children Education Foundation. In that role I play an active part in providing bursaries and organising fundraising for disadvantaged children in regional New South Wales. Along with The Nationals and the New South Wales Farmers Association, the foundation attempted to implement a program involving city children staying with their counterparts in country New South Wales.

Unfortunately, that proposal coincided with revelations of incidents involving children. The Department of Education decided that it was impossible to overcome the logistics of checking every family in the program and, despite the goodwill of all involved, it was abandoned. I wholeheartedly agreed with the department that we must do everything in our power to protect our precious children. I understand that similar proposals have been suggested for the curriculum, and the Hon. Rick Colless did a great deal of work in policy development along those lines in the lead-up to the election. This is an important question and the member asked for details, so I will refer it to my colleague the Hon. Adrian Piccoli for an answer.

POLICE AWARD NEGOTIATIONS

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I direct my question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister commit to maintaining at least the 4 per cent pay rise offered to police officers during the last award negotiations? Will he also agree to do that without, to quote the New South Wales Police Association, "any proposal to forgo or trade off any existing award or other entitlements?"

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It appears that the Opposition is stuck in a groundhog day loop because it keeps repeating questions. As I previously advised the House, I understand that the Police Association has filed an application—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: This is an important question and I cannot hear because of the noise in the Chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I was also finding it difficult to hear the Minister. The House will come to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I understand that the Police Association has filed an application in the Industrial Relations Commission and is commencing negotiations with the Commissioner of Police. I have been advised that the matter will be heard before a Full Bench. A number of dates have been set aside for the association to present evidence in support of its claims. Conciliation hearings will be held on 20 May and 10 June and a directions hearing will be held on 14 June. New South Wales Police Force evidence in reply and evidence in support of its counterclaim will be heard by 8 July. The Police Association's evidence in reply will be heard on 19 and 22 August. Hearings on applications will commence on 22 August and will run for approximately two weeks. I hope that assists members opposite to understand how this process works. I do not plan to provide a running commentary on those negotiations, which the Opposition knows full well are a 656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

matter for the commissioner and the Police Association. I again state for the record that I am sure both parties will work together to arrive at the best outcome for our hard-working police officers and the communities in which they serve.

UNION PROSECUTION RIGHTS

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister tell the House what was found by the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws regarding the right of unions to prosecute?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As members know, the proposed new occupational health and safety regime removes the right of a secretary of an industrial organisation to bring proceedings for an offence under safety laws. Limiting the ability to bring prosecutions in this way is consistent with the approach of the national model work health and safety legislation to be commenced by all Australian jurisdictions on 1 January 2012. The national model bill has been drafted based on recommendations of the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws that was conducted by a panel comprising occupational health and safety experts Robin Stewart-Crompton, Stephanie Mayman and Barry Sherriff. Robin Stewart-Crompton is the chief executive officer of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and has been engaged throughout industry as an occupational health and safety consultant. Barry Sherriff is the head of the occupational health and safety practice of my former firm, Freehills. Stephanie Mayman is a commissioner of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. There is no doubt that the members of the panel are experts in the field.

The national review involved wide consultation on the issue of who should be authorised to bring prosecutions. It was found that most Australian governments and employer bodies did not support union-conducted prosecutions. It was also found that reserving the right to bring a prosecution for a criminal offence to the regulator has the benefit of ensuring that the resources, expertise and accountability of the Crown are always applied to prosecution decisions and proceedings. It also facilitates the graduated enforcement that must underpin compliance with the Act. The review also noted that the recommendation not to allow for union-conducted prosecutions should be seen in the overall context of the model bill, which also provides for stronger functions, powers and protections for worker prosecutions. Prosecutions should be the preserve of an expert entity.

The numbers of union prosecutions in New South Wales is very small. Between 2005 and 2010 unions commenced approximately 27 prosecutions against 21 defendants in the Industrial Court of New South Wales. Of the 27 prosecutions commenced, seven were successful in securing prosecutions against seven defendants. A further 17 charges against 11 defendants were either withdrawn or discontinued. At the moment in New South Wales we have the farcical situation whereby unions are able to bring prosecutions and gain a financial benefit by way of a moiety of up to 50 per cent of the fine imposed. An example is Cahill v The State of New South Wales (Department of Community Services), which involved combined fines of $540,000, of which up to 50 per cent went to the unions as moieties. That is up to $270,000 that could have been in the coffers of the State of New South Wales but which instead went to the unions. I have a number of similar examples. In Ferguson v Nelmac the fine imposed was $100,000 and $50,000 went to the unions, and in Johnson v the State of New South Wales the fine imposed was $220,000 and $110,000 went to the unions instead of to the people of New South Wales. In the actions against ANZ and its directors the fines totalled $638,500. I could cite other cases.

Unions have discontinued a number of prosecutions because WorkCover stepped in and conducted the prosecutions itself. The unions have acknowledged that they do not have the skills to bring these prosecutions and they have not initiated any since 2006. WorkCover has improved its processes and the unions are represented on its board and have a role to play. In addition, under the proposed legislation if WorkCover decides not to proceed the union movement will have an opportunity to appeal to the Director of Public Prosecutions to have that decision reviewed.

YOUNG FARMER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it a fact that the average age of farmers is now 52 and 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 657

that the number of young farmers in Australia is rapidly declining—down by 60 per cent in 25 years? Queensland and Victoria have financial schemes to help young farmers, yet currently no funding is available to young people in New South Wales to allow them to start, develop or return to a career in agriculture or agribusiness after they complete the AgStart program. What is the Government doing to identify and fund initiatives designed to attract young people to rural and regional New South Wales and keep them there?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is another good question. I am surprised to hear that the average age of farmers is 52; I thought it was a bit more than that. A few years ago it was 57 or 55. I thought that as I got older their average age was increasing at the same rate, disappointingly for them.

[Interruption]

There is envy about the area in which I live. I live in Crookwell, which is one of the most fabulous places in the world. When I am in Sydney I live in Redfern, which is nearly as nice a community as Crookwell. There are some really friendly people there, but the Labor Party cannot get over that. I have been asked a good question. We have become aware of some great young farmers when we have attended farming meetings or travelled throughout our communities. When I was home over the Easter break I went to Rugby—not the football and not in England; it is halfway between Crookwell and Boorowa—and yesterday I was talking about Old Man Gunya Bridge on Main Road 248 West, which was washed away. The Hon. Mick Veitch drives past my place on his way home to Young. There is a fabulous group of young farmers in Rugby, which is terrific. We are blessed because that is one of the safe areas. The Liverpool Plains area is a safe area also and there are lots of fabulous young farmers there.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: There are a lot of young farmers working as agronomists for some of the corporations there.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Exactly. Some of our brightest and best are in those communities, having left the farms and working as agronomists with those companies. I do not know the answer to the honourable member's question. As it is an important question I will refer it to the Minister for an answer.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

DEATH OF ANTHEA KERR

Ministerial Statement

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [3.43 p.m.]: I advise the House today of the sudden passing on 8 April 2011 of Anthea Kerr, Assistant Director General, Policy, of the New South Wales Department of Finance and Services. Tragically, Anthea was only 38 years of age. She is survived by her husband, Chris Waugh, and her two children, Lewis and Sarah. Chris, Lewis and Sarah are here today in the public gallery with Anthea's parents and I would like to welcome them. Anthea worked in the public sector for just over 16 years. I have ascertained from the many people I have spoken to about Anthea that she left a lasting impression on them. Her career was outstanding and, as many have said, her potential was boundless.

Anthea was proud to be a public servant and had a driving commitment to make things tangibly better for the people of New South Wales. I am advised that Anthea's public sector career began in 1995 as a new graduate for the New South Wales Office of the Protective Commissioner. In 1998 she moved to the then Cabinet Office, commencing her long career in policy development and analysis. She took a role as a research assistant and after a few years moved to the then New South Wales Department of Fair Trading, working on a range of consumer protection issues. She first came to the attention of Parliament in the other place, where she was specifically mentioned in Hansard in 2001 for the support she provided during debate relating to the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Amendment (Pay Day Lenders) Bill—an issue that is still current today.

In 2002 she returned to the New South Wales Cabinet Office and filled a number of senior roles. She worked on a range of complex policy issues, principally related to natural resources. One of the major issues she was involved in was water, including the impact of the drought. She worked with chief executive officers 658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

on developing the Government's response. The former Director General of the Department of Services, Technology and Administration, Graeme Head, said that she was undaunted by the complexity of this issue. He also said:

… a few things stood out:

 She was often the smartest person in the room;

 She had exquisite judgement about what to inject into the conversation and when;

 She had a clarity about what and how a Government should be advised about these issues; and

 She had a great calmness around her.

In short, it was apparent that she was a person to watch.

I am told her advice to Government was always well researched, ethical and, in the spirit of an independent public service, frank and fearless. In 2008 Anthea left the Department of Premier and Cabinet and moved to the Department of Commerce, which later became the Department of Services, Technology and Administration. There she held the role of Assistant Director General, Policy. At that department she contributed to a number of major reform programs including commencing the process of reforming whole-of-government information, communication and technology policy, which is something I will be pursuing. This is a critical piece of work which the Government is committed to progressing and I am sure that Anthea's significant contribution in this area will not go unnoticed.

She reformed how policy matters were handled in the department and oversaw numerous handovers from directors general and Ministers in the period in which she worked there. Indeed, it was in the context of one of these handovers that I first met Anthea. What was clear to me from that initial meeting was that she was a woman of considerable skill, talent and judgement. I am advised that the most significant reform Anthea worked on was the reform of the Residential Tenancies Act. I am advised that under her guidance and direction and with the benefit of her judgement this resulted in the new Act which, as all members know, is a policy area that touches the lives of most people at some point. Her role in consulting with stakeholder groups has been acknowledged by many, with a number of prominent advocate groups recognising her contribution to public debate in New South Wales.

Anthea will probably be remembered most for the extent to which she encouraged and developed those around her. Anthea gave all her staff the confidence to do their best work. I am told that Anthea greatly valued those with whom she worked and she felt it was an honour to work with so many talented and committed people. She contributed to the celebration of International Women's Day, she mentored a number of women in the department and she was a great supporter of the Young Professionals Network. With this in mind the Director General of the Department of Finance and Services announced that Anthea will be commemorated by a program in her name to mentor young women in the public service.

This type of program was suggested by Chris, Anthea's husband, and I concur that there would be no finer way in which to honour her memory. The program is currently being developed by the department, which intends to consult with the office of the new Public Sector Commissioner to ensure that such a program will provide a lasting legacy. I strongly support the department in this work. Anthea's untimely death is a great loss to the New South Wales public. To Chris, Lewis, Sarah and to all of Anthea's family: Please accept the condolences of the Premier, the Government and me.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Leader of the Opposition) [3.39 p.m.]: I support the comments of the Minister for Finance and Services with respect to the tragic passing of Anthea Kerr on Friday 8 April 2011. As the Minister said, Anthea was relatively young. Anthea was the Assistant Director General, Policy in the Department of Finance and Services, formerly the Department of Services, Technology and Administration. She worked tirelessly for over 16 years in the New South Wales public sector. The Minister highlighted her career but her role as Assistant Director General, Policy included responsibility for ministerial and executive support, fair trading policy, commerce policy and, more recently, as has been pointed out, information technology policy.

Anthea was proud and protective of the role of an independent, apolitical public servant. Anthea was always determined to produce and to provide the best frank and fearless advice to the government of the day. She took great joy from her work and was proud of what she did. She was well regarded across government as an outstandingly talented public servant and among the next generation of leaders in the sector. Her close 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 659

colleagues are still in deep shock. It is hard to believe that Anthea is not there to share the highs and lows of their daily working lives. Opposition members concur with the Minister in conveying our condolences to Anthea's family.

The PRESIDENT: As the Parliament's representative on the State Records Authority Board I served briefly with Anthea Kerr on that board. In my brief acquaintance with Anthea I was monumentally impressed with her insight and her capacity. I concur with everything that the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said, and I associate myself, in particular, with the Minister's comments. I am grateful to him for initiating this tribute and I know that I speak for members of the State Records Authority Board in that respect. On behalf of the whole House I extend my deepest sympathy to all members of Anthea's family.

DUTIES AMENDMENT (SENIOR'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE DUTY EXEMPTION) BILL 2011

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [3.42 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Duties Amendment (Senior's Principal Place of Residence Duty Exemption) Bill 2011, which seeks to provide a further extension of stamp duty concessions to empty-nesters, building on the good work of the former Labor Government and, in particular, the Keneally Government. We are told that the aim of the legislation is to encourage downsizing and the regeneration of the State's housing stock. This initiative builds on the policies of Labor governments in this area with the intention of stimulating the housing market. It seeks to assist people over 65 and, in this case, people over 55.

I join my colleagues in this place—and the hardworking member for Maroubra in the other place—in noting that the bill effectively builds on the former Labor Government's policy, which we welcome and do not oppose. However, we do have some concerns because the Government has failed to address them in this place and in the other place. I note that the former Government focused on housing, while this Government failed shamefully even to consider creating a ministry to cover the area of housing, which is vital to the growth of any economy and, in this instance, the New South Wales economy. It is a blatant disregard for the importance of housing and the housing sector to the economy that the Government does not have a Minister for housing. Housing is the driving force of the economy and the Government must recognise this and give it due significance.

I take this opportunity to reiterate the arguments raised by my good, hardworking colleague Nick Lalich, the member for Cabramatta, and congratulate him on his deserved win. He will continue his hard work for the good people of Cabramatta. He argued that the Duties Amendment (Senior's Principal Place of Residence Duty Exemption) Bill 2011 is essentially an extension of the current policy introduced by the former Labor Government which exempts persons aged 65 or older from paying duty for a new principal place of residence to the value of $600,000. Stamp duty relief for downsizers, which was a good initiative of the former Labor Government, enabled some pensioners to downsize to more appropriate accommodation. Therefore, it is a positive step that the new Government is seeking to maintain the existing policy for people over the age of 65.

Although the Opposition welcomes the Government's commitment to the extension of the existing policy and does not seek to oppose the bill, significant concerns remain about the viability of the proposed expansion of the scheme to include those aged between 55 and 65 years of age. For example, the Hon. John Ajaka, whom I value and respect, is 55 years of age. I certainly do not regard him as a member of our senior citizens. Andrew Fraser, the member for Coffs Harbour, said, "These days, 55 or 60 is the new 40".

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: How old are you?

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I am 46. Since when is a 40-year-old 60 and, by extension, a 60-year-old 90? It does not make sense. It appears that the Government has plucked the figures of 55 to 65 out of the air and it has no justification for applying this policy to those aged 55 and over. It simply makes no sense. Perhaps the age should be 60 to 65, or 45 to 65. Did the Government undertake a market test or go through a process of consultation to determine whether or not 60 to 65 would be a better policy than 55 to 65? No, it did not, otherwise that would have been said in this Chamber or in the other place. The expansion of the senior's 660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

principal place of residence duty exemption to this age category potentially is a costly exercise. There is no cap on the uptake imposed on the policy for the new age category and the running costs of the program could cost New South Wales taxpayers more than $20 million for every year the program is in place.

This is a significant cost on the budget and the Government has provided this House with no forward estimates on the cost of the proposed expansion of the existing policy. The failure to provide a clear statement on the impact of this policy on forward budgets raises questions about its viability. Unlike people aged 65 years or older, the majority of people in the 55 to 65 age bracket are still in the workforce, for example, the Hon. John Ajaka. That is not an age group that is likely to be earning significantly less income. Therefore, the use of scarce government resources on a comparatively affluent age category puts the policy at risk of being portrayed as another middle-class welfare initiative masquerading as a seniors policy. These issues can readily be put to rest by the Government explaining to the people of New South Wales what benefits there will be to taxpayers from expanding the current policy to people over the age of 55.

In summary, expansion of the program could cost New South Wales taxpayers more than $20 million for every year it is in place. The Government must explain to the people of New South Wales the benefit to taxpayers from expanding the program to people over the age of 55. As I argued earlier, people in that age group are not likely to earn significantly less income, or they are not likely to relocate to less urban areas. The Premier told the people of New South Wales that the Government will not be able to afford to do everything. So the question is: What services will the Liberal-Nationals Coalition cut to pay for this policy? It is time that the Government stopped promising what it cannot afford and started to practice some fiscal conservatism rather than blame its irresponsible election promises on the former Government.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.50 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the Duties Amendment (Senior's Principal Place of Residence Duty Exemption) Bill 2011.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You are not 55.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I indicate at the outset that I am not 55 years old. Most of the comments that we just heard from the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane I will not dignify with a response. However, I want to respond to his comments about the Ministry of Housing. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane suggested that the Government was lowering the profile of housing in this State. Such a suggestion is quite incredible when one considers that this bill relates specifically to the housing industry, as did the previous bill. In fact, under this Government we are raising the profile of housing and we have two Ministers—not one but two—who have responsibility for the housing portfolio.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: They are just interested in their titles.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: Members opposite want their titles: they want the accoutrements. This Government is about substance. The Minister for Finance and Services, who is in the Chamber, is doing a splendid job in relation to his housing portfolio responsibilities. The Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Pru Goward, is responsible also for aspects of our housing policy. Perhaps members opposite should do a bit of research before making statements that simply show their ignorance. This is not the first but the second bill considered by this House today. Given the two bills that this House has debated today, I can report that we have ticked off two important parts of the Government's 100 Day Action Plan. The Government has ticked off two points after debating two bills on one sitting day, which reflects the fact that, unlike the former Government, this Government is determined to deliver. Whenever this Government does something all that a number of members on the Opposition front bench can do is create a wall of noise.

As I said, we have debated two bills and two points of our 100 Day Action Plan have been delivered in one day. This will continue—I am sure to the utter frustration of members opposite. I am sure that the wall of noise will also continue. By way of reference to the legislative priorities of this Government, it is interesting to note that in the seven days that this Parliament has sat nine key pieces of legislation have been introduced, two of which relate to the housing industry. In less than seven days five bills have either been assented to or are awaiting assent. This Government will continue to promote its legislative agenda to ensure that the people of New South Wales get the reform they deserve—reform that never happened under Labor over the past 16 years. This Government will continue to drive New South Wales forward rather than placing a millstone around its neck. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 661

I digress for a moment and turn to the tenor of the bill. The concession, described in the bill as the senior's principal place of residence duty exemption, provides that individuals aged 55 years or over will pay zero transfer duty if they are selling an existing property and buying a newly constructed home costing up to $600,000. The empty-nester concession applies to new home or off-the-plan purchases entered into between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012. To be eligible for the concession the person must sell his or her existing home and reside in the new home for a continuous 12-month period. It is vital that the Opposition understands the importance of this bill and the manner in which it will act as a stimulus to the housing market in this State. The concession will not only enable seniors to move from their current home into a new home that better meets their changes in lifestyle; it will also free up family homes for those looking to get into the housing market or needing to move to a bigger home.

In both cases it will provide an important and long overdue stimulus to the State's housing market, an important engine room for the New South Wales economy that has been neglected for so long under the previous Government. This neglect, of course, reflected the economic illiteracy of the previous Labor Government and its constituent members. Those on the other side of this place simply view the housing industry, and any other form of business for that matter, as a cash cow to be taxed, to be taken advantage of, rather than as an important part of our wealth-generating economy that should be encouraged and incentivised. Members on the other side of this place do not seek to grow our economic base; they simply wish to carve out the largest possible piece of our economic base to spend, as they see fit, on their own sectional interests or to support their own political agenda. That is why the people of New South Wales punished New South Wales Labor so humiliatingly at the election on 26 March this year.

As with the existing over-65 scheme, under the new stamp duty relief scheme seniors over 55 must have owned and occupied a home in New South Wales within the last 12 months and must occupy the new home for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Reducing the age threshold from 65 to 55 acknowledges that many people are planning for retirement well before 65, and that this includes changes in lifestyle and home location, such as downsizing from the family home to a smaller house or unit. This will save up to $22,490 for seniors relocating to a new home. I repeat that for the benefit of members of the Opposition: This will save up to $22,490 for seniors relocating to a new home. These are direct savings—a direct attack on housing unaffordability, which has become a problem in this State over the past 16 years of New South Wales Labor.

It is important to note that only four other jurisdictions have a stamp duty relief scheme for seniors moving to change their lifestyle. I am advised that South Australia, Victoria and the two Territories have similar schemes but that all those schemes are more restrictive than the New South Wales scheme, with regard to either eligibility criteria or the amount of the concession. As a result of this bill, New South Wales will now have the best scheme in the Commonwealth. This reflects the Government's determination to make New South Wales the number one State in the country. I congratulate the Minister on introducing the bill and on his further enhancement of the housing industry in this State, an important engine room for this economy. Accordingly, I strongly commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [3.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I note that the three Opposition members—the Deputy Leader, the Whip and the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane—basically said the same thing: they pointed out that the empty-nesters policy was a good initiative of the former Government. It seems that it was the only good initiative they could find that the former Government had—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: But we still have to improve it.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: And we have improved it. I was pleased that members opposite, consistent with this Government, now say that they have a commitment to supporting seniors. But the curious part of the contributions of each of the Opposition members is that, having complimented themselves on a good policy, they then questioned the financial viability of making this commitment. They obviously missed the election campaign. We announced all our policies, including this one. The policies were fully costed. They were checked by a former Auditor-General and signed off. We have a fully costed package of commitments, including this one. I suggest to Opposition members that if they have any doubts about it they should go to the website and read the material and they will be satisfied.

The Hon. John Ajaka delivered a wonderful and important contribution in which he pointed out the inconsistencies of the Opposition's arguments, and I thank him for doing so. Dr John Kaye, as he often does, delivered an erudite and lengthy contribution. He provided us with a lengthy dissection of the property markets, 662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

economics, and various other issues. But in the end he came back to the major point about this measure: that it is a short-term stimulus measure, one of a number of measures designed to create jobs and stimulate the economy. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox pointed out that this measure is another plank of the Government's 100 Day Action Plan to return New South Wales to being the number one State in the country. I am very pleased to be part of a Government that is doing that. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2011

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Second Reading

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [4.00 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 and the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2011. The bills deliver on another commitment made by the then Coalition before the last election to harmonise occupational health and safety laws in line with the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreement, which New South Wales had signed up to with the Federal Government and most other State Labor governments. The O'Farrell-Stoner Government can understand the frustration of the Federal Labor Government when the former State Labor Government reversed its promise to pass harmonised laws before the last election. It gave New South Wales a bad reputation. At the time Prime Minister Gillard said:

I never thought that in the twenty-first century I would hear a New South Wales Premier deny that a deal is a deal and a signature means you agree.

The O'Farrell-Stoner Government agrees with the Prime Minister and shares her passion to see major improvements to work, health and safety in New South Wales and around the nation. The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 illustrates the commitment of the New South Wales Government to participate fully in a nationally harmonised system of occupational health and safety. The bill enacts the nationally agreed Model Work Health and Safety Act, with appropriate jurisdictional modifications. The bill will be supplemented by model regulations and model codes of practice, which are currently the subject of public consultation. The bill is proposed to be commenced on 1 January 2012.

The Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2011 implements three key reforms in the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011: it removes the reverse onus of proof in work health and safety prosecutions by requiring the prosecution to prove what "reasonably practicable" steps a defendant could have taken to avoid breaching the general duties to maintain a safe and healthy workplace; it replaces the existing provision that deems directors and managers of a corporation to be guilty of offences committed by the corporation with a positive duty that officers of the corporation should exercise due diligence to ensure compliance by the corporation with health, safety and welfare duties; and it removes the right of unions to bring proceedings for an offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

On 3 July 2008 New South Wales and the other States and Territories entered into the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory Reform in Occupational Health and Safety. The development of 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 663

the model laws followed a comprehensive review of Australia's occupational health and safety laws by a panel of independent occupational health and safety experts. The national review into occupational health and safety laws consulted widely with business, employer and union groups, and took submissions from the public and made a number of detailed recommendations. Following this review, Safe Work Australia commenced the development of the Model Work Health and Safety Act. The resulting national consultation process concluded with the finalisation of the model Act, which was endorsed by the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council on 11 December 2009. From memory, the Hon. Joe Tripodi represented the former Labor Government at that meeting.

The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 will enact the model Act developed by Safe Work Australia— and as agreed by the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council—in New South Wales to enable this State to meet the agreed national start date of 1 January 2012. The national review into model occupational health and safety laws noted that, while all Australian governments have taken a broadly similar approach to regulating for safer workplaces, there were substantial differences between jurisdictions. These differences were particularly noticeable in regard to duty holders and duties, defence mechanisms and compliance regimes including penalties. Harmonisation of work health and safety laws will bring many benefits to businesses, employers, workers and unions through the creation of a nationally consistent and modernised legislative regime. In reporting on the costs and benefits of proposed model laws, Access Economics noted that the most significant cost to business from the existing occupational health and safety system arises from the duplication required to comply with regulatory differences across multiple jurisdictions. With the implementation of a nationally harmonised system, this duplication will be removed and there will be consistent regulation across the country.

Business will benefit from a national system through reduced complexity and red tape. Employers will also benefit from greater certainty and a simplified system of legislation. Workers will benefit from the enhanced protection provided by modernised laws and rights that are easier to understand and apply. For example, the bill recognises the changing face of the workplace and does not rely on the traditional concepts of employer and employee. This means greater fairness, as all workers will have access to the same rigorous system of workplace health and safety regulation wherever they are in Australia and irrespective of whether they are employees, labour hire workers or contractors. The new system will improve transferability of permits, licences and training qualifications across State and Territory borders. This means that workers' safety-related qualifications and training will be recognised wherever they work in Australia. This will assist in the mobility of individual workers and the Australian workforce as a whole.

The major changes in New South Wales work health and safety laws arising from the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 are those that have been brought forward in the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2011. As I have indicated, these relate to the ability of unions to bring prosecutions for breaches of the legislation. They also qualify the general duties obligations by introducing the concept of what is reasonably practicable for a duty holder to do, and both bills will establish a positive duty on officers of a corporation to exercise due diligence. Transitional provisions in the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2011 provide that the repeal of the right of unions to bring a prosecution will not affect any current proceedings. In addition, any proceedings that may have been be instituted by a union after the date of the introduction of the bill will be terminated.

Another significant change to be brought into New South Wales by the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 is a shift to the mainstream criminal courts for the enforcement of breaches of work health and safety laws. Currently, the more serious breaches of occupational health and safety are dealt with by the Industrial Relations Commission in court session. Under the bill, category one offences, which carry maximum fines of up to $3 million for a corporation and up to five years imprisonment for an individual, will be dealt with on indictment in the Supreme Court. Other offences will be dealt with by summary proceedings in either the District Court or the Local Court. These changes will better integrate breaches of work health and safety legislation with the general criminal law, and provide clear avenues of appeal. Decisions of the District Court and Supreme Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal, and eventually to the High Court, without having to seek equitable writs.

As the national review of occupational health and safety laws made clear, it is desirable that there should be a clear path for appeals. Furthermore, the laws will include provisions in the most serious cases where courts can deprive people of their liberty, with maximum penalties of up to five years. The transfer to the mainstream courts will mean that these serious cases are dealt with by a judge and jury. At the moment the Industrial Relations Court deals with matters summarily, with no provision for juries; I also note that there will be a role for the Local Court, as there has been for a significant time. The Industrial Relations Commission will 664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

retain an important role under the bill, such as hearing matters to determine applications to disqualify health and safety representatives who misuse their powers; issuing work health and safety entry permits to union officials, and suspending or revoking those permits where appropriate; determining disputes about right of entry; and conducting an external review of decisions made by WorkCover inspectors and WorkCover.

Clause 223 of the bill sets out a list of 13 such reviewable decisions, including decisions in relation to workplace consultation, provisional improvement notices and notices issued by inspectors. The Industrial Relations Commission also retains jurisdiction for terms and conditions of employment of State and local government employees. The Industrial Relations Commission exercises jurisdiction in relation to making or varying awards; making or varying enterprise agreements; promoting equal opportunity in employment; civil matters and prosecutions, for example, underpayment of award entitlements and superannuation appeals; resolving industrial disputes through conciliation and arbitration; registration and regulation of employer and employee organisations; proceedings for unfair dismissal; and proceedings for unfair, harsh or unjust contracts. The Industrial Relations Commission also has an appellate jurisdiction for matters dealt with by a single member of the commission, the Chief Industrial Magistrate and the Registrar.

The ability of industrial organisations to bring proceedings for an offence of the work health and safety laws is not consistent with the majority of jurisdictions. Removal of this right to prosecute is consistent with the harmonisation of these laws across all jurisdictions. In addition, I am satisfied that removal of this right will not result in any weakening of enforcement. In the 12-year period between 1987 and 2009 WorkCover undertook 1,866 successful prosecutions, while only 10 were made by employee associations. The Government believes that WorkCover, a well-resourced and experienced enforcement agency, is best placed to enforce safety standards, including, where necessary, by prosecution.

Prosecutions should be the preserve of an expert entity. Currently, unions are able to bring prosecutions and gain a financial benefit by way of a moiety of up to 50 per cent of the fine imposed. This creates a clear incentive for unions to pursue prosecutions for financial benefit. I have referred in question time to cases such as Ferguson v Nelmac, where the fine awarded was $100,000, and Johnson v State of New South Wales, with a fine of $220,000. I also mention prosecutions against the ANZ bank, where fines totalled $638,500. Moieties of up to half the fine were awarded in most of these cases. How can anyone argue that there is no conflict of interest when unions have a clear financial incentive to pursue prosecutions? Moreover, there is the potential for unions to use the prosecution as a way to advance their industrial interests in the context of industrial conflict.

In some cases unions have commenced proceedings only to discontinue them, and WorkCover has pursued the prosecutions later. In 2005 unions discontinued four prosecutions against Australind Holdings, JB Metal Roofing and two individuals following a fatality. These cases were later pursued by WorkCover and successfully prosecuted, with fines totalling in excess of $400,000. This illustrates two points: WorkCover is the expert prosecutor in such cases; and having a union right to prosecute potentially opens employers to having to defend themselves against prosecutions brought by multiple prosecutors. In the case of the prosecutions by WorkCover the full $400,000 in fines went to consolidated revenue and was available to be spent by the Government on programs for the people of New South Wales. It did not go into the coffers of a single union.

I can inform the House that unions still will have an important role to play, as they always have, in occupational health and safety. Unions have a strong voice in WorkCover's decision-making, with five members of WorkCover's advisory council nominated by Unions NSW. The secretary of Unions NSW is a member of the WorkCover board. The workers compensation legislation that establishes WorkCover specifically provides for WorkCover to oversee industry reference groups, which comprise representatives of unions, employers and WorkCover. WorkCover staff meet regularly with individual unions, and additional processes have been put in place for the implementation of the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011. About 35 meetings with various groups, including union representatives, have taken place in recent months. In the 2010 calendar year 14,620 complaints were received, of which 69 were referred by unions.

The bill introduces new rights for unions. The bill provides enhanced powers, including being able to enter a workplace for the purpose of consulting with and advising workers on work health and safety matters. This new provision does not currently exist in New South Wales occupational health and safety legislation, which restricts entry by union officials where there is a suspected breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. So the bill introduces more rights for unions. Clause 231 of the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 allows a person to make a written request for a prosecution to be brought in a matter where there appears to have been a serious breach of the workplace health and safety laws at any time up to six months following the alleged breach. If WorkCover has not investigated and commenced proceedings, under clause 231 the bill provides the 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 665

right for a person to request prosecution. As I have already said in the House, I am not aware of anyone putting a good case as to why, in the public interest, unions should have an additional right to prosecution. We have heard a frenzied defence of the unions' right to prosecution. I would like someone to justify unions having an additional right, given the history and statistics I have mentioned.

Commencement of the three fundamental reforms in the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2011 prior to the national reforms, which will take effect on 1 January 2012, demonstrates this Government's commitment to rectify at the beginning of its term long-held criticisms of elements of the occupational health and safety laws in this State. The changes in the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2011 are also consistent with the procedural changes that have been required in New South Wales as a result of the High Court's decision in Kirk. In that case the High Court overturned previously established law that it was not necessary for the prosecutor to tell defendants what they should have done to prevent an offence. The High Court ruling said that it is necessary for the prosecutor of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to identify the risk to health and safety and how that risk should have been prevented. This High Court ruling accepted that a defendant should be able to conduct a defence of what is reasonably practicable. Changing the nature of the duties in the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2011 to require the prosecutor to prove what is reasonably practicable supports and gives effect to the practical outcomes of the Kirk decision and moves New South Wales to a harmonised position in relation to major duty holders under the legislation.

The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 requires officers of duty-holding organisations to exercise due diligence to ensure that their organisations comply with their duties. This requirement is consistent with the duty of officers under current New South Wales law. Volunteers are immune from prosecution for offences committed in their capacity as an officer. This is an important protection to those performing socially valuable work in the community and enables them to undertake that work in good faith, without fear of prosecution. The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 provides for the election of health and safety representatives. When appropriately trained, health and safety representatives will be able to take action for the health and safety of those around them by issuing provisional improvement notices. Provisional improvement notices will be required to be confirmed by the regulator to ensure greater accountability and oversight.

The bill encourages the productive involvement of workers and employers in ensuring health and safety by the establishment of health and safety committees. The bill also introduces new and innovative approaches to enforcement and tougher penalties to allow government to enforce compliance and punish those who threaten the health and safety of others at work. The concept of enforceable undertakings is one such innovation. Enforceable undertakings offer flexibility to the regulator to deal with breaches of the provisions of the bill without compromising the health and safety of our workplaces. Enforceable undertakings enable a person conducting a business or undertaking who is suspected of a breach to enter into an undertaking with the agreement of the regulator. The undertaking is capable of enforcement in court and a breach of an undertaking attracts severe penalties.

This innovation provides a regulator with an additional tool to enforce compliance without the need for costly and time-consuming litigation. Enforceable undertakings have been used with positive effect in other jurisdictions, such as Queensland. A recent study by a Griffith University research team confirmed the effectiveness of this innovative measure, and its legislation gives WorkCover the option of using such measures in Queensland. Serious breaches of the Act involving reckless conduct that risks health and safety will continue to be prosecuted and punished.

The bill imposes strong penalties for a breach or contravention. Three categories of penalty are introduced based on the degree of culpability, risk and harm. The highest category of offence, involving proven recklessness, attracts a maximum fine of $3 million for bodies corporate, and for individuals a maximum fine of $300,000 or a maximum of five years imprisonment, or both. The penalties are higher than those currently in place in South Australia and demonstrate the Government's commitment to punish the very small minority of employers and businesses that disregard the health and safety of their workforce. The severity of the penalties reflects the strength of this legislation as a deterrent to reckless conduct that endangers health and safety.

The bills establish a primary duty to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers. The test of reasonable practicability is important as it places that duty in the context of what a reasonable person could have foreseen as a risk to the health and safety of a worker and it encompasses reasonable action by a person to mitigate that risk. It allows the duty holder to demonstrate that he or she did all that could reasonably have been done to avoid any risk to the health and safety of a worker. 666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 defines a worker widely to provide protection to people who may be engaged on a site under the direction of a duty holder but who is not directly engaged by that duty holder. The bill also imposes duties on persons who manage or control workplaces; persons who manage or control fixtures, fittings or plant at workplaces; persons who design, manufacture, import or supply plant, substances or structures; and persons who install, construct or commission plant or structures. In this regard the bill is consistent with the duties established under current New South Wales occupational health and safety laws.

The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 defines the primary duty holder as a person conducting a business or undertaking. Under this more comprehensive definition, a person holding a duty includes a body corporate, an unincorporated body or a partnership. The definition applies to activities whether they are conducted alone or with others, for profit or not for profit, and with or without the engagement of workers. This provision will cover a broad range of work relationships and business structures. It does not extend to a person's private or domestic activities or to volunteer associations as they are defined in the bill. The concept of a person conducting a business or undertaking will provide greater certainty about workplace duties by removing the ambiguity that may arise, for example, between a principal contractor and subcontractors.

The Government is committed to harmonious workplaces built on good communication and consultation. There is no doubt that when workers and employers cooperate they can achieve safer and more productive workplaces. The bill requires a person conducting a business undertaking to consult with workers as far as is reasonably practicable. Guidance is provided to businesses, workers and employers through a definition of what consultation is, as well as how and when it should be undertaken. The bill provides for a limited right of entry by union officials for the purposes of investigating a suspected contravention, similar to existing provisions in New South Wales and to provisions under the Federal Fair Work Act 2009.

The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 contains a number of provisions relating to mines and coalmines, which are also regulated by the Mine Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 2002. These replicate, as far as possible, the current mine work health and safety framework. However, due to work progressing under the National Mine Safety Framework, there may be a need for amendments to be made to the bill before its commencement. Similarly, because of ongoing amendments to the Model Work Health and Safety Act and to the need to consult more fully with other segments of government on consequential amendments, it is contemplated that schedule 5 to the bill will be substantially amended by a further bill before it commences. Nevertheless, it is appropriate for the bill to be brought forward in its current form to ensure that all stakeholders have a clearer idea of the work health and safety laws that will apply from 1 January 2012 and can take steps to prepare for their implementation from that date.

The Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities, comprising the leaders of each State and Territory workplace safety regulator, including WorkCover, have established a number of national project groups to coordinate a nationally consistent approach to the implementation of the new national laws. To complement this, WorkCover will also deliver an externally focused implementation and communication strategy to inform key parties in New South Wales of the impact of the new nationally harmonised system of laws, regulations and codes of practice. The bills will ensure less complexity and red tape for business and more certainty for employers and those who engage workers and, through this, the bills will provide enhanced protection for workers, wherever they work. The bills will ensure greater mobility of the Australian workforce and less duplication of regulation between States and Territories. Through the inclusion of many policy innovations the bills strengthen the capacity of regulators to work with businesses and workers to improve health and safety and reduce the tragedy of workplace death and injury.

The bills will establish New South Wales's participation in a nationally consistent system of work health and safety regulation. Safety should be paramount in the minds of all employers throughout New South Wales and Australia. Safety in the workplace is an issue of great importance to this Government and that is why these bills have been one of the first priorities of this Government. The importance of safety legislation is even more strongly emphasised when one considers the fatalities that are still being suffered in workplaces in New South Wales and across Australia. Everyone, regardless of their political views, is keen to reduce those statistics. I look forward to seeing these health and safety laws implemented throughout Australia and to seeing improvements in safety as a result. I commend the bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Luke Foley and set down as an order of the day for a future day. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 667

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Third Day's Debate

Debate resumed from 5 May 2011.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.27 p.m.]: I speak in reply to the address of Her Excellency the Governor of New South Wales on the occasion of the opening of the Fifty-fifth Parliament of New South Wales. From my personal perspective, it was a wonderful occasion. I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr President, the Speaker from the other House and, of course, the staff of the Parliament for the exceptional efforts that were made to ensure that, to put it in the simplest way, everything went well on the day. It was an honour for me to be in this Chamber to hear the Speech of Her Excellency. At the time my wonderful and supportive wife, Mary Ajaka, was also in the gallery and it was her first opportunity to hear an address by Her Excellency. It was great to be able to share that with my wife. Her Excellency stated at the beginning of her address:

This Parliament opens with a great spirit of optimism—a spirit that such an historic opportunity for change and renewal rightly brings.

She also stated:

Members of the Government, whose program I now present, are especially conscious of the responsibility they have to fulfil the commitments they made to the people of New South Wales at the election on March 26, 2011.

Some members will recall the comments I made in my inaugural speech to this House on 29 May 2007, some four years ago. I stated:

I am now honoured by my community, which through my selection process has given me overwhelming support to sit in this honourable place. It is an even greater privilege to know that I will experience all facets of the Westminster system, having been elected to sit in the Legislative Council for the first four years in opposition and then the next four years in government.

Mr President, you may recall the interjection of the then Treasurer the Hon. Michael Costa. He said, "This one's a dreamer." He could not accept the fact that the Liberal-Nationals Coalition would be in government in 2011, but that is exactly what has occurred. I am honoured to be here today as a member of this Government. I am also honoured by my recent appointment as the Parliamentary Secretary to two exceptional Ministers: the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, the Minister for Transport, and the Hon. Duncan Gay, the Minister for Roads and Ports.

As Her Excellency said, this Government will secure the future of our State. That is something that the former Government clearly failed to do over 16 years. Not only did it fail in that regard, but also it lost sight of its obligation to do so. That is the tragedy that has confronted this wonderful State for the past 16 years. It is very hard to forget the words of former Premier Kristina Keneally when she admitted that her Government had failed the people of New South Wales because it had lost its way and that its members were more interested in themselves than in the interests of the people of New South Wales. What an astonishing admission to make. To her credit, that is probably one of the few accurate and honest statements made by a member of the previous Government. As the father of six daughters, I am well aware of the need to improve New South Wales and to make it number one again. Her Excellency made her views clear when she stated:

Improving the performance of New South Wales is not only essential to the quality of life and opportunities of our own citizens… When New South Wales tests its own limits, the nation shares the benefits.

That is the truth. New South Wales must be number one not only for the benefit of the people of our State but clearly for the benefit of the rest of Australia. I take great pride in claiming that I am an Australian first and foremost. However, I must admit that there are occasions when I am proud to be first and foremost a New South Welshman—particularly during a State of Origin match. How could anyone be anything but a Blues supporter?

[Interruption]

I will not acknowledge any interjection suggesting that I am from Queensland. How could any member not acknowledge that our first priority should be the best interests of those who elected us to sit in this Chamber and whom we pledged to serve—the people of New South Wales? We clearly owe our first priority to the residents of New South Wales. By serving them well and making New South Wales number one again, we have the automatic benefit of being proud Australians because we also serve Australia. 668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

Her Excellency went on to confirm details of this Government's commitments by reiterating the Five Point Action Plan and the 100 Day Action Plan, which were clearly articulated during the election campaign. They demonstrate real policy, real action and real commitment. It is extraordinary that in the short time we have been in this place Ministers have introduced numerous pieces of legislation to honour those commitments and members opposite have complained that the legislative process is being rushed and that they have been given no notice. That is despite the fact that the entire election campaign was focused on the issues covered by that legislation.

Opposition members would have preferred the Government to wait one, two, three or four years and then repeat in the 2015 campaign what it said in the 2011 campaign. That is what they did in election campaign after election campaign over 16 years. As the Governor clearly stated, that is not how this Government intends to operate. That is not how the Coalition Government intends to govern New South Wales. Notwithstanding the disappointment of members opposite, this Government will introduce legislation to honour the commitments which it made to the people of New South Wales and which they so overwhelmingly elected it to implement.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Hear, hear! We keep our promises.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I acknowledge that interjection. That is something the former Government clearly failed to do. I will not canvass each and every element of the Five Point Action Plan or 100 Day Action Plan.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Go on—do it!

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I do not need to do that because we made them very clear during the election campaign. Notwithstanding the fact that the people of New South Wales elected us because of those commitments, members opposite do not want to hear about them and they do not want us to act on them. As I indicated earlier, I am proud to be standing here as the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Roads. I will focus on aspects pertaining to those responsibilities that I know the exceptional Ministers responsible for those portfolio areas will address in the best the interests of the people of New South Wales and not in the best interests of this Government or the members of this Government.

I take this opportunity to focus on the integrated transport authority. As promised during the election campaign, the Government is committed to providing a truly integrated transport authority that will coordinate the State's transport services and ensure that projects are built on time and on budget. What an unusual notion that will be for members of the Opposition to contemplate. Can members imagine them even trying to understand the concept of delivering projects on time and on budget? [Quorum called for.]

[The bells having been rung and a quorum having formed, business resumed.]

As promised during the recent election campaign, the Government is committed to providing a truly integrated transport authority that will co-ordinate the State's transport services and ensure that projects are built on time and on budget. The establishment of the authority will, for the first time, ensure planning and policy are fully integrated across all forms of transport, including roads, rail, buses and ferries. Rather than working in silos, planning and policy experts from all transport agencies will work together. This means that operational agencies—such as the Roads and Traffic Authority, RailCorp, the State Transit Authority and Sydney Ferries— will be free to focus solely on delivering reliable, safe and clean front-line transport services to customers. This new system is the opposite of the ad hoc and piecemeal approach taken by successive former Labor governments over the past 16 years. Labor failed to deliver these much-needed reforms, but this Government has set a target to define the structure of the new transport authority and to deliver it.

The former Labor Government had seven road Ministers in the past five years: Scully, Costa, Tripodi, Roozendaal, Daley, Campbell and Borger. One could not be surprised by the clear failings of the former Government to deliver in the area of roads alone. This Government's new authority will create a powerful customer experience division that will develop a new approach to engage with the people of New South Wales on transport issues. Its principal role will be to create a "customer first" culture in transport, something that is foreign to members opposite. They could not imagine running a transport system and putting the customer first. The customer will become the centre of the policies of this Government from planning and building new infrastructure to delivering the day-to-day services.

The Government has already announced the reappointment of Les Wielinga as Director General of the Department of Transport and recruitment of key divisional heads is commencing. A team has been established 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 669

to drive the organisational design process. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport, I look forward to working with Mr Les Wielinga, an exceptional government bureaucrat who well knows what is required of him to meet the demands of the people of New South Wales. As well as strengthening integration and coordination, the new integrated transport authority will generate economies of scale and provide more responsive customer services to the people of New South Wales.

There will be more front-line jobs under this Government—road engineers, workers, train and bus drivers, mechanics, customer service personnel—which is the focus of this Government. There will be fewer back-office bureaucrats. The people of New South Wales have made it clear that they seek front-line officers and not back-room bureaucrats. The integrated transport authority will be responsible for transport planning, policy and coordination. As I said earlier, the customer will become the focus in those areas and new infrastructure will be provided for day-to-day services to meet the needs of the customer. Other divisions operating within the new authority will include: transport planning and programs, transport services, transport projects, transport policy and regulation, freight and regional development and corporate services.

Under this Government's integrated transport authority operating entities, et cetera, will focus on their core business of delivering clean, reliable, safe and efficient transport services. To support the new authority, an independent transport advisory board will be established to provide strategic advice and oversee the delivery of major transport infrastructure projects. As well as strengthening integration and coordination, the new integrated transport authority will generate economies of scale as I stated previously—something that the former Government failed to do. Earlier a member of the Opposition said, in relation to the Duties Amendment (Seniors Principal Place of Residence Duty Exemption) Bill that eliminates stamp duty for some people over the age of 55, "What about the money?" What money will suddenly disappear from the budget?"

Members of the Opposition fail to understand that under the former Government the money it received during the past 16 years was wasted and thrown away and it failed to deliver—for example, the complete disaster and waste of money in relation to the T-card. The T-card was meant to operate for the 2000 Olympics, some 11 years ago, at a cost blow-out that no-one could expect. The former Government managed to achieve the impossible: it did not deliver anything whatsoever. During the recent election campaign I visited railway stations with various candidates in the St George, Sutherland and Illawarra areas. I noticed wonderful machines that were completely closed down with plates on them. They were completely useless. What a waste of money that was, and this Government will ensure that that waste ceases.

As I mentioned earlier, the new customer experience division will present an entirely new way of delivering public transport services because the focus will be on the customer for everything from planning and building new infrastructure to delivering day-to-day services. The customer experience division will champion the customer. It will ensure the needs of customers are a driving force in decision-making and in the delivery of transport infrastructure and services. The new division will be charged with understanding customers' realistic expectations and ensuring transport services are delivered to meet those expectations. Customer satisfaction and growth in public transport use will be key indicators of the performance of this new division. The customer experience division is one of six key divisions that will be integral to the success of the new authority.

Imagine finding out what the customer needs before implementing it! Let us talk about a perfect example of the previous Government's failure in not first ascertaining the needs of the customer. Let us talk about, as I like to call it, the metro to nowhere, because that is all anyone could possibly call it. Could someone assist me in remembering how much money was thrown away and wasted on this metro to nowhere— $500 million, possibly growing to $600 million? Imagine throwing away $500 million and delivering absolutely nothing. Imagine how that $500 million could have been spent on front-line services that this State desperately needs. This is the sad effect of not putting the customer first.

Imagine all those people whose lives were disrupted and businesses that were disrupted because the Government of the day, in a negligent manner, started to proceed with this metro to nowhere and then simply stopped it. It finally acknowledged that the people did not want it and did not need it, and we only lost $500 million to $600 million. That will not happen under this Government. It was only a small amount to the previous Government. The former Labor Government could have continued with this foolish escapade and we could have lost billions of dollars, so we should be grateful it did not do that.

The integrated transport authority will ensure projects like the North West Rail Link are delivered on time and on budget. Construction of the North West Rail Link will start within our first term. It will be Sydney's biggest rail expansion in 80 years. On 6 April, 11 days after the election, the Premier, the Hon. Barry O'Farrell, 670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

and the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, established a North West Rail Link project team. This project team will ensure a clear focus on delivering the project on time and within budget. In addition to the establishment of the project team, concept planning approval is in place and nearly 40 per cent of land has already been acquired. The concept plan will be reviewed and work will move quickly on the full project approval. This is required under planning legislation. Industry will be consulted—again, something completely foreign to members opposite—about the best way of building the new link. Its early input will be vital in getting the right project constructed in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

[Interruption]

I note the interjection from the Hon. Lynda Voltz. I know words such as "the right way" and "cost-effective" and "efficient" are foreign to members opposite, but this is the way this Government will operate. In the coming weeks and months the community of the north-west will be met to outline the vision for the project and the work that needs to be done. Community input and feedback will be sought throughout the development of the project. Is that not a wonderful way to run government—to seek community input and feedback throughout the development of the project? Let us not wait until $500 million is wasted and then ask the community, as members opposite used to do when they were in government.

There is concept approval for a route from Rouse Hill via Epping and the North Shore to the central business district. This route was based on information relating to travel demand; that is, where people want to travel, what their existing transport options are and what their likely travel choices will be. I know it upsets members opposite to hear that we want to listen to members of the public talk about their needs and choices. Members opposite do not want to hear that. It is wonderful to see how many Opposition members are here today to listen—they are very busy at the moment. The decision on the route takes into account many other factors, including station locations and engineering considerations about alignment. The project director has been asked to review the available information on the route and the alignment to Epping, and to confirm the project scope.

In addition to the North West Rail Link the Government is committed to building the South West Rail Link, which is an important initiative in responding to reliability and passenger growth on the metropolitan rail network, and to population growth in south-west Sydney. The new link will provide high-quality public transport for the residents of an expected 110,000 new homes in the south-west growth centre. Construction activities at Glenfield station are well advanced. A construction contract has been awarded, and detailed design and geotechnical investigation works are well underway for the 11-kilometre rail line between Glenfield and Leppington, with substantial construction due to commence in 2012.

The Glenfield transport interchange is scheduled for completion in 2013. It includes a major upgrade of the bus-rail interchange, including easy access facilities and an expanded concourse. As part of the project a rail flyover will be built to the north of Glenfield station—it is important to separate the East Hills line from crossing the south line, increasing capacity and reliability. This will also enable increased service frequency. Two commuter car parks at Glenfield have already been completed as part of a project. The new rail line will include two new state-of-the-art stations with extensive community car parks. Construction of the Glenfield to Leppington rail line will be completed by 2016. In light of our election commitments, the Government will undertake a feasibility study into extending light rail—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: I can barely hear the Hon. John Ajaka's excellent contribution due to interjections.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Opposition members will come to order. The Hon. John Ajaka will proceed.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I know members opposite are not interested in hearing this but, sadly, they fail to realise there are members in this Chamber who do want to hear it. I understand that the truth hurts. In relation to the expansion of light rail in the central business district, a city centre access plan is underway—a feasibility study extending light rail from Central Railway to the University of New South Wales and from Central Railway to the University of Sydney. The access plan will establish the best route and transport options for people living and/or working in Sydney's central business district. It will look at how all modes of transport in the city, including light rail, can be integrated to improve the city centre. Light rail will have a significant impact on existing traffic and public transport services. Working out the best way of integrating it is a complex task. Unlike the former Labor Government, we are going to do our homework when it comes to transport planning—something it failed to do on so many occasions. It had no concept of it. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 671

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Like you, apparently.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I note the interjection. As I indicated earlier, as the proud father of six daughters, I have tried to teach them that when one does one's homework one actually gets it right—something the previous Government failed to do on so many occasions.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Lynda Voltz will come to order.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Thank you, Mr President. I know those opposite want me to finish. If there were fewer interjections, I might get through it a little more quickly. In the inner west, an extended light rail system of 5.6 kilometres will give residents another option for accessing local neighbourhoods as well as the central business district, Pyrmont and Darling Harbour. It will also improve connections with the inner west and Bankstown city lines. Planning approval was granted for the inner west extension, Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill, in February 2011 and is on track for completion. Construction is expected to start in the second half of the year. I will briefly cover two other areas. The first is the new major initiative of this Government in relation to school bus safety.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Trevor Khan will come to order.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: A new committee is being established to examine school bus safety in regional and rural New South Wales, as outlined by the Minister for Transport Gladys Berejiklian, and I am proud to be able to work with the Minister in relation to that very worthy Government project. The School Bus Safety Community Advisory Committee, comprising road safety experts, transport operators, parents and school representatives, will closely examine all issues relating to the safe transportation of children to and from school. I would have thought some members opposite would have realised how important this is and would not interject on something that is as important as children's safety. More than 60,000 students across regional and rural New South Wales travel on a fleet of 1,485 dedicated school buses each day. The establishment of this committee fulfils a commitment made by this Government whilst it was in opposition, but, more importantly, it takes a step towards maximising travel safety for our youngest students. Finally, I take the opportunity—I can go on if members would like me to—to congratulate the Government on fulfilling its commitment to bring and restore democracy to the Illawarra by holding the local government elections for Shellharbour City Council and Wollongong City Council in September this year. The Premier Barry O'Farrell stated:

There is no more fundamental issue for local residents than the right to elect those who govern them.

... Labor has denied residents in Wollongong and Shellharbour locally elected representatives since sacking the two councils in 2008.

It was an honour to hear the address of Her Excellency. It is an honour to serve as part of this Government. I genuinely believe that this Government will meet the needs of the residents of New South Wales—something that the previous Labor Government clearly failed to do over the past 16 years.

The PRESIDENT: As the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is about to make his inaugural speech I ask honourable members to extend to him the usual courtesies.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [5.03 p.m.] (Inaugural Speech): As a mark of respect, I acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, the traditional custodians of the land on which this Parliament sits. I pay my respects to their elders, past and present. I also acknowledge and congratulate you on your elevation, Mr President, and I also congratulate all returning and new members on their election to this House of responsible government.

It is indeed a great honour to enter and serve the people of New South Wales in this House of review, this House with more than 150 years of democratic tradition, 150 years of consideration and conciliation, negotiation and debate, and 150 years of tempering the sometimes impetuous and ill-considered majority rule of the other place. It is with respect and temperance that I begin my work in this Legislative Council, acknowledging that we all now play a part in responsibly shaping the future and advancing the interests of the people of New South Wales. The legacies of peaceful, democratic change are now entrusted to us, and that is both a burden and a privilege that I do not carry lightly.

It is this Parliament's legacy that most concerns me as I consider my role in the deliberations and decisions of this place. Just one month ago I was working as a stonemason. One month ago, I was concreting 672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

and rendering in the Burraga cemetery, working amongst the Black Angus cattle, fog-draped hills and Box woodlands of central New South Wales. Like my father, who worked the isolated oil rigs in the seas of Bass Strait, I was taught a work ethic and to live by the maxim that the job that takes the longest is the one that is never started.

I am proud to enter this Chamber a labourer and tradesman. It was whilst carving headstones for those pioneer and country cemeteries, whilst tending war memorials in Millthorpe, whilst inscribing the name of a Victoria Cross winner or a Rural Fire Service volunteer that had died defending a neighbour's house that I had time to reflect on the names and lives of those now passed and what it is that gives our life meaning. I am convinced that, in the end, it is our legacy that defines us—not only how others and time judge us, but how we consider ourselves as we look beyond our own lifetime. It is an intrinsic human instinct that we all want our works to increase the wellbeing of our family and community, but also future generations.

We all want to know that what we pass is of lasting value, will be cherished and maintained, and that we will not be forgotten. I believe that this is the reason that, again and again, the last sentiment inscribed on a memorial or headstone about those who have passed is that they are lovingly remembered, never forgotten, or lest we forget. Our works are all different, and therefore our legacies. For many, their great works are the character of their children; for some, a bountiful orchard or a bloodline of stock, a moment of courage on a battlefield, or laws that finally deliver long-sought justice. I was born in Launceston, Tasmania, in 1973. It was a simpler time—black and white television, passive smoke and no seat belts.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Cracker night.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Yes, we had cracker night. We spent a lot of time in the country. I remember the long hawthorn hedgerows, the smell of dairies, keeping chooks and getting our honey straight from the beekeeper in old kero tins. While dad taught me to change a sparkplug on a motorbike, my mum and my granny, the late Pip Worth, taught me Scrabble and a love of words, politics and history. Whilst granny would regale me with tales of Yorkshire coalminer strikes, the Blitz or their days in Nigeria, mum would sit me down with a National Geographic or take me on Hiroshima Day peace marches, or to hold candles in cold parks for Reclaim the Night vigils. They instilled in me the positivity and wonderment of our world and the virtue of embracing diversity. But they also taught me that you could not be passive; that freedom was hard won and had to be protected; and that if you wanted change you had to be active.

One day we visited the mighty battleship, the USS Missouri, the "Big Mo". As a little boy I stood on the aft deck below the massive 16-inch guns on the very spot where the Japanese had signed the instrument of surrender, where the carnage and waste of World War II had ended. I thought history and politics were awesome and I wanted to be part of it. And part of it I was, like it or not. For Tasmanians, the 1980s were a difficult and exciting time. The long Cold War was ending and a dawning ecological awareness was morphing into a new environmental and political activism. Dr Bob Brown was leading a movement against the Franklin River Dam. A natural constituency was emerging that was recognising the intrinsic value of biodiversity and ecosystems. Everywhere you looked there were No Dams triangles, or stickers on utes that said, "Bulldoze a Greenie". It was hard not to be partisan when the lines had been drawn and debate raged—environment or jobs, the wellbeing of the future, or the wellbeing of now?

At school I found it difficult. All my mates had dads who worked for Hydro or for Forestry. I found it difficult to explain why I thought Dr Bob Brown was right. I can remember sitting cross-legged in a class one day and being asked by my teacher, Mrs Woolley, why I thought the dam was bad. I could not explain except to say that it was going to be an ugly grey and things would be okay if they would just consider painting it a nice green or beige. But later I understood and the reality became clearer.

After school I spent two years working as a benchman in a small family sawmill below the crags and bluffs of the great western tiers of central Tasmania. I was enchanted by the wild rivers and wilder weather. I learned that hard work was invigorating—pushing great logs of flitch through screaming saws in the rain and sleet, the sweet smell of freshly cut hardwoods and pine, the sense of satisfaction of a hot meal after a hard day. I lived in a shipping container with a pot-bellied stove, plonked in a paddock next to the gurgling tannin-stained Meander River. I poached trout from the river, played footy and drank beer with farmers' sons. I learned to disagree on a world view and politics but to express it in a way that did not demean or cast aspersions on integrity, culture or commitment to community: we all love our country.

I learned that there was a conscious effort by vested interests and politicians to create misunderstanding and to drive environmentalists and rural communities apart. The false dichotomy was and remains a deliberate 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 673

construct. For example, I saw firsthand that multinational corporations were driving out small sawmills and destroying jobs. Where once selective logging had meant the careful consideration of the best timber by teams of master foresters, it now meant the wholesale destruction of vast areas selected for obliteration and wasteful woodchipping. Like many young people I became restless, quit the job and came to the mainland, where I met my wonderful wife, Sarah. We settled in her hometown of Orange and had two beautiful boys, Eden and James. I set to work for Sarah's parents, Lee and Sheila Bradbury, the kindest, most generous people I have ever met. It was there, over the past 12 years, that I had the opportunity to travel western New South Wales—the blood red plains of Parkes, the sandstone pagodas of Rylstone, the Pilliga scrub, the Lachlan Valley—great places and even better people.

But it was also there that a frightening reality was dawning upon me. One late spring afternoon in Cudal cemetery, I stood squinting into the hot desiccating wind that was cracking my face and pinching the last of the life from the pastures and failing winter crops. The drought of those years that terrified and damaged so much of south-eastern Australia was more than just the worst drought in the history of European existence in this part of this great land; it was a sign of a changing climate. Fate then intervened in the form of a couple of slipped discs in my back. Unfit for heavy lifting and stonemasonry I enrolled in the ecological agriculture course at the University of Sydney. I wanted to act on climate change and to help farmers manage their farms and maintain their communities. I wanted to stop rural decline and deal with the challenges of food security and natural resource management.

I read and was convinced by Australian agricultural pioneers, such as Bill Mollison, Peter Andrews and P. A. Yeomans. I stayed on farms and talked to the men and women who put food on our plates and who care for the land and water on a daily basis—onion growers in Coleambally, cockies in Cowra, orchardists in Orange—all good people doing a tough job in a tough, natural and economic climate. I studied ecological economics and came to understand the fundamental interdependence of human economies and natural ecosystems. Derived from the same ancient Greek word Oikos, both ecology and economy deal not only with energy and capital but also with how we manage our house, our environment. If your house is falling down you are in trouble; as they say, there is no economy on a dead planet.

The ecological principles of natural capital, resilience, diversity and emergence are embedded in economics because they are the same thing. The principles of ecologically sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the notion of intergenerational equity, too often paid mere lip-service to, should guide our economic and social vision. The Greens have a vision for New South Wales, and as a proud country Green I will be working to implement this vision for country New South Wales. It is a vision built on food security and new sustainable industries and renewable energy—great, base load solar plants harvesting the sun's rays and turning them into electricity, a vision of country men and women building, operating and maintaining these plants, and all the associated industries, jobs and prosperity. It is a vision of a flourishing future for country New South Wales through harvesting and not exploiting nature.

The alternative is to pockmark the countryside with coal seam gas wells, to drain and crack our aquifers and pollute them with cocktails of chemicals, to release salty mine water which destroys our creeks and rivers, to scar and divide farming land, scenic hills and remnant bushland with pipelines, access roads, coal pits and fracking ponds. The significant majority enjoyed by this new Government brings with it the opportunity to drive significant reform. No challenge is greater than transforming our society and economy so that it is ecologically sustainable. As a progressive and as a Green, there are many issues on which I will differ from those in government. However, environmental sustainability and addressing climate change are issues that should go beyond traditional ideologies. In the spirit of conciliation we must start the work of healing our environment that has too long suffered under the yoke of rigid doctrines and absolutes. We must acknowledge the social and ecological failings of both extremes.

Capitalism, with its rampant consumerism and greed, brought us the catastrophes of Exxon Valdez and now the Deepwater Horizon, while the Soviet Union's radioactive disaster at Chernobyl and its approach to industrial cotton farming led to the ecological disaster of the Aral Sea. Ours is a market-based economy, but part of our job in this place is to protect workers, farmers and business from the excesses of the market and corporations and we must ensure that government has the revenue to ensure social equity and a just standard of living. Recently we saw the power of multinational mining companies derailing the mining tax—another example of an unfair power relationship between big mining corporations, which dominate communities and strip sovereign wealth from this nation while not paying their fair share.

The Greens are not anti-enterprise but we stand against the falsehoods of so-called free trade. We support innovation, creativity, change and renewal, but we will never stop railing against a market system that 674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

exports exploitation to the developing world. Who can say that the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths is a healthily functioning and fair market? I have seen it firsthand force price-taking farmers to push out perfect orchards or sell valuable dairy herds. I hope that the legacy of this Parliament is to choose to act meaningfully on these issues, that we accept the science of climate change, act to remove our economy from an overwhelming reliance on the mining, burning and export of fossil fuels. I hope it seizes the nettle and embraces the opportunity of renewable energy and the massive boost to regional development and jobs in the bush that renewables will bring.

I hope this Government acts to create a fair and transparent planning system, to create and maintain a system of reserves that protect our long-suffering biodiversity, that this Government does not stifle the century-long dilemma of sustainably managing the Murray-Darling Basin and that this Government acts to protect our communities from the excesses and damage of mining and coal seam gas. I will never trade the principles or policies of The Greens, but if this Government acts to deal meaningfully with these issues, I will act to help it. This is not some cunning perfidy, but said with good faith. Some older hands may scoff and perceive my entreaties as naive, but they are genuine nonetheless.

Before I finish I acknowledge the people who have made this journey possible: Bob Brown, the late Peter Andren, Ben Oquist, and my New South Wales parliamentary colleagues who all taught me the ropes; Andrew Burke, Kristian Bolwell, Jon Edwards and Jeremy Bradley, who all gave great advice and made it fun; in the central west, Stephen Nugent, Neil Jones and Ian Tucker, whose energy kept me going; Glenn Taylor on Orange City Council, a true Labor man; Max and Claire for being great mates and boosting for me; and of course my mum, Paul, dad, Tam, Lee and Sheila, Sarah and my boys.

The PRESIDENT: As the Hon. Jan Barham is about to make her inaugural speech I ask honourable members to extend to her the usual courtesies.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM [5.21 p.m.] (Inaugural Speech): I acknowledge that this Parliament is on the lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation and I offer my respect to the Elders past, present and future. I acknowledge that I am from the Bundjalung nation and the land of the Arakwal people and I pay my respects to those Elders, past and present, and the community members that I am proud to work with and to call friends. Today I speak in the House for the first time as one of six Greens members of the New South Wales Parliament. I acknowledge those members of The Greens who have served here before me. I congratulate all those who sit in this House. I have been privileged to work with my local Aboriginal community for over 15 years. Since 1994 I have had a close association with the Arakwal people and have worked in support of the long process that has led to the completion of three Indigenous land use agreements [ILUAs].

I congratulate the former Government and particularly former Premiers Carr and Iemma and Minister Debus on their commitment to the outcomes. I acknowledge also the long-term commitment of Ian Cohen. In 1994 he gave his word to support the Elders and he did. In 2007 I was honoured to be asked to officiate at an event at the Cape Byron headland where Premier Iemma acknowledged the finalisation of the Indigenous land use agreement stages two and three that advanced the negotiations with the State Government. This has achieved the return of land to the Arakwal people to secure their original house site, a site for a cultural centre and the ownership of a caravan park that will provide ongoing economic security. These outcomes were in addition to the delivery of the Arakwal National Park in Indigenous Land Use Agreement stage one, which created the protection of significant coastal lands just south of the Cape Byron headland and also created jobs that now have provided a working-on-country experience for over 15 people.

Jobs creation was a priority for the Elders as they knew that education and employment were the key to providing a more secure future for Aboriginal people. I sit as a community representative on the advisory board that was created for the joint management of the national park and I have held this position since its establishment. I make mention of the experience that was provided to me as a member of the board by way of cultural awareness training. I believe this is an exercise that would benefit many in society as a means to understand the Indigenous experience. The delivery of these agreements highlights how the State Government can take significant action to recognise Aboriginal people and improve the lives of the First Peoples of this country. I am now very proud to be The Greens spokesperson for Aboriginal Affairs and I look forward to learning more and offering my support to groups across the State.

I am honoured to stand here as a representative of The Greens having been a member for almost 20 years. I joined The Greens because they represented a world view, a global set of principles that define a better future, which later was encapsulated by the early slogan for The Greens New South Wales, "Our Future, 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 675

Vote Green". The Greens are often misunderstood as many take the colour as a representation of only the natural world rather than of life itself. All aspects of life and society are our responsibility, hence the four principles of peace and nonviolence, social and economic justice, ecological sustainability and grass roots democracy. It is a political organisation that reflects my ideals and I am proud to have been involved in early campaigns and policy development. I have been a candidate in local, State and Federal elections since 1997 and was elected to Byron Shire Council in 1999. In 2002 I became deputy mayor and in 2004 I became Australia's first popularly elected Greens mayor. In 2008 I was re-elected as mayor.

I am from the country, the far North Coast. I have lived there for over 20 years but I grew up in the Wollongong area in the southern suburb of Unanderra. I went to public schools and after matriculation moved to Newcastle to attend the university, but this did not suit me and I found myself spending more time attending architecture lectures and at art school. Growing up in Wollongong was an education in itself. It was a multicultural area and I watched people who lived in garages spend their weekends building their homes. I spent time in my neighbourhood learning of the world as I was invited into the homes of people of diverse backgrounds where cultural heritage was on display and the food, art and practices were shared generously. I innocently thought the world was like this—a multicultural melting pot. Later I was shocked at the lack of tolerance for others that was also a part of the Australian culture.

The industries that defined the area were mining and the steelworks. I was exposed to the fact that some fathers went to work and never came home. In the 1960s their deaths in the mines caused months of strikes in an effort to improve workplace conditions. I remember going to school and finding additional sandwiches in my bag. They were for sharing with those who did not have much, but nothing was said about this; it just happened. I also remember the shock of the fortnightly pay night when fathers staggered up the road late at night from the Leagues club at the bottom of my street. My bedroom faced the road and after being woken by the drunken rabble I watched the shadow play of violence behind the curtains across the road. The next morning I saw the women appear from the homes wearing large 1960s sunglasses and the kids at school with bruises announcing that dad had put all the pay packet in the pokies.

This was not my family situation. I was lucky; my family was quiet. My mother baked biscuits, loved her flower garden and cooked the food that my father grew in our backyard garden and the chook pen. Neighbours swapped their produce and I remember when new arrivals from Italy moved in next door they brought us a grape vine cutting that was planted on the adjoining fence and it still grows there. This has instilled in me a love of gardening and an encouragement for local food production. My childhood was also about exploring nature, being able to go on long hikes in the bush and horseriding with friends. My parents were from the South Coast, my father from a Jaspers Brush dairying family, my mother from Berry where her father had his final posting as a policeman after having been a country sergeant in many rural New South Wales towns. It was from him that I heard about my current home when he referred to it as God's own country from his time stationed in Bangalow in the 1920s.

We used to spend holidays at the farm, and I was taught to knit and sew by my grandmothers. I fondly remember nights of family gatherings around the radio—time spent together, with busy hands making what was needed and mending what was worn. It was the foundation of my "green" ideals: the self-sufficiency and the commitment to recycling and valuing what resources were available. There was always a ball of string, and hand-me-downs, and the making of preserves to take advantage of abundant seasonal produce.

I am TAFE educated with two trade certificates. I did two years study at Wollongong TAFE and then won a statewide scholarship to attend East Sydney Tech, where I finished my studies. When I completed my course I did work experience with a fashion company for a month and was then offered a full-time job. I worked in the fashion industry in Sydney for eight years prior to moving to the North Coast in 1989 to live part-time, still returning to Sydney to do short-term, intense bursts of work. It was a hard industry, non-unionised and tough, but I learnt valuable lessons in business and efficiency.

I left the city in pursuit of a more meaningful life in a small community. When I arrived in Byron Bay I headed to the library to research the local area and understand its history, and I talked to many people to hear the stories of life in a small regional town. I joined local environment organisations and started to come to grips with the struggle between development and the protection of our natural and cultural heritage. This was spurred by my awareness in the 1980s of environmental concerns, most notably the Franklin, the Daintree, North Coast rainforests and uranium mining, and the green bans in Sydney.

The history of the Australian environment movement is one we can all be proud of. We have forged a radical, typically Australian larrikin and theatrical movement that pioneered on a global stage. Many of our 676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

songs and images have travelled the world inspiring others. It was the meeting with Jack Mundey and the Green Bans that inspired Petra Kelly on a visit to Australia to take back the ideas to Germany and establish the Green Party. We then adopted the German political structure and principles, and in 1991 Bob Brown along with Ian Cohen and others established the Australian Greens in North Sydney.

I was inspired by the courage, the vision and the creative pursuits of the campaigners. It made me aware that we collectively have a responsibility to protect the world we live in and ensure it is available for future generations. My move to the North Coast was not just a whim; it was in part a response to the death of a close friend that set me thinking on the meaning of life, hence my desire to find greater purpose beyond work and the fast lane. As it turned out, my arrival in Byron Bay was at the same time as the move by the multinational tourism organisation Club Med.

With State Government support and the council of the day giving approval for a resort, the town of Byron Bay was headed for a change of identity. But it was not accepted, and the environment organisation of which I was a member set about assessing the development and investigating the options to oppose. It was broad community opposition that brought businesses together with conservationists, and Byron Shire Businesses for the Future was formed. I was secretary of that organisation and was committed to legally challenging the approval by the council, and we were ultimately successful in the Land and Environment Court.

The Byron Shire community has a reputation for being outspoken, and its voice is heard because it has the megaphone of independent media. The Byron Shire Echo this year celebrates 25 years of publication, and this combined with the community radio station BayFM meant that the community has the power to communicate unfettered. It is one place in which the main means of communication is not in the hands of the corporates.

I spent a number of years working on environmental court cases, including a quarry in a coastal area of high ecological significance. The Batsons Quarry and Club Med cases both failed on the basis of inadequate environmental assessments. I learnt about the legal system through my work on these cases, from the ground up. This is in part what inspired me to become involved in politics, to change the inappropriate laws. After 10 years living and working in Sydney in the 1980s my move to the country was a conscious choice to seek a life of voluntary simplicity. Some referred to it as a "dropping out" but I saw it as a process of "seeking more".

Life in the city sets up a way of thinking that was soon changed when I moved to the country. I did not have a drivers licence, as in the city there were so many options for travel. When I moved to the North Coast I was shocked to learn that public transport was virtually non-existent. I wanted to work, and an opportunity to teach at the TAFE in Lismore was thwarted by the fact that to teach for four hours was going to involve catching a 7.00 a.m. bus from Byron Bay and not returning until 7.15 that evening. Thankfully, I was able to work independently due to the skills I had from my trade training.

There exists a disadvantage for people in the regions if transport is not seen as a priority. Next week is the seventh anniversary of the removal of the North Coast train service. At a time when an increase in the provision of service for a growing regional community was needed a vital service was taken away. We hope to see the new Government reconsider this issue. So "bring back the train" has been a uniting position from the North Coast community. I acknowledge the inquiry into the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service, chaired by the Hon. Jenny Gardiner, that identified the issues and provided insights into the community need for the service. The inquiry brought the Parliament to the people.

Public transport is a key focus for not only the North Coast but other regions as it is an essential service that affects every aspect of daily life and plays a part in determining a community's access to work, education, health, recreation and community involvement. I can relate a dire situation in which a local woman with breast cancer made the decision to have a mastectomy rather than undergo ongoing treatment after less invasive surgery. She made the decision as she was unable to travel for treatment due to the lack of local medical services and effective transport options. This is only one example of where the limitation of basic services has a dramatic effect on people's lives.

I have experienced exceptional moments with courageous, caring people, from the Aboriginal people of the Bundjalung nation to the fifth-generation dairy farmers, the women of the Country Women's Association— I am a proud member of the Bangalow branch—and the many volunteers who give their time and caring to others. I acknowledge the brave work of the State Emergency Service personnel, the bush firies, the surf 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 677

lifesaving movement and the emergency rescue volunteers. As this week is National Volunteer Week it is important to note the work of volunteers, particularly those in rural and regional areas where there are vast distances between services. The need for localised resilience is vital to the functioning of small communities.

The functioning of society as we know it would stop if it were not for volunteers, and governments would never be able to pay for their valuable contribution. So we should value them highly and ensure we do whatever we can to ease some of the burdens that make it difficult for them to function. When I attend citizenship ceremonies or meet newcomers to my area I also make mention of volunteering and advise people that it is a great way to meet people and gain insight in a new community. There is such a wide choice of activities that it means people can choose an existing interest or skill base area, or venture into a new area.

I thank my parents for giving me the principles of honesty and integrity. As my mother said when some felt I had lost my way with leaving a career to search for a purposeful life in a small community, "She's just like her grandparents, quite old-fashioned." My mother, Norma Barham, and my sister, Linda Kennedy, were here for my swearing in last week and were very proud. My family has always supported me, despite not always understanding me. My late father was a public servant at Tallawarra Power Station and would never help me with my schoolwork. He always told me that the only way to learn was to do it myself, and to always question everything as decisions are what we live with. My brother, Ray, is not a fan of my beliefs. He worked as a railway electrical fitter for his whole life and is a shooter and an archer. But I know he is always there for me.

I worked in this place with Ian Cohen from 1995 until 1999. After working in State Parliament and witnessing some important changes made to legislation to protect and preserve the environment, to enshrine ecologically sustainable development in the Local Government Act, I felt positive about the challenge of local government.

In 1999 I was elected to Byron Shire Council to join fellow Greens councillor Richard Staples. It was a steep learning curve in not only the complex processes of local government but also the harsh reality of the constraints on service delivery. In 2002 a by-election saw the election of Greens councillors Sandra Heilpern and Duncan Dey, which resulted in The Greens being represented by four of the 10 members of that council. In the 2004 general election The Greens were successful in retaining four representatives: Richard Staples, Tom Tabart, John Lazarus and me. In the 2008 general election The Greens were again successful in retaining four representatives: Richard Staples, Tom Tabart, Simon Richardson and me. It should be noted that by no means could it be said that four out of 10, or even four out of nine, constitutes a majority of elected representatives, but that has been the mantra of the detractors and some of the media in relation to Byron Shire Council: a Green dominated council—if only, I say.

I have spent many years on committees and involved in difficult decision-making on the issue of coastal management, and I have relied on some clear guidelines for consideration of impacts set down by the State Government in the 1980s. It appears that the challenge for this Government will be how it deals with climate change and its impacts, and whether it respects scientific advice. I am an arts advocate and I appreciate the expression of who we are as a society. Art portrays and shares our experiences. It is often popular culture that tackles the controversial political issues of the day in a meaningful way for the people and it can define political awareness. I am very pleased to be spokesperson for the arts on behalf of The Greens. I am a feminist and a defender of the disadvantaged. I believe we have a responsibility in a civil society to protect those in need, and we face huge challenges for the future.

I am here because I believe in democracy and the responsibility of being an elected member to serve the people. I know that many people criticise our democracy but there is not a better system; perhaps we have to accept that we are the problem, not the process. The loss of respect for the role of the Parliament and those who serve it saddens me. I believe we have a responsibility to deliver good governance by seeking broad and expansive advice and evidence. I look forward to hearing divergent views. I am respectful of difference and I am delighted if my views can be further informed by others' perspectives. I believe in intergeneration equity and the precautionary principle as guides to good governance. I am here as a realist but also an optimist. I hope that we can work together to deliver good decisions and return to the people of New South Wales trust in this democratic process.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that the valedictory speech of the Hon. John Hatzistergos will be given at 6.00 p.m. In order to allow a little more time for the arrival of the family and friends of the Hon. John Hatzistergos I will now leave the chair and cause the long bell to be rung at 5.58 p.m.

[The President left the chair at 5.45 p.m. The House resumed at 6.00 p.m.] 678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [6.00 p.m.] (Valedictory Speech): When I made my inaugural speech 12 years ago I began by offering my congratulations to the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann on her election to the office of President. Twelve years later I now begin my final speech by extending similar congratulations to the Hon. Don Harwin as the newly elected President. We came into this Chamber at the same time. We knew each other from many years prior when we both worked on disputed election cases that engulfed the State in the early 1990s. I know that for many years he has taken a personal interest in the detailed workings of the Parliament and now he has an opportunity to make a difference in a substantive way. I wish him every success in his new role. I also extend congratulations to the newly elected Deputy-President, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. I wish her every success in her position. In my time in this Chamber we have been very fortunate to have had some outstanding Presiding Officers. I pay tribute to all of them for their contribution.

My path to this House was more of a recruitment exercise by the Australian Labor Party onto its 1999 election ticket. It certainly would not have happened without the instigation of former Premier Bob Carr, then General Secretary John Della Bosca and then Assistant Secretary Eric Roozendaal. My progress into the ministry would also not have happened without the support of the leaders that I served under. I particularly acknowledge the late Jeff Shaw who, sadly, passed away a year and one day ago. Even before I set foot in this Chamber he called me to his office and advised me that I should be aiming to become Attorney General. Certainly I had no aspirations for leadership, although along the way I did become Leader of the Government in this House.

Once, the press gallery in this place decided to do an end-of-year bloopers tape based on Celebrity Survivor. There was one nomination for me to be expelled for being the most boring. The person responsible rang me to apologise and told me that he thought I was good on policy. I suppose that was some comfort. I was also accused once of making the Easter Island statues look animated. I can only respond by saying that at least they are enduring. Rather than being ejected from this place, I am leaving on my own terms. With the election concluded and with a new Government and new Opposition leader, it is the right time for me to depart. It is the right time for me; it is the right time for the party. My job is essentially done, and it is a job I am proud of. It says something about this country that someone such as me, educated and raised in Redfern of immigrant parents, can go on and become a member of Parliament and serve in the highest levels of government. It is a story that is repeated time and time again in this blessed country. But positions are one thing; doing something with them is another. In my inaugural speech to this House I quoted from George Stephanopoulos' book All Too Human, in which he said:

Greeks came … from dozens of islands and hundreds of villages, but here they formed a single clan united by heritage, language, and a need to achieve. Those of us in the second generation understood that honouring the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents—the labourers, cobblers, waiters and cooks—meant getting a good education, putting it to good use—as doctors, lawyers, professors and politicians. Assimilation for Greeks didn't mean blending in; it required standing out. The rules were so clear they didn't need to be said. Make your name, and don't change it. Make us proud and don't forget where you come from.

These comments have resonated with me throughout my time in this place. When I came into this House just over 12 years ago I emphasised that my key objective was to put my position to good use. At that point I had no clear picture of where my future in politics would lie. I had some aspirations, of course. But I should emphasise that becoming health Minister was certainly not one of them. However, for me, any position was of no value unless I could do something with it. I made sure that I did not miss the opportunity.

My first entry to the Cabinet was becoming the Minister for Justice in 2003. It is also a portfolio I also did not aspire to, but I do recall Bob Carr ringing me and building it up as a wonderful and exciting mission. I must say I had some trepidation, not knowing what to expect. The only time you tended to hear about prisons was when there was bad news of something going wrong. I recall coming back from Government House a newly minted Minister to my first meeting with Commissioner Woodham in my Parliament House office. He came in—he was a lot bigger then than he is now—sat in a chair, which I think was a bit too small, and greeted me by saying, "Minister, my job is to see that at the end of your term you are bruised, not battered." If that was a performance measure, he certainly met it.

I took on the task of getting to know my portfolio well, visiting all the correctional facilities, visiting most of the probation offices—as they were then known—and speaking to staff, official visitors, union representatives, inmates and their families, victims and victims groups. I carefully read the upper House committee report into the increase in prison population, which was chaired by the Hon. John Ryan, and the upper House select committee report on mental health, chaired by Dr Brian Pezzutti. That latter report was prepared by a committee in which I participated. Both reports helped prepare me for what needed to be done. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 679

I undertook the role of detailed reform of the parole system, the disciplinary system and the inmate compensation system, as well as security and preparation for dealing with inmates who pose a significant risk to national security.

I was also concerned about the prisoners approaching release who feared it, those who collapsed on day leave excursions, those who asked to self-revoke their parole because they could not cope on the outside, and those who asked for their supervision to be extended because they did not believe they had the skills and capacity to be able to fend for themselves. So we developed the Through-care Program to carefully manage each inmate's journey in custody and through to the parole system. I was concerned for many prisoners who had served their sentences dislocated from families substantial distances away and without programs centred around their specific needs, and for the damaged individuals who had committed crimes but who were themselves often victims of sexual, physical or psychological abuse, compounded with drug and alcohol issues and mental illness.

We sought to address some of these issues through the expansion of facilities to new rural locations and the creation of small female facilities in those locations. For women we also established the first purpose-built women's facility known as Dillwynia and we redeveloped Mulawa, as it was then known. Mental health screening units were established at Silverwater for both men and women, and a new prison and forensic hospital was established on de-gazetted land for those who should not be in the criminal justice system. It was an appalling indictment that for so long in this State we used prisons to contain mentally ill persons who were not convicted of any criminal offence and persons who were otherwise unfit for trial. In addition, a new unit for those with intellectual disabilities was established at Long Bay and Australia's first drug treatment correctional centre was established at Parklea. I was able to follow through on all these initiatives in my subsequent roles in both Health and Justice.

When Morris Iemma became Premier he offered me the Health ministry, and I had the welcome assistance of Cherie Burton as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health) and Frank Sartor as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer). I assumed the role in the aftermath of the Camden and Campbelltown hospitals and before the Garling special commission of inquiry. It is often said of our health system that it is one of the best in the world. Certainly our life expectancy is one of the highest. However, I found the Commonwealth-State interface dysfunctional. At various times I have heard leaders on both sides of the spectrum openly canvass health as being the province of the Federal Government. Neither side has taken it and neither side, in my view, ever will. The Commonwealth Department of Health is probably the only health department that I know of that does not treat a single patient. It has an army of bureaucrats that develops policies that the department imposes by issuing cheques.

Essentially, the Commonwealth has four major funding responsibilities: the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Medical Benefits Scheme, the health insurance rebate and aged care. Apart from aged care these responsibilities are uncapped in terms of volume. By contrast, block funding received by the States for funding hospitals is capped. Whenever a patient could not be accommodated in a nursing home, could not be treated by a private practitioner or was treated unsatisfactorily, could not afford pharmaceuticals or private health insurance, or private hospitals could not accommodate them, the repercussions were felt in public hospitals, whose services, in contrast to other services, are free and subject to expectations that other sections of the system are not.

I encountered one additional problem: the availability of the workforce was heavily dependent on Commonwealth-funded places at universities. Hence, the State was required—not only expected—to put more and more of its own funds into the provision of services but it had to look to other vehicles to provide them through more flexible use of the existing workforce and through running major recruitment campaigns overseas. In my time as Minister for Health this was unavoidable.

On its election the Howard Government followed flawed advice to the effect that the way to contain health expenditure was to limit training places. That was premised on the basis that if you have fewer doctors there will be less illness. Needless to say, this was corrected in more recent times as the impacts became more noticeable and new places were offered in medicine, nursing, dentistry and allied health. I believed that it was important to be honest with people about what unsustainable growth in health expenditure which would see it consume the entire State budget in 30 years if it continues at this rate. So in my term as Minister we began discussions throughout the State with stakeholders about how services could be better delivered.

I also believed that the use of waiting times as a demand-management strategy needed to be addressed. I recall going to meetings of surgeons at which an ophthalmologist commented that he had done the list of cataracts for a colleague on that day but that if they were his patients he would not have done them because they 680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

were not bad enough. I heard a debate between surgeons comparing practices for dealing with certain surgery and differences over the routine need to use intensive care in conjunction with such surgery. With the assistance of the health performance branch and the Surgical Services Taskforce, revised policies were introduced to ensure that elective surgery was done in clinically appropriate time frames. By the time of the 2007 election the long wait list had been reduced from more than 10,000 two years earlier to 50. This work was built on by my successors and sees New South Wales as the best-performing jurisdiction for elective surgery in the country.

I also commenced a major public health initiative called Live Life Well to try to encourage people to take control of their own health. I spent one Friday night with paramedics going around Sydney to see the most reckless behaviour imaginable by people who ought to know better and ought to realise how important it is to look after their own health and safety. I am often intrigued by the measure of hospital beds as an achievement in health. The real aim of any health system should be to keep people well at home with their families and friends, not in hospitals. That is why initiatives to enhance primary health, such as after-hours clinics and the HealthOne initiative that I commenced were so important.

My term as Minister for Health also enabled me to continue projects that I started in earlier times, particularly around Corrections, which did not just include facilities. One of the most successful initiatives that I had some role in was the expansion of the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment Program [MERIT], a program that now covers 80 per cent of defendants appearing before the Local Court and more recently was extended to include alcohol offenders.

Following the 2007 election, Premier Morris Iemma appointed me to the position of Attorney General. I held that position for the entire term of the last Government in combination with a range of different portfolios from time to time. It is a modern characteristic of the office of Attorney General in New South Wales and Australian jurisdictions: more generally that it is held concurrently with other portfolios. It is, however, quite different from the United Kingdom tradition where the Attorney General does not hold other portfolios and is not a standing member of the Cabinet. In my case, however, it did have a number of advantages.

During my time as the Minister for Justice and Attorney General I was able to institute reforms to streamline the use of audiovisual facilities in connection with court matters. I was also able to pursue the abolition of periodic detention and its replacement with intensive corrections orders. As Minister for Industrial Relations and Attorney General I was able to negotiate the entry of New South Wales into the national industrial relations system with a new role for many of the Industrial Relations Commission personnel. As the Minister for Regulatory Reform I embarked on a reform process to streamline and reduce costs associated with debt recovery. As Minister for Citizenship I was able to examine ways of communicating legal rights and responsibilities to recently arrived migrants, as well as enhance the translating and interpreting services used by the court system.

However, I had some outstanding issues that I needed resolved in health. Accordingly, in the two weeks that I was returned as the Minister for Health following the resignation of the Hon. John Della Bosca, I used it effectively to address those unresolved issues that I had with MERIT and the Mental Health Review Tribunal. I did many things as Attorney General that I am proud of. I do not wish this to be an occasion where I take up the debate that I have participated in about charters of rights. I have spoken and written about them extensively. I am proud of that my contribution, together with others who saw the principal recommendations of the Brennan inquiry rejected. However, for me the issue was never about the protection of rights—that is a given.

I defy anyone to examine not just my record but also the record of the Labor Government on this matter: the establishment of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal; the significant changes to relationships laws and to laws in mental health, giving determinative powers to the Mental Health Review Tribunal—something I commenced with the James review; the establishment of the Commission for Children and Young People; the changes to the Status of Children Act; the establishment of a comprehensive legislative framework for surrogacy; improvement of the rights of the disabled and the cognitively impaired through changes to mental health and guardianship laws; the establishment of the Domestic Violence Homicide Review Team, which created the first Act devoted to domestic violence; the enshrinement of victims' rights in law as part of a package of reforms for victims of crime that included establishing a specialised research centre to improve communications relating to victims' issues; the implementation of major reforms to freedom of information and privacy through new legislation and the establishment of the Information and Privacy Commission; the strengthening and reform of sexual assault laws in line with the reports of the Sentencing Council and the Sexual Offences Working Party; and the major expansion of law access and the launching of LawAssist for self-represented litigants. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 681

I also presided over the implementation of major reforms of the Children's Court following the Wood special commission of inquiry and I supported Aboriginal participation in the justice system through circle sentencing Aboriginal justice forums, giving them constitutional recognition and providing a vehicle for recovery of stolen wages. I strengthened the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act by implementing the recommendations of the Moss review. I elevated the role of the Community Relations Commission so that it reports directly to the Premier and Minister for Citizenship. There are many more such examples.

While those involved in the Brennan inquiry were going around the country talking about processes, people in this State were implementing major reforms to human rights. This Parliament should never abandon or contract out its responsibilities to look after the rights of individuals. Rights are not mutually exclusive. The right of freedom of speech can conflict with the right of reputation and privacy. The right of freedom of movement can conflict with the right of private property. There are always balances to be struck and this Parliament with its responsibilities to an electorate and sophisticated infrastructure of consultation is best equipped to determine where the balances should lie rather than courts, where rights are subjugated to legal battlefields. My regret about the Brennan consultation process is that discussion on more meaningful and concrete advancement of rights was sidelined. For example, through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General process I had proposed a national approach to anti-discrimination laws. It is something that was reactivated only following the Commonwealth's response to Brennan.

Earlier I mentioned my experiences as Minister for Justice responsible for prisons. When I became Attorney General, I assumed responsibility for achieving the State Plan target of reducing reoffending by 10 per cent. That was a particular challenge because the State Plan also proposed increased policing and increases compliance activity for persons on bail and parole. We also sought to increase reporting by victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse to bring perpetrators to account. A range of strategies was deployed. We supported and extended court diversion programs for people with drug and alcohol problems, such as the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment program that I mentioned earlier.

We also established a new court-based program known as the Court Referral of Eligible Defendants into Treatment, which refers defendants at high risk of reoffending to treatment services. We introduced a new Fines Act to limit chances of secondary reoffending. We introduced forum sentencing and calibrated it and circle sentencing to address reoffending. We introduced youth conduct orders and recently expanded the Drug Court to the Hunter. This is in addition to some of the matters that I referred to earlier in Corrections such as intensive corrections orders. However, I would add that for the first time we established community offender service program centres as correctional halfway houses to assist in the transition of offenders to the community and community compliance groups with significant increased resources.

The figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] show that in the first two years of the plan we are almost halfway towards reaching that target. The observed rate of reoffending for adults released from custody in 2007-08 showed a 4.8 per cent reduction in the rate of reoffending. The observed rate of reoffending for the 2007-08 cohort of adults given non-custodial orders showed a 3.9 per cent reduction in the rate of reoffending. The rate of reoffending for offenders returning to community corrections in New South Wales in 2008-09 was 13 per cent—a very favourable figure compared to the national average of 17.8 per cent for that year. This was achieved at the same time that we witnessed drops in incarceration both on the adult and juvenile cohorts.

I acknowledge that more needs to be done. I had commenced reviews both of the Bail Act and standard non-parole periods. I will not be here to debate what will follow in this area. However, I encourage the simplistic commentators to read the empirical research before jumping to conclusions. In particular, I urge them to read the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research study entitled "Bail Presumption and Risk of Bail Refusal— An Analysis of the New South Wales Bail Act Presumptions from July 2010" and the report entitled "Why does New South Wales have a higher imprisonment rate than Victoria?" of December 2010.

The fact is that the criminal law always invokes passionate discussion from individuals and media in a way that other areas of law do not. An aberrant sentence will often invoke much more coverage than the latest constitutional decision of the High Court. My approach, for what it is worth, has been to try to engage in that discussion in a sensible, not sensationalist, way. I have not readily passed up opportunities to do so and have even proactively sought to engage the community through public forums and making available a broad range of resources. 682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

I have the greatest respect for the judicial officers of this State, many of whose appointments I have been responsible for recommending. I particularly pay tribute to Chief Justice Spigelman, who will shortly be retiring. I thank him for his inspired leadership and contribution to this State. I also thank him yet again for his assistance and cooperation.

I am particularly proud of the work undertaken to enhance alternative dispute resolution and non-adversarial justice options in this State and, in particular, to achieve the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreement on new uniform arbitration laws and the establishment of Australia's first dedicated international dispute resolution centre in Sydney. The last of these would not have been achieved without the Chief Justice's inspired advice and the cooperation of my colleagues around the country. I refer, in particular, to Commonwealth Attorney-General, Robert McClelland—a great Attorney who was always happy to give me his time and to cooperate on the initiatives that I thought were important.

There are many other achievements that I am proud of, including the continuation of the work of my predecessors relating to the James Hardie matter in order to ensure that victims continued to receive benefits in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and early work to ensure that cleaners were able to obtain long service leave notwithstanding the fact that they may have been contracted by various employers over the course of the eligibility period. The point I would make, however, is that all this would have been lost on the casual observer reading daily headlines following the electricity debate and the associated disunity, not to mention the litany of individual failings, leadership and ministerial changes. Anyone viewing these events could be excused for believing that we were behaving as though we owned government rather than being entrusted with it, and that we had lost sight of the people we served. Public office is a vehicle to advance the public interest, not patronage preferment or personal vendettas. So what of myself in this situation? Len King, a former South Australian Chief Justice and Attorney General once described the Attorney General's position in these terms:

It is the essentially political character of the office and portfolio of Attorney-General as it has developed in this country, which, paradoxically, makes it necessary to restate and re-emphasise the characteristics of the office which give rise to a distinction in kind between the role within Government of the Attorney-General and the roles of other ministers. The distinction essentially is that the Attorney-General as law minister has, beyond the political responsibilities of a ministerial portfolio of the same nature as the responsibilities of other ministers, a special responsibility for the rule of law and the integrity of the legal system which transcends, and may at times be in conflict with, political exigencies. The Attorney-General has the unique role in Government of being the political guardian of the administration of justice. It is the special role of the Attorney-General to be the voice within Government and to the public which articulates, and insists upon observance of, the enduring principles of legal justice, and upon respect for the judicial and other legal institutions through which they are applied.

Throughout my term as Attorney General I was conscious of the distinct role and expectations that pertained to the position. For that reason I was circumspect as to my own involvement, and I did not want to see associated criticism in my areas of responsibility or of myself. I was particularly anxious to protect the reputation of the office that I held. I saw my role very much as supporting the Premier and, through him or her, the Government through the provision of frank advice.

I was more than happy to argue our policies and issues that needed to be argued and, wherever necessary, to involve myself where I felt that it would be compatible with the office and the responsibilities that I held. Many of the judicial officers who have written to me on this occasion have remarked on this point. It is something also that I observed in my predecessors. It is something I will have more to say about in my post-retirement writing—not that I am suggesting that the current Attorney General needs advice. I regard him as a fundamentally decent person and I suspect he is well aware of what I am saying. I believed that my role was to serve the people and, in particular, the Government through steadfast loyalty to incumbent leaders. I was determined, as I indicated, to ensure that my office was free of controversy and, to that extent, not to involve myself in plotting or counterplotting. Indeed, in all my time in Parliament I can categorically state that I have not once leaked a confidence or backgrounded against a colleague.

When I concluded my inaugural speech I gave my final thanks to my family. Today I intend to give them my first thanks. Twelve years ago my wife Maria, and my children, Theo, Constance and Irene, were sitting exactly where they are tonight. Irene was born on election night 12 years ago—she is now in high school. Connie, who unbeknown crawled onto the Chamber podium, is also in high school. Theo, who was in kindergarten, is this year doing his Higher School Certificate. I mention these facts because public life has coincided with much of their upbringing. I begin by expressing to them my heartfelt thanks and appreciation for all the love and support they have given to me and continue to give to me, along with my extended family—our parents, brothers and sisters and their children. There are not too many occasions where one has the opportunity to acknowledge in a public way the role that family has to play in a political career. Tonight is one occasion and, accordingly, I state from the outset that much of what I have achieved would not have been possible without them. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 683

I thank the four Premiers that I have had the privilege of serving under: Bob Carr, Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally. The positions that I have held and the reforms that I have implemented would not have been possible without their support. I acknowledge also the two Parliamentary Secretaries who worked with me: Paul McLeay and Barry Collier. Nothing I ever asked of them was declined. I am deeply grateful to all my personal staff who worked with me over my years in Parliament. A number of them worked for the entire eight years that I was in the ministry. All of them played a crucial role in the day-to-day functioning of a busy ministerial office. I acknowledge those who have served eight years: Peta Maree Stapleton, my private secretary; Christine Black, my chief of staff; Andrew Mellas, my policy adviser; and Jason Stuttle, my driver.

The collective reputation of ministerial staff is often trashed in the adverserialism of politics with connotations of them being overpaid spin merchants. Responding to calls from the public, members of Parliament and the media, engaging with stakeholders, developing proposals for legislation, collation of Cabinet and Cabinet committee minutes and responses, meeting with government departments, and navigating legislation through Parliament are often airbrushed from the position description. Certainly, from my own experience, I have nothing but praise for them. I thank them not only on my behalf but also on behalf of those throughout the State who have been the beneficiaries of their services. I acknowledge the many fine public servants with whom I have interacted over the years. Without their assistance little of substance could be achieved.

In the lead-up to the election the now Premier made comments about the politicisation of the public sector under the previous Government. That is a debate for another day. However, during my time as Minister most of the heads of agencies for which I had responsibility also served the previous Government and many are serving the present Government. I mention just four: Commissioner Ron Woodham in Corrective Services; Laurie Glanfield in the Department of Justice and Attorney General; Robyn Kruk, the former Director General of Health; and Stephan Kerkyasharian, Chief Executive of the Community Relations Commission. There are others as well.

I wish to make the point that I had no difficulty working with them. Each had a professional work ethic, understanding the principles of our system of government and loyally serving me as they had my predecessors and successors. They did not hesitate to challenge my views when necessary and I welcomed it when they did. I thank them all—not just the ones I have named—for their significant contribution to my achievements and for their ongoing commitment and professionalism in the service of the people of this State. I thank the various stakeholder groups with whom I have interacted for their assistance in developing proposals for action. One of the strengths of our system of government is that it allows ordinary people to interface with the political system and to contribute to the workings of government. Many people have done this in my time, perhaps because I had a very open-door policy when it came to consultation. Time does not permit me to mention all of the stakeholders, although the various victims groups and the professional legal associations—the Law Society and the New South Wales Bar Association—perhaps deserve particular acknowledgement for their assistance.

I thank the committees of the Parliament. When I first came into this place the then Leader of the Government, Michael Egan, saw to it that I was kept busy with as much committee work as possible. In that time I came to see the value of committees as a vehicle to achieving a consensus approach to complex issues which required detailed consultation and political analysis. The Joint Select Committee on Victim Compensation, the Joint Select Committee on Mental Health, the General Purpose Standing Committee Inquiry into Cabramatta Policing, the Law and Justice Committee inquiry into Crime Prevention through Social Support, the inquiry into the Bill of Rights, the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Committee on the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission were just some of the committees that I served on, and they each achieved meaningful change. That is why I made a point of using them as a Minister. Perhaps this was most noticeable with the Standing Committee on Law and Justice of this House, which received six references from me and has seen many of its recommendations implemented in either administrative arrangements or through legislation.

I know for any ambitious politician the prospect of spending an extended time on the backbench can be frustrating. I used it as an opportunity to learn and to become a better contributor. There are many people I have admired and learnt from in my time—too numerous to specify. Bob Carr, Michael Egan and Johno Johnson— who was here at my first speech and is here on my final speech today—and many other people stand out. To this day I remain truly amazed at the late Doug Moppett and the erudite way he could speak without notes on just about anything. He could compete with some of the best silks around. 684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

Duncan Gay came to an induction when I first was elected to this House where he said not to take your political differences outside the job. He was right. Each member of Parliament who is elected to this House irrespective of their allegiances is entitled to a level of courtesy and respect. In my time as Minister I made a point of seeing members of Parliament who wanted to see me, taking their calls if they wished to speak to me, answering correspondence personally and oversighting responses to committee reports irrespective of their origins. I took exception on one occasion where, in my absence, correspondence addressed to me was used against the member who had made representations to me, and I made my views known.

I thank the men and women of the Australian Labor Party who saw fit to allow me this opportunity and to the people of New South Wales who saw fit to endorse the recommendation on two occasions at the ballot box. It has been an amazing journey and, if I can use the Greek immigrant performance criteria, I hope I have put my position to good use.

I extend my very best wishes to you all—the new Government, which comes to office with significant expectations and responsibility for realising them, and to my own colleagues for the significant task that lies ahead. When I became a Minister, Michael Egan generously gave me a copy of Gerard Kaufmann's book How to be a Minister. The final chapter of the book is entitled "How to leave". In due course, I would be happy to lend it to anyone who might be interested. Suffice to say that the cardinal rule about how to leave is first to be certain of it. I am.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I draw to the attention of honourable members that joining us in the public gallery today is the General Consul of Greece, Vassileios Tolios. We thank him for attending.

INSPECTOR OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, a report entitled "Report of an Audit of Applications for and Execution of Surveillance Device Warrants and Retrieval Warrants by the Independent Commission Against Corruption", dated April 2011, received out of session and authorised to be made public this day.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Ajaka.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.42 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

CRIME TRENDS

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [6.42 p.m.]: As honourable members would be aware, the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] produces on an annual basis a report recording crime statistics for the preceding year. On 19 April 2011 the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research released the "2010 NSW Recorded Crime Statistics" annual report. It is a most detailed report that contains not just annual figures for various categories of crime but also longitudinal information and analysis. The aggregating of information by local government area and statistical division is also very helpful in identifying trends in criminal activity around New South Wales.

Arising out of this statistical analysis are the issue papers produced by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research entitled, "Crime and Justice Statistics—Bureau Brief". These are produced from time to time and drill down into the numbers in more detail. This evening I draw the attention of honourable members to "Issue Paper No. 58", which examines the long-term trends in property and violent crime in New South Wales for the period 1990-2010. It must be said that aspects of the report are positive. It shows, amongst other things, 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 685

comparing per capita rates over the 20-year period, that the rate of murder is 50 per cent lower, motor vehicle theft is 70 per cent lower, robbery with a firearm is 66 per cent lower and break and enter a non-dwelling is 62 per cent lower. These figures, along with others, demonstrate that when it comes to law and order in this State, the Labor Party, which was in government for much of that 20-year period, has a great deal to be proud of. Time will tell whether the Coalition can manage law and order to such a high standard.

These figures demonstrate also how fortunate we are in New South Wales to have such a dedicated and capable police force. It is true that governments develop and implement policies but without the hard work and devotion of our police the outcomes that we see would never have been achieved. On behalf of the citizens of this State I thank the men and women of the New South Wales Police Force for what they have done and for what they continue to do for us all. It must be said, though, that not all the news is good. I draw to the attention of the House the trends around both sexual assault and "other" sexual offences. On page 2 the issue paper states:

Over the period from 1990 to 2010 NSW recorded increases in the crime rate of both sexual assault (up 128%) and "other" sexual offences (up 67%). In both cases, the sharpest rises occurred in the mid to late 1990s and the statistical trend test for other sexual offences as reported last year continues to be stable. Sexual assault, however, is the only offence reporting 2010 as having the highest rate over the years since 1990 and remains the only offence registering an upward trend over the period from 2000 to 2010.

Figure 3 on page 3 of the issue paper shows the trend lines. They are, in my view, a matter of serious concern and deserve more examination and analysis. One must always exercise care when looking at matters like these. What are we actually seeing? The statistics show increases in "recorded" crime rates. The upward trend would indicate that more of those offences are being recorded than was the case in the past. To have this information provides a clearer picture of reality, that is, what is going on. The upward trend is disturbing. However, what is of more concern is that we are perhaps not seeing the whole picture. In the Australian Institute of Criminology report "Australian crime: Facts & figures" 2009, figure 19 on page 25 breaks down the sexual assault to offender relationship percentages for 2008. The figures are most revealing. They are that 22 per cent were committed by a stranger, 32 per cent were by a family member and 46 per cent were by a known other. "Known other" includes known non-family member and known but not further defined, which may include some family members.

Looking at overall statistics, where the relationship between victim and offender was stated, 78 per cent of victims of sexual assault knew the offender. I again make the point that one needs to be careful. Aggregation of data using definitions that may not be precisely the same can cause distortions or variances. However, on the face of the numbers and the trendlines, there are matters about which we should be all concerned. Why this is happening, namely, the causes, and what can be done to address the situation deserves our serious collective attention right now.

TRIBUTE TO JOSEVA ROKOQO

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.46 p.m.]: Tonight I inform the House of the untimely and tragic death of one of our most loved former staff members, Joe Rokoqo. Joe was born in Suva and was from the village of Daku on the island of Kia offshore from Vanua Levu in the Fiji Islands. He went to public school in Suva and in 1978 came to Australia to study hospitality at Ryde Catering College. Joe was a good student and graduated with qualifications in Food and Beverage Management. His first position in 1980 was at Steele's Catering at Sydney International Airport. He then went on to work in the dining room of North Sydney Travelodge. In 1987 he married his sweetheart, Mere Koroi, from the Island of Moturiki. Mere was the first Fijian woman to become a qualified hairdresser in this country. Mere and Joe had a long and happy marriage for 24 years until his untimely death on Easter Sunday.

Joe and Mere lived in Neutral Bay, and when Joe was not working, he took every opportunity to indulge in his favourite pastime—playing golf. Joe was a very good player and played both at Cammeray golf course and later at Canterbury. In 1989 he took up a position as Assistant Food and Beverage Manager in our catering section in the Parliament, where he worked for the next 16 years. In our eyes he was the boss—no job was too big, too small or too inconvenient. Big Joe was universally popular in the Parliament. He greeted everybody in the same manner. We were all equal in his eyes—Premiers, Ministers, backbenchers, staffers and visitors. All were met with a beaming smile, arms outstretched and a hearty greeting. He was a gentle giant of a man and earned the respect of everybody who knew him.

When the catering section was closed Joe took 12 months off to spend time with his family, as by then he had been working for over 26 years. During the years of their marriage Mere and Joe were very active in 686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

their community. They fostered five children from Barnardo's Homes and loved them as their own. After golf, rugby union was Joe's favourite sport and when his eldest son, Joey, became a successful rugby league player with the Cronulla Sharks under 20s, he was a very proud dad, attending every training session and game. Joe loved all his children equally, and Mere spoke often of his life passion to help children find the right path, and ultimately become happy young men and women, fulfilling their potential and reaching their goals, as Joe led by example.

Joe became a men's fellowship leader in his church and a deacon of the Lighthouse Foundation. He liaised with the New South Wales police department regarding troubled youth of South Pacific Island origin, acting as counsellor, advocate and sponsor on their behalf. He was a justice of the peace, and helped out in his community whenever needed. Members and staff who were fortunate enough to know Joe would have always seen him as a shining example of a successfully integrated migrant to this country, a loyal and hardworking employee, a devoted husband and father, a church member, a community leader, and a friend to anyone who crossed his path. Joe Rokoqo was all those things. What some of us did not know is that Joe had to fight hard to achieve those attributes. There were times when it did not come easy for him; there were times when it all seemed too hard. But he fought on and beat his addictions, with Mere's love and guidance and his faith in his God. Joe eventually overcame his demons through helping others.

Joe's ability to forgive anyone for anything was a remarkable part of his character. When my hometown friend from Orbost, Robyn Ritchie's daughter Natasha was born, Mere's smiling face soon appeared around the door to her room, bearing the biggest chocolate cake she had ever seen, either before or since. Robyn's partner and Natasha's father was Joe's best mate from Fiji, Niko Koroi. Uncle Joe became Natasha's soulmate, and she was holding his hand in church on Easter Sunday when Joe excused himself because he was not feeling well. He was found outside where he had collapsed a few minutes later. The world was a better place because of Joe Rokoqo and it will remain a better place because of his legacy. May God bless you, Joe, and may you rest in eternal peace.

KANGAROO HUNTING

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [6.51 p.m.]: Tonight I will be brief, but it would be remiss of me not to shine a light on the insidious erosion of academic integrity in Australia. I refer, of course, to the growing practice of extreme animal rights organisations trying to buy credibility for their views by exploiting universities' reliance on private sector funding. Sadly, we need look no further than the University of Technology, Sydney—my old alma mater, though I studied in the faculty of business studies, a faculty that dwells in the real world of commerce, money and employment—to see how this duplicitous practice is spreading. The University of Technology, Sydney, now harbours a so-called think tank for research into kangaroos, which sounds like a laudable undertaking. But who is behind the group? Let me tell the House. This so-called think tank is funded by none other than Voiceless, one of the most well-funded and extreme animal rights groups in the country.

A look at the staff of this so-called research group proves most illuminating. Among them are partners of officeholders in Voiceless, former employees of Voiceless, high-profile animal rights lobbyists, and, indeed, individuals known for taking extreme actions in an attempt to shut down primary production in this country. The sole intent of this group is to destroy one of the world's finest examples of sustainable use—commercial macropod harvesting. This harvesting has been going on for decades and the kangaroo has not become extinct— as we were all warned by the animal rights activists all those years ago. Kangaroos have flourished on the rich, well-watered pastures made available to them by farmers.

To claim that this group has any academic objectivity on the topic of macropod harvesting is absolutely farcical. This group does not care that the harvest is both sustainable and well regulated, with quotas set on the basis of solid science. The fact that macropod harvesting puts food on the table for rural families, and provides a reliable source of income for struggling communities, means nothing to the affluent, highly urbanised animal rights lobby. This group is so disinterested in the wellbeing of ordinary Australians that it is happy to spend millions of dollars setting up an ideologically driven propaganda machine, hidden behind a once credible university logo.

Not a single piece of anti-kangaroo shooting propaganda released by this group passes scientific muster. If Australian universities wish to regain their former world-class reputation, they need to think seriously about what it is they are really signing up to, when a rich benefactor holds out a fat wallet and asks for favours. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 687

It is high time for an inquiry into university funding, to fully expose this shameful and exploitative practice. Perhaps the State Government should have a close look at the University of Technology, Sydney, and its relationship with this so-called think tank.

THE HON. JOHN HATZISTERGOS

WORKFORCE CASUALISATION

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [6.55 p.m.]: First I would like to place on record my sincere and heartfelt good wishes for my colleague and friend the former Attorney General and Minister, the Hon. John Hatzistergos. I thank him for his excellent public service and his enormous contribution to New South Wales. His legacy will include the strident advances he made for women, particularly the legislation to strengthen laws that relate to violence against women and children. He also advanced the cause of cultural diversity and community harmony in New South Wales, for which I applaud him. I wish him and his family the best of luck and a healthy and prosperous future.

I bring to the attention of the House the growing concern that working families feel in relation to the increasing casualisation of work. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2010 show that there were 9.8 million employees in Australia. An incredible 2.2 million employees—over 20 per cent—are now casual workers. We are closely approaching the stage where one in four employees will be casual workers. In the years 1992 to 2009 growth in casual workers working an equivalent to full-time hours in part-time roles significantly outstripped standard job growth in the workforce, with an increase from 16 per cent in 1992 to the 22 per cent currently reported.

Alarmingly, the incidence of casualisation is growing in the semi-professional and professional workforces, where standard work was considered the norm. For example, in the same years, 1992 to 2009, the media and communications industry has had the largest growth in casual work, with casuals increasing from 8 per cent to 17 per cent. Increases were noted also in other standard job industries such as construction, manufacturing and transport. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that 55 per cent of casual employees are women. Another significant shift has occurred. Basically the casualisation of the workforce has gone beyond the concept of working mums and students. The number of men working as casuals has increased as a proportion of the casual workforce, from 39 per cent in 1992 to 44 per cent in 2009.

It has been reported that there is also growth in the casualisation of the workforce in the prime working age groups, being 24 to 54. A substantial group of men in their strongest earning and working years are now on casual working arrangements. In addition to all this, a substantial number of casuals, reported as 605,000 workers, work full-time hours but clearly without any of the workplace benefits or rights of full-time permanent workers. Casual workers get no sick leave or holiday leave. If they break their service for more than two months they lose their continuity of long service leave. They are not entitled to severance pay, as in some awards employers are not required to give notice of termination.

In short, we are observing a worrying increase in precarious employment in Australia. It could be fair to say that casual work is replacing the solid structure of permanent standard work—jobs that have been the traditional and sound foundation of the Australian family—with the insecurity, anxiety, financial stress and intense challenges that precarious casual employment brings. However, some would argue that we should not worry about it, that workers have chosen to go to casual work as a preference over permanent work or for the extra casual loading that is paid. But on these points the research does not give us much confidence. It has been reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that 52 per cent—that is, about half—of all casual employees would prefer not to work on as casual workers even when taking into account the effect this may have on their income. Most of these employees preferred to have paid holiday leave and sick leave, and their job security. In short, though, there is a need for flexible arrangements; it should not be at the expense of job security.

As to the additional pay by way of casual loading, another Australian Bureau of Statistics report in 2009 stated that only half of casual employees—48 per cent—received their casual loading, which is a worrying concern. One of the conclusions of a study by the Sydney University Workplace Research Centre in 2010 was the growing tendency towards casualisation, especially the spike in such type of employment after the global financial crisis of 2008. Now in the post-global financial crisis climate we must actively promote job security by encouraging industry, businesses and workers to convert from casual to permanent employment, to ensure that workers and families are preserved from the anxiety and stress that are created by insecure working arrangements. 688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

Working families face intense cost of living pressures of which we are all aware. Many of these families would include a casual employee, possibly one of the 50 per cent who wants to be a permanent employee or one of the remaining 50 per cent who does not get paid a casual leave loading. In the face of growing financial pressures, these families face growing workplace insecurity. Importantly, it is the most vulnerable who feel the pressure: the 50 per cent of casual workers who are women, the working mums who may have to juggle sick children or their own illnesses with inflexible rosters. I pause to mention the former Labor Government reforms that have assisted casual workers. Despite the assistance provided by Labor initiatives, the trend in casualisation in the workforce continues. I encourage the Government to work with the Commonwealth, the business sector and unions in considering the wellbeing of employees through a cooperative approach that enhances a less insecure working society.

ELECTION RESULT

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.00 p.m.]: This has been a day of high emotion in the Chamber. Earlier today the Hon. Greg Pearce made an emotional ministerial statement acknowledging the passing of Anthea Kerr, and it was very moving to have her children and family in the public gallery. It was good to see the Chamber come together as one to support the family at a very difficult time. I also acknowledge the wonderful valedictory speech of the Hon. John Hatzistergos. It was great to learn about John's background and his strengths and what his achievements have been for the people of New South Wales. It is true that John has been the Chamber's Easter Island statue, but from time to time his goodwill, wit and humour have surprised us all. Some members may be incredulous that John and I became gym buddies. Whenever I was at the gym he would turn up, or I would turn up when he was there, and we developed a relationship at the gym—of all places. That may be testament to the Live Life Well program that he introduced as Minister for Health. I was particularly interested in John's reference to the 3Ps: plotting, patronage and personal vendettas.

It should not go unnoticed that this is the first day that the Hon. Eddie Obeid has not been in the Chamber. In the spirit of bipartisanship, it is appropriate to acknowledge some of the work that Eddie has been involved in around regional New South Wales over the past 16 years. Eddie Obeid's work has had a profound impact on politics in regional New South Wales, and history should record that. I openly admit that Eddie has always been polite, engaging and terribly witty. But the irony of my occupying his office has not gone unnoticed. I cannot believe the number of visitors I have had to my office in the past 24 hours—people wanting to look at what was the inner sanctum. They have mostly been interested to see whether there are stains on the walls or carpets. There are no stains. The relationship between Eddie Obeid and Richard Torbay should also be addressed. In some respects that relationship had a positive impact for the Labor Party because it kept the Liberal Party and The Nationals incredibly busy fighting hard contests in many regional seats, not against the Labor Party but against the Independents—and history will record that. Phillip Hanna, who was Richard Torbay's campaign director, has very strong family connections with Eddie Obeid.

The Labor Party needs to engage in some self-reflection because we need strong political parties in New South Wales. The vote in Northern Tablelands for the Labor Party in 1995 was 36.3 per cent; it is now down to 3.4 per cent. Between 1981 and 1987 Bill McCarthy, a very fine Labor member who had a good standing in the community, held the seat of Northern Tablelands. Labor is now down to 3.4 per cent of the vote from the high watermark when it held the seat, which was lost in a by-election. Labor Party branches throughout the regions have collapsed. The Labor vote in Tamworth is down to 4 per cent and in Port Macquarie it is down to 3 per cent. Yes, the game has been on—and it has involved not just the Hon. Eddie Obeid. The Hon. Tony Kelly, Bob Carr and Eric Roozendaal have also been involved; it was a strategy from the highest level. [Time expired.]

TEACHER BONUS SCHEME

Dr JOHN KAYE [7.05 p.m.]: On 2 May 2011 the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, announced what will prove to be the most disastrous educational policy this country has ever seen. The Gillard Government announced new funding to start the delivery of Australia's first national system of pay bonuses for around 25,000 teachers. This means that approximately one in 10 of the most experienced teachers will receive a bonus of about $8,100 and teachers in the first years of their careers will receive $4,500. It also means that nine in 10 teachers will not receive a bonus. The Prime Minister intends to award the bonus on the basis of evidence such as lesson observations, parental feedback, teacher qualifications, professional development undertaken and student performance data, including National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] and school-based information that shows the so-called value added by particular teachers. 11 May 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 689

The announcement was greeted by cries of exasperation from all those who genuinely care about education outcomes and the quality of our schools. There is no-one in this country who does not accept that quality teachers are very important. But there is absolutely no evidence that performance-based pay works. In fact, if the Prime Minister had looked carefully she would have found evidence that it works against good teaching outcomes. In making the announcement, the Prime Minister said on ABC radio:

We want to reward great teaching so the individuals who are doing it experience the benefits of those rewards so we can model what great teaching is to the rest of the teaching workforce...

If you monitor and give feedback so that you identify great teaching, that does put you in a virtuous circle where great teaching does become more and more prevalent and that's what we want to see. We know independent research conducted as recently as this year shows that a system of meaningful appraisal and feedback for teachers can increase their effectiveness by 20 to 30 per cent.

The logical inconsistencies in the Prime Minister's argument are appalling. On the one hand, she says that good teaching and good feedback to teachers is important, and, on the other hand, she takes a leap—a leap big enough to cross Govetts Leap—and says it means that teachers need performance-based pay. The reality of performance-based pay amplifies the damage done by the My School website and league tables by increasing the stakes of basic testing.

Teaching at its best is a cooperative activity, whereby staffrooms act to help support and nurture young teachers and share resources. Introducing performance-based pay is a guaranteed way of destroying cooperation and destroying teaching. It is impossible to measure the performance of teachers. Brian Caldwell, a well-known former dean of education and now professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne, is reported to have said:

Getting valid reliable evidence on more than 100 standards on 250,000 teachers by 2013 will be no more than a tick-a-box exercise which could lead to a class action lawsuit against the allocation of those funds ...

I am not aware of any national system of education that has successfully implemented such a bonus pay scheme for teachers. There is no evidence they have any impact on improving [student] learning.

Professor Caldwell said also that it was inappropriate to use National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy test scores to evaluate music, history and art teachers. At the very best, some of the measures proposed by the Prime Minister are subjective and impossible to put a value on. Disadvantaged areas will find it increasingly difficult to attract teachers and difficult-to-educate kids will find themselves thrown out onto the streets, which is precisely what has happened in the United States of America.

Coincidentally, Professor Linda Darling-Hammond from Stanford University was visiting New South Wales when the Prime Minister made this announcement. Professor Linda Darling-Hammond is a well-known expert on education policy, and I was present when she gave a speech during her visit. In that speech she pointed out the absolute lack of evidence of any benefit in a system of performance pay based on common diagnostic tests—in fact, there is strong evidence to show that not only does it not work but it destroys teacher quality and undermines teaching. She said that in places such as Finland, Shanghai, Korea and Hong Kong— which outperform Australia and certainly outperform the United States in reading, maths and science—the real test is to invest in equity, in quality pre-service training and in career-long development. That allows teachers time to reflect on their teaching practices, to talk to each other and to provide a curriculum that encourages questioning and investigation. She concluded her speech by saying:

The US is taking a U-turn away from test-based accountability ... We hope not to meet Australia heading in the other direction in seeking policies we have sought to move away from.

[Time expired.]

ELECTION RESULT

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.10 p.m.]: Tonight I want to reflect on the election of 26 March 2011 and the historic win for the Coalition Government. At the outset, I congratulate the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner on her ascension to the chair as Deputy-President. I am sure she will do a wonderful job in that capacity. As to our historic win in the election on 26 March 2011, in particular, I note that 41 of the Coalition's 69 seats are held with a margin of above 20 per cent. I note also that 69 seats out of 93 is the largest win in the history of New South Wales. In fact, the swing, which was uniform across many seats, is of an order that will never be seen again. The Coalition's win signifies the death bells tolling for the Australian Labor Party, a party that is totally out of touch with its constituency in New South Wales. The Greens polled 690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 2011

higher than the Australian Labor Party in a number of seats. The New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party will have to look carefully at that situation.

During the New South Wales election I was particularly involved with two campaigns, and I congratulate the two fine members from those campaigns who were parachuted into Parliament. The first is Mr Bryan Doyle in the seat of Campbelltown, who made his maiden speech this week. He will be an excellent member for Campbelltown and will make an extraordinary contribution in a seat that was long neglected by the New South Wales Labor Party machine. The other member, who made her maiden speech today, is Mrs Roza Sage, the member for Blue Mountains. She is very passionate about her local community and she too will be an excellent member. I wish them and all the members who won so brilliantly on 26 March success in their careers. I also congratulate my colleagues the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and the Hon. Scot MacDonald, who have joined this place for the next eight years, and perhaps many more. I am sure they will make a significant contribution to this place. I congratulate all members of the Coalition team, including the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones. The Liberal Party is rejuvenating itself and will make a significant contribution over the coming term of this Parliament.

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m. until Thursday 12 May 2011 at 9.30 a.m.

______