ADJOURNMENT 2721 AGEING STRATEGY 2700 AGQUIP 2015 AND NSW LIVESTOCK LOADING SCHEME 2701 ASSENT TO BILLS 2679 BIOSECURITY BILL 2015 2683 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 2682, 2682 CENTENARY OF FIRST WORLD WAR 2679 CENTRAL COAST DISABILITY HOUSING 2693 COFFS HARBOUR SLIPWAY 2697 COMMISSION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE 2679 DEMOCRACY IN BURMA 2680 FIREARMS REGISTRY 2696 FITTED FOR WORK 2721 GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4 2681, 2681 GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5 2682, 2702, 2709 GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY 2716 HENDRA VIRUS VACCINE 2691 HOSPITAL PATIENT EVICTION 2697 IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY PROGRAM 2698 LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE 2681 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILLOR CONDUCT 2694 M4 EAST 2695 MALE CHAMPIONS OF CHANGE 2724 MOTOR REGISTRY CLOSURES 2696 MULTICULTURAL MEDIA AND INDIGENOUS AWARDS 2725 NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME 2690, 2692, 2693 OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN'S GUARDIAN 2679 PETITIONS 2682 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2679 POLICE POWERS 2692 PORT MACQUARIE PLAZA CAR PARK 2722 QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS 2698 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2690 REDFLEX 2695 ROHINGYA REFUGEES 2680 RURAL FIRES AMENDMENT (BUSH FIRE PREVENTION) BILL 2015 2721 RURAL HEALTH SERVICES 2723 SELECT COMMITTEE ON MINISTERIAL PROPRIETY IN NEW SOUTH WALES 2711 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SUPPLY AND COST OF GAS AND LIQUID FUELS IN NEW SOUTH WALES 2681 SHARK INCIDENT RESPONSE 2693 SHENHUA WATERMARK COALMINE 2699 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT 2682, 2683 TECH SAVVY SENIORS AUSLAN PROGRAM 2696 YORK STREET, SYDNEY, FLOODING 26 90

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 25 August 2015

______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President read the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills was reported:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Firearms Offences) Bill 2015 Workers Compensation Amendment Bill 2015 State Insurance and Care Governance Bill 2015

COMMISSION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Report

The President tabled the final annual report of the Commission for Children and Young People for the period 1 July 2014 to 9 January 2015, also incorporating the financial statements from 1 July 2013 to 9 January 2015, received and authorised to be made public this day.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN'S GUARDIAN

Report

The President tabled, pursuant to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912, the report of the Children's Guardian into a review of Child-Related Conduct Declarations by members elected at the 2015 General Election and Periodic Legislative Council election, received and authorised to be made public this day.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The President informed the House that a member of the Legislative Council staff would be taking photographs in the Chamber for use in official publications.

CENTENARY OF FIRST WORLD WAR

The PRESIDENT: During August, September and October 1915 recruitment for the Australian Imperial Force continued apace as demands for more troops for both Gallipoli and the Western Front continued and grew. In those months, four men closely associated with this Parliament volunteered for service. George Edden, a Chamber attendant, enlisted on 6 September 1915 and served with the Australian Army Service Corps in France. It was with this corps that James Ridley, another Chamber attendant, served, although he enlisted in October 1915 and served in the Middle East. Walter James Rose-Bray was a Clerk in the Legislative Assembly who enlisted on 10 August 1915 and served with the Australian Imperial Force in the Middle East.

Volunteering for service during the Great War were three of the seven sons of James McGowen, the Premier of New South Wales from 1910 to 1913. His third son, Stanley Redfern McGowen, enlisted on 16 August 1915, just four days after his elder brother, Frank, was wounded at Gallipoli and a week before the death in combat of a younger brother. Stanley Redfern McGowen, who had previously been a Clerk in the Legislative Assembly, served in the Australian Medical Corps in the Middle East. After the war he returned to service in this Parliament, becoming Chief Clerk in the office of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Unlike many other servants of this Parliament, each of these four brave men was to return from the war and resume their careers. However, the McGowen boys remind us how tragically common it was for one family to have more than one of their sons at the Western Front and to run the risk that their family losses would be numerous. One cannot help reflect upon the stories of how many families lost more than one family member, often serving together and dying alongside each other. Lest we forget.

Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.

ROHINGYA REFUGEES

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [2.35 p.m.]: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 228 outside the Order of Precedence for today of which I have given notice by omitting paragraph (2) and inserting instead:

(2) That this House notes the sufferings of the Burmese Rohingya people and the inhumane way they are treated as refugees.

Leave granted.

Motion by the Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) the Rohingya people are amongst the world's most persecuted people;

(b) from January to May 2015, thousands of Rohingya refugees have attempted to flee Myanmar and Bangladesh by boat, only to be washed up on the shores of countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand;

(c) the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 25,000 people have been taken to boats from January to March in 2015 by human traffickers;

(d) Malaysian and Thai authorities have discovered suspected mass graves in camps used by human traffickers to house asylum seekers;

(e) on 14 June 2015 the Burmese Rohingya Community in Australia [BRCA] organised "the Forgotten People" at the Lakemba Senior Citizen Centre to showcase the plight of the Rohingya people worldwide, where the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, MLC, was a guest speaker along with Mr Jihad Dib, MP; Mr U Kyaw Min, former Burmese member of Parliament; Dr Graham Thom, Refugee Coordinator, Amnesty International; and Mr Tim O'Connor, Communications Director, Refugee Council of Australia; and

(f) 20 June 2015 was World Refugee Day, yet a proper solution to the plight of the Rohingya people has yet to be found.

(2) That this House notes the sufferings of the Burmese Rohingya people and the inhumane way they are treated as refugees.

DEMOCRACY IN BURMA

Motion by Dr JOHN KAYE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on 8 August 2015, members of the Sydney Burmese community attended a celebration of the courage and commitment of the students, monks, farmers and town people of Burma who rose up 27 years ago against a vicious and incompetent dictatorship;

(b) the event was held in Lidcombe, organised by the All Burma Students' Democratic Front [Australia Branch] and addressed by representatives of a number of ethnic groups, Federal member of Parliament Mr Laurie Ferguson, MP, and State members of Parliament Dr John Kaye, MLC, and Mr Jamie Parker, MP;

(c) while the 8.8.88 pro-democracy uprising was ultimately crushed, resulting in the deaths of thousands of protesters and the imprisonment of tens of thousands of political dissidents, the people's movement that sprung from it continues to this day to struggle for human rights, national reconciliation and democracy; and

(d) the general elections scheduled for Burma on 8 November 2015 will:

(i) occur under a Constitution that is profoundly undemocratic and continue to reserve real political power to the military, regardless of how people vote;

(ii) be conducted by an election authority that is not independent of the military; and

(iii) be likely characterised by a climate of intimidation, corruption and violence.

(2) That this House:

(a) calls on the Military Chief of Burma to desist from vetoing changes to the Constitution that would allow the choice of the people to exercise real political power in Burma;

(b) urges the Thein Sein Government to release all political prisoners held in Burmese jails;

(c) urges Burma's army generals to step aside from exercising any political power;

(d) calls for the Constitution to be reformed so that in the likely event that the National League for Democracy wins a majority of the votes, it will be able to form a government and exercise political power without restraint from the military;

(e) urges that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi be allowed to seek election to the presidency; and

(f) calls on the Australian Government to support the struggle for the rule of law in Burma and the establishment of a genuine democracy.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4

Government Response to Report

The Hon. Niall Blair tabled the Government's response to report No. 30 entitled "Fair Trading Amendment (Ticket Reselling) Bill 2014", dated 19 February 2015.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Niall Blair.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Hon. Greg Pearce tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 4/56", dated 25 August 2015.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4

Report: Progress of the Ombudsman's Investigation "Operation Prospect"

The Hon. Robert Borsak, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 31 entitled "Progress of the Ombudsman's investigation 'Operation Prospect'", dated August 2015, together with transcripts of evidence, submissions, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice.

Report ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Robert Borsak.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [2.40 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Robert Borsak and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SUPPLY AND COST OF GAS AND LIQUID FUELS IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Government Response to Report

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to standing order, of the Government's response to the report entitled "Supply and cost of gas and liquid fuels in New South Wales", tabled 25 February 2015, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 21 August 2015.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5

Government Response to Report

The Clerk tabled correspondence from the Hon. David Elliott, MP, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Veterans Affairs, advising that the Government's response to report No. 41 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 entitled "Wambelong fire", tabled 20 February 2015, which was due on 20 August 2015, will be delayed due to the ongoing coronial inquiry.

PETITIONS

Plaza Car Park

Petition requesting that the Plaza Car Park stay in public hands, that all decision-making regarding the site be handed to the local community, and that an investigation into the proposed sale process be undertaken, received from the Hon. Mick Veitch.

Biosecurity Bill 2015

Petition requesting that the Biosecurity Bill 2015 be amended to protect individuals acting in good faith and for the public good in exposing animal cruelty, received from the Hon. Mark Pearson.

Renewable Energy

Petition requesting that renewable energy replace at least 500 megawatts of fossil fuel power and calling for the closure of all fossil-fuel power stations in New South Wales by 2030, received from Dr John Kaye.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business

[During the giving of notices of motions]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the second time.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Penny Sharpe to order for the first time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 4 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay and set down as orders of the day for a later hour.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT

Reference: Strategies to Support Economic Development in Aboriginal Communities

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I inform the House that, in accordance with paragraph 8 (2) of the resolution establishing standing committees, on Thursday 13 August 2015 the Standing Committee on State Development resolved to inquire into the following reference from the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Assistant Minister for Education, the Hon. Leslie Williams, MP:

(1) That the Standing Committee on State Development inquire into and report on strategies to support economic development in Aboriginal communities in New South Wales, including but not limited to:

(a) options for sustainability and capacity building of New South Wales Aboriginal communities into the future, utilising existing community networks and structures;

(b) leveraging economic development support, including that provided by the Commonwealth Government and the private sector; and

(c) establishment and sustainability of Aboriginal owned enterprises

(2) That the committee report by 30 September 2016.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT

Reference: Regional Planning Processes in New South Wales

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I inform the House that, in accordance with paragraph 8 (2) of the resolution establishing standing committees, on Thursday 13 August 2015 the Standing Committee on State Development resolved to inquire into the following reference from the Deputy Premier, Minister for Justice and Police, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Racing, the Hon. Troy Grant, MP:

That the Standing Committee on State Development inquire into and report on regional planning processes in New South Wales, and in particular:

(a) opportunities to stimulate regional development under the planning framework including through legislation, policy, strategy and governance;

(b) constraints to regional development imposed by the planning framework, and opportunities for the framework to better respond to regional planning issues;

(c) the suitability of a stand-alone regional planning Act;

(d) the effectiveness of environmental planning instruments including State Environmental Planning Policies and Local Environmental Plans (including zoning) to stimulate regional development, and opportunities to improve their effectiveness;

(e) opportunities to increase delegations for regional councils in regard to the planning making processes;

(f) opportunities for strategic planning to assist in responding to challenges faced by communities in regional areas including through regional plans;

(g) opportunities for government-led incentives that promote regional development;

(h) pathways to improve decision-making processes for regional development proposals, including increasing the use of complying development, improving negotiation processes for voluntary planning agreements, and reducing costs associated with assessment; and

(i) any other related matter.

BIOSECURITY BILL 2015

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 August 2015.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [3.09 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Biosecurity Bill 2015. The overview states that the objects of the bill are:

(a) to provide a framework for the prevention, elimination and minimisation of biosecurity risks posed by biosecurity matter, dealing with biosecurity matter, carriers and potential carriers, and other activities that involve biosecurity matter, carriers or potential carriers,

(b) to promote biosecurity as a shared responsibility between government, industry and communities—

I will address the shared responsibility aspect of the bill shortly—

(c) to provide a framework for the timely and effective management of the following:

(i) pests, diseases, contaminants and other biosecurity matter that are economically significant for primary production industries,

(ii) threats to terrestrial and aquatic environments arising from pests, diseases, contaminants and other biosecurity matter,

(iii) public health and safety risks arising from contaminants, non-indigenous animals, bees, weeds and other biosecurity matter known to contribute to human health problems,

(iv) pests, diseases, contaminants and other biosecurity matter that may have an adverse effect on community activities and infrastructure,

(d) to provide a framework for risk-based decision-making in relation to biosecurity,

(e) to give effect to intergovernmental biosecurity agreements to which the State is a party,

(f) to provide the means by which biosecurity requirements in other jurisdictions can be met, so as to maintain market access for industry.

The previous iteration of this bill was presented to the Parliament in 2014, but it did not complete its progression through the two Chambers. All parties proposed amendments to that bill, and I am advised that this bill accommodates many of them. However, it does not accommodate them all, and that is evident when one looks at the mapping between the bills. I believe that a number of amendments will again be moved by several parties to address that situation and to promote debate on certain issues.

There is general support within the Opposition for the framework that this bill provides. Biosecurity is important, and not only in regional New South Wales. As the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water, who is at the table, knows, an infestation of fire ants is currently being addressed at the port in Sydney. The bill implements shared responsibility for biosecurity. If it is passed by both Chambers, that broadening of responsibility will have an impact on the way in which a range of activities are undertaken in New South Wales.

We learned from the Minister's second reading speech that we will have to wait for the regulations that will accompany this bill. Given the previous iteration of the bill and the time that has transpired since it was first debated, more work could have been done to flesh out the regulatory requirements that will underpin it. I understand that this bill does not include regulations but attempts to accommodate some of the concerns that were put on the record in debate on the previous bill. For a bill of this size, the Minister's second reading speech lacked detail. The lack of detail on the implications of each of the clauses leaves room for conjecture on how the bill will be implemented. I hope that the Minister's speech in reply to this debate genuinely addresses the issues that I and other members will raise.

Since the second reading of this bill was moved, a number of stakeholders have raised concerns with me. Some organisations did not know that this iteration of the bill had been introduced. They were not consulted, which highlights that the bill needs more exposure to allow the views of all stakeholders to be taken into account in this significant public policy debate. Given the lack of detail provided about the bill, I will make some suggestions about its implications. If I am incorrect, I hope that the Minister will correct me in his response and provide guidance about how the bill will be implemented. A number of organisations and individuals have raised concerns with me about its implementation and they want the Minister to clarify the regulations.

There is general support for the framework that this bill provides. That framework, which addresses biosecurity issues, is good. However, my concern is the lack of detail that underpins it. Another concern, which I have had for some time and which is not intended to be an attack on individuals, is that when legislation contains a good framework a lot of faith is placed in the public service to deliver it. I get a little nervous about how that will happen in the longer term. Ministers and public servants come and go, which leaves a lot of room for different interpretations of the bill.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: A little nervous? That is the understatement of the year.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: I acknowledge the interjection. I will highlight some of the Opposition's concerns. If I am incorrect, I know that the Minister will correct me in his response. The bill is technical and complex. Time should be allocated for public discussion so that we can work out how the concept of shared responsibility will be realised. Given time to work through the detail of the bill, people in regional New South Wales will have a greater appreciation of how it will be implemented. They will not have to rely on newspaper articles speculating about what may or may not occur as a result of its passage. My concern comes from personal experience. I am concerned about the impact on shearers. A shed of shearers or rouseabouts who work at a property that is infected with scabby mouth or lice will have to follow certain procedures as part of the shared responsibility requirement before they move on to the next shearing shed.

That is a practical application of this legislation. A lot of money will be spent on educating people about what this bill means for them. I hope the Minister has the ear of the Treasurer, because the Government will need to spend a lot of money to ensure that the people of New South Wales understand the concept of shared responsibility. That is a matter for the Minister to address, and perhaps it can be explored through other avenues provided by the Parliament. Biosecurity can be defined as the protection of the economy, the environment and the community from the negative impact of animal and plant pests, diseases, weeds and contaminants. The Minister spoke about that in his second reading speech. He said:

The Biosecurity Bill 2015 is a significant piece of modern legislation that will provide New South Wales with the essential tools and powers to manage pests, diseases, weeds and contaminants that threaten the New South Wales economy, environment and community.

Some examples of this would be the 2010 outbreak of myrtle rust and the impact that had on Sydney, in particular, but also on the North Coast, and the red imported fire ants that currently pose a threat to biosecurity in New South Wales. Biosecurity threats do not respect boundaries; red imported fire ants could well become a problem in Queensland and Victoria as well as New South Wales. I believe there is an argument for an eastern Australian strategy for dealing with biosecurity threats. I think Western Australia has travelled down that path and others may well follow. There needs to be some agitation at a Federal level to establish a much more significant and strategic approach to biosecurity threats because they will not be confined within the borders of New South Wales, and anyone who thinks they will is silly.

I understand from the Minister's second reading speech and from some of his media releases that I have read over the past week that the shared responsibility obligation would involve a farmer putting up a sign at the front gate saying, "This is a biosecurity zone". The issue of shared responsibility has been raised with me and I would like the Minister to explain what procedures a farmer would be required to follow before putting up a sign, how many signs would need to be put up, and where they would need to be put. If they have waterway frontage, will they have to put signs along that frontage as well as at the front gate? These things have not been explained. I know the Minister grew up in a country town where it got a tad cold in the winter months, and he would know that first cold evening—

The Hon. Niall Blair: In January?

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: As he is from Goulburn he would know that there are no warm evenings—it is always cold. But after that first cold evening, the next morning the townies hitch up the trailer, grab the chainsaw, ring their favoured cocky who gives them permission to collect firewood and then toddle off to stock up. Under this bill, what happens if the farmer has that sign on the front gate? Even though the farmer gives the townies permission to go onto his land, under the shared responsibility obligations those townies would have to go through a process to ensure that there was no biosecurity contaminant stuck under the wheel hub of the trailer or seed stuck up in the axles. What obligations will be imposed on the farmer to ensure that he or she has explained to the townies what will have to happen? It is a bit like the shearing scenario I put earlier. What will be the expectations?

That then leads to the question: What levels of red and green tape are we going to have? What sort of red tape are we going to impose on small business operators across regional New South Wales? A Grain Harvesters Association member asked me if this bill is the same as the Queensland bill. If it is similar, he will not be very happy because it will impose a layer of paperwork that he did not expect. Grain harvesters go through significant cleaning processes: they blow out their harvesters and wash them down and try to ensure that there is no contaminant on them. They take all reasonable steps to ensure that they have cleaned their equipment. What obligations will be imposed on them under this legislation and what paper trail will they have to leave to satisfy its objects? No detail is given in the bill about that issue.

When I spoke to representatives of the Livestock and Bulk Carriers Association they were a tad annoyed; they did not know about the bill and they were annoyed that the Minister's office and the department had not spoken to them. I see them as significant players in this process because they go from farm to farm, and often with livestock on their trucks. What procedures will they be required to follow to meet their obligation of shared responsibility under this legislation? That has not been explained. People need more time to work through what this bill means. I will not steal the thunder of the other political parties; I know they will have constituencies with similar issues about the implementation of this bill. What obligations will be imposed on the Telstra technician who goes to fix the internet connection on a property that has a sign on the front gate saying, "This is a biosecurity zone"?

We need to work out how this bill will apply in a range of scenarios in regional New South Wales. As I was working my way through this bill it crossed my mind, rather cheekily, to ask what would be the impact on a parliamentary committee that may want to toddle on to a farm as part of an upper House inquiry. What obligations must we and the Parliament meet under this legislation? Site visits are an effective tool of upper House inquiries. School excursions are also a great way to educate children about farming. As a result of the urbanisation of the Australian population, many people do not know where their milk, eggs or meat come from. A good part of the education process is school excursions, but how will this shared responsibility obligation be applied in those circumstances? What will be the requirements and what paper trail will need to be established to ensure that due diligence has been exercised as far as practicable?

They are the sorts of things I am concerned about. There is a lack of detail in the bill, and because I believe this bill needs further exploration, at the end of my contribution I will move that it be sent to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 for further inquiry. I believe an inquiry will provide us with an opportunity to explore the impacts of the legislation and to get it right. I am not saying that the Opposition opposes measures designed to ensure biological security. We share the Government's concern about ensuring that New South Wales has a robust and strong framework for biosecurity control. We must get this right. A number of organisations have raised different concerns with me about this bill and they do not know how it will be implemented. That is not fair to the people of New South Wales.

We need to explore some areas of concern a bit further in the debate—and I have no doubt that amendments will be moved; I see some floating around now. One concern relates to debate on the previous iteration of this bill, which included discussion about a statutory State biosecurity committee. I know the Minister has an advisory committee, or similar, but I believe it should be a statutory committee. Also, the advisory committee membership has a couple of glaring omissions. One of the most significant groups involved in weed management in New South Wales has been local government. I believe the committee should involve Local Government NSW. I also believe the RSPCA should have a representative. People go to the RSPCA about animal welfare issues and it provides a sensible response.

I am also concerned about the punctual filling of committee vacancies. Former governments of all persuasions have delayed filling vacancies as they arise on committees for their own benefit. Vacancies on the committee should be filled within a certain time frame. I also believe that New South Wales should have a state of biosecurity report, much along the lines of the State of the Environment report. Over time, the report would inform the people of New South Wales and the Parliament and it would provide a significant body of information. It is my understanding that these issues were all agreed upon in debate on the 2014 iteration of the bill. If that is the case, I do not think there should be too much conjecture about it this time around. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether that is still the case. The NSW Natural Resources Commission recommends a permitted list. It stated:

Preventing the naturalisation of new [weed] species is accepted as the most cost effective weed management strategy … The NRC recommends taking a precautionary approach to managing this new incursion risk by creating a permitted list indicating the species that are permitted to be sold in NSW and prohibiting the sale of other species until their weed risk can be assessed. This approach will ensure that only low risk plants will be available for purchase in NSW. The significant advantage of a permitted list, rather than a prohibited list approach, is that it is a precautionary and proactive way to manage risk.

That makes a lot of sense. Again it is my understanding that there was discussion around this with the previous iteration of the bill. I am happy to explore this during the Committee stage by moving amendments. I have serious concerns about some aspects of the bill and I ask the Minister to provide the Chamber with information about the penalties and where they were drawn from as those articulated in the bill are significant; in fact, they are almost at the level of bioterrorism-type penalties. If that is the purpose, I ask the Minister to provide information to explain why the penalties are that high. Comparative Queensland legislation sets its penalties at $330,000 as opposed to the penalties articulated in this bill. I ask the Minister to explain where he sourced the penalties set out in this bill and how he sees them being applied; that is, what would incur the imposition of that type of penalty. This is a tough penalty regime, and it may need to be. However, the Minister is the only person who can clarify the matter so I ask him to outline what underpins the belief that we need penalties of that nature.

It is my understanding that the bill currently allows authorised officers powers of entry for any non-residential premises "at any reasonable time" or "in the case of an emergency, at any time" and includes that entry may use "reasonable force". Those seem to be fairly broad powers. Why are search warrants required only on entering residential premises? I am certain other public bodies in New South Wales would appreciate the same powers, such as child protection agencies and the like. I ask the Minister in reply to explain why those powers are required and I shall speak more about that during the Committee stage. On face value it seems to be a serious overreach of power.

It seems that in view of the lack of detail in the bill we are vesting significant responsibility and trust in the public service. It could well be that we do not need the search warrants but I ask why it is as enunciated in the bill. These search powers allow for the officer to "do anything that in the opinion of the authorised officer is necessary to be done for an authorised purpose", including the use of "reasonable force". That seems to be pretty broad; it is a lot of power without the necessary checks and balances in place. I ask why this degree of power is being given because it seems to me to be a serious overreach. I turn now to the reference in the bill of "reasonably practicable". Part 2, division 2, clause 16 states:

Reasonably practicable, in relation to the prevention, elimination or minimisation of a bio security risk, means that which is, or was at a particular time, reasonably able to be done, taking into account and weighing up all relevant maters including—

It goes through a list of things including the risk concerned, the degree of biosecurity impact, the cost associated and that sort of detail. What processes will the Minister put in place to ensure people who need to enter a biosecurity zone are properly informed and understand their obligations in accordance with that provision? I feel the measure imposes a significant burden on some people. What is the paperwork trail they will need to put in place to show they have met the requirements under that provision, because that detail was lacking in the second reading speech? The Minister has said the regulations are coming but we are unaware of what will be in them and we need guidance in order to make an informed decision on whether to support the bill.

Given the bill's current state I do not know whether people can make an informed decision about their shared responsibility. People could say, "This is a biosecurity zone. It has been explained to me but I am not going to go there because I do not want to expose myself to all the things I have to do under the new legislation." It could be a contract fencer, a bloke slashing paddocks for a farmer or someone carting hay. These people derive income from these areas and may decide that the red tape involved in this legislation is the last straw; it is killing their business and they are getting out. It could be anyone from contract harvesters to truck drivers. We need further clarification.

Part 4 refers to a duty to notify biosecurity events. I was a shearer for a while, not a very good one, but I understand that under the bill if I am shearing in a shed and I notice a biological contaminant of some description, such as scabby mouth, I will have an obligation to report that because the bill refers to a person's "professional capacity". What happens if the farmer has been informed by someone else and the farmer does not report it? Will the farmer be in breach of the legislation? I do not think many farmers are aware of this provision. The implications of the bill need to be further explored. I am not suggesting that the shearer should not report the matter; I am merely saying that a number of people would not realise that that is their obligation under the bill. If the bill is passed, we must ensure that people who earn their living and who in some way are exposed to a biosecurity zone understand their obligations under the legislation. No explanation has been given about any education campaign or monetary investment that will be required to ensure that people, such as truck drivers, understand the new concept of shared responsibility.

As a number of people who are going about their daily lives and who are earning an income will be exposed to certain aspects of this bill, they will need to be made aware of and understand their obligations because the bill contains significant penalties. I am concerned about the lack of time we have been given to work through this bill and the Minister's second reading speech. I am also concerned about the precedent of fining an individual $1.1 million for a reckless act under a category one offence. Will the Minister advise what type of reckless act would incur a $1.1 million penalty? Obviously a fine that is set at that upper limit would be imposed only for a serious offence. Bioterrorism offences would be covered by other laws.

The Minister is required to provide guidance relating to the types of reckless acts that would incur such a penalty, particularly if all reasonable steps had been taken to ensure that contaminants were not carried or conveyed in one way or another. The Opposition will move a number of amendments in the Committee stage but it will reserve its right to divide on the third reading depending on what amendments are agreed to. This is a complex and technical bill. No-one disagrees with its general framework but a number of matters need further consideration by members in this place or by the community. The Minister should give consideration to my suggestion that this bill be sent to a committee. As such, I move:

That the question be amended by omitting the words "be now read a second time" and inserting instead "be referred to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 for inquiry and report."

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.42 p.m.]: In participating in debate on the Biosecurity Bill 2015 I state that the Shooters and Fishers Party generally would be supportive of such a bill but it has concerns similar to those of the Opposition that it will take up with fellow crossbenchers and with the Christian Democratic Party in order to devise some amendments. The Shooters and Fishers Party supports the notion that biosecurity is everyone's responsibility. However, it does not support the notion that the responsibility for complying with legislation such as this can be distributed equitably amongst government departments that are knowledgeable about this sort of thing, large agribusinesses that have lawyers who understand this sort of thing and, at the other end of the scale, small lot farmers who are still within the 47,000 primary producers in the State, itinerant farm workers who may or may not have literacy as a strong point, and hunters, the majority of my constituents, who may or may not understand their obligations. So the Government must ensure that that shared responsibility is inculcated universally.

There are at least 220,000 licensed firearm owners in the State, not including pig hunters who do not use firearms and bow hunters, ferreters, et cetera. If the Government were to communicate with that captive audience of 220,000 licensed firearm owners through a circular or a letter from the Firearms Registry which holds their details and/or the fisheries department which has a register of about 350,000 licensees, it would cost $1.5 million. If that process was not followed the Government could not guarantee that a few notices in the newspapers outlining this onerous set of responsibilities and penalties could be equitably inculcated upon the entire population. The Shooters and Fishers Party believes it will be difficult for individuals to cope with this onerous set of responsibilities and penalties.

Another aspect of concern relates to the legal and compliance provisions in this bill. Those persons who were in breach of this legislation would have to demonstrate that they did all they could to ameliorate the effects of any legislative breach, which implies that they must possess the cognitive skills to determine whether what they are doing will lead to a breach of the biosecurity rules and to determine whether there are any risks. Opposition members said earlier that it might fall to transporters of wheat or livestock to decide. Unless the legislation clearly states what these people must do to meet their obligations they might think that a vacuum cleaner in the back of a carrier or investing in $1 million worth of wash-down facilities is adequate. However, what is to be done on every farm or when livestock or wheat are transported from farm to farm?

This bill will give bureaucrats and people other than the Minister and the government of the day a great deal of power. Our constituents believe that bureaucrats have done them serious damage by overextending their remit, taking legislation and regulation to the end limit and making it up as they go along by taking administrative decisions. Those decisions are appealable. However, if people find themselves at the wrong end of the law with a $1.1 million penalty hanging over their heads it will be daunting for them to prove to the satisfaction of the judge or the court that they are not guilty.

There is general anxiety about the impacts of this bill. Everybody in this State and this nation understands the severity of a biosecurity threat to our country, not just economically but in the case of, say, mad cow disease in the United Kingdom, to human lives. The Shooters and Fishers Party agrees that not enough information has been given about how the bill and its regulations will work in practice. Pig shooters will not ask the Shooters and Fishers Party how different provisions in the bill will affect them. Instead, they will ask whether they have to wear paper overalls and boots every time they go onto a property. They will ask whether they have to have wash-down facilities in their utes. That is the language that is used by them as that is their level of understanding. They do not have adequate information about this legislation and we have had a limited time within which to examine its provisions.

The Shooters and Fishers Party supports the legislation overall but we must be careful as it is a big bill which will have wide and far-reaching implications. As I said, the bill vests a lot of interrogatory and prosecutorial powers to officers well beyond the general ambit of those given to similar types of officers. It is probable that Department of Primary Industries [DPI] or Local Land Services [LLS] officers will be the ones doing it. As a former chairman of the Game Council I have quite a bit of experience with the difficulties of balancing the needs of game managers or rangers with their abilities. They pushed for the same rights and method of entry as fisheries officers. That is in fact reflected in this bill.

I hate to agree with the civil libertarians on The Greens benches, but every time we pass a bill like this we spread the responsibility for making decisions about things such as the use of force a long way down the ladder. Police officers are trained to determine whether they need to use force and we are told that they try as much as possible not to use force. These are what I would call civil situations. We are not talking about guys with their hats on backwards pumping nine millimetres out at each other on Sydney streets. We are talking about farmers, hunters, contractors, fencers and tradespeople going into properties; we are not talking about criminals. We are very nervous about that and we would like to have time to discuss with the Christian Democratic Party some ideas about how we might ameliorate that through amendment.

We were a bit worried about emergency orders but we do not believe that control orders should be made by a person called a secretary. I understand that the Government is trying to get rid of the term "secretary". I think Paterson was the last one. But we do not believe that powers should be delegated from the level of director general or chief executive officer, call them what you will. In fact, we will probably look to amend the bill to put the responsibility firmly back in the Minister's bailiwick when the Minister is available. Why? Following the Government putting up a bill of this size and complexity and the Opposition outlining its worries we have come to an agreement in this Chamber that this is an extremely important piece of legislation. If it is so important why the hell would the Government leave decision-making powers to the secretary? If there is an emergency or a control order the Minister should make the deliberations. That is because, quite honestly, we do not trust a bureaucrat, the secretary or, more importantly, the secretary's delegated authority somewhere down the track to make the sorts of decisions that could lead to prosecutions under the bill.

The final issue is, as I mentioned earlier, the onus of the burden of proof. The Government was very quick to turn around the reverse onus of proof in workers compensation matters and we supported it to the letter. Under Labor's scheme employers had absolute liability. Employers had to prove that they had done everything they could instead of the prosecution proving that they had not. We would like the Government to run true to its colours in this case. If it is okay under the Workers Compensation Act, which deals with serious issues of life and death and worker safety, why would the Government not afford the same procedural fairness to persons who come before the courts under similarly onerous legislation that gives prosecutors similar powers?

We must bear in mind that if these matters go to court a defendant may be able to afford an expert witness. The DPI, LLS or whoever prosecutes the case will have its expert witnesses. They will talk to the judge about issues of probability—how the person charged should have known that the probability of him or her doing X, Y or Z was going to result in this. The person who is charged will try to argue technically speaking that he or she tried to consider all the probabilities while the person sitting in judgement may or may not have any concept of the application of probability to pathogens, biology or these types of crisis situations. We will reserve our judgement on whether this piece of legislation should be referred at the second reading stage. If the bill goes through to the Committee stage we will move amendments to try to address some of our concerns. But I repeat that if we can get this bill through without unintended consequences for a huge range of people in rural New South Wales we will support it.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [3.55 p.m.]: I lead on behalf of The Greens in debate on the Biosecurity Bill 2015. From the outset I put on record that we too will reserve our judgement on the referral that the Hon. Mick Veitch has put forward and we also have a range of amendments. The Greens believe that the framework of the bill is a step in the right direction but there are a number of missed opportunities. We also believe considerable unintended consequences may attach to the operation of the bill, as the Hon. Robert Brown said. As he said, the bill creates a framework of shared responsibility but within that is the obligation for us to inform the community of what that responsibility is. I think the member was hinting at the vast numbers of amateur hunters in his constituency who move across public lands and who will be caught up by this bill. Research from the University of New England indicates that the vast majority of trespass in rural areas in this State is related to amateur hunting. That carries with it a biosecurity risk and now, with this legislation, a biosecurity obligation.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You trespass on coal seam gas sites.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: If we look at the quantum it is invariably—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: It is 100 per cent with you.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I have a biosecurity obligation but I am not on farms, am I? I am doing my work at coal seam gas wells and on mining leases. The bill will place an enormous obligation on contractors, mining operators and public servants. We will look at that. Pest, disease, feral animals and noxious weeds are having a massive impact on native fauna and flora both terrestrial and aquatic. Globally, invasive species have been recognised as the most serious threat to biodiversity after habitat loss. Along with habitat loss and climate change, they are one of the top three threats to Australian species. Australia has the worst record on mammalian extinctions in the world with foxes and cats, and rabbits to some degree, implicated in most of those extinctions. Many birds on islands have been wiped out by introduced rats and an exotic fungus has caused extinction of at least four frog species.

More than 80 per cent of federally threatened ecological communities are threatened by weeds. Rabbits have prevented woodland regeneration over vast areas and goats, pigs and other hard-hooved feral animals are causing widespread degradation. Marine invaders have transformed coastal ecosystems and become dominant predators or filter feeders. Climate change will have significant impacts on biosecurity. This week at AgQuip in Gunnedah a number of young farmers told me that they had recognised the translocation and movement of weed species due to shifting climates.

One of the key reasons that the NSW Young Farmers adopted a resolution to accept climate change was the risk of a changing climate changing the pattern of distribution of weed species, which are a major cost to agricultural productivity. Pests and diseases are a significant burden on agricultural industries. Weeds and pest animals are estimated to cost the New South Wales economy more than $1.3 billion per year in losses to agricultural production and the cost-of-control measures. This does not include the impacts on biodiversity, landscape, tourism and water. A 2009 report into the economic impacts of vertebrate pests in Australia showed annual losses to the meat industry of $284.9 million and to horticulture of $313.1 million.

The report found that a 12-month outbreak of foot and mouth disease would reduce Australia's gross domestic product [GDP] by between $10.3 billion and $16.7 billion over 10 years, which is equivalent to a 1 per cent or 2 per cent reduction in GDP for one year. So that is the massive potential impact of such an outbreak. It shows why this is such a serious bill and why the framework is important. An outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, infecting people as well as birds, could cost over $10 billion, and who knows how many lives. What characterises a good biosecurity framework? The key thing is nil tenure. I have said again and again in this House that we need a nil-tenure approach. The bill does take that approach, and that is a step in the right direction. Independence and scientific rigour are important.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Given the statements made on Saturday 22 August on Sky News by Federal Assistant Minister for Social Services Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield that the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS] may be delayed, does the Minister support this delay and what steps has the Minister taken to raise this issue with his Federal counterparts?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the Hon. Adam Searle for his question. I can assure the honourable member that there will be no delay on the NDIS in New South Wales—none whatsoever. I am very proud of the fact that, in regard to the NDIS, New South Wales leads all other States. We have met all of the relevant milestones we are required to meet and in fact are ahead of many of the milestones. The best evidence that the Federal Government supports the NDIS rollout in New South Wales and that New South Wales is ahead of schedule is the fact that we launched 12 months early in the Nepean Blue Mountains region. Why would the Federal Government allow us, support us and in fact to provide the necessary resources for us to launch 12 months early if it was not backing the NDIS 100 per cent in the State of New South Wales? Again, I have every confidence that the NDIS will be delivered, and I congratulate all involved in ensuring that it is being delivered.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I have a supplementary question. In light of his answer, will the Minister elucidate his answer and give a guarantee to New South Wales residents that the NDIS rollout across the State will not be delayed?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The NDIS is being rolled out across the State in accordance with the heads of agreement that was entered into with the Commonwealth. That is what is occurring. What I can also say again to the Hon. Adam Searle is that we are actually doing it 12 months early in part of the State.

YORK STREET, SYDNEY, FLOODING

The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister please update the House on the Government's response to yesterday's incident in York Street where a water main burst, flooding the road?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Hon. Shayne Mallard for his question. After a similar problem in January, which some people unkindly called "carmageddon", when I was the acting Minister and in charge, I stated that if we did not learn from it then we deserved a good kick up the backside.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: And you'll get it!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Greg Donnelly would not be tall enough to do it. We learned from that experience in January and I could not be prouder of the Government's fast response to the critical incident in York Street yesterday. It was outstanding. At around 9.30 p.m. on Sunday, an ageing water main burst under York Street near Barrack Street. The rupture caused serious flooding of sections of York and Barrack streets, with heavy flows down to George Street and Martin Place. The flood was significant—I am talking cracked road surfaces and pressure that caused huge sinkholes in the middle of the road.

As everyone in this Chamber would know, these are key central business district [CBD] roads that flooded. These roads are vital for peak-hour traffic flow, and Monday peak hour was not far away when this incident happened. It could have been a disaster—a real "carmageddon". York Street was effectively closed for business. But it was not a disaster because of the swift and superb work of our transport experts. Because of these transport logistics experts and their professionalism, the pain was minimal and the impact was low. The Transport Management Centre leapt quickly into action and with some clever changes had peak hour flowing again like a well-oiled machine.

Well before the morning peak commenced, the Transport Management Centre and CBD Coordination Office Taskforce prepared alternative transport scenarios to prepare for the morning peak. York Street is an important bus route so to stop buses piling up across the Harbour Bridge most services were terminated at North Sydney, Chatswood and Macquarie Park, from where commuters could travel into the city on a train. Throughout the incident, media alerts were issued and interviews conducted for news and live radio to get the message out. Once the pipes were sealed, the massive holes were filled and the road resealed—in record time, I might add. York Street reopened with zero residual traffic delays and buses quickly returned to normal.

The logistics that go on behind the scenes when these sorts of incidents occur is not only commendable but also strategic, and I am always so proud of the team we have in Transport for NSW and Roads and Maritime Services managing our transport network. As a commuter and as the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, I thank each and every person who was involved in ensuring that Monday's incident was handled so seamlessly and with such professionalism—it saved us all hours of delays and a hell of a lot of frustration. I know all members of the House would join me in supporting everyone involved in dealing with this incident and their professionalism.

HENDRA VIRUS VACCINE

The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. In light of the anti-vaccination movement now infiltrating the veterinary industry with the "Say no to the Hendra vaccination" group now having more than 5,800 members, what steps has the Government taken to allay fears and to reassure horse owners that it is safe to use the vaccine in New South Wales?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the Hon. Walt Secord for his question. It is definitely topical. This is something I know he took an interest in when I reported on the response of the Government to the latest Hendra outbreak, which was in northern New South Wales earlier this year. Because I am a horse owner, I am also aware that there are some people in the industry who are concerned about the vaccination against the Hendra virus. The Hendra virus infection which was confirmed earlier this year occurred near Murwillumbah. There was a good response from the Department of Primary Industries in that case. They were able to get as much information as possible out to as many horse owners as possible, particularly in the local area, through the media.

I am pleased also to inform the House that the $12 million national Hendra virus research program was established in 2011 and is jointly funded by the New South Wales, Queensland and Commonwealth Governments—$3 million each from the State governments and $6 from the Commonwealth. We know that through research like that the vaccination of horses is the single most effective way of reducing the risk of Hendra virus infection, both in horses and in humans. So far more than 116,000 horses nationally and 47,000 horses in New South Wales have been vaccinated against the Hendra virus. The vaccine must be administered by a veterinarian, the horse microchipped and the details of the vaccine and the horse recorded on a national database.

Horse owners are advised to cover feed and drinking containers to reduce contamination by flying foxes and keep their horses away from areas where bats feed or roost. The Government must continue to work with those within the industry to encourage the uptake of the vaccination. Some in the industry require horses to be vaccinated before entering competitions, such as events at shows and pony club events. Quite often that is dependent on where the entrant is coming from, which is something the industry is working on with its branches to get the message across. Working groups have been put together and funding has been made available by this Government, working with the Queensland Government, to get the vaccination program up and running.

We continue to work with equine groups and horse owners to educate them about this vaccine. It is a very serious incident once an incursion is found on a property, not just for the horse owners themselves but for anyone who comes in contact with the infected horses, including the veterinarian. The equine groups are urged to be vigilant, look at the latest research and understand what their associations are doing about the vaccination, particularly in their sector, to ensure that not only do we get on top of any outbreaks that occur but also we try to prevent them as much as possible. That involves not only the vaccination program but also the understanding of the horse owners covering feed and water to make sure the risks are reduced.

POLICE POWERS

The Hon. MARK PEARSON: I address my question without notice to the Hon. Duncan Gay, Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Justice and Police, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Racing. Is there currently any New South Wales legislation whereby police officers are not required to have formed a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been or is likely to be committed on commercial premises, nor are they required to obtain a warrant, yet they have been given the power to enter and search commercial premises, remove and destroy items, install surveillance devices and demand and examine records kept on those premises?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: My point of order is Standing Order 65 (2) (c), which clearly states that questions must not be asked of the Minister for a legal opinion. That question seemed to ask for a legal opinion; it asked for a definitional aspect of a particular Act.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. I invite the honourable member to reword the question in another form so that it complies with the standing orders.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister update the House on the PossABLE Expo which was held in the Nepean Blue Mountains?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for her question. In March 2015 the New South Wales and Commonwealth Governments agreed to roll out early the National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS] in the Nepean-Blue Mountains area. This early rollout will benefit around 2,000 children and young people aged 0 to 17 years, particularly focusing on early intervention services for children with disabilities. The Baird Government is now delivering on this important election commitment in Western Sydney. A significant milestone was reached on 1 July 2015, marking the launch of the early transition in the Nepean Blue Mountains; the first NDIS site outside a trial location.

Information, linkage and capacity-building supports have also been in place since July, helping children and their families prepare for accessing the scheme, allowing them to be prepared with a clear view of their needs, aspirations and goals. Families will start to receive NDIS packages from 1 September. To ensure families have access to information about the NDIS prior to September the New South Wales Government funded IDEAS, a non-government organisation, to run a community expo as well as a series of community information sessions across the Nepean Blue Mountains area. The expo ran over two days on 24 and 25 July, and I had the pleasure of attending on the Friday afternoon. Approximately 3,000 people, including people with disabilities, families, carers, providers, disability organisations and members of the local community attended the expo.

The expo provided a valuable opportunity for families with children and young people with disabilities, carers, and the general public to view and learn about the types of products, services and supports that are available to assist people with disabilities to make informed decisions about their daily living. Families were able to talk to providers, the National Disability Insurance Agency and Department of Family and Community Services staff, to ask questions specific to their situation and to make sure they had the information they need to prepare for the NDIS. The theme for the expo was "power". For children and young people with disabilities more things than ever are now possible. The NDIS is an opportunity for many people with disabilities to dream of their own good life, and unleash their superpowers within to realise it.

There were a range of exhibitors at the expo including community-based service and support providers, sport and recreation providers, mainstream services as well as disability specialists and non-government organisations. Ninety-five exhibitors were able to showcase their offerings as well as engage in meaningful conversations with people attending the event. As well as the exhibition stalls, families could attend a range of workshops and there was an exciting main stage program including an interesting panel discussion, which I had the privilege of introducing. I was very pleased to be able to attend the PossABLE expo in the Nepean Blue Mountains and I was impressed by its content, organisation and focus on improving the lives of people with disabilities. The introduction of the NDIS is an exciting period of change for people with disabilities, their families and carers. We are working to ensure that young people, their families and carers, and providers are supported and have all the information they need to begin the transition to the NDIS.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

Ms JAN BARHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. I refer to recent reports that the Federal Assistant Minister for Social Services, Senator Mitch Fifield, has sought agreement from State disability ministers to commence appointing new members of the National Disability Insurance Agency board and that Senator Fifield is seeking to replace existing members who have lived experience of disability or experience in the disability sector with people who have worked at ASX50 companies. Has the Minister provided any response to Senator Fifield about the composition of the National Disability Insurance Agency board? Will he commit to ensuring that the board maintains representation from people with the lived experience of disability to fulfil the principle of "nothing about us without us"?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I assure the member that I and all State Ministers, along with the Federal Minister, Senator Mitch Fifield, are grateful to the National Disability Insurance Agency board for its fabulous work. State Ministers and the Federal Minister are holding ongoing discussions about the board. It is our responsibility to see that the board is equipped to deliver what is required as we transition to the full rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2018.

CENTRAL COAST DISABILITY HOUSING

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Given the Minister's recent visit to Central Coast Living Options, where he had a photograph taken but declined to provide the organisation with $1 million for new supported living homes, what advice does he have for residents of the Central Coast living with a disability who cannot find housing?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I cannot imagine that that great non-government organisation would have said to me, "Please take a photo with us and give us $1 million." I cannot think of a more nonsensical statement. It is a great organisation that does great work. I went to see firsthand the fabulous work that it does, and a photo was taken. What was I supposed to do? Should I have said, "No, please do not take a photo"? It is ridiculous that the member raises such a point. The organisation indicated to me that it was looking to build and grow and that, like other organisations, it occasionally puts in a request for funding. The organisation is considering putting in a request for funding. I will look at that request, but I will not guarantee funding simply because an organisation took a photo with me. The member is being ridiculous.

SHARK INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Will the Minister please update the House on what the Government is doing to help protect beachgoers this summer?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I am acutely aware that communities along the North Coast have legitimate and serious concerns, following a spate of recent shark attacks. The Government will do everything it can to help keep swimmers and surfers safe in our waters. While we need to remember that the ocean is the domain of the shark, the Government is taking action to gain a better understanding of local risks and how they can be reduced. This Government is investing $250,000 in a targeted campaign, ahead of warmer spring and summer conditions. This will be a multi-agency response, comprising local police, the Department of Primary Industries, Surf Life Saving NSW, local councils and the CSIRO. It is the most comprehensive program of shark attack mitigation measures that the New South Wales Government has ever undertaken.

The campaign will include increased surveillance and shark-tagging as part of a suite of measures in response to a number of recent shark attacks along the North Coast to help reduce the risk of further attacks. The tagging and tracking of sharks, which began today, will be conducted by world-renowned shark experts from the Department of Primary Industries, who will be temporarily based on the North Coast to lead this important work. The work will determine shark behaviour in local waters through scientifically sound research, which will be pivotal to understanding the shark population and its interaction with humans.

Dr Vic Peddemors, an internationally respected shark biologist, and Dr Paul Butcher from the Department of Primary Industries will lead the North Coast local waters shark-tagging project from Ballina. The shark-tagging project involves locating and tagging sharks with both externally mounted satellite tags and surgically inserted acoustic tags. The tags register the natural movements of the sharks to determine the environmental and biological factors affecting their distribution. The CSIRO, which has extensive experience in shark capture and tagging, is assisting fisheries staff from the Department of Primary Industries with the program. The Government has also deployed Department of Primary Industries fisheries boats to assess local conditions to inform research—in particular, the presence of schools of baitfish that are known to attract sharks to the shoreline, as well as current and water temperature trends.

There is a significant investment in educating the public to be shark smart. The Government has partnered with local surf clubs. Every Surf Life Saving club along the North Coast will be supplied with SharkSmart campaign materials and information, beginning in October. The Government has also fast-tracked funding for lookout towers from the Observation Tower Grant Program. In addition, the shark meshing program operates at 51 of the State's most popular bathing beaches between Newcastle and Wollongong from 1 September to 30 April each year.

We need to look at new and better ways to keep our beaches safe on the North Coast. What is suitable for Bondi or Coogee may not be suitable for Ballina or Crescent Head. All these activities are in addition to the Government's allocation of $100,000 for an independent review of new shark deterrent technologies. Shark deterrent technology is constantly changing and advancing. The review is about investigating the best possible shark deterrent technologies that can be implemented quickly and effectively on the North Coast. Following the completion of the review, a focused workshop will be held on the North Coast to look at options for trialling new technologies there. Going to the beach is part of Australian culture, and I do not want that to change.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILLOR CONDUCT

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Duncan Gay, the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government. On how many occasions have the 2012 amendments to section 451 of the Local Government Act been used to allow councillors who own land in their local government area to vote on proposals to change or amend the zoning or development controls that apply to their own land?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I know the member would not expect me to have the exact number with me, but I undertake to obtain that information.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: It is the biggest issue of the week.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: After the question asked earlier by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, I would advise her to be quiet.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: He turned up and did not give them any money.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: A question about cash for photos is a bit rich, even for the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. The Government will amend the law to ensure that councillors cannot vote on any matters in which they have a pecuniary interest. The Government acknowledges that comprehensive reform of local government in New South Wales is needed. Other issues relating to councillors' pecuniary interests will be considered as part of the broader review of the Act that the Government is currently undertaking. We need efficient, effective councils which act in the best interests of their communities and ratepayers. I undertake to provide the information that the member asked for.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister advise the House when he expects that much-needed legislation to be brought to Parliament?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Soon.

REDFLEX

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Given the guilty plea by a senior Redflex executive to bribery charges in the United States last week, does the Minister stand by his March 2013 statements endorsing Redflex as an appropriate mobile speed camera operator in New South Wales?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: At the time I indicated that the company that operates in New South Wales, whilst it is under the larger umbrella, is a different company, and yes, I stand by those comments.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the answer just given by the Minister, will the Minister elucidate what steps the Government will be taking to fully investigate the suitability of Redflex to continue as a mobile speed camera operator in this State?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Not only that; it is not what we will be doing, it is what we have already done. We have already taken those steps to check this company that operates in New South Wales. I challenge the honourable member: If he has concerns about issues that are happening in New South Wales, tell us. If he has concerns about issues and can show something wrong is happening in this State, tell us right now. If he cannot, he should stop trying to start rumours.

M4 EAST

The Hon. LOU AMATO: My question without notice is addressed to the Leader of the Government. and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on how the Government is working with local communities to facilitate preparations for the M4 East project?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. He is joining an increasing number of Labor members who are supporting this project—he is not a Labor member, but quite a few enlightened Labor members are starting to break ranks. In the next 10 years an additional one million people will call Sydney home; that means more people, more businesses and more freight, all using our transport networks. To meet this challenge the Government is responding with a record infrastructure investment of almost $70 billion over the next four years for Tomorrow's Sydney.

These are exciting times for New South Wales—we have the momentum back, businesses have confidence again and we are getting this economic powerhouse working. Our investment program includes major new public transport projects such as the Sydney Metro and new motorway links such as the M4 East Stage 1B of WestConnex. As I have said before, the biggest threat to this city and to the State is inaction. That is why this Government is working hard to provide the community with the transport links it needs. We also recognise that constructing these projects will have impacts, just as major projects have in the past—not many in the time of those opposite but a lot in our time.

Construction activities will be disruptive for many residents, businesses, local communities and motorists. It is the short-term pain we have to work through to get the long-term gain for the community. As part of the preparation for the M4 East, work recently began to deliver new sporting grounds at St Lukes Park, Concord, which includes relocating Cintra Park hockey field. Cintra Park has been identified as the most suitable location for tunnelling activity for the M4 East WestConnex project, removing the need for residential property acquisitions and providing direct access to Parramatta Road for construction truck movements. We do not have to worry about naming the tunnel-boring machine—it has been named "Walt" in my office. Relocating and renewing these local sporting grounds is a key priority for the New South Wales Government and an added plus for the local community.

We are breathing new life into the St Lukes grounds with new fields, new lighting, grandstand seating for spectators, player facilities, an upgraded car park and two viewing mounds. A Review of Environmental Factors was carried out for the St Lukes project and is available on the WestConnex website. Throughout this process WestConnex, and Roads and Maritime Services staff have worked closely with sporting groups using the current facilities to minimise the necessary impacts that will occur during construction of the M4 East and to make transition to the great new facilities as easily as possible. Delivering the new sporting grounds is an added benefit to providing a new free-flowing motorway network for Sydney. This again demonstrates how complementary local community benefits can be achieved while moving ahead with important infrastructure projects. This is good government in action.

FIREARMS REGISTRY

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, representing the Deputy Premier and Minister for Justice and Police. Are there any volunteers working in the NSW Firearms Registry under the Australian Government's Work for the Dole scheme? If so, how many are there? How many of these people have undergone checks and security screening and how many of these people have access to the private information of firearm owners?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Obviously I am unaware of how many, if any, are working in that location, but I would be very surprised if anyone who is working in that location has not gone through the proper safety checks. Knowing the person in charge of those particular premises, he would be a stickler for making sure all the right things are done. But it is a serious question and one with serious ramifications. I will refer the question to the Deputy Premier for a detailed answer.

MOTOR REGISTRY CLOSURES

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. In light of Campbelltown, Narellan, Ingleburn and other Roads and Maritime Services motor registry closures, will all motorists on restricted licences be able to access services within the rules of their licences?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is a question that should be directed to the Hon. Niall Blair as Service NSW is under the—

The Hon. Walt Secord: You're the Leader of the Government. You don't know what is happening?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will just instruct the honourable member a little bit; he has not learnt a lot in the time he has been here. Had the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane directed a question to me in my role as Leader of the Government that would have been a different matter. However, he directed a question to me as Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. The question is about Service NSW and it should be directed to the Hon. Niall Blair.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: With respect, it is very hard to ask a supplementary question when the original question was almost certainly out of order. It was a question that should have been directed to another Minister.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If I had been asked to rule on the question I would have ruled it not out of order. The Hon. Duncan Gay is wrong about that. Therefore, the supplementary question is in order but obviously it will be subject to the very considerable constraints in the standing orders about what can be asked in a supplementary question in relation to the elucidation of an aspect of the answer.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I ask the Minister to elucidate his answer as the Leader of the Government.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member gave it his best, but the question is out of order.

TECH SAVVY SENIORS AUSLAN PROGRAM

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister outline the Tech Savvy Seniors program delivered through the Deaf Society of NSW?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: As honourable members are aware, Tech Savvy Seniors is a very successful program launched by this Government in 2012—so successful that during the election we committed $2 million over four years to expand the program to 3,500 more places across the State. It is also a highlight of the NSW Ageing Strategy—the first ageing strategy for this State—which was launched by this Government. The Tech Savvy Seniors program provides free or low-cost technology training through a network of community colleges and libraries to help seniors learn to use computers, tablets and smart phones. This Government is committed to doing all it can to remove any barriers in order to make it easier for all seniors to get the help and services they need to stay connected in their communities. That is why, as the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services, I was delighted when earlier this year we began offering the program in Auslan through a partnership with the Deaf Society of NSW.

The Tech Savvy Seniors Auslan program provides opportunities for seniors with hearing impairments to learn how to use tablets and smart phones. These free courses equip trainees with skills that enable them to use technology in a range of ways that are accessible and that increase their independence. Participants learn about programs and apps that use their preferred communication mode of Auslan rather than English. For example, they are taught how to use a video relay service through Skype to communicate with their families and friends. Skype supports people with hearing impairments to have a video conversation and does not rely on the use of text. I am advised that participants report that this helps reduce isolation and increases their independence. This program is enriching the lives of participants, offering them social and employment opportunities, and assisting them to continue making meaningful contributions to society.

I understand some participants are now starting to use Skype to contact the Deaf Society office. Many participants are also using internet banking for the first time, reporting that courses reduce the fear associated with online transactions. Earlier this year Mr Martin Budd participated in training over a six-week period and shared what he thought of the workshops in a YouTube video. This video can be found on the Facebook and YouTube pages of the Deaf Society of NSW. He said the course was really worthwhile and that it was great to have a hearing-impaired teacher explaining things clearly. Mr Budd said the course helped participants to better understand and be more confident in using technology, saying the more he learnt, the more his confidence in using the internet grew.

To date the New South Wales Government has provided $18,000 towards the Auslan program to support 162 program enrolments in Kiama, Newcastle, Wollongong, Gosford and Tweed Heads. I encourage those wishing to enrol in a Tech Savvy Seniors Auslan class to contact the Deaf Society of NSW for a timetable and course information. I take this opportunity also to thank the Deaf Society of NSW for its assistance and support in the development and delivery of the Tech Savvy Seniors Auslan training program. I thank also Telstra for its continued partnership in the delivery of the successful Tech Savvy Seniors program.

HOSPITAL PATIENT EVICTION

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Hon. John Ajaka, representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the matter of an 89-year-old woman evicted from the Prince of Wales Hospital under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 because her hostel refused to readmit her without the presence of a registered nurse on the staff of the hostel. How many other hospital inpatients or outpatients have been given eviction notices in the past five years under this Act and is the Minister aware of any similar notices having been given from nursing homes?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I assume he is referring to Dr Elizabeth Rogers. At the outset I extend my sincerest condolences to the family of Dr Rogers. I understand that the local health district takes full responsibility for the unsatisfactory and distressing experience Dr Rogers underwent. I am advised that the letter given to Dr Rogers is not considered acceptable practice and will not be used again. The chief executive of South Eastern Sydney Local Health District has apologised publicly and has given an assurance that this will never happen again. The local health district medical executive director has spoken with Dr Rogers' family and apologised for any distress caused. An investigation into this matter is underway. The outcomes of the investigation will be conveyed to Dr Rogers' family in due course. In relation to some of the specifics of the question raised, I will take those on notice and refer them to the Minister for Health.

COFFS HARBOUR SLIPWAY

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. In light of the statement by the member for Coffs Harbour that "The safety of the boating community is in danger and the Government must act", when will the Government take action on the Coffs Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative slipway?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I think that question should be directed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as Minister for Maritime and Freight.

The Hon. Courtney Houssos: It is Crown land.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is my responsibility.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The Department of Primary Industries provided a remediation action plan to the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] on 19 June 2015. The final plan included additional testing and analysis to clarify issues identified in the previous draft plan by the EPA. It is anticipated that the remediation action plan will be adopted in August 2015 and works will commence in late 2015. The department has offered a licence to allow the Coffs Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative to operate the slipway up until 31 January 2017. Slipway operations may need to cease during the remediation works. Alternative arrangements to remove small vessels up to 15 tonnes using a crane lift system for survey and minor works are also under consideration. An interim incident management plan has been prepared. Roads and Maritime Services is the combat agency for management of emergency incidents at the port. The draft plan indicates that alternative slipping services for routine cleaning and repairs are available at Port Macquarie, Iluka or Yamba. Options for future boat maintenance services at the port are being considered.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would like to clarify and, in one aspect, correct a ruling that I made in relation to the previous question that was asked by the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane. In one aspect of the comments I made, my recollection of a ruling that I made in the last Parliament was in error. I will clarify what the position actually is in relation to when a question is asked by an honourable member to effectively the incorrect Minister. In fact, based on rulings that have been made by previous Presidents it would be in order, if a point of order was taken, to declare a question out of order if it was asked of the wrong Minister, so the Hon. Duncan Gay was quite correct in that respect.

I should also clarify—and this was my previous ruling on which my recollection was faulty—that it is in order for members to ask any question of the Leader of the Government, as he represents the Premier in the Legislative Council. I make these comments so that all members are quite clear about the situation; they are the rules. I should also note, however, that obviously changes in the allocation of the Act and other changes to ministerial departments are not always well understood by members of the House, even though they are well informed on a wide range of issues. It would be quite in order to allow other Ministers to answer if the Minister chose to do that, but it is a matter for each Minister to make his or her own decision in each situation.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am not sure that it is appropriate to take a point of order on a ruling.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Mr President, I was unclear.

The PRESIDENT: It is close to canvassing the ruling.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Are you saying that a Minister could immediately transfer that question, if he liked, to another Minister?

The PRESIDENT: He could invite another Minister to respond, given that it was incorrectly directed. That practice has been followed in the House in the past.

IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Will the Minister outline how the New South Wales Government is working with the Commonwealth Government to help make the State's irrigators more efficient?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Our Government has a strong track record in backing the State's irrigators and securing millions of dollars of Commonwealth funding for water-efficiency projects to reduce the impacts of the Basin Plan. We unashamedly fight hard for a greater share of funding for our basin communities and that is exactly what we have been able to do under the latest round of the Commonwealth Government's On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program. Every megalitre of water that is saved through water-efficiency projects adds to the State's productive capacity and reduces the Commonwealth's buyback of water. I am pleased to say that the New South Wales Government has been able to secure a further $260 million from the Commonwealth to help the State's irrigators improve their on-farm irrigation operations. This next round of funding will help our farmers improve the efficiency of their operations—savings that go straight to their bottom line.

When making the announcement, I was joined by Leeton Mayor Paul Maytom and Federal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Bob Baldwin at Peter and Erin Draper's irrigation property in Leeton. Using the funding, the Drapers will convert five fields into one. They will then terrace the irrigation bays to provide further efficiency. The benefits of such projects flow well beyond the farm gate—helping to sustain the regional towns and communities in our southern regions that also rely on a productive irrigation industry. New South Wales is a strong investment choice for this funding—and we continue to attract a lucrative share of the funding pie. I am pleased to say that we have leading irrigators who continue to put up innovative and attractive projects that are worthy of this investment.

To date, the on-farm efficiency program has supported more than 600 projects in New South Wales that have resulted in improving water efficiency on irrigation properties. Projects include laser levelling of paddocks, upgrading overhead irrigation, replacing flood irrigation, modernising drip irrigation systems and installing soil moisture monitoring and automation equipment. This is not only good for our farmers but also good for our environment, as a proportion of the water savings contribute to the water being recovered for the environment under the Basin Plan.

This Government has said all along that a focus on efficiency and triple bottom line outcomes is the most sensible and sustainable approach. This approach actually benefits regional communities, as opposed to a rather narrow approach that does not help anyone. The water savings generated under the program will result in more than 70 gigalitres returned to the environment. I congratulate the recipients of this latest funding round—Ricegrowers' Association of Australia Inc., Murray and Murrumbidgee Consortiums, Waterfind Pty Limited; CAF Consulting, Australian Processing Tomato Research Council Inc., Coleambally Irrigation Co-operative Limited and Murray Irrigation Limited. This Government will continue to back our irrigators in every way possible.

The recent submission of innovative sustainable diversion limits adjustment projects to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority by the New South Wales and Victorian governments, along with numerous rounds of on- and off-farm efficiency programs mean that we are now in a position where the targeted recovery of 2,750 gigalitres under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is achievable without the need for further non-strategic buybacks. Irrigation is the cornerstone of many New South Wales communities. I will continue to work to achieve Basin Plan outcomes through efficiencies rather than the through further removal of precious productive water.

SHENHUA WATERMARK COALMINE

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Has the Minister toured the site of the proposed Shenhua Watermark coalmine? What impact will the mine have on the water resources and agricultural productivity of the Liverpool Plains?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: New South Wales has the most rigorous assessment process for mining developments in the country. The development assessment process for major projects is based on an assessment of the merits of each individual project proposed. The level of impact assessment and review is commensurate with the potential risks posed by the project. In addition, the decision-maker has the power to impose conditions on a project approval to constrain the way activities are undertaken on a site, or to require the impacts to be monitored so they can be measured and verified. In recognition of the Liverpool Plains as a productive agricultural region, the Shenhua Watermark exploration licence application includes a special condition, the purpose of which is to ensure that the most fertile agricultural lands are protected from mining.

Application of strategic regional land-use policy to the watermark project has resulted in large distances between the mine and the black soil plains and the primary alluvial aquifer; relocation of the project's biodiversity offset areas to avoid strategic agricultural land; preparation of detailed agricultural impact assessments reviewed by the Gateway Panel; and a suite of conditions to ensure that the water and agricultural resources of the region are protected. During the New South Wales based assessment of Shenhua's development application, a number of independent groundwater experts reviewed the groundwater modelling. The reviews found that the mine would not have a significant impact on groundwater and, in particular, the high value alluvial aquifers. The Shenhua project has also been subject to further scrutiny at the Commonwealth level under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. My question asked whether the Minister had toured the proposed site.

The Hon. John Ajaka: That was only part of the question.

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: It was a key part; it was the first part.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: That was not the only part of the question. The substantial part of the question dealt with the water and that is the answer that is being given.

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Further to the point of order: I would argue that the substantial part of my question was whether the Minister for Primary Industries in New South Wales has visited the proposed site of the Shenhua Watermark. I think an answer in that regard is most relevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Jeremy Buckingham has made a debating point through the point of order, which is what it was. The Minister was quite in order. In what particular order the Minister chooses to answer a question or whether he chooses to answer a question at all is not a matter on which the President can intervene. As long as the Minister is providing relevant information and is not debating the question he is in order, and the Minister was doing neither of those things.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee confirmed that the groundwater model and supporting information is appropriate, and found that it is more likely to overestimate than underestimate impacts to high-value water sources. This Government is committed to the sustainable management of its groundwater resources, and the regulatory framework it has introduced around the mining and gas industries in New South Wales will ensure the necessary level of protection.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Jeremy Buckingham and the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps will cease interjecting. The honourable member is skating on very thin ice.

AGEING STRATEGY

The Hon. ERNEST WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing. In light of research by National Seniors Australia that found that 36 per cent of Australian homes are not purpose-ready for people as they age, what steps has the Minister taken to assist residents in New South Wales to improve their homes so they can stay independent and active in their own homes?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The Hon. Ernest Wong can be assured that this Government is doing much to ensure that our seniors are able to continue to live in their homes, to live an active and healthy lifestyle and to live independently and within their community. For that reason the Government has an Ageing Strategy that will be implemented continually and is even being looked at to be updated.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind Opposition frontbench members that their colleague is trying to ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. ERNEST WONG: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer by giving us the details of the steps he has taken to ensure there is a procedure to help New South Wales residents?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The member should have a good look at the Ageing Strategy. He will work it out.

AGQUIP 2015 AND NSW LIVESTOCK LOADING SCHEME

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: My question is addressed to Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on his visit to AgQuip last week and the announcement he made regarding the Livestock Loading Scheme?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: People have only to look at my Twitter page, Duncs Office, to see the pride and joy I took in being at AgQuip in Gunnedah last week. AgQuip is the nation's biggest showcase of agriproducts. It reminds us just how big and important our agriculture industry is not only to this State but also to the whole country. AgQuip has been running for 43 years with tens of thousands of people from across Australia attending and supporting our agriculture industry. I was proud to be at The Nationals' tent, which was booming at the event. To put it simply, it was packed to the rafters. Here it is, looking full. The green and gold glistened in the bright Gunnedah sun as we served up some seriously great steak sangas.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order—

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: What have you got against AgQuip, Penny?

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I have got nothing against AgQuip but it is against the standing orders to wave around props. The Hon. Rick Colless is trying to make it look good for the Minister on the broadcast. Mr President, I ask you to call him to order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have no doubt that the support we received is a direct result of the great reforms and projects that this Government delivers for agriculture in the bush. Speaking of tents, let me offer a stark contrast. It seemed that Country Labor was a no-show.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: Mr President, as you are aware, the use of props in the Chamber is against the standing orders. I ask you to call the Hon. Rick Colless to order because he is continuing to wave props around.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call. There is no point of order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It seemed Country Labor members were a no-show. They appeared to have a tent, but it was as empty as a haunted house. There was not even anyone brave enough to man it on the day. So-called Country Labor members had deserted the stands. They were missing in action. An old staff member of mine named John MacGowan asked where Mick was. He said, "Did he give up and go to the pub?" Where was Mick? He was not there. It was a monument to Labor's list of failed policies for country New South Wales. Nothing has changed: They were not there for the people of the bush while in government and they are still not there.

While at AgQuip I took the opportunity to announce recent findings from the independent review into the Livestock Loading Scheme. The independent review found that the scheme could save producers up to $10.2 million a year in livestock transport costs and reduce annual truck trips on regional roads and highways by more than 7,000 if it were taken up by a greater number of shire councils. To date, 21 councils—good start but not enough—have enrolled in the scheme that allows them to have slightly increased weight limits for certain livestock trucks and that results in fewer truck movements on their roads and therefore less wear and tear.

The scheme is yet another example of the New South Wales Government's commitment to improving not only freight productivity for the agricultural sector in regional New South Wales but also life for those living in the bush. If councils believe in those rural industries that pay rates in their areas, surely they should think twice before not joining the scheme. The scheme is common sense and farmers have been asking for it for decades. We have finally put it in place with the support of the Livestock and Bulk Carriers Association and we are working our way through the councils around the State. So far only 21 have joined up. We want these councils to be fit for the future. How can they be fit for the future if they will not look after the industries they depend on? [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions I suggest that they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5

Report: The Performance of the NSW Environment Protection Authority

Debate resumed from 6 May 2015.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [5.05 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 report on the performance of the NSW Environment Protection Authority. The inquiry's terms of reference were adopted on 19 June 2014 under the committee's power to make a self-reference. They required the committee to measure the NSW Environment Protection Authority's recent performance against its objectives pursuant to section 6 of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. The committee was to do so by considering a series of case studies, including land contamination issues at Botany and Hillsdale, coal dust pollution in the Hunter, the response to groundwater contamination in the Pilliga, the prosecution of DuPont Australia for alleged land pollution in the western Sydney suburb of Girraween, the operation of the cruise ship terminal at White Bay, and the regulation of forestry practices in Royal Camp State Forest.

The committee received 254 submissions and two supplementary submissions, which clearly highlights the huge interest in the important inquiry. The committee held four public hearings—two at Parliament House, one at the Lismore City Hall and one at Newcastle City Hall—with a total of 48 individuals appearing before the inquiry. The committee also undertook three site visits: to the White Bay Cruise Terminal and surrounding streets in Balmain; sites connected to the movement of coal trains and recent air monitoring studies in the Hunter; and to the Royal Camp State Forest in New South Wales. On behalf of the committee I extend my gratitude to all those who assisted with the site visits.

I take this opportunity to thank everyone who made a submission to the inquiry. I also thank the 48 individuals who took the time to appear before the committee for the information they provided, much of which was personal information. I thank committee members Deputy Chair Mr Scot MacDonald, the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, Dr Mehreen Faruqi and the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. Last but not least, I thank someone whom we dearly miss in this Chamber, the Hon Luke Foley. I thank all committee members for their cooperation and thorough approach in the conduct of the inquiry. There seems to be a continuing theme here. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 operates like a well-oiled machine. The members work together collegiately in the interests of the inquiry achieving the best outcomes.

There is very little problem with partisan positions—we sometimes express our divergent views in deliberatives. However, on the ground when we are talking to the people, members of the committee not only allow them to have their say but also encourage them to expound upon their views and the impacts some of these cases studies have had on their lives. I commend them for that. I also thank the Hansard staff and the committee secretariat—in particular, Stewart Smith, Jenelle Moore, Elizabeth Parker and Chris Angus—for their professional support and for their valued assistance in preparing the report. I have commented before on some of the technical difficulties that can occur during hearings held in country locations. The Hansard staff are always there and always on the ball. We never seem to have any technical problems.

The report contains nine chapters. Chapter two provides the context for the inquiry by giving an overview of the structure of the Environment Protection Authority [EPA]. It also provides an overview of the legislation outlining the objectives of the EPA, and concludes by summarising how these statutory objectives are used by the EPA in its operations. Chapters three to eight deal with the case studies, which were all considered individually under the inquiry's terms of reference. The final chapter considers key themes arising from the committee's inquiry to inform the operation of a more effective EPA in the future.

While the committee found that generally the EPA is performing the majority of its functions in keeping with its objectives, there were areas that it suggested could be improved. As a result, the report contains 17 recommendations; and I urge the Government to act on all of them. Of particular concern was the governance of the EPA itself, as well as the need for the EPA to improve its communication with local communities. In saying that, I make it clear to members that there was no criticism of the chair of the EPA, who is also effectively its chief executive officer because the roles are combined.

Mr Barry Buffier and his team went out of their way to provide the committee with the very best information they could and to answer all our questions succinctly. I thank Mr Buffier for being so upfront. Our concern particularly related to the structure of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. From a public governance point of view, it is always unwise for the chair of a board or similar also to be the chief executive officer. Those sorts of things are generally discouraged in corporate life. Therefore, the committee recommended that the Government do something about improving the authority's structure.

Recommendation 1 and recommendation 16 seek to address these two concerns. Recommendation 1 calls on the Government to amend the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 to provide for the appointment of a chairperson of the board independent of the chief executive officer of the EPA. Recommendation 16 calls on the EPA to take immediate steps to refine and enhance stringent protocols and procedures to ensure timely communication of incidents involving pollution. I will not address any of the other recommendations at this point, except to say that this inquiry proved to be very informative. Subsequent to, and maybe as a consequence of, the deliberations of the inquiry, certain things seem to have happened anyway, particularly in regard to pollution in White Bay.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: There may be even more coming.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Yes. The inquiry proved to be very informative. I urge those members who have not read the report to do so—even though sometimes these things can be a bit dry. I commend the report to the House.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [5.13 p.m.]: I will make a short contribution on behalf of the Labor Opposition on the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 into the performance of the NSW Environment Protection Authority. I was not a member of the committee when it was undertaking this inquiry, but I am now. I look forward to participating in the work of what is considered to be a very good committee, as noted by the Hon. Robert Brown. It is important to remember how this inquiry came to be. This report is a result of an inquiry established by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 because of significant community concern and significant concerns raised by Labor members about how the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] leadership was performing and the way in which it was dealing with local communities on a range of issues.

The Opposition had significant concerns about the EPA leadership, which did not have the balance right and was prioritising polluters over the community. The leadership was more concerned with public relations than protecting communities. We must ensure that the EPA is a robust defender of the environment and the public interest in all cases. It is important to note that our concerns arising from this report are not about the legislative framework, nor the funding of the EPA. For a long time, our concerns related to the way in which the EPA interacted with the community and specific governance issues. It was as a result of that that the former shadow Minister for the environment, the Hon. Luke Foley, moved to refer the issue to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. It is important to look at the issues that arose in the year leading up to the inquiry reference.

The EPA had sat on information that revealed the presence of toxic substances in the soil around the Orica site at Botany. It had also covered up crucial facts concerning coal dust pollution in the Hunter Valley rail corridor, which has been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. It had imposed a fine of only $1,500 on exploration company Santos for the contamination of an aquifer with uranium at levels 20 times higher than those prescribed in the guidelines for safe drinking water. These are important issues that needed to be addressed. There was also the matter of the $500 million botched prosecution over the destruction of vegetation in the western suburb of Girraween. The terms of reference tried to lay out these case studies for examination. They included the following cases for consideration:

(i) land contamination issues at Botany and Hillsdale

(ii) EPA investigations and public statements about the effects of coal dust pollution in the Hunter

(iii) EPA investigation into ground water contamination in the Pilliga by Santos' coal seam gas exploration

(iv) the prosecution of Du Pont (Australia) Ltd for the alleged offence of land pollution in the western Sydney suburb of Girraween

(v) the regulation of cruise passenger ships at the White Bay Cruise Terminal at Balmain

(vi) the regulation of forestry practices in Royal Camp State Forest

I acknowledge that this happened some time ago and that significant change has occurred since. However, it is important to note the level of community interest in this inquiry. The committee received more than 250 submissions and held public hearings around the State. That is a lot of submissions for a committee inquiry to receive, and it is important to note that level of concern and the community desire that the EPA get it right. We received the Government's response to the report of this inquiry just last week, some six months later, although within the required time—but on the last day, of course. The Government's response is weak; it has kicked down the road the recommendations that would make a real difference to the EPA's operations. It has failed to support much of the good work done by the committee, and in doing so it has missed an opportunity.

I will concentrate on one of the key issues identified in the report—that is, the dual-hat role of the EPA chief executive officer and chairman. Both of these roles are performed by Barry Buffier. The committee recommended that the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 be amended to provide for the appointment of a chairperson of the board independent of the chief executive officer. In its response the Government has deferred any action—saying it would be reviewing all statutory entities in New South Wales. That is not good enough. This is a clear case and it has been considered at length.

The Government, and the Minister in particular, sat on this report for six months. It has now said, "Well, we're going to look at everything and we might deal with it at that point in time." That is a disappointing response from the Minister. I recommend that members read not only the report but also the Government's response to it. The Minister's response is very flippant, and that is unfortunate. It is important to note that many community groups have also been critical of the Government's response, particularly in relation to governance matters. The chief executive officer of the Nature Conservation Council, Kate Smolski, said:

Despite a clear and urgent need to separate the roles of chairman and CEO of the EPA, the government has put off taking action to remedy this serious flaw in the organisation's governance.

There have been increasing concerns about the relationship and the culture of the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] in respect of its work with some community groups. Significant criticism has been levelled in the Hunter about air pollution and what is being done about it, particularly the pollution caused by coal trains. It is important to note the comments of Dr James Whelan, a researcher and community organiser from Environmental Justice Australia. Dr Whelan recently sat in on a meeting in the Hunter with a number of groups and the EPA. His description of that meeting was not one that anyone would hope to hear, given the EPA's attempts to repair its relationship with the community. Dr Whelan said that issues have been deferred and that there is now open hostility between the EPA and the community about covering coal trains. That is unfortunate and it is disappointing that these stories keep coming up after the inquiry, although I acknowledge that some progress has been made. We want the EPA to be robust, but we also want it to work actively with communities so that it has their trust and faith and communities feel that resolution can be achieved through the existing processes. Significant matters still have not been addressed.

There are ongoing issues with the EPA, and governance is the biggest and most important one. Yet again, the Labor Party urges the Government to address this issue and not simply to kick it down the road to a review of every statutory entity in the State. This inquiry provided an opportunity to achieve desperately needed change. However, the Government has squibbed it with its response to the report. I hope that the Minister will take it more seriously and respond quickly so that we have a strong and robust governance mechanism for the EPA. Our community needs it and failure to act will be a problem.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.20 p.m.]: I am a member of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 and was proud to be Deputy Chair under the Chair, the Hon. Robert Brown. As he mentioned, it is a well-functioning committee and, even if some of the catalysts for it were a little political, we got on with the job and the committee staff supported us, and I thank them for that. The previous speaker indulged in a little rewriting of history—surprise, surprise. The Environment Protection Authority [EPA] was a product of the Greiner Government, and is something of which the Liberal-Nationals should be very proud. Before that there was no EPA.

The Coalition created an independent body, but the Labor Government changed it. The EPA function was buried in a range of departments; it was underfunded, under-resourced and lost its mojo, for want of a better word. In 2011, the new Liberal-Nationals Government restored the EPA's fortunes. It was once again independent and its funding was considerably increased under Premier Barry O'Farrell, and the Coalition has continued to support it. I urge the House to reject the colouring of history that we heard from the previous speaker, who seemed to imply that the Liberal-Nationals do not support the EPA. The EPA is a Liberal-Nationals creature.

I will restrict my comments to two aspects of the report. The first is the inquiry into coal dust coming from trains travelling through the Hunter Valley. There were many media reports and accusations about conspiracies, withholding of information, and documents being obtained under freedom of information legislation. Everybody had their favourite bogeyman. When the committee looked into the issue, took evidence and had the public hearings, it found that the conspiracy theory did not hold up. The EPA drew out good data that was tested, challenged and peer reviewed. That process resulted in various amendments, but they were seized upon as a corruption of the findings. The committee's investigations could not support that conclusion.

This issue is important for the people of the Hunter, and particularly those in the lower Hunter, where the trains move through the suburbs. The Hunter has a range of pollution sources, and they must be put in context. Air quality in the Hunter region, and particularly in the lower Hunter, is the best it has been since pre-BHP days. There has been a lot of colourful commentary about this issue, but we must be mindful of the data. Air quality in the lower Hunter is impacted by things such as lawnmower exhaust, salty sea spray, particulates from the diesel engines of trucks, trains and buses, and bushfire smoke and agricultural dust on windy days. It is difficult to point to one single factor as being responsible for air quality. The EPA and the committee's recommendation was that we consult the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer about air quality monitoring strategies in the Upper Hunter. The following day the Hon. Luke Foley issued a press release saying it was his idea—he borrowed my idea. It was a good idea, and he used it in his election campaign. Good luck to him.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I might steal some of their ideas if they had any.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: If they had any; that is the point. The committee attempted to obtain data on the accusations about the impact on air quality of open, full wagons travelling to and from the loaders, and more work should be done in that area. The committee found that diesel from the trains had an impact. That was important work and the committee got to the bottom of it. There was no conspiracy and there was no intention to mislead anybody. The EPA did what it should have done; it undertook good monitoring and reported to the public. That good work is ongoing.

The committee also examined groundwater contamination in the Pilliga. Social media carries many stories about contamination of aquifers and the horrors of coal seam gas. Apparently we have had uranium contamination and all sorts of other wonderful things as a result of this spill. I have visited the Pilliga twice—once before this inquiry commenced and once subsequently. A relatively small spill incident occurred in November 2011. Of course, it was undesirable and unfortunate, but it happened. The EPA conducted an inquiry, as it must, and found no connectivity with the beneficial aquifers; it was a very minor spill.

Any uranium present was naturally in the background of the soils and a $1,500 fine was issued, which was a fair reflection of the minor impact on the environment. The tests and the subsequent report took a year to complete. During that time Mr Jeremy Buckingham was reported on social media as making all sorts of allegations about the spill and the company, none of which have been subsequently proved. Of course, social media has an impact. The Sydney Morning Herald also ranted about the impact on aquifers. Again, none of its reports were subsequently proved to be correct. It would be good to hear a mea culpa and an apology from Mr Jeremy Buckingham. I doubt whether we will hear that.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Don't hold your breath.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: I will not hold my breath. The report demonstrates the importance of the work of the Environment Protection Authority. It might not be as fast as some people would like. It probably does not serve social and mainstream media, which want a headline and immediate answers. The technical testing takes time and has to be verified through peer review, as it should be. It behoves us all to resist the urge to criticise an individual or a company. Wait for the facts to emerge and let the Environment Protection Authority do its job.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Which it does well.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: As is shown by the report, the Environment Protection Authority generally does well. The recommendations state that the authority could communicate better. Even as the report was being written, the authority was improving its website and public communications. The inquiry served its purpose in that respect. The report shows the Environment Protection Authority to be a strong, robust agency of government. The Liberal-Nationals Government returned its independence and increased its funding. The agency has increased its fines tenfold. It is an agency of which we can be proud.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I welcome to the public gallery members of the public who are attending the A Little Night Sitting program conducted by Parliamentary Education. The House is currently debating the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 entitled "Performance of the NSW Environment Protection Authority". I hope our visitors find this evening both interesting and productive.

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [5.31 p.m.]: The important inquiry held by the Legislative Council into the performance of the NSW Environment Protection Authority provided an opportunity to examine the broad range of issues raised by the community and to consider six specific cases. The inquiry was highly anticipated by the community, as was evidenced by the 253 submissions that the committee received. Many raised concerns about the independence of the Environment Protection Authority, the process and practice of community engagement, compliance monitoring and enforcement, and adequate resourcing of the regulator. Submissions also made recommendations to strengthen and improve the Environment Protection Authority to meet its primary objectives.

I was honoured to serve on the committee on behalf of The Greens. I thank the committee secretariat for their dedication and hard work throughout the inquiry. I also thank the Chair and all the committee members for their work. I am pleased to say that many of the recommendations of The Greens were accepted by the committee in one form or another. However, The Greens proposed a number of wide-ranging recommendations that were not accepted by the committee that would have further improved the effectiveness and independence of the Environment Protection Authority. The recommendations in the report, whilst a big step forward, do not fully address the breadth of concerns raised in the submissions and the evidence provided.

The committee recommended reform of the governance and board composition of the Environment Protection Authority, specifically related to the separation of the roles of chair and executive officer. This is an important and necessary change, but it will not resolve the issue at the heart of many of the submissions, which was improving community representation and public access to the Environment Protection Authority. It is disappointing that the Government has not agreed to this basic change. It became clear in the inquiry that the removal of community representatives from the board of the Environment Protection Authority has significantly damaged its ability to connect with the community. The O'Reilly report, a 2011 review of the Environment Protection Authority response to the serious pollution incident at Orica's ammonium nitrate plant at Walsh Point on Kooragang Island recommended:

An Independent Board be established whose membership be drawn from people with regulatory expertise as well as representatives from community interests.

The Government removed community and local government representatives from the board of the Environment Protection Authority. That decision should be reversed, and community and environment groups should again have access to the board. The committee has made a number of recommendations on the use of consultative committees, in particular for the Environment Protection Authority to make greater use of them. However, many stakeholders have questioned the effectiveness of community consultation committees. The Greens support genuine community engagement processes, the lack of which was highlighted by many of the submissions. It is essential that these processes are monitored and evaluated to ensure that community expectations have been met. It is essential that the Environment Protection Authority develop a protocol and principles for community consultations that ensure genuine and transparent engagement. Adherence to that protocol should be monitored and reported on publicly.

Many stakeholders raised concerns about the perceived closeness of the Environment Protection Authority to industry, which they believed may have influenced its decisions. Whether or not it is substantiated, a perceived conflict of interest still needs to be addressed, as it is critical that the community have confidence in the State's environmental regulator. This could be achieved by developing a transparent independence and integrity charter. The charter could be similar to the scientific integrity policy established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which promotes a culture of scientific integrity for all employees and is intended to improve the internal management and operation of the agency.

During the inquiry, evidence came to light that when the Environment Protection Authority was re-established in 2012 as an independent government agency, separate from the Office of Environment and Heritage, the scientific division remained with the Office of Environment and Heritage. Given the breadth of technical cases that the Environment Protection Authority deals with, the separation of the authority from an in-house scientific capacity is of concern and may have contributed to some of the issues raised in the submissions. The Environment Protection Authority generally relies on information provided by environmental protection licence holders to monitor their own compliance with licence conditions. Only in some cases does the Environment Protection Authority undertake independent data collection to check the validity of data provided by licence holders.

Many groups raised concerns about the lack of access to environmental protection data or the results of Environment Protection Authority investigations. It is crucial that a regular and random independent sampling program be developed to ensure that the data provided by environmental protection licence holders is correct and has integrity. Whilst the important principles of ecologically sustainable development are enshrined in legislation, there is concern that they have not been properly operationalised and applied to the day-to-day decision-making of the Environment Protection Authority. EDO NSW has highlighted that Environment Protection Authority obligations and commitments to achieve its aims by implementing ecologically sustainable development should be more clearly demonstrated and linked to a long-term vision for a healthy society and environment.

I will touch briefly on some specific case studies. The committee visited the White Bay Cruise Terminal and met with members of the community who experience the human health impacts of air and noise pollution every day. It is very clear that the current situation has come about because the Environment Protection Authority's original recommended conditions of approval, which included restrictions on sulphur fuel and the provision of shore-to-ship power, were not adopted. That is because the Environment Protection Authority has a limited role in planning matters, especially for State significant infrastructure. The Environment Protection Authority needs to be empowered to play an enforceable role in preventing environmental damage and health impacts at the planning stage. Using the precautionary approach, the risk of damage to human health can be eliminated from such projects.

The committee has adopted some positive recommendations proposed by The Greens, such as the provision of noise mitigation measures and ship-to-shore power, but the use of high-sulphur bunker fuel still poses an unacceptable risk to community health. I argued that low-sulphur fuel, with a maximum sulphur content of 0.1 per cent, should be mandated for use by cruise ships. That suggestion was blocked by the Shooters and Fishers Party, the Liberal Party and The Nationals. Since then, though, the Government has heard community demand and issued a draft Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Amendment (Cruise Ships) Regulation that would regulate sulphur content. The Government should be congratulated.

The Royal Camp State Forest case raised many concerns about procedures for the identification of threatened species, especially koalas, and protection in State forests. The recommendation from the committee to better resource the forestry division is welcome, but The Greens do not consider that this will solve the significant issues identified by the North East Forest Alliance. There needs to be a much greater focus on the regulation of State forests, with a view to ending logging, ending the economic, environmental and cultural waste at the heart of current practice, whilst supporting workers to transition where they are affected.

With regard to coal dust in the Hunter region, whilst recommendations for additional monitoring are welcome, major concerns remain about the impacts of current coal dust pollution on the health of the Hunter community. It was thoroughly disappointing that Labor members did not come on board and support The Greens' recommendation to cover and wash coal wagons. Although there was a recommendation to review the monitoring strategy, devise a monitoring network and await the Chief Scientist's recommendations before any action is taken, it is outrageous that the Government is not willing to commit to covering coal wagons even if the NSW Chief Scientist recommended it.

I will briefly touch on case studies that were not chosen for this inquiry and, despite many submissions, were virtually ignored by the committee. I attempted to include the Chester Hill fire as a term of reference—a fire in Western Sydney that burned for two months before anyone took any notice, exposing potentially thousands of people to toxic fumes. With parliamentary scrutiny this could have been an opportunity to finally resolve long-running issues of concern to the community, such as the Mangrove Mountain dump on the Central Coast or long-running noise issues related to freight rail.

New South Wales needs a strong, independent and effective environmental regulator to protect the environment and human health. The EPA needs significant improvements to achieve this, not only through increased resourcing but also through an expansion of its regulatory scope to match the community's expectations. Crucially, the EPA needs to make a shift to more effective community engagement and to providing transparent access to information. The recommendations from the committee were already quite modest and to see so few supported by the Government in its response is disappointing but not surprising. The Greens had pushed for much stronger recommendations.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.41 p.m.], in reply: First, I thank all members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 and the secretariat for the excellent work they did in the preparation of this report. I note that this report has only one dissenting statement and that that dissenting statement comes from one party—The Greens. There was unanimity of opinion relating to the recommendations in the report except for The Greens. Why should that be? I will save the answer to that question for a little later. Going through the individual issues we looked at I will start with the forestry practices in Royal Camp State Forest. Clearly, in that instance some mistakes were made by the Forestry Corporation of NSW, but they were swiftly rectified. The Greens live in a world where it is all stick and no carrot.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: All meat and no potatoes.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I will not go there. The Greens want an Environment Protection Authority [EPA] that is there simply to ruthlessly enforce stringent environmental concerns to the point of confiscatory fines and to the point of driving firms and organisations into penury. That is The Greens' vision for the EPA. In this instance some mistakes were made in relation to koalas but fines were imposed and the Forestry Corporation took clear advice, understood what had gone wrong and sought to correct that so it would not happen again in the future. That is the sort of thing we should be encouraging; not trying to have corporations hit with large fines.

Secondly, I wish to speak about coal dust pollution in the Hunter. This was extremely instructive. Mr Deputy-President, I am sure you are aware that Australia's first cash export in 1798 was coal from Newcastle. Since that time Newcastle has been doing that job quite effectively for New South Wales as a colony, for New South Wales as a State and for Australia as a nation. It is no surprise then that coal being transported from mines to the wharves in the Hunter has been a feature of Australian life for 217 years now.

However, with the bourgeoisification of certain sections of Newcastle and an aspirational middle class moving into some of the older areas to take advantage of the beautiful terrace life there, what has come with it is the same bourgeois mores—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am not bourgeois.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I was talking about Newcastle not Redfern. What has come with it is the same bourgeois mores that one might find if one perchance happens to go and visit certain terraces in Redfern, and that is this obsequious genuflection towards the goddess Gaia and a hatred of all things coal. Of course, you cannot hate coal if it does not directly affect you, but people suddenly discovered that coaldust is a problem—probably through a Google search on a website—they made complaints about it and they got air-monitoring devices. The trouble is that the air-monitoring devices they got were not suitable for the accurate assessment of coaldust. Even better, a statistical analysis was carried out of the data they received and what did the coal monitoring done by these resident action groups find? They found that the highest levels of particulate matter occurred when the wind was blowing from the south-east or east. That is significant because the coal dump and the coal trains were all located to the north-west and what they were picking up was sea spray and salt, but they were attributing those spikes in particulate matter to coal trains and coaldust from the coal dump in Newcastle.

It is easy to create a scare campaign in a community. It is easy for green extremists to go out and say people have to be scared about these things and to rev up communities about how terrible certain industries are, and that is exactly what happened in this case. As a committee we observed coal trains in operation and we found that their loads were not letting off coaldust; they were not dropping coal. In fact, we found that the coal had been both washed and shaped on the top of the coal trailers so that coal would not fall out and cause a problem. Even on the empty trailers it was quite clear that no substantial problem was being caused by their passage through communities. That was backed up by the findings of the EPA itself, which installed proper scientifically calibrated high-quality, nationally approved air-monitoring devices right beside the railway lines on which these trains were travelling.

So we have a situation where the EPA said it conducted an extensive survey of coal trains as they passed by and it found no reason to be upset about what was going on. The residents action group, revved up by green extremists brought their own inaccurate hand-held devices, which picked up a lot of particulate matter when a south-easterly was blowing and the waves were crashing on the shore and producing a lot of sea spray and, of course, that contained salt. Again, it is a big tick for the EPA in that regard. One final matter I will speak about is the passenger cruise ships at White Bay. Let us go back to first priorities. Previously, cruise ships could dock at the international cruise ship terminal at Circular Quay or alternatively they could go around to what is now Barangaroo.

Barangaroo was closed for redevelopment, but what people often forget is that the original plans for that site still allowed cruise ships to dock and unload their passengers there. The intervention of the State Labor Government had the plan changed. I make this absolutely clear: If the original plans for Barangaroo had gone ahead, cruise ships would not be docking at White Bay; they would be docking where people would want to get off the ship—on that central peninsula around The Rocks, Milsons Point and Darling Harbour, rather than, with all due respect, Balmain, which is a beautiful suburb. But no-one wants to get off a ship at Balmain and visit the Unity Hall Hotel. No-one wants to get off a ship at Balmain and view, via a taxi, the old White Bay power station. But Labor forced cruise ships to go to White Bay.

The Greens got a bit upset about this because they have a lot of feelings, but there is a fundamental principle about this on which I agree with Balmain residents. The Balmain residents had prior ownership of that place. A basic understanding of property rights is that they should not be infringed by a newcomer who seeks to conduct any sort of activity, whether it be an industrial or residential neighbour. The old common law rule of Rylands and Fletcher that gave a long, great historical tradition about the individual rights to a person's property has subsequently been changed through the creation of a statutory tort of nuisance. However, the principle remains; that is, one should not face a situation where one's amenity is severely affected by a new activity which, through externalities, imposes itself upon one's property.

I have a great deal of sympathy for those Balmain people. I would like to think that the White Bay Cruise Terminal could be moved somewhere, but I do not know to where. It seems to be one of those insuperable problems. The final question in my remaining 30 seconds is: Why did The Greens present a dissenting report? The Greens want the EPA to shut down business, commercial agriculture, and mining and drilling in New South Wales. The EPA is disliked by both the environmental movement and the business community. That tells me one thing. If it is disliked by both it has hit that wonderful Goldilocks spot where it is doing its job as it should.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [5.51 p.m.], in reply: I thank all speakers, including The Greens, for their contributions to debate on the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. I thank the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps for his colourful finish to the evening. It is a shame that members walked out in the middle of his contribution. I have already thanked Hansard and the committee secretariat. I agree with some of the speakers that the Government should have been a bit more proactive in its response to the report, but I have been around long enough to know that some of these things take a bit of time and a little persuasion. I commend the report to the House.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5

Report: Wambelong Fire

Debate resumed from 11 August 2015.

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [5.52 p.m.]: I commence by thanking committee staff, the Chair, the members who sat on this inquiry and most of all the community members who courageously shared their heart-wrenching stories of loss and survival with us during committee hearings both in Sydney and in Coonabarabran. The Wambelong fire was a terrible catastrophe that had significant impacts on the community and on the environment. I thank the firefighting volunteers, professional firefighters and National Parks and Wildlife [NPWS] staff for their service in fighting the fire. NPWS staff members clearly were distraught about its impact on the community and the damage to Warrumbungle National Park.

In their submissions people observed "that approximately 95 per cent of the animals in the Warrumbungle National Park were incinerated. Some even near to extinction." I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues on the committee that the community has experienced tremendous trauma, psychological and emotional stress, the loss of their homes and a lifetime of belongings. My heart goes out to the community for the impact the fire has had on not only their property but also the hardship it has caused for many families.

This inquiry was a useful tool in examining the incident in question. There are a range of recommendations in the report that have come directly from the community's experience and the many submissions received. This includes reforms around enhancing knowledge about the predictability of mega fires, ensuring the fire trail system is effective and well maintained, examining its staffing policy on days of extreme and catastrophic conditions and closing public roads in national parks on high-risk days. Other areas include clarifying command and control structures, the use of infrared cameras and the operating procedures of remote aerial response teams, amongst many others.

However, as I made clear in my dissenting report, a wide range of recommendations are not supported by the evidence and appear to be yet more political interference in the science of bushfire management. This was an inquiry into a specific and tragic incident and some caution should be used in extrapolating the lessons learned for that particular geography and ecology to the whole State. At the core of it, the committee has tried to make hazard reduction synonymous with burning when in fact burning is just one form of hazard reduction. For example, the Rural Fire Service [RFS] has suggested that whilst burning is important, in many circumstances hand and mechanical clearing can be more effective. The RFS document entitled "Methods of Fire Reduction" states:

Reduction of fuel does not have to be as drastic as removing all vegetation. Environmentally this would be disastrous and often trees and plants can provide you with some bush fire protection from strong winds, intense heat and flying embers.

A majority of committee members voted to recommend a target similar to the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission of a 5 per cent annual rolling target for hazard reduction burning when it is clear that there are significant issues. That was the view of both the Rural Fire Service and the Implementation Monitor of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. The Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation Monitor Final Report, tabled in the Victorian Parliament on 31 July 2012, found:

The BRCIM questions the rolling target as the most effective way to increase the level of planned burning across the State as working towards a pre-determined target may diminish the State's ability to focus on risk reduction in high risk areas. The BRCIM advocates that the State reconsider the planned burning rolling target of five per cent as the primary outcome as part of the planned burning reform program …

This was reconfirmed in the Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation Monitor Annual Report 2014, which stated:

The BRCIM's view in relation to this target is unchanged. Area based hectare targets alone will not necessarily reduce the bushfire risk to life and property in Victoria and may have adverse environmental outcomes.

The Greens are deeply concerned that if this target is implemented against the advice of experts such as the Rural Fire Service it will lead to a focus on quantity of burning over strategic quality and location of hazard reduction. Fire authorities need the freedom to plan hazard reduction according to the situation. The people of New South Wales deserve to be protected from bushfires using the most effective and proven strategies possible. When politicians start mandating artificial targets and avert the attention of people on the ground, we are putting our community at risk.

I turn now to climate change. The fact of the matter is that the committee has not acknowledged that climate change is expected to increase the number of days with very high and extreme fire weather and bushfire severity and intensity is expected to increase substantially in coming decades because of this. Recognising the changing environment is essential to preventing more devastating fires like the Wambelong fire, which occurred during an extreme fire danger day. The six key findings of the 2014 report of the Climate Council of Australia entitled "Be prepared: Climate change and the NSW bush fire threat" clearly point to the increase in extreme fire weather, dry conditions and an increased frequency and severity of bushfires because of climate change. Hot, dry conditions have a major influence on bushfires.

Climate change is making hot days hotter, and heatwaves longer and more frequent, with increasing drought conditions in Australia's south-east. Indeed, 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record and in New South Wales the annual mean temperature was 1.23 degrees Celsius above average. The summer of 2013-14 was also the driest summer that Sydney has experienced in 27 years. These conditions are driving up the likelihood of very high fire danger weather in the State. Climate change will also significantly affect biodiversity by changing population size and distribution of species, modifying species composition and altering the geographical extent of habitats and ecosystems. Species most at risk are those unable to migrate or adapt, particularly those with small population sizes or with slow growth rates.

Programs to reduce the pressure arising from other threats, such as habitat fragmentation, invasive species, bushfires and pollution, will help reduce the severity of the effects of climate change. Despite all the availability of this scientific information, it was very disappointing that the committee failed to acknowledge any of these facts. My recommendation, "That the NSW Government commit to strong targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and work with States and through COAG to ensure that Australia cuts emissions deeply to reduce the risk of even more extreme events, including bushfires" was also rejected by the committee. The Wambelong fire was a terrible fire. It is clear from the inquiry that there are significant lessons to be learnt. Some good recommendations have come about as a result of this inquiry that will assist in resolving local issues as well as having some application across the State.

However, the committee's recommendation of adopting a Victorian target of hazard-reduction burning, a target that has been criticised by the Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation Monitor and implicitly by the Rural Fire Service, is deeply concerning and not supported by the evidence. The committee is asking our firefighters and firefighting agencies to move from a focus on determining the most strategic form of hazard reduction to protect lives, property and the environment, to a focus on whether or not they are meeting their targets through inefficient or unnecessary burns. And this is quite frankly unacceptable. The community and the environment have been through a lot with this fire. We must learn the lessons and adopt measures that actually improve the situation in the future, not make it worse.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [6.01 p.m.], in reply: This was a difficult inquiry because of the extent of the damage that was done to the fabric of the community, notwithstanding the absolutely frightening damage to the environment and the potential for damage to the township of Coonabarabran. I appreciate the contributions of all members of the committee. Dr Mehreen Faruqi has concerns about the committee not taking into account climate change, but with all due respect I do not think the committee as a whole believes that the New South Wales Government can do much about climate change.

My personal beliefs do not come into it—I think that anthropogenic climate change or global warming is a croc of you-know-what. The committee concentrated on those areas about which we could make a recommendation that the Government could easily and quickly agree to and adopt to try to put in place immediately some measures to prevent a repeat of what occurred. I do not refer only to the Wambelong fires but also to the Victorian fires and the Canberra fires, which have cycles that just keep continuing.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Has Wambelong got a 20 year cycle?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: It is probably longer than that now. The majority of that bushland is destroyed for 50 years because all the black cypress was burnt and it will not regenerate. This is a balanced committee report. I hope the Government takes into account all of its recommendations. I was alarmed by the public statements of the Minister, but I understand he was joking. However, it was no joke to the people surrounding the Wambelong fire area. Some of those people will be marked for life spiritually, emotionally and financially to a great extent and others may not be able to rebuild houses in the area because of changes to the construction zone requirements now that it has been deemed a fire zone.

The Minister should not laugh about this matter or make light of the fact that this was an upper House inquiry and that perhaps its members did not know what they were talking about. Committee members took expert advice and I expect, as Chair of that committee, that the Government will take its recommendations seriously. That is the role of this House and that is what we do for a living: We take it seriously. I commend the report to the House.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MINISTERIAL PROPRIETY IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Report: Ministerial Propriety in New South Wales

Debate resumed from 6 May 2015.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [6.06 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the report of the Select Committee on Ministerial Propriety in New South Wales. The terms of reference of the inquiry were established by a resolution of this House on 22 August 2013. The terms of reference required the committee to inquire into and report on various issues relating to ministerial propriety, including ministerial responsibility to Parliament, measures to reduce potential conflicts of interest on the part of Ministers, and the operation and enforcement of the lobbying scheme. Indeed, this has been a very relevant issue for the Parliament of New South Wales in more recent times. More than ever, we must ensure that members, Ministers of the Crown, and lobbyists interact and maintain appropriate relationships as per their codes of conduct at all times.

The committee received seven submissions and held one public hearing on 14 October 2013, with witnesses from the Department of Family and Community Services appearing. I take this opportunity to thank everyone who made a submission to the inquiry. I particularly thank the Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services, Mr Michael Coutts-Trotter; his Executive Director for Frontline Resources Management, Ms Marilyn Chilvers, and the former Deputy Chief Executive of Operations, Ms Helen Freeland, for appearing before the committee. We were heartened by their courage and integrity in appearing before such an important inquiry.

The same cannot be said of their Ministers, who vigorously avoided giving evidence before the inquiry, despite repeated requests to do so. In fact, some of us have been informed that they were prevented from doing so by former Premier O'Farrell, whose fate was already sealed, so to speak. I thank committee members Deputy Chair, the Hon. Luke Foley; Dr John Kaye; the Hon. Trevor Khan; Dr Peter Phelps; and the Hon. Adam Searle. for their co-operation and thorough approach in the conduct of this inquiry. I thank Hansard and the committee secretariat for their professional support at all times and for their valued assistance in preparing the report.

The report is quite brief because of the obstacles placed in the committee's way by the O'Farrell Government, and consists of three chapters. Chapter 2 of this report explores briefly the concept of ministerial responsibility to Parliament and examines the key measures by which ministerial behaviour in New South Wales is regulated. The chapter notes recent changes to these measures, as well as proposed improvements recommended by the privileges committee of each House. The chapter then goes on to examine the scheme regulating the lobbying of government officials, which has also changed significantly since this inquiry was established.

As all members will be aware, a key measure in regulating ministerial behaviour in New South Wales is the Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown. The committee ultimately acknowledges and supports the adoption of the ministerial code as an applicable code for the purposes of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, as well as changes to the code itself. Further, the committee inquired into the Lobbying of Government Officials Act 2011 at some length. Admittedly, the scheme regulating the lobbying of government officials in New South Wales has changed significantly since this inquiry was established.

A number of submissions were made to the inquiry that identified concerns regarding the operation of the scheme in place in 2013. The submissions received from stakeholders from the lobbying profession raised a number of issues and potential improvements with respect to the operation of the scheme as it existed at the time this inquiry was established. Both PremierState and Centennial Consultancy argued that peak bodies, in-house lobbyists, and third party professionals, should be required both to register and to observe the general ethical standards contained in the code.

The lobbying scheme currently in place is the by-product of a number of changes since the establishment of the inquiry. Amendments to the Lobbying of Government Officials Act 2011 have placed the NSW Electoral Commission as the independent regulator of lobbyists with responsibility for administering the register of lobbyists and for enforcing the lobbyists' code. The committee acknowledges those important recent improvements to the lobbying scheme. Despite that, the committee is concerned at the delays in the publication of ministerial diaries by the Government. To that end, recommendation No. 2 requiring the publication of ministerial diaries by the New South Wales Government online at least monthly should be implemented immediately.

Chapter 3 provides a case study on ministerial propriety. It examines caseworker numbers in the Department of Family and Community Services in light of statements on the issue made by the then Minister. Ultimately, the committee acknowledges the significant work done by the Department of Family and Community Services to improve how frontline caseworkers are counted and measured against the funded positions. The committee highlights the need for Ministers to ensure at all times that their statements are accurate and beyond dispute. I take this opportunity to remind the House of the gravity of the content and material the committee was established to inquire into. Members of the Parliament of New South Wales are elected by the people. The people have entrusted us with their confidence and believe that we act with honesty, integrity and good character.

The doctrine of ministerial responsibility goes to the very core of an effective, honest and fair democracy. Many Australians have expressed their concerns regarding the standards of honesty in public life. Indeed, those conversations have intensified in recent years given what has occurred at all levels of government. Honesty, integrity and good character are the most indispensable and treasured qualities of leadership. One who aspires to be a good leader must always keep his word. If you keep your word as a leader, you will be respected. The inquiry only managed to scrape the surface of what continues to be a crucial issue. Ministerial propriety in New South Wales underpins every facet of parliamentary work. As Chair of the select committee, I am disappointed by former Premier O'Farrell for undermining its important work. I commend the report to the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.11 p.m.]: I associate myself with the remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee on Ministerial Propriety in New South Wales, the Hon. Robert Borsak. I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said and endorse his remarks. The first thing I will emphasise is that the committee was established after the final four years of the Labor Government. During that time the antics of Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald, Joe Tripodi and friends, and the way in which they treated New South Wales more or less as an automatic teller machine brought public respect for democracy to an all-time low. The situation was not helped by the initial behaviour of the Liberals and The Nationals in government, particularly the Liberals. After having been elected to government, 12 members of the Liberal Party had to stand aside or resign, or were in some form of disgrace before the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC].

It is fair to say that politics in New South Wales had hit rock bottom at the time the inquiry was set up. It is also fair to say that the behaviour of a number of Federal politicians has extended the odour across the Federal-State divide. The urgent task of reinstituting a degree of community confidence in politics has not really begun. The existence of ICAC goes a long way towards convincing the community that there is some kind of watchdog, but issues arising from the Cunneen case have left ICAC more or less crippled. Into that mix come the terms of reference of this inquiry, which were to look at the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, the management of conflict of interest, and lobbying.

We did not make much progress on any of that, as the Hon. Robert Borsak correctly observed, largely because of the obstinacy of then Premier Barry O'Farrell and what we understand to have been his instruction to his Ministers not to engage with the inquiry. It is fairly hard to conduct in an inquiry into ministerial propriety when no Minister turns up. I take it that the Hon. Barry O'Farrell has no real sense of irony, but it was kind of ironic because as a parliamentary committee we were exploring the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, yet no Minister accepted our invitation to attend. The Liberal Party leadership at the time must have had no sense of humour or irony and did not get the point.

I will now focus briefly on lobbying. When members get out of this Chamber, away from the high-powered groups that people in politics tend to deal with and talk to the average person on the street, those people identify campaign donations and lobbying as the two key processes threatening democracy. In particular they are concerned that the deployment of high-powered lobbyists who have spectacular internal political connections to the party in government and in some cases the party in opposition—and particularly those who continue to operate within those parties—destroys any concept of a level playing field. It is not the justice of your case that wins the political argument; it is who you know and how you can deploy those contacts in the government decision-making process.

It is unfortunate that the inquiry made no real progress on lobbying. I mean no disrespect to the Chair, my committee colleagues or the excellent staff who supported the inquiry, but the report leaves open more questions than it answers. Even though there has been progress on lobbying and managing conflict of interest, we still have a long way to go, as the Chair observes in his foreword. A large number of matters still need to be resolved. I have said before in this Chamber that I do not believe that the conversation on corruption or campaign donations will finish any time in the next three decades. We will continue to need to have those conversations, particularly in a body politic where increasing numbers of decisions involve the private sector. Where governments increasingly outsource decisions and choose contractors, and the private sector increasingly seeks access to government resources and contracts there will be increasing corruption pressures. I believe the addition of another casino in New South Wales will add corruption pressures in the gaming and racing portfolio.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I am pretty sure we have one already.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Government Whip's interjection suggests that he should go back to playing with his iPhone. I said "the addition of another casino".

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I remind the member not to respond to interjections. Interjections are disorderly, but so are responses to them. I invite the member to proceed with his considered remarks and not engage in an interchange with the Government Whip.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy-President. Based on international experience, the addition of another casino soon and a possible third casino highlights the corruption risks in New South Wales. One of the recommendations of this inquiry was that ministerial diaries be published on a monthly basis. There are a number of examples, particularly in the gaming and racing portfolio, where that would have been extremely helpful to understand the behaviour of the Government and indeed of the Opposition. I note that the Leader of the Opposition published his diary well and truly after a matter that I was concerned about and that I asked this Chamber to be concerned about—that is, changes to the poker machine regulations—had been resolved by this Parliament.

I think if we had known at the time of the failed attempt to disallow the poker machine regulations that the Leader of the Opposition had met with ClubsNSW representatives then we might have had a better understanding as to why that particular outcome occurred. Ministerial diaries just list the date of a meeting and who was involved. That is inadequate. There needs to be far more information. The previous Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, Justice Ipp, in his recommendations in 2010 suggested that there be minutes associated with each of those meetings and that those minutes be available under the Government Information (Public Access) Act. I think that is sensible.

Going through the ministerial diaries as they are now published on a three-monthly data bases, it is not clear what conversations were had and the import of those conversations. In a truly open and functional democracy it would be clear to the average voter what was actually going on in those meetings. It would be an opportunity to understand the vector of influence that lobbying exerts and the impacts it has on the welfare of the State. In so far as it goes, I commend the report to the House. I thank the Chair and my fellow committee members for the way they behaved. I also thank the committee staff for completing what was a challenging task—a task that, for the reasons I and the Chair have already outlined, included many constraints. I think they did a remarkable job given those constraints.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [6.21 p.m.]: As a member of this committee, I am still slightly confused as to what it was all about. It lasted for about two years, it held one hearing and I am still not sure what it was meant to achieve. Maybe those who decided to establish this committee saw it as some sort of standing inquisition where they could bring along Ministers every now and again to ask them about specific issues within their portfolio, all of which is possible through the existing estimates committee process. But, of course, there appears to have been a desire to create a standing inquisitorial committee by this House. On that basis, it is unsurprising that the former Premier, or indeed any Premier, would countenance such a possibility. Let us have a look at what this committee was actually set up to achieve. The terms of reference are entirely reasonable and sensible. The committee was to look at:

(a) Ministerial responsibility to Parliament, including the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility,

This point could easily have been obtained from an undergraduate textbook into Westminster political theory.

(b) Measures to reduce potential conflicts of interest between a minister's public duties, private interests and membership of a political party, particularly in relation to financial and commercial activities,

There was no evidence adduced and barely any evidence suggested that that would be a problem in the current Government.

(c) The operation and enforcement of the Lobbying of Government Officials Act 2011, and any associated codes of conduct,

All of that appears to be going along quite well, because, again, no substantive evidence was adduced that there was a problem with that.

(d) The interaction and appropriate relationship between the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, the Lobbyist Code of Conduct, and the current Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown,

Again, no substantial evidence was adduced that there is any problem there.

(e) Whether the current Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown should be adopted as an applicable code for the purposes of section 9 (1) (d) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, and

(f) Any other relevant matters.

Well, the committee existed. The committee met, every blue moon, and produced a report that includes three recommendations, two of which are fairly uncontroversial. Indeed I would not have submitted a dissenting statement had the Chair's original draft report gone forward as the final report. The draft report was moderate and sensible, grounded on the evidence provided to the committee. But the addition of the Australian Labor Party [ALP] amendment to the report made my dissenting report necessary. To give honourable members some background, the ALP successfully moved that the committee express its concern "at the delays in the publication of ministerial diaries" and called for their publication at least monthly.

This is the same ALP that published absolutely no ministerial diaries whatsoever when in office—not once a term; not once a year; not every six months; not every month; not every week; none at all. It did not publish any ministerial diaries whatsoever. Suddenly in opposition they have a change of heart. They say, "Oh no, ministerial diaries should be published monthly." Do as I say not as I do, that is the motto of those opposite. The truth is that this Government has been an outstanding reformer in ministerial openness and accountability. As part of that reform program the Government mandated that, for the first time, ministerial diaries be released on a quarterly basis. Those opposite had 16 years in government to do that but they did not—maybe if they had had that seventeenth year they would have; they were going to do all those other projects in that same year. Moreover, the Government indicated that its ministerial accountability mechanisms would be subject to review and, where necessary, strengthening.

The Labor amendment—which was submitted, voted on and included in the final report—for monthly disclosure was therefore unnecessary and hypocritical. It was unnecessary on probity grounds and hypocritical coming from the New South Wales ALP. As I said, the report, for what it is worth, was quite moderate in its original draft form, but I felt the need to add that dissenting statement. I will go to the one case study that we actually looked at, and that was in relation to numbers of caseworkers in the old Department of Community Services, and what do we find there? We find is that the Minister acted on the advice of her department and information that she had been given. Those who want to know why the numbers were so disparate should read the Hansard transcript, as I did, and look at the questioning in relation to statistical methodology.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: I stay up at night reading it.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I take that interjection and suggest that if the honourable member has that interest he would not stay up for very long if he was actually reading it. The problem essentially came down to one not of malice or malfeasance but simply misfeasance on the part of the officials. They changed the system for how they accounted for workers. They gave one set of historical data to the Minister, which was correct at one period of time, and they had a different set of numbers. Those numbers were based on the revised methodology using a later process after that methodology had been changed to provide, ironically enough, a more accurate assessment of the true number of caseworkers in terms of load and availability.

As I demonstrated, depending on the methodology used, one could have 2,000 caseworkers, zero caseworkers, 1,000 caseworkers or 1,500 caseworkers. That is the sort of thing with which the Minister found herself dealing. The Minister acted in good faith in presenting the advice provided to her by the department, and the methodology was changed. To be fair, the secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services, Michael Coutts-Trotter, admitted that it was a departmental stuff-up. He earns a tick for having the gumption to say that the department made a mistake by not clarifying the detail for a broader, and in many cases, highly politicised audience who wanted numbers on caseworkers. This inquiry was interesting, but if its aim was to be a grand inquisition that would expose the Government's failings, it failed. If its aim was to provide a path for reform, it had some interesting suggestions. The fact that ministerial diaries are now issued quarterly may be attributed in some small part to the work of this committee. However, to say that it has been the greatest committee ever to grace the halls of Parliament might be an overstatement.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Fifth Day's Debate

Debate resumed from 11 August 2014.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.30 p.m.]: Many members have spoken in the Address-in-Reply debate. They have spoken on many topics because the Governor's Speech encapsulated a wide range of important issues for New South Wales. In my contribution I will focus on two issues: the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and postnatal depression. His Excellency stated that the New South Wales Government's initiative of introducing a trial of medicinal cannabis was the right and compassionate thing to do to ease suffering, as was the further exploration of the role that medical cannabis can play.

As members know, I had the privilege of chairing the inquiry into the role that medicinal cannabis can play in alleviating the suffering of terminal patients. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 recommended that the Government amend legislation to allow the medical use of cannabis by patients with terminal illnesses and those who have moved from HIV infection to acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS]. The committee and I recognise that those at the end stage of their life who take measures either to relieve their severe pain or to stimulate their appetite should not be deemed criminals. Of course, we acknowledge the risks and negative effects of crude cannabis use, particularly via smoking, and by no means do we endorse the recreational use of cannabis. However, legalising the use of crude cannabis products for medical purposes by a small and specific group of patients is both appropriate and compassionate. That is why I was particularly pleased that the Governor mentioned it in his address to this House.

Of course, the fight to legalise the use of medicinal cannabis was brought into the public sphere most recently by the courageous Dan Haslam and his family. Allowing Australia to hear Dan's deeply moving story about how cannabis can help those in pain was incredibly courageous, and it shaped how we as a government view alternative medicines. Following the committee's recommendations and the Haslam's push for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis, the Government has taken steps towards what I hope will be the adoption of the committee's recommendations. The Government has committed to undertake clinical trials to further explore the use of cannabis and/or cannabis products in providing relief for patients suffering from a range of debilitating or terminal illnesses.

A clinical trial of cannabis-derived products was established for children with severe, drug-resistant epilepsy through a partnership with the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network. Furthermore, NSW Health will also work with the research community to assess interest in proceeding with trials involving adults with terminal illnesses, focusing on improving quality of life and symptoms such as pain, nausea and vomiting, and adults with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting where standard treatment is ineffective. Just this month, Premier Mike Baird announced the investment of up to $12 million over four years to establish the NSW Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research and Innovation.

The main purpose of this world-class centre is to transform the medicinal cannabis sector in New South Wales by providing a formal network for experts from around the world to share their knowledge and research. It will provide grants to advance research and product development, and to educate the public, consumer groups and health professionals about the therapeutic potential of medicinal cannabis. The Governor's remarks about this issue also demonstrated his awareness of public sentiment and support for this issue. That awareness and support was acknowledged by the incredibly generous act of Barry and Joy Lambert, who gifted $33.7 million to the University of Sydney to establish the Lambert Initiative. Barry and Joy's granddaughter Katelyn suffers debilitating epilepsy.

They recognise the possibility of medicinal cannabis helping not only Katelyn but also others suffering from chronic diseases. With the Lambert Initiative agreeing to be one of the inaugural network partners for the centre, I am encouraged and keen to see the use of medicinal cannabis flourish in New South Wales. I am also proud to be part of a government that is taking action in this important area. The New South Wales Government has also established the Terminal Illness Cannabis Scheme to provide greater peace of mind for adults with a terminal illness who choose to use cannabis for symptom management and their carers. The scheme provides guidelines for the NSW Police Force to assist officers in determining appropriate circumstances in which to use their discretion not to charge adults with terminal illnesses who use cannabis and carers who assist them.

This issue has been raised within The Nationals, and particularly by the Young Nationals. I congratulate Chairman Dom Hopkinson, who moved a successful motion on medicinal cannabis at this year's Nationals Conference. The motion called on the Government to introduce legislation to establish the Terminal Illness Cannabis Scheme. From memory, The Nationals agreed that our position would be to support the use of medicinal cannabis. What a great achievement. I also congratulate His Excellency on raising the issue of postnatal depression. Under the New South Wales Government, mothers with postnatal depression will have access to enhanced support services as a result of a significant boost to funding.

Given that an estimated 16 per cent of mothers experience postnatal depression, the Government has committed $22.8 million to expand the Sustaining NSW Families program, which enables nurses and social workers to visit the homes of families who have been identified as being at risk of living with postnatal depression. More than 1,350 families have benefitted from the program since it began. Home visits have occurred in areas including Fairfield, Liverpool, Wyong, Cessnock, Maitland, Kurri Kurri, Arncliffe, Lismore, Kyogle and Richmond. This is in addition to services provided by the Professor Marie Bashir Centre at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. The centre has a dedicated purpose-built suite of beds for women with postnatal depression, which means that mums can stay with their babies during treatment. The Government also provides important support to organisations such as Karitane, Tresillian and Wesley Mission, which deliver specialist services for mothers with moderate to severe postnatal depression.

Postnatal depression is a topical issue. I was pleased that the Governor addressed it in his Speech because I know it is comforting for mothers who are going through periods of depression after the birth of their baby to know that the person holding the highest office in this State supports them during that time. I commend the Governor not only for his Speech but also for the work he and his wife Linda have been doing. It has been a pleasure to meet them, and I wish them both all the best for the future. I am looking forward to the next four years in government and continuing the fight on these issues, especially improved health and support services in our regions.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.38 p.m.]: I speak in the Address-in-Reply debate to the wonderful Speech to open the Fifty-sixth Parliament of New South Wales given by His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley, AC, DSC, (Ret'd), the thirty-eighth Governor of New South Wales. His Excellency's opening remarks acknowledged two important historical facts: firstly, that we meet on Gadigal land and they are the traditional custodians of this land; and, secondly, that we meet in the oldest and most historic parliamentary Chamber in the Commonwealth of Australia.

New South Wales has the largest and strongest economy in Australia, underpinned by four years of very good government that has established a secure foundation to deliver a sustainable plan for the future. The Government made many commitments prior to the election and it has an obligation to deliver on those commitments, in accordance with the mandate given to it on 28 March by the people of New South Wales. The Government's program focuses on five key elements: strengthening the economy; building new infrastructure; delivering better services; ensuring safe and strong communities and environments; protecting the vulnerable; and providing for those in need. A stronger economy will benefit every person, business and community and will protect the environment. The economy is now $40 billion larger than it was when the Liberal-Nationals resumed government in 2011 following 16 years in opposition.

Decisions made by governments can only be good if they are economically, socially and environmentally sound. Those three elements must be assessed with equal weight. We must be aware that our fate as a State and as a nation is closely linked to the health and productivity of the land. That is an understanding that the Gadigal people and their cousins around Australia gained from 60,000 years of actively managing this land for the benefit of their family groups and neighbouring communities. They knew that productive landscapes, providing all their food and fibre requirements, needed to be improved and maintained, with equal emphasis on productive capacity, social wellbeing and environmental sustainability. The Government is committed to the same ideals, although they are delivered very differently in this strong, modern society from the way they were delivered by the traditional owners and custodians prior to 1788.

To realise these ideals in 2015, the Government has developed a funding model that will deliver the five key elements I mentioned earlier through a program of investment that will rebuild New South Wales. Rebuilding NSW will require a $20 billion fund to provide the infrastructure and services that this State needs to achieve the ideals of productive capacity, social wellbeing and environmental sustainability. This large amount of funding requires the implementation of innovative programs to allow the investment to proceed. The Government went to the 2015 election with a policy to lease 49 per cent of the metropolitan electricity network, commonly called the poles and wires. The estimated return to New South Wales coffers of $20 billion from that lease arrangement allows the necessary investment to proceed. The legislation facilitating that process passed through this Parliament earlier this year.

Many in the wider community were subject to an intensive scare campaign, run by union personnel and supported by Labor and The Greens, about the lease of the poles and wires. Mistruths and lies were actively promulgated on election day at polling booths around the State. Most voters saw through that campaign, and the Government was returned with a solid majority, despite losing a few seats. It is interesting to note that only one regional seat was lost by the Liberal-Nationals Government. The issue that caused that loss was not the poles and wires, so the campaign run by the unions did not even get warm let alone generate a change of government. As His Excellency stated in his address:

The people of New South Wales voted to support the lease and the benefits that will flow from it, and the Government is committed to honouring the trust the people have placed in it.

Parliament has passed legislation to proceed with the lease of 49 per cent of metropolitan poles and wires. Revenue from that lease will be committed to Rebuilding NSW. As result of that investment, New South Wales will be a very different place in 10 years. There is a very good reason to maintain government ownership of regional poles and wires. In regional areas there are long runs of poles and wires, in many cases many hundreds of kilometres, with relatively few subscribers and certainly fewer subscribers per kilometre than in metropolitan areas. If these assets were to be leased, the repairs and maintenance needed after damage caused by natural disasters such as floods, fire and electrical storms could be compromised.

The low number of regional subscribers per kilometre of poles and wires means that the potential for private investment in the operation of these assets is much less attractive when compared to metropolitan poles and wires, where there are shorter runs and many more subscribers for every kilometre traversed. The metropolitan network is financially much more attractive to private investment than the regional electricity network. The potential return of $20 billion from the investment in the metropolitan network justifies the arrangement.

This is a win-win for the people of regional New South Wales. Regional poles and wires remain in government ownership, which ensures certainty of repairs and maintenance when required, and 30 per cent of the income from the lease of metropolitan poles and wires will be invested in regional infrastructure. The people of regional New South Wales understand the difference that that $6 billion investment will make. A big investment in vital infrastructure—that is, roads, water, health and schools—and additional services throughout the regions will be rolled out over the next few years and people will see the benefit of a fully funded investment program. I thank His Excellency for his address at the opening of the Fifty-sixth Parliament and congratulate him on his detailed appreciation of the Government's plans for Rebuilding NSW in the coming four years. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. ERNEST WONG [6.45 p.m.]: I speak in the Address-in-Reply debate to the remarks made by the New South Wales Governor on the occasion of the opening of this session of Parliament on 5 May. I join members in congratulating the President, the Hon. Don Harwin, and the Deputy-President, the Hon. Trevor Khan, on their election. I congratulate Ministers Gay, Ajaka and Blair on their appointment. I wish them good luck. I also congratulate my Labor colleagues the Hon. Adam Searle on his appointment as Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council and the Hon. Walt Secord on his appointment as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Luke Foley, on his election to the other place and on a vital and vigorous election campaign that saw new energy brought to the Labor benches.

An address-in-reply, coming as it does after an election, gives members a chance to reflect on the election itself. That is appropriate and useful. Members often show great insight in debate on the address-in-reply. Members of all parties have a chance to be more considered and reflective after cooling down from the heat of the election race. But that is not always the case. Not all members are able to reflect on events, and some cannot escape the heat of the campaign. Two examples of this emerged in the speeches of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and Mr Scott MacDonald, who maintain that the election campaign was tarred by racism.

Electricity privatisation was a big issue in the recent election campaign. It prompted the question of who might end up owning our State's electricity infrastructure. The Chinese Government was suggested as a potential owner. Many people had a view on that. Some expressed their view better than others. I considered the debate to be a normal part of the robust cut and thrust of an election campaign. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps took a different view. Having observed comments made during the election campaign about the prospect of Chinese Government ownership of the electricity assets of New South Wales, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps came to a spectacular conclusion. Ignoring any distinction between ownership by a foreign government and ownership by foreign individuals, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps determined that questioning Chinese state ownership of New South Wales power assets must be racially driven.

Ignoring the fact that many New South Wales citizens raised questions about the possibility of the government of another nation owning our electricity network, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps said that the issue was driven by "the small racist element in the Labor Party". He said it was a reversion to "the worst aspects of the White Australia policy" and he admonished Labor for running "a despicable campaign on the basis of not wanting Chinese people to own or perhaps to lease our assets". In short, he claimed that anyone who questions Chinese state ownership of New South Wales infrastructure must be a racist.

I have a few observations to make on that argument. Firstly, there is a difference between arguments about whether a foreign person should own assets simply on the basis of their being foreign versus whether a foreign nation should own assets based on the myriad service, security and sovereignty issues that that raises. These are entirely different discussions. If the election debate had been about questioning an individual's potential property rights based on their ethnicity then, yes, that would be racism because a critical element of racism is that it is about restriction by the majority on the minority based on race. Contrast this to the debate the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has taken offence to, in which his "victim" is the State Government of China.

The Chinese Government is hardly a powerless individual in need of protection by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. And, more to the point, it is not an individual or community, it is a sovereign national power; and that changes the question entirely. Indeed, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' statement to this House that the debate was based on "not wanting Chinese people to own our assets" is as misleading as it is dangerous. Secondly, New South Wales citizens should be able to raise questions about foreign ownership of New South Wales electricity assets without the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps branding them as racists. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has often lamented so-called "political correctness" in this House and he has made speeches defending the right to free speech as fundamental and unrestricted. I agree with him on that.

So it is surprising to see him blast New South Wales citizens as racists for simply questioning whether foreign ownership of our power grid is a good idea. And to ensure that these New South Wales citizens knew where they stood in the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' opinion, he compared the recent election debates to "the worst elements of the White Australia policy". The recent election debate cannot hold a candle to the "worst elements of the White Australia policy", and making the comparison raises questions about the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' judgement in my view. The White Australia policy is one of the most unfortunate chapters in this great nation's history; and raising it for cheap debating points does disservice to the great injustices that were perpetuated in its name.

It is a cheap point, and it is a weak point. It is weak because we all know who finally ended the White Australia Policy. We all know which party created the Racial Discrimination Act. These were the actions of a Labor leader and a Labor government. Is it not interesting that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is keen to talk about what Labor leaders did in 1905 but omits what they did in 1975? It is also funny how he was at pains to talk about the benefits of the Sino-Australian relationship without discussing which leader opened up that relationship to Australia. That was Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

My point is that raising policies from 1905 in an attempt to tar politicians in 2015 is a cheap and self-defeating tactic because when we look back 110 years both sides will have policies that we find repugnant. Actually, in the Liberal Party we need not go that far back. We need not reach back to 1905 and the White Australia Policy. We need only reach to 1988 and the One Australia policy. That was the ill-fated Federal Coalition policy which proclaimed a vision of "one nation and one future". It called for an end to multiculturalism. It opposed a treaty with Aboriginal Australians. Most memorably, it created the reason for Opposition leader John Howard to announce, on the subject of Asian immigration levels:

I do believe that if … it's too great, it would be in our immediate-term interest and supporting of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so the capacity of the community to absorb it was greater.

I know those opposite like to portray this as a gaffe. But it was not. Mr Howard was accurately reflecting his party's policy and thinking in 1988. That is why his shadow finance Minister, John Stone, rushed to his media defence, saying:

Asian immigration has to be slowed. It is no use dancing around the bushes.

It is why National Party leader Ian Sinclair added:

If there is any risk of an undue build-up of Asians against others in the community, then you need to control it. I certainly believe that at the moment we need … to reduce the number of Asians.

This was not a thought bubble, not a media gaffe; this was Liberal Party policy, and it was in 1988. The fact is the despicable White Australia policy was supported for decades by both sides of Australian politics. And while Labor struck the final blow to it, its dismantling was also supported by both sides. I happily acknowledge that. But only one side has since sought to revive restricting immigration on the basis of race. That is a fact. And it is a memory that many members of the Chinese Australian community will not soon forget. That leads me to comment briefly on the remarks of Mr Scot MacDonald. Mr Scot MacDonald reiterated many of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' ideas, so I need not go over those. But he informed the House that he raised those concerns on behalf of our Australian-Chinese community. He said:

I put on record some of the reaction of the Australian Chinese community … to this debased electioneering.

He then proceeded to read the opinions of Mr Jim Harrowell, Mr Phillip Ruddock, MP, the Hon. Michael Egan, the Hon. Nathan Rees, and former Labor leader Mark Latham. These are all great Australians—all entitled to their views. And many of them are great supporters of the Chinese community. I particularly note Mr Ruddock was one of three Liberal members who crossed the floor of Parliament in 1988 to vote with Labor to condemn the Liberal's One Australia policy. But neither Mr Ruddock nor any of the other people read into Hansard by Mr Scot McDonald is a Chinese Australian. Not one of them is of Chinese descent.

Lest this be misinterpreted, I reiterate: These are all great Australians of public life; and I respect their concerns and views. But none of these people claimed to speak for Chinese Australians. Only Mr Scot MacDonald did that. Having asked this House to note the "concerns of the Chinese Australian community", he produced not a single Chinese Australian voice in support. Now, we would think that if there was widespread concern in the Chinese Australian community about a racist Labor campaign, then this House should be flooded with letters, petitions, and statements from Chinese community leaders condemning it. But we do not see that. Nor did I personally see that during the campaign, during which I met with thousands of Chinese Australians.

I can inform the House that during the entire campaign I met one constituent who expressed concern that the debate about ownership of power assets could be misconstrued as opposing Chinese investment. That constituent was of course right, because some people can wilfully misconstrue anything for political advantage. And that is the truth of this so-called racist campaign. All this offence, this hysteria, has not emanated from the Chinese Australian community. It was whipped up by disingenuous Liberal and Nationals politicians who saw an opportunity to try to play a race card to split the Chinese Australian vote. That is the feedback that I have from the Chinese Australian community: their concern that the right of New South Wales citizens to debate electricity privatisation was perverted into a wedge election strategy.

Chinese Australians I spoke to saw right through that tactic. Many were offended by it. And here is why: because the argument mounted by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and Mr Scot MacDonald is that Chinese Australians should be offended if someone questions the Chinese Government owning New South Wales power assets. Why should Chinese Australians be offended? Is it simply because they have a Chinese cultural background? Does that prejudice them when any debate involving the Chinese Government comes up? Do the honourable members suggest that these Australians cannot look at New South Wales's interests objectively? Are they really saying that Chinese Australians are more Chinese than Australian? If not, why do they argue in this House that it was Chinese Australians who should be offended by the election debate? Why not all Australians?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I call the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to order for the first time.

The Hon. ERNEST WONG: Chinese Australians are Chinese Australians. We are Australian citizens, first and foremost. As Australian citizens, we look to Australia's interest. As New South Wales citizens, we look to New South Wales's interest. When we see people question that New South Wales assets should be sold to a Chinese Government or corporation, we are not offended by the question. Why would we be? We are Australians. I hope my remarks have clarified this issue for the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and Mr Scot MacDonald, and I thank members for their attention.

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

RURAL FIRES AMENDMENT (BUSH FIRE PREVENTION) BILL 2015

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Ajaka, on behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Motion by the Hon. John Ajaka, on behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay, agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) [7.01 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

FITTED FOR WORK

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES [7.01 p.m.]: This evening I pay tribute to Fitted for Work, a not-for-profit organisation that has for the past 10 years assisted women experiencing disadvantage to gain employment and keep it. Fitted for Work provides a free personal outfitting and interview service for women at boutiques located in Parramatta and Melbourne. Last week I had the pleasure of visiting the Parramatta boutique to see firsthand the outstanding work being done by the dedicated staff and volunteers. Since 2005 Fitted for Work has transformed the lives of more than 20,000 women and is the first of its kind in Australia. A recent Melbourne survey revealed that 75 per cent of the women Fitted for Work has dressed were employed within three months of their visit to the boutique.

Over the past 12 months more than 3,500 women have been assisted. An average of 74 a week are referred by one of the 400 referral agencies, which include Job Services Australia providers, disability employment services, TAFE, safe houses, migrant and refugee referral centres and high schools. One of the core activities for the team at Fitted for Work is providing a personal outfitting and interview service. Women who visit the boutique are made to feel welcome through the support of the volunteers. Women are provided clothing and accessories such as a new suit, a shirt, a handbag and shoes to match.

Due to generous donations made by individuals and organisations, women are dressed in a way that gives them the confidence to attend job interviews. Last financial year more than $800,000 worth of clothing was donated. Volunteers mentor and provide advice to prepare the women for job interviews, giving them the confidence they need to get a job. Transition to Work is a pre-employment training program consisting of life skills training, mentor support and job readiness activities. Nikki, one of the clients of Fitted for Work, said:

I'm a different person now, after being dressed by the women I got my confidence back, I got my credibility back, I held my head high, I get more and more confident as I go through another interview. Unfortunately outward appearance does matter these days, and Fitted for Work helps with that. I can cope with the world now and Fitted for Work has helped me do that. I thank Fitted for Work for that, for what they have given me back that I thought I had lost.

The clients of Fitted for Work come from a variety of backgrounds and have diverse ages and educational qualifications. But they have two things in common: they are experiencing disadvantage and they want to work. Some women might be leaving a domestic violence situation, are experiencing homelessness, have a disability, are recently widowed or divorced or are temporarily unable to work. Many are single mothers wanting to support themselves and their children; others are carers for family members. On the day that I visited the Parramatta boutique a number of high school students were there attending a mentoring program to assist them with job interviews and curriculum vitae preparations when they finish school.

Fitted for Work has recorded the following statistics in relation to its clients: 21 per cent are 24 years of age and under; nearly 50 per cent are aged between 25 and 44 years; 42 per cent completed year 12 as their highest educational qualification; 36 per cent are qualified at diploma level or above; 30 per cent have a disability; 46 per cent were born overseas; 39 per cent speak a language other than English at home; 4 per cent self-identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; 28 per cent seek the organisation's services in preparation for a new job; 46 per cent are looking for work; and 33 per cent have been looking for a job for more than l2 months.

A report prepared by Fitted for Work entitled "A Snapshot of 2,000 Women" stated that as at September 2012, 350,000 women are registered as looking for work in Australia. The organisation believes this figure was under-reported because just one hour of work a week is counted as being employed. The report also found that a further 3.8 million women were defined as not being in the labour force—which represents more than 40 per cent of Australia's total female population. The unemployment rate for women is higher than the rate for men. Where parents have dependent children the unemployment rate for women is twice that of men and the underemployment rate—people working fewer hours than they would prefer—for women is three times that of men. Women are 2.8 times more likely than men to work part-time.

I commend the work of the 260 volunteers who over the past 12 months have worked more than 8,000 hours at Fitted for Work boutiques in Parramatta and Melbourne. I also commend the 80 volunteers who mentor and support clients through the interview process. Over the coming months I will be running a clothing drive at Parliament House to receive and donate clothing to the Parramatta boutique. I look forward to updating the House on that clothing drive and on the work of Fitted for Work in Parramatta.

PORT MACQUARIE PLAZA CAR PARK

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS [7.06 p.m.]: This evening I speak on an issue of significant importance to the people of Port Macquarie: the sale of a parcel of Crown land known locally as the Plaza car park. Indeed, this issue is not unknown to this House. The proposed sale of the car park to Woolworths and the process undertaken by the Department of Primary Industries have been the cause of much community concern and anger for quite some time. Members of the Labor Party have repeatedly asked questions of the Minister for Primary Industries, Lands and Water in this place, and members of the crossbench have likewise brought the issue to the attention of the House in recent times.

The significant community concern around the questionable sale process as well as the confused positions of Government members have led me to make this contribution this evening in the hope of drawing out a more reasonable response from Minister Blair as well as from the member for Port Macquarie, who I am told is still convinced that this sale enjoys public support. Of course, the community concern that does exist, and which seems to have been missed by the local member, has culminated in the tabling today of a petition against the sale and against the process undertaken by the Minister and his department. This petition, with more than 12,000 signatures collected in about four short weeks, is but a snapshot of the dissatisfaction felt acutely by the people of Port Macquarie. I witnessed this myself when I visited Port Macquarie just over a week ago.

Over and over again, I was told by concerned locals that this piece of treasured public land was being snatched away from them for profit, and they felt steamrolled by a process that was always going to ignore the wishes of local residents. I was struck by the high level of knowledge and support by even people just walking past. For the benefit of the House, and possibly the member for Port Macquarie, the petition states:

The Plaza Car Park, located between the Kooloonbung Creek/Hastings River foreshore and Short Street, Port Macquarie, which is currently Crown Land, must stay in public hands and not be sold to Woolworths.

The local community believes it was not properly consulted when the decision was made by the Government to sell the Plaza Car Park site to Woolworths.

The community is concerned and angered at the opaque process which has been followed by the Department of Primary Industries in relation to the sale of this public land solely for commercial profit, against the wishes of local residents and without adequate consultation.

As I mentioned, the petition garnered more than 12,000 local signatures and now serves as an undeniable indication that Port Macquarie does not want this piece of Crown land sold off. The petition is a credit to the local campaigners who set about to make sure community opposition to this sale is well known. In particular, I acknowledge Kristy Quill and Peter Baxter, as well as Port Macquarie mayor, Peter Besseling, who have all contributed to this campaign. The shadow Minister for lands, the Hon. Mick Veitch, has been tireless in his dealings with the local community, listening to local concerns and putting those concerns to this House. Indeed, the Hon. Mick Veitch's motion which is currently on the Notice Paper is a succinct timeline of events relating to the sale and is telling reading as to why the community has been so upset with this process and this Government.

First there was a draft plan in 2010, which received 160 public submissions. In 2012 this Government ignored the initial draft plan and instead commenced exclusive negotiations with Woolworths. An updated draft plan was placed on exhibition in 2013 and received 239 submissions. This too was ignored and yet another iteration, which removed commitments for "communication and community involvement", was adopted by this Government. In 2014 the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council requested an opportunity to be involved in negotiations. But after a short three-week expression of interest process in 2015, the Government announced Woolworths was the preferred candidate.

Whether or not it is convenient for those opposite to admit, the local community in Port Macquarie feel like this process was flawed, they feel it did not take into account their concerns and, ultimately, they feel it was a bogus process set up to favour one outcome and ignore the rest. So while the member for Port Macquarie continues to deny that her community objects to this sale, we are firm in our support for the people of Port Macquarie, and we will continue to advocate until the Government pays attention. Last week Minister Blair told this House that the sale was not finalised. He said:

It is important to note that no final decision has been made as to the future of this site.

Well, I hope the Minister takes note of the petition tabled today.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [7.11 p.m.]: I speak tonight on the critical issue of rural health in New South Wales. The Shooters and Fishers Party continues to champion rural issues and concerns, and health is no exception. Health—and, indeed, access to health services—is one of the key issues facing rural New South Wales and the broader community in general. It is vital that this Parliament implements a legislative framework that will provide an adequate health safety net for rural communities. The people of rural New South Wales deserve a fair, efficient and effective health service, which at the very least is akin to similar services provided for in Sydney and other metropolitan areas. An overview of current health services in rural and regional communities in New South Wales is sobering. A 2014 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report noted:

Australians in regional and remote areas tend to have shorter lives and higher rates of disease and injury than people in Major cities.

Furthermore, the latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics regarding life expectancy shows that the average person in remote western New South Wales can expect to live a shorter life than someone in North Korea or Iraq. Iraq is a war zone. This is just not acceptable. The Rural Doctors Association of Australia has identified a set of priorities citing primary health care, preventative medicine and making rural general practice more attractive for younger doctors as key measures to improve rural health outcomes. That sort of initiative also extends to registered nurses and other nurses. It also suggests that new data on chronic disease and youth mental health underscores the critical front-line role that rural general practice is playing in treating these conditions—this is why it is crucial to support rural practice to provide this care on the ground in these communities.

Citizens in rural and regional New South Wales continue to bear most of the human and financial cost due to shortfalls in mental health treatment and management. It will come as no surprise to members in this House that the suicide rate in rural New South Wales is significantly higher when compared to that of metropolitan areas. This speaks volumes in respect of the lack of appropriate mental health treatment that is needed to address these issues. For many people in rural and regional New South Wales, risk factors combine to increase the risk of suicidal behaviour, particularly amongst males. Economic and financial hardship, social isolation, lack of awareness and fewer health professionals working in these areas all contribute to mental illnesses.

We need collectively to switch our language and focus from research and statistics into implementation and results if we want to bridge the current city-country health divide. The Shooters and Fishers Party is calling on the Government to increase funding for more front-line healthcare services in rural and regional New South Wales. In particular, specific concerns have been raised over the inadequacy of the current patient mileage and accommodation subsidies. Members will appreciate that the geographical impediments that face rural communities warrant a sufficient monetary subsidy for individuals who need to travel to receive appropriate medical treatment.

It is no surprise that an increasing number of young people are choosing city over country. For many of our young people it is the only option available. An array of health issues and the lack of employment opportunities that face rural communities make city life look like a far more viable choice for our youth. Admittedly, it is unfair to attribute every problem and issue concerning rural health to the actions or lack of action of government. Nevertheless, the current Government needs to take ownership of all issues and finally provide rural and regional New South Wales with all the support it needs. And I understand the constraints of government—primarily money.

The Shooters and Fishers Party does not accept the "out of sight, out of mind" mantra when it comes to rural health. Rural and regional New South Wales grows the food we eat and significantly contributes to our flourishing economy. As I have said before in this House, once we get further into this century—indeed, towards the end of the century—it will be the largest single export industry that we will have. It is time that both major parties took this issue seriously instead of playing politics on the edges of what is an important issue for rural and regional New South Wales. I am sorry to see that the Hon. Walt Secord is not in the House to listen to my speech.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I am sure he is watching it on his TV.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I am sure he is.

MALE CHAMPIONS OF CHANGE

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.16 p.m.]: The first full-time job I applied for was a junior position with Citibank in the mid-1980s, and I thought I had a real shot. The interview went very well and I waited with that youthful sense of optimism for three weeks before getting the letter informing me that I had been unsuccessful. I later received feedback I was overqualified and, in the end, the news that they were not really looking for girls in those positions. It was a disappointment; nevertheless life moves on. But I started to notice things.

Soon after, I wrote to the general manager of the State Bank asking why all the tellers at the busy George Street branch were women and all the managers in the offices behind them were men. This time the response took three months to arrive, and the one-sentence answer was that these positions were all filled on merit. For my generation of women educated in the seventies, a time of great social change for women, where the passionate Aussie motto of "a fair go" was being extended to include us, there turned out to be a considerable gap between the rhetoric and the reality when it came to equal opportunity, leadership and power.

Fast forward to today as I attended the Male Champions of Change luncheon organised by Australia's fabulous Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Liz Broderick. The event was sponsored by the Commonwealth Bank, which became my bank when it took over the State Bank in the 1990s. The managing director and chief executive officer of the bank is Ian Narev, and he is a male champion of change. And it warms me greatly to see how sincerely and how hard he is working to change these attitudes towards their female employees. I found myself seated at the Citibank table and was delighted to learn about their commitment to gender equity and their proactive approach to changing workplace culture to be inclusive of women and flexible for all. Indeed, the entire lunch was one I could rank as the most inspiring event I have ever attended.

There were a number of TED-style presentations by Male Champions of Change, giving their experience of the program and how they were making a difference—and I never in my imagination would have expected men at that level of authority to speak the way those men did today. Their motto is "listening, learning and leading with action" and their four-part action plan includes stepping up with women and listening to their stories, setting targets with teeth and not using flimsy excuses like, "There's a weak plug line," "All the women are busy," or, "They are not really interested." They do not accept those excuses. They said, "We leave them at the door." They take the panel pledge, which I will come back to, and recognise the responsibility to support female employees who are victims of domestic violence—this has occurred since Rosie Batty addressed a special forum of all of these Male Champions of Change.

Lieutenant General David Morrison, one of the champions and a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, spoke heroically about violence, its impact on families and how lives were ruined forever by senseless death and destruction. He expressed dismay on returning to Australia and after listening to the likes of Rosie realised that exactly the same terror, destruction and tragedy are occurring behind closed doors in this country. He spoke of his horror and dismay on realising that the things he witnessed in war zones overseas were happening to so many women in his own country. His speech was an inspiration.

We heard about the commitment to the panel pledge taken by all the Male Champions of Change. David Morrison spoke about every Australian's birthright to equal consideration and the responsibility of these chief executives to ensure that Australian women have the right to equal participation. Representatives of banks, businesses and Telstra spoke about how wonderful this had been for their businesses once they became inclusive of women, after listening to their stories and working out practical ways to assist. For Telstra to take the decision across its entire organisation to have flexibility for all positions—it will not identify positions; all positions will have flexibility and if not why not—had made a huge difference to the organisation. The representatives also spoke about how successful this approach had been for the bottom line of workforce productivity and the impact it had had on customers. I seek leave to incorporate the names and positions of the Male Champions of Change and I thank them all. Also, on behalf of the House I congratulate Liz Broderick, who is retiring as Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and I wish her every success in her future career.

Leave granted. ______

Paul Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Network Ten; Glen Boreham, Non-Executive Director; Elizabeth Broderick, Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commissioner, CEW Member; Gordon Cairns, Non-Executive Director; Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, DSC, AM, Chief of Army; Elmer Funke Kupper, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, ASX; Cindy Hook, Chief Executive Officer, Deloitte Australia, Special Adviser to MCC, CEW Treasurer; Alan Joyce, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Qantas Airways Limited; John Lydon, Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company; Kevin McCann, AM, Non-Executive Director; Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO, Former Chief of Army; Ian Narev, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, CBA; Grant O'Brien, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Woolworths Limited; Dr Martin Parkinson, PSM, Former Secretary, The Treasury; Stephen Roberts, CEO, Citi Country Officer, Australia; Simon Rothery, Chief Executive Officer, Goldman Sachs Australia and New Zealand; Carol Schwartz, AM, Director, Stockland Founding Chair, Women's Leadership Institute Australia; Mike Smith, OBE, Chief Executive Officer, ANZ; Diane Smith Gander, Chairman Transfield Services, CEW President; Dr Michael Spence, Vice-Chancellor and Principal, the University of Sydney; Andrew Stevens, Non-Executive Director, Former Managing Director, IBM Australia and New Zealand; David Thodey, Non-Executive Director, Telstra; Peter Varghese, Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Dr Ian Watt, AO, Non-Executive Director; Gary Wingrove, Chief Executive Officer, KPMG Australia; Stephen Fitzgerald, Non-Executive Director United Kingdom; Ralph Norris, Non-Executive Director New Zealand; Michael Rennie, Partner, McKinsey & Company Dubai; and Geoff Wilson, Chief Operating Officer, KPMG Asia Pacific Hong Kong. ______

MULTICULTURAL MEDIA AND INDIGENOUS AWARDS

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [7.21 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I announce the second National Indigenous Human Rights Awards scheduled for 21 October 2015, to be followed by the fourth Multicultural and Indigenous Media Awards scheduled for 11 November 2015, both happening in the Strangers Dining Room of the New South Wales Parliament. As convenor, it is a great honour to have launched these two unique signature awards—unique because one recognises the work of multicultural and Indigenous journalists and the other Indigenous Australians for their contributions to human rights.

First, the National Indigenous Human Rights awards are special because the nominators and nominees, as well as the judging panel and the award presenters and award recipients, are all Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders who have contributed to the advancement of human rights and social justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Our keynote speakers and award presenters for 2014 were Mrs Yalmay Yunupingu, Ms Gail Mabo and Mr Anthony Mundine. I am hoping that they will be the presenters again with this year's keynote speaker Tauto Sansbury, a Narungga elder, who was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award at the recent National NAIDOC Awards. Mr Sansbury has worked to close the gap in inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians for more than 30 years.

In 2014, as in 2015, three awards will be presented, one named after teacher and musician, the late Dr Yunupingu—the Dr Mandawuy Yunupingu Social Justice Award. The second is named after the formidable land rights campaigner, the late Eddie Mabo—the Eddie Mabo Lifetime Social Justice Achievement Award. The third and final award for courage was named in honour of three times world champion boxer, none other than Anthony, "The Man", Mundine. The National Indigenous Human Rights Awards are dedicated exclusively to the first peoples of this nation who have given their best in their struggle for social justice and human rights. The awards recognise the ongoing struggles of the past two centuries and the fight for equality, fairness and social justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

There is no greater rights struggle on this continent than that of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Aboriginal people have suffered—and continue to suffer—death, poverty and homelessness. We must continue our commitment to tackle poverty, eliminate homelessness, prevent deaths in custody and combat the causes of suicide. Suicide rates are rising at horrific levels. The statistics are heart-wrenching. For the first peoples, the crisis is much worse and suicide rates are unacceptably high. We should invest in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, education, housing and welfare reform, and we should recognise and support advocates and those who work hard for the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

I turn now to the Multicultural and Indigenous Media Awards. Multicultural media has contributed to the Australian way of life since 1850s and until 2012 there has been no stand-alone recognition for the journalists, owners and administrators of such media outlets. I am indeed honoured to have initiated these awards, now in their fourth year but proudly renamed as the Multicultural and Indigenous Media Awards. History has shown the important role the multicultural media has played Australia-wide, so it was time to recognise the work of multicultural and Indigenous media in our community.

The awards not only showcase the talents of multicultural and Indigenous community media but also aim to encourage innovative journalism in New South Wales. The awards recognise excellence amongst journalists, photographers, graphic artists, editors and publishers from the ethnic and Indigenous media. They also serve as a vehicle to promote these media outlets and encourage greater recognition of the role these media outlets play in the dissemination of information and their positive role in keeping young migrant and Indigenous communities involved and informed.

I am proud to note that the Multicultural and Indigenous Media Awards keynote speaker for 2015 is Jeff McMullan. As members would be aware, Mr McMullan has been a journalist, author and filmmaker for 50 years. Jeff McMullen's work includes many decades as a foreign correspondent for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, reporting for Four Corners and 60 Minutes, interviewer, and anchor of the 33 part-issue series on ABC Television, Difference of Opinion, and host of televised forums on the National Indigenous Television Network. The nominations for the Multicultural and Indigenous Media Awards and the National Indigenous Human Rights Awards are now open. I look forward to two successful community events for 2015.

CITY OF CANTERBURY PLANNING

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [7.26 p.m.]: Something is going very wrong with planning in Canterbury. Public open space is being sold off, high-rise developments are popping up left, right and centre and rezoning decisions worth millions of dollars continue to be approved as the community is sidelined. Communities groups across the area are saying they feel disempowered; they are not being heard; the whole process is not transparent and that deals are being done behind closed doors. Something needs to change. Most recently council voted to both reclassify and rezone the Canterbury Bowling Club land. The rezoning has changed the permitted use of the site from open space to multiunit residential and commercial development. The reclassification means the title of the land has shifted from community land to operational land, giving council the right to sell it off—more public space being privatised for more private profit.

The Canterbury community has consistently opposed the rezoning and sale of the bowling club, and raised concerns about the blinkered approach being taken by council. The final decision to rezone the land was made by council on 25 June this year. That vote came after what has been described locally as a sham public consultation process, secret council meetings and refusals to release information even when ordered to do so by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Locals complain that council failed even to include the rezoning motion on the original council meeting agenda, meaning many residents were not notified until the vote had already gone through council. What makes this decision to rezone, reclassify and sell off this green open space even more objectionable is the scale of development that surrounds this little patch of green. It is no exaggeration to say that the grass squares of the bowling club are surrounded by cranes and half built residential towers, every new resident of which will sorely need every square metre of remaining open space in the area.

Canterbury Bowling Club is just one of a string of bad planning decisions being made by a council that is repeatedly choosing overdevelopment ahead of community interest. According to Canterbury Residents for Our Public Space, this is a council that has lost the faith of its community. A raft of these bad planning decisions can be tied to the Canterbury local environmental plan [LEP] that was gazetted in January 2013. Under the 2013 LEP the entire Canterbury Road corridor has been rezoned to allow for high-rise, high-density and high-profit buildings of five to seven storeys. The real kicker is that the Canterbury City Council removed all floor space ratio [FSR] restrictions and then added an amendment to allow developers access to additional height if they amalgamated sites for planning proposals greater than 2,000 square metres. The removal of the FSR limits was done without any notice to adjoining landowners, who have been seriously impacted by the change, while the broader community was left entirely in the dark that this development bonanza was being proposed for their area.

These changes have delivered a planning regime under which extraordinary profits could be made by well-placed developers. Since 2014 the council has approved more than 50 development applications for high-rise apartments, representing hundreds of millions of dollars in and around the Canterbury Road corridor and the Canterbury town centre. This rash of high-density development has added thousands of residents to the suburb and exacerbated pre-existing transport and traffic problems while giving minimal consideration to the capacity of local parks, schools, hospitals and libraries to cope with the unplanned influx of residents. But none of that seems to matter when a couple of hundred million dollars is to be made.

As development after development pops up on Canterbury Road, there is one notable feature of its streetscape. It is not the mature trees and it is not the protected heritage. It is sign after sign at the front of future development sites stating "For Sale", "For Auction" or "Sold", and the name at the top is all too often Ken Nam Realty, which is owned by no other than Mr Ken Nam, Liberal councillor for Canterbury. The Liberal councillor connection to the development industry was strengthened when, just before the 2012 local government elections, the Coalition Government changed the law to allow local councillors to vote on rezoning proposals, even when they had a direct pecuniary interest. Anyone with a brain could see that declaring a pecuniary interest is far from adequate when there are plenty of people who would wear a harsh headline in their local area if it meant delivering a serious windfall profit from a rezoning decision.

Allowing councillors to vote on matters where they stand to gain a direct personal financial benefit is plain madness, yet it was legalised and green-lighted by this Government. The Greens have been saying for more than a decade that property developers do not belong on councils. We have been saying since the 2012 law change that this form of legalised corruption must be repelled. Today we have called on the Government not only to legislate for the repeal but also to commission a full audit of every case where the Coalition's corruption-ready laws have allowed councillors to vote on rezonings, despite having a direct pecuniary interest. Community need must be put ahead of developer greed not only in Canterbury but at all grassroots level of government. We must take back our councils from the developer lobby and their mates in the Baird Government who protect them.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.31 p.m. until Wednesday 26 August 2015 at 11.00 a.m.

______